Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developers propose 24-apartment addition to Roxbury building, but no parking
By adamg on Wed, 02/01/2017 - 8:59pm
New addition would be on the left in this architect's rendering.
The developers who replaced a ramshackle old building on Tremont Street at St. Cyprians Place with a six-story, 16-unit building are now proposing to replace a neighboring ramshackle building with a 24-unit addition.
Because the site is a short walk to the Ruggles T station and Northeastern University, Boston Real Estate Collaborative and Urban Core Development will ask the city to let them bypass the normal requirements that they provide parking spaces.
The new units would be "designed specifically for students walking to and from
campus," they write in a filing with the BPDA.
Also unusual for Boston: Proposed plans for two three-bedroom and two four-bedroom units. Four units in the building will be marketed as affordable.
Construction should take 14 to 18 months once the addition receives city approvals, the developers say.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why do we never hear news
Why do we never hear news about a developer building houses for families?
Not a lot of space left for single-family homes these days
Where would you put them?
There are occasional new houses that go in in places like Roslindale, Hyde Park, Mattapan and West Roxbury, but we just don't have much room left for subdivisions (and where we do, the developers always get sued).
Single families in Rosi
They built a pair of new single families on Albano a few years back - $750k+ each. I don't that is something we 'need' more of here.
Im fine with expensive houses getting built here and there but it's not a policy thing.
This building would have
This building would have units with 3 and 4 bedrooms. Nothing is stopping families from living in them.
Supply and demand say "no"
Check out the new exhibit on housing https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/real-estate/2016/12/14/tiny-exhibi...
It isn't just a "tiny space" demonstration - there are graphs and charts about supply and demand.
The conclusion: more than plenty of 3 br units - in fact, there are too many three bedroom units in Boston. No shortage of family housing - more of a shortage of families who want that housing.
It is thus ridiculous to say "what about families" and also ridiculous to say "needs moar parking" when there is no demand for units with the added expense for more bedrooms and more parking in tight urban areas.
Not to mention that there is an awful lot of those resources close in to the city and not all of it is expensive by local wage standards.
Families who want or...
that families can afford.
Pray tell, what "resources" are "close in to the city" and "not all of it is expensive by local wage standards." If you are referring to parking availability, parking is expensive for many, whether via commuter rail parking lots or parking in the city proper. We all do not make a six figure salary, Swirls.
You don't know the area
Plenty of relatively close in housing in Lynn, Revere, Everett, Quincy, Malden.
Just because Bostonbooknewton is your world doesn't mean that more affordable and close-in areas don't exist.
Families don't move to Boston because of the schools. Not because there aren't enough places to live.
They've been a few new triple
They've been a few new triple-decker builds in JP, one being on Forbes St (which looks cute on the inside, if a bit small). Unfortunately, they are prohibitively expensive for most families. I'm pretty sure all of the new builds start at 800k+, if not 1mil.
(Psst, Adam, is there a way for me to change my password permanently? The website doesn't allow me to change my password, so when I request a new one, I'm forced to use the invisible code I'm sent until it expires and then go through the process all over again)
Green street
There's also one going up on Green Street right now.
How about building apartment buildings
where people can afford to live there?
What people can't afford to live there?
Tell us, again?
If the prices are high, it is because LOTS of people can afford to live there.
Did you take ECON 101?
I did, so I get to ask if you took PSYCH 101
What we're seeing in Boston is not entirely the dead hand of Adam Smith at work here but speculative greed. Developers are aiming for the jet set based in part on an optimistic assumption that the bubble (if you took ECON 101, you know what a bubble is, right?) will continue endlessly (and of course, if you took HISTORY 101, you might know that bubbles never last forever, that eventually they collapse, often with pretty harmful effects).
Important note in this discussion: This particular building is not, in fact, aimed at the same market as Millennium Tower and so discussing it in that context is kind of off topic. I dunno, would that be RHETORIC 101? URBAN STUDIES 101? Man, you could probably build a interdisciplinary independent study around this thread.
thats it adam
you've convinced me to drop out entirely
ok maybe not entirely, where did i put that syllabus for BURGERFLIPPIN'101
ECON 101
"Invisible hand" not "dead hand".
