
Hotel building, with outline of former companion building, torn down before it fell down. Photo by Rosabri Mejia.
A City Council committee will hold a hearing on a proposal by Councilor Althea Garrison (at large) to urge the BPDA to quash developers' plans to renovate the crumbling eyesore of the former Alexandra Hotel on Washington Street at Massachusetts Avenue by building a 13-story boutique hotel inside a renovated facade.
Unusual for a hearing request, however, no other councilors had their names added as co-sponsors.
In fact, three councilors - including the two whose districts meet at the intersection - said they would vote against any such proposal, both because they support the proposal to renovate the hotel's 19th-century facade in exchange for building new, more modern hotel floors above it, and because they don't think it's the council's role to interfere in what they said was a robust series of public hearings and meetings on the project by the BPDA.
Garrison's resolution calls on the BPDA to reject the proposal by Jas Bhogal and Thomas Calus as a complete violation of the lot's zoning because it is too tall and too shiny, essentially. Garrison said the new building would leave nearby buildings in permanent shadows and that the glass-sheathed upper floors would be totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. In her request for a hearing, she wrote:
As a “gateway†to the core of the South End, the proposed addition is a poor representation of the Victorian nature of the neighborhood and its heights is found nowhere else in the surrounding area.
Garrison also objected to the lack of parking on site, which she said would lead to increased congestion in the area.
But Councilor Kim Janey (Roxbury) said the developers have also come up with a good plan to deal with what has been a neighborhood eyesore for at least 30 years and repeated, failed renovation efforts and have made commitments to hire locally, to help spruce up all of the intersections four corners, and even to promote shops in Dudley Square.
Councilor Frank Baker (Dorchester), whose district ends at the intersection, also opposed Garrison's proposal. He pointed to what he called a "very robust community process," by the BPDA and said the upper floors would help the developers recoup the estimated $6 million to $7 million cost just to restore the existing facade. He noted an earlier proposal called for a 20-floor tower at the site.
Councilor Ed Flynn, who represents a part of the South End, said he would also oppose any effort to tell the BPDA what to do. Although his district does not include the hotel, he said its current sad state came up frequently while he was campaigning and in his time as a councilor.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
chioforo
By George Stergios
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 9:14am
Chioforo is a cult of one. Thanks for the information, I had been following that story but I did not know (the Globe never thought it was worth revealing?) that he needed to roll the city to save his investment. Maybe this sort of thing is so common that no one thinks it is worth mentioning or criticizing.
Building has 22,000 square
By steve
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 7:18am
Building has 22,000 square feet. Call it 20,000 square feet living space and 2,000 for common areas. 20 apartments at 1,000 square feet. developers need to spend $3M to restore the façade and 500,000 per unit. That’s $13M before you talk about a purchase price. they acquire the building for $7,000,000. Developer is in the hole for $20,000,000 on 20 units. developer wants to recoup so sells units for $1,300,000 to 1,700,000.
$1,300,000 minimum to live on a busy intersection without deeded parking. And people wonder why developers need to build up.
https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid...
you missed the ivory bean
By George Stergios
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 9:08pm
The Church allowed the Ivory Bean next door to fall apart and then removed the remnants. But that is part of the parcel. The project site according to the 2002 Plan filed with the BRA, before the Ivory Bean fell down:
"The project site, located at 1759-1769 Washington Street which is situated on the corner of Washington Street and Massachusetts Avenue, contains approximately 8,025 square feet of land in the South End Urban Renewal Area, Project No. R-56 (“Siteâ€). The Site is currently occupied by two mostly vacant historical buildings: a five-story Hotel Alexandra located at 1759-1761 Washington Street and the three-story Ivory Bean row house located at 1767-1769 Washington Street. The first floor of the Hotel Alexandra is currently occupied as retail space. The upper floors of the Hotel Alexandra and each floor of the row house are currently vacant. These existing buildings, built in the early-to mid-1800’s, will be restored as a part of this project."
The total square foot was to 38,007 square feet, maintaining the first floor as retail space and adding 23 residential rental units. Within the original zoning. You might want to run your calculations again, this time with the right parameters.
That may all be true. Build it anyway
By Ron Newman
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 8:53am
It's long past time to fix up this blighted corner of an otherwise thriving and prosperous neighborhood.
So basically the Church is
By cden4
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 9:57am
So basically the Church is holding the historic building hostage. They know there are a lot of people who would be really upset if they let it deteriorate to the point where it could no longer be restored or needed to be torn down. But they want to sell at the price they want, so they're basically saying "Better increase the zoning on this property so we can sell. It would be a shame for something bad to happen to this building..."
Perhaps
By Stevil
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 10:18am
The city could condemn it and take it by eminent domain. Granted that's a whole different kettle of worms.
Yup
By bgl
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 12:58pm
Declare it blight and eminent domain is a pretty reasonable thing, although it would then be tied up in courts for years.
Only the price of the taking
By SKressel
Fri, 03/15/2019 - 9:41pm
Only the price of the taking could be tied up in Court, not the development.
Hands off my beauty supply shop, Boston City Council!
By OriginallyFromD...
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 7:09pm
Where am I supposed to get my organic shea butter and Moroccan argan oil hair serum if this building is turned into a hotel?
Oh, right, literally right next door at the beauty supply shops owned by the same people who own this building.
Restore the building as is it
By Leah Barrows
Tue, 03/19/2019 - 8:31am
Restore the building as is it is.
It is historical for a reason.
Often we forget the weight of buildings and the impact on the surrounding land.
To recoup the 6million..you do not have to hack up a historical building. Consider insuring it as a historical landmark and having it appraised as an artistic historical monment. There are 1000's of grants that can be donated.
Already hacked up?
By Ron Newman
Tue, 03/19/2019 - 9:45am
After 40+ years of neglect and disuse, I doubt there's much of anything left inside to restore. The developer would restore the façade.
The Liberty Hotel (built into and around the shell of the old Charles Street Jail) might be a useful comparison to make here.
Pages
Add comment