Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer to explain tonight why it wants to add more units to Forest Hills project
By adamg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 11:28am
A meeting of a BPDA advisory group tonight will focus on a developers plans to change six planned three-bedroom units into twelve two-bedroom units in the next phase of its construction on Hyde Park Avenue south of Ukraine Way.
In a filing with the BPDA, Urbanica sought the change because, it said, the parents who might be attracted to the larger units don't want to live near the active Northeast Corridor train tracks.
The impact advisory group meeting begins at 6 p.m. at 6 Southbourne Rd. in Jamaica Plain.
Neighborhoods:
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
People are so obsessed with
People are so obsessed with "family-size apartments." I get it, but also-- you know that's gonna be three roommates, just like every other 3-BR. There are lots of relatively large apartments in this city-- and most of them are occupied by groups of single people who'd rather have fewer roommates but can't afford a studio or 1BR.
Besides, people are having smaller families these days. Building more three-bedrooms isn't going to make people have more children.
It's not that
If they were honest about their reasoning, we wouldn't be mocking them. Your reasons are sound, but theirs are stupid. Sure, the results are the same, but the methodology is flawed.
And if mindless
NIMBYs were honest about their motivations, instead of disingenuous appeals to "open space" or "neighborhood character" or "SHADOWS!!" then there wouldn't need to be BS responses to them.
Yeah, but
The overall footprint of the building is staying the same (the foundation is done and the ironwork for the upper levels is being erected) and no one griped about this project (at least loudly, I mean, the people who used to walk their dogs where this is being built might have grumbled, but I don't recall any specific official objections.)
Nope, this is on the developer this time.
Sure, it sounds like a load
and probably is a load. That anyone would get worked up about 6/12 units to begin with is a little silly.
I imagine the developers decided this was the path of least resistance. Nobody is allowed to come out and be honest - "we realized we'll make more money this way" - because then they'll be smeared as "greedy developers" and people will oppose them just for the sake of opposition, regardless of the project's merits.
Meh
I think the chorus of "we have found there is more demand for one and two bedroom units in the area than for three bedroom units" would work. Saying with a straight face that kids don't like trains would be a challenge, but I wish them well trying it.
Dog walkers
Pretty sure those dog walkers use that small nearby cemetery as a dog park now so not much sympathy for them.
Let's see how many people can
Let's see how many people can keep a straight face at the meeting when the developer's lawyers say the reason why is because parents don't want their kids living near the train tracks.
Its a stupid excuse. The
Its a stupid excuse. The train tracks pose no danger to anyone, especially compared to the cars in the area. On the other hand why would anyone care how many walls are in a building? It is none of anyone's business. I sure as hell wouldn't want strangers telling me I couldn't knock down a wall in my home.
But think about Junior?
What is he more likely to do? Scale a concrete wall, and a chain link fence topped by barbed wire, and then jump 20 feet down in to the Northeast Corridor? Or run in to traffic? Pretty obvious.
There's no barbed wire, silly
That said, if I had the money and wasn't gaga about my current place of residence, I could totally see junior and I whiling away hours on the back porch of one of the units from phase one, trainspotting all along.
Kids like trains, but developers don't. I wish I could go to this meeting tonight and ask them why they are lying about their reasoning.
Let's see how many NIMBYs
pretend that this development was ever going to primarily attract anyone but singles living with roommates, no matter how many bedrooms there are.
I'm guessing that the concern
I'm guessing that the concern is the noise and vibrations of trains going by preventing the kids from sleeping at night.
Yet somehow
Children sleep in the countless units along Hyde Park Ave that are even closer to the tracks than this building is.
1 in 8 kids in Boston has asthma
1 in 8. Rail corridors are not someplace people with asthma should live (pollution). Ditto for major roadways.
Your doctor will tell you this if you have asthma.
Great
Let’s tear down any housing near rail lines. And roads.
Careful lest you want to be
Careful lest you want to be scorned for siding with !gasp! NIMBY parents who care about their children being able to sleep at night! These parents are obviously special snowflake book-reading liberal elitists!
You seem like a strange
amalgam of stereotypes and rage. Caring about your kids doesn't make you special - just about everybody cares about their kids. Anti-vaxxer lunatics care about their kids, but it doesn't make them sane or correct.
It's also possible to read books and not be a carbon copy of Helen Lovejoy.
Also, you seem to be quite confused about who is making what arguments in this particular case. In this instance, the NIMBYs would be the parents complaining that there AREN'T more family units being built near the tracks. Do try to keep up if you're going to throw a word salad of nonsense at us.
God forbid anyone wanting to
God forbid anyone wanting to build more units
The real issue is $700,000
is too much to pay to live next to train tracks.
Tollgate Way
Before it was demolished, I used to take my kids to the Tollgate Way bridge that spanned the tracks and linked Hyde Park Ave. and Washington Street, right next to the DB&S Lumber Yard. It was great to watch the trains fly by on the tracks below. Living near the train tracks is just fine...