High prices are not prima
High prices are not prima facie evidence of a bubble. This is important because assuming the current state of things is the result of a bubble also leads to the assumption that if we do nothing the problem will eventually go away. The very low (<5%) vacancy rate in Boston is a strong indicator that it is high demand (and not speculation) that is leading to high housing prices.
I see little evidence that developers (other than perhaps Millennium Partners) are aiming for the "jet set." Instead what I see is cheap construction with Ikea-grade appliances selling for $600-700k because that is what the market will pay when housing is in such short supply. The only known fix for this problem is to build more housing as quickly as possible. Eliminating off street parking lowers construction costs and allows for much greater density, both of which help housing get built much more quickly.
Because the overwhelming
Because the overwhelming trend nowadays is people living alone/single for much longer than they used to. I can't find the link now, but I read an article in a Mass new site about this just recently. Landlords are already having trouble finding families to rent out the multi-bedroom units they have (where renting such units to 4-5 unrelated roommates is against local zoning regs in many places).
Foolish
No parking? Are you kidding? Do not let what happened in Southie happen to Roxbury.
It's a block from the T. What
It's a block from the T. What is foolish is forcing everyone to pay tons of money for a parking spot they don't want.
Please tell us...
What else do people not want? I mean, since you speak for all people, you must know.
So don't buy a unit
Pretty foolish to buy a condo with no parking if they want parking.
Problem is people with cars
Problem is people with cars will buy the units - expecting to use street parking - thus exacerbating the problem of there being so little parking available on Boston streets.
99.9 percent of new buildings
99.9 percent of new buildings coming on the market right now DO include off street parking. Why would someone who already owned a car deliberately seek out the one building that didn't?
They might prefer the
They might prefer the location or price.
I don't claim to know what
I don't know what everyone wants. What I do know is that forcing buildings to have parking means you are forcing people who don't drive to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a parking spot(that is what it costs to build a garage spot and that is added on to condo or rent prices) because some lazy, cheap cry baby drivers who complain and want to be able to park in front of their house for free. So not only do they want taxpayers to pay for their street parking, they want it for free and they want others to have to pay more in rent or mortgage. It is the height of entitlement.
You don't seem to realize how
You don't seem to realize how many people actually do bring their cars even when they don't use them every day. They will just crowd out what little other parking there is.
By including it with the building, people who move there will be paying for it.
If they are paying for it, then that's their decision.
Except
That if the city doesn't allow buildings without parking, then there is no decision - you can't get an apartment without parking if such a thing isn't allowed.
People without cars still
People without cars still have friends visit, and they might decide to get a car later.
Visiting friends (or home
Visiting friends (or home nurses, or cleaning people, or contractors) are what the on-street parking is for. Incumbent residents do not have a perpetual and exclusive right to use those spaces. People who want to get a car later could move, but honestly it would just make more sense to charge an appropriate price for the on street parking so that we wouldn't have to make these kinds of stupid choices between your "right" to park for free on the street and building enough housing for everyone.
If every new apartment and
If every new apartment and condo building is forced to have parking then I can't make a decision. In that situation car drivers are forcing non car drivers to pay for a parking space. Again, why should a non car driver have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a parking space?
"Forced"
It's only forced until the request for a variance or reprieve from the requirement is granted.
The process is a mechanism for finding balance. Zoning calls for a certain amount of off street parking, request for dispensation is made by developers, for some percentage or wholesale lack of parking, a hearing is held and hopefully the people on that board listen to the proposal and vote intelligently.
I think there should be such a balance, personally. You rail against on street parking, you rail against developers being 'forced' to build parking on site, you simply hate cars. Pure and simple. I think there can be a way for both to work. I think in this instance, based upon the target clientele, I can see it built with no parking. (Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who despises the T and prefers to drive.) That's a chance this developer is choosing to make. And then the City should pay attention to the repercussions for parking in the area and adjust rules and regs accordingly (well, throughout the city, this one location shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog).
You keep on being you, kinopio. You take the extreme no car role, others take the extreme all car all the time role. Any good community needs people on each side of the conversation, to help find balance.
But the "balance" here is
But the "balance" here is between building housing OR building parking (since off-street parking invariably displaces housing units and drives up the cost of the ones that do get built). There are already market forces at work that will motivate some developers to build a certain amount of off-street parking (because units with parking spaces tend to sell for slightly more money). If the market does not indicate a need for parking, forcing developers to build it is (essentially) putting the needs of a few existing on-street parkers (who are currently paying NOTHING for the privilege) ahead of the housing needs of newcomers to the community. I think that's morally repugnant.
Not really
Parking can go underground if the developer wants to build it and not displace housing.
Again, they can also file for relief from building parking.
But why should the developer have to provide it at all?
Adding underground parking makes a building more expensive. If the developer sees a market for apartments or condos without parking, why not let them build that? Either the market exists and they'll make money, or it doesn't exist and they'll have to drop the price and lose money.
They still need to account
They still need to account for visitors and other needs. You can't prevent people without cars from moving there.
Well you can actually, by
Well you can actually, by making parking permit-only and refusing to grant permits to people living at that address. I kind of hate this approach because it inherently favors existing residents over new ones but it is a possibility.
Because
Those are the current rules. If you don't like them, work to change them.
I'm merely describing how to work within the current state of the system. I don't have a dog in this fight. I've pointed out I am car friendly but in this instance I can see that it makes sense to not build parking. So request dispensation, like they are doing.
Cost to build underground parking
It also shows the above-ground cost at $25,000.
It is >20% more expensive to build underground parking.
-Donald Shoup, "The High Cost of Minimum Parking Requirements" (2014), in Transport and Sustainability, Volume 5, p.90. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf p.4.
I am fully aware
of those costs.
Take some responsibility
on your own transportation instead of relying on subsidies from the taxpayers so you can travel the City on less than $6 a day.
Take some responsibility
For your driving - pay for the rest of it
You are the one being substantially subsidized. You must be new here. If you want to claim that you are due some special perks because you drive, don't go there. Ever.
That graph isn't really an
That graph isn't really an argument. What's the fraction from federal taxes? Isn't about half the price of gasoline various taxes?
Don't all the same arguments about the benefits to non-users that apply to public transit also apply to roads? Your groceries have to get to you somehow, and I suspect they come by truck, on the roads, at least for the last 20-30 miles. So even if you ride a horse everywhere or whatever, you still benefit from the roads.
The numbers in that graph ARE
The numbers in that graph ARE those various taxes that make up half the price of gasoline.
And no one in this thread has claimed that people who don't drive don't benefit from roads. Yes, we all do. But there's a balance to be struck.
No, Swirls's map shows the
No, Swirls's map shows the various state and local taxes. Not the Federal ones.
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing
So according to the map 55.7% of MA roads are paid for through the gas tax, leaving 44.3% to be paid for through some kind of general taxation.
The MBTA has a lower fare recovery rate than that, somewhere around 45%. That leaves 55% of the MBTA to be paid for through general taxation (the sales tax for the most part, plus a bunch of block grants from the general fund that the Legislature keeps reauthorizing year after year).
So MA drivers are paying for a larger fair share of their roads than transit users are paying for their use of transit.
Transit users - pay for the rest of it.
I don't know how much cyclists pay for all the bike paths and bike lanes being built out (and which will inevitably need to be maintained). Probably 0%, considering bikes have no fuel to tax and their owners pay no registration/excise/parking fees. So whatever portion of those costs aren't being covered by voluntary contributions are being paid for through general taxation.
Cyclists - pay for, well any of it.
So who were you intending to make look bad with your map, again?
We should listen to anon here
Because he clearly flies to and from work each day on his Galt-copter, which he built from plans he designed, out of parts he machined himself, using an air-traffic-control system he pays for out of pocket. Surely he's not talking about DRIVING into Boston, using the socialist nightmare of a transportation network we call "roads." No, this is a man who pulled his own transportation system up by its bootstraps. Otherwise his comment would be tainted with the stench of hypocrisy.
Drivers get billions more in
Drivers get billions more in handouts than public transportation gets. Then of course there are the billions in medical bills and property damage caused by reckless drivers. And of course highways and other roads take up exponentially more public space than subway tracks do. You are making up lies about responsible users of public transit while taking money out of their pockets. Pretty pathetic.
You sound like Swrrly
Again, WE ALL benefit from having paved, working roads. So what if drivers argued their taxes help subsidize your mail deliveries? And so on and so forth.
Well, yes
We also benefit from having a functioning subway system, sidewalks, and any other of a host of transportation network components. Which is probably why some of us are balking at the original poster's complaint about "subsidized" subways.
That's because of FACTS
Unlike you, Swirrly at least posted facts to support what she had to say.
Driving related taxes like
Driving related taxes like the gas tax only cover about half of the cost of roads. I pay for roads I don't use via property tax and other means. So, no, drivers aren't subsidizing my mail deliveries.
You don't?
All right bud! Better stop eating all that food you bought at the supermarket, get rid of every single thing you won and move out of whatever building you happen to live in - all of it is there because of ROADS.
Strawman Argument
Those roads allowed you to bring in all those hay bales, right?
The fact is, people who do not own cars still pay their share of 40% of the cost of those roads in Massachusetts through income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Yes, things get delivered to them or to stores. Big deal - that's minimal. Meanwhile, people without cars do far less damage to those roads than people who drive cars over them do. They don't get plowed out sidewalks or even bus stops, either. They don't take up public land for private property storage like drivers do. They don't add to our already high asthma burden with exhaust emissions. Etc.
Again, feel free to actually present some evidence supporting your contention. Otherwise, the facts already presented make it pretty obvious that your argument (while having some superficial merit) is really 99%steaming pile of what happens when a cow eats your strawman.
2016 MA gas tax revenue: 766
2016 MA gas tax revenue: 766 million
Federal funding for MA through the highway trust fund ~ 590 million
That's your other 40% right there.
Massachusetts receives less back from the highway trust fund than it pays in from the federal gas tax:
allocation/contribution ratio by state
So, at least in MA, roads are fully supported by taxes and fees borne by drivers.
Multiple studies have shown
Multiple studies have shown that adding parking increases the number of cars in the city. Conversely, building without parking brings residents that don't keep cars. Think NYC.
Do you care to provide a link?
to these alleged "multiple studies"?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adding
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adding+parking+encourages+driving
While these studies may be true
In Boston we are seeing empty-nesters sell their homes in the W's and want to move back to the city "core" while they can still take advantage of it (before they move to FLA full-time). But where are they coming from? The suburbs. And what does everyone in the suburbs have? A CAR. or two or even three. So, do you really think that they are going to abandon 40 some odd years of learned behavior, "I need a car. I need a car. I need a car" for the 5-10 years they live in the city? I don't. I'm willing to be 90% keep at least one car. It may not be fair in regards to some people's definition of "urban living", but it is true.
And this development qualifies, IMO, as the "urban core" of Boston. And to not have parking, is a mistake.
I am still having a hard wrapping my head around the ability for a college student to be able to buy a condo in that neighborhood. Those that can afford it probably come from very successful families. And what do most successful families have several of? Cars.
Forgive us if, for once, just
Forgive us if, for once, just once, we don't bend down to the whims of these now-retiring boomers and change our entire society so yet again they get what they want and leave the rest of us to deal with the consequences years later.
If they want to live in the city they should adopt a fucking city lifestyle. If they absolutely cannot handle the idea of trying to fit in with the place they're moving to, they can pay to have their cake and eat it too - by buying private parking somewhere.
and if you think said "empty nester"
Who wanted 1 or 2 cars would buy a place in the city without parking, you're nuts.
They will just park them on
They will just park them on the street, so that's why building need to include parking.
Or
You could stop parking on the street and get your own driveway - since that is exactly what you are demanding that new residents do when they pay as much in taxes as you do.
If people have cars, they won't buy or rent in this building
So what's the problem?
If only there were a way
that these suburbanites could exchange their cars for something of equal value. Some medium of common value that could trade for. A "currency," if you will. If it were a common medium, they could even use it to help pay for their houses, or subway passes.
So you concede these studies
So you concede these studies may be true, but you choose to accept "alternative facts" that say otherwise.
The number of cars has
The number of cars has increased in many neighborhoods without much more parking added simply because the younger people moving in want to bring their car with them.
This is also true of the people who move here from other parts of the country where there's plenty of parking and want parking here.
The point is, that people are going to bring their cars anyway.
Not all studies apply to the same to all neighborhoods.
You may not know as many young people as you think
You've heard of Zipcar and Uber, no?
As a young person every other
As a young person every other young people household I know shares one car among 2-3 people.
Yep
My son and some friends are planning to get an apartment sometime in the near future. Only one of them drives, and he will need a space because he is on call 24 hours. The other two aren't interested in car commuting.
This doesn't seem to be unusual.
Maybe for your son
But from where I live in Dorchester, this not the case. The neighborhood I live in has gone from plenty of off-street parking to the dreaded "cone wars" street. The folks with these cars? Folks between 21-30, what some would consider "young people". Not young families. Not empty nesters. Not middle aged locals. Single, young people looking to live in Boston. And you do have to admit that your son Swirly (and probably his like minded friends), is cut from your cloth. One that believes in public transit and biking. Not everyone who moves to the city is from that cloth though.
I also work with this "young person" category and I would say about 20-25% of them bring a car when they move here. While they do share the car to help one another out, we need to move past this concept that all young people who move to cities want to be "traditional urban dwellers" because it is not true. It never has been.
Finally to the anon with their wannabe-Bernie rant to my earlier post. I hear you. And is life hard? Yes. Is my life harder financially than my parents was at my age despite my wife & I have more technical and academic experience? Yes. But developers and people selling their homes are going to want a profit. And if they can build apartments or flip a roxbury/south end/southie condo for a big profit they will. If you want to change the direction of how housing is created then become a developer and help people out. But please don't take your anger out on me for simply pointing out reality.
Lol
Have you seen the traffic in this city? There are tons of people who don't drive, but those same people Uber and Lyft and Cab just like the folks who do own cars.Car's aren't goign anywhere and despite what Swrrly thinks they are not the death of society.
New York
You want everything to be "like" NY? Then pack your bags and move your ass there. I like Boston because I can own a car here.
You can own a car in New York
Why, some people there even have driveways! Amazing, I know, but not so much when you realize there's a lot more to New York than Manhattan.
Educated populous helps ... or no populous
Project in my neighborhood is providing 27% more parking spaces than required by code and it's two minutes to the T and two minutes to a major bus line. Folks here don't get that free parking creates traffic.
Which Boston neighborhood do
Which Boston neighborhood do you live in that has free parking?
Roslindale
And we're not alone. But we're also not a really dense, urban area, either (at least not the part I'm in; the Washington Street corridor is pretty dense, but it also has a million bus routes).
All of them
All neighborhoods in Boston have free on street parking for the people that live there. Resident Parking Permits don't cost a dime and there is no limit to the number of permits a household can have. Just need a valid Mass registration and proof of residency. If we really want to get serious about reducing the number of cars in the city, lets start charging for the storage of these vehicles on public property.
Why is parking free?
Why is parking free? Somerville and Cambridge both charge a nominal fee (under 100$) for parking permit and it seems to work out just fine. They also charge for your house to have visitor permits, which IMO are vastly superior to the crappy system of visitor parking in some of the more restricted Boston neighborhoods. Even better would be a system where the first parking permit for a residence would cost x, and then the second would cost 2x, and the third 3x, etc, etc. Once you have 5-6 cars in one household you really need to reexamine why you're living in the city at all.
At the very least, the parking office should be recouping their operating costs in some kind of application fee - it's not free for the city to run an office and mail these out and pay staff to run the thing.
I grew up on a quiet street in the city
And parking was never an issue, except for when it snowed. So why should we, or anyone else have to pay for a permit? Around public transit stops where people park and go to work there should be free permits for residents. That's enough.
Because as explained, it
Because as explained, it costs the city money to run the permit program. It costs them money to pay cops to enforce it, to make sure out of towners aren't cheating and parking without the permits. An application fee to recoup some of these administrative costs is hardly unfair, considering you have to pay for so many other permits and licenses.
Why is parking free is a
Why is parking free is a great question. I wrote this last month, and noted surrounding communities that charge for residential permits, including Cambridge ($25), Somerville ($40), Brookline ($25) and Quincy ($20).
(As for visitor permits, Somerville has two different ones available - a $20 per year for 2-day, $40 per year for 3-day.)
If you want to read up on parking, Donald Shoup is the resource (and he's got the best URL): http://www.shoupdogg.com/about/
How about making better policy?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/20/boston-where-parking-scarce...
When I lived in Roxbury (15
When I lived in Roxbury (15 min walk from the orange line), my street had free, completely unrestricted parking (not even street sweeping!).
Not any more, baby!
Those Roxbury halcyon days of yore are gone, gone, gone.
Now the street sweeping is regular like a clock, the resident parking signs are spreading like mold, and the Boston Transportation Department enforcement vehicles come prowling every day like muggers.
Days of yore?
Days of yore?
I moved last summer.
It's not "free" if the people
It's not "free" if the people in the building are paying for it because they want it, and plenty of people do.
Cambridge
Slightly off topic but it is striking how, as you drive along the Charles at night, you can so clearly see how there's nothing tall in Cambridge other than the stuff around Kendall and a few outlying tall buildings. It would be great if Central Square for example could be build up like the Fenway is so we can get more people living nearer to where they want to work and live.
Have you never been to
Have you never been to Central Square?
https://goo.gl/maps/rKAApQHq7j12
It's pretty similar to the Fenway in density.
Not really
Unless the view has changed since google posted what you linked to.
I see a few high rise apartment buildings and a few office buildings. The rest is 4 stories tall, max.
Take a walk down Boylston Street, then up Brookline Ave to Kenmore Square. I'm sure that's what he is talking about.
Erm, I will admit Fenway has
Erm, I will admit Fenway has seen a lot of new mid-rise construction lately, but the whole stretch of Mass Ave from Central to Harvard is interspersed with mid-rises, most of them taller than 4 stories. Even south of Central along Mass Ave most buildings are 5- and 6-story (with plenty of exceptions).
VERY similar to most of Fenway. The same style of 5-6 story, ~100 year old apartment buildings. Fenway has what, 5 new high rises along Boylston St? And Brookline Ave is mostly 3-story industrial buildings.
You know what there is more of along Boylston and Brookline? Surface parking. There are ZERO lots that front Mass Ave from Central to Harvard that consist of surface parking.
I'm not denying that Boylston St has undergone a massive change in recent years - just pointing out that Central Square already has a similar level of density. Admittedly there are more detached homes in the surrounding neighborhood, but there are also more mid-rise buildings.
I think the point still
I think the point still stands. None of the buildings over 4 stories in Central Square are market-rate residential buildings, and it would absolutely be a boon for business in that area if the neighborhood would ever approve such a thing.
This is definitely great news
This is definitely great news for students and cyclists! Paying less if you don't need a parking space is awesome for able-bodied people.
The design though is HIDEOUS and not at all fitting with the residential character of the nearby buildings... looks like a small factory.
Eh, I think it's ok. Could be
Eh, I think it's ok. Could be more creative and colorful but it's not cheap-looking. It's not like the surrounding brownstones are what I would call architecturally innovative, unique, or even particularly interesting (even when they were built). People just like them because they're old. Architectural styles need to be allowed to evolve.
Deliberately non-contextual?
If the exterior walls were redbrick instead of white, it wouldn't stand out at all in the neighborhood
Too Late
It's matching a building that is already there.:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.33591,-71.0866297,3a,75y,28.59h,92.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZVAkHdCdquj2sUQKatB-pg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en