Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer proposes 28-condo project next to Roslindale forest; residents say that's the wrong place
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
Fine - if it’s the wrong
Fine - if it’s the wrong place let’s seize the NIMBY neighbors land, knock down their houses and build denser housing on their parcels.
SHERRIN WOODS
Isn't it always the wrong place ?
He should come back with a
He should come back with a proposal to build four times as much housing. Every time there's an objection he should increase the size of the project.
First, how dare you!
How dare you propose building apartments across the street from a park. This kind of thing just can't be done. And even if it could, would it be appropriate for Boston? Has this kind of thing ever happened here before? How many other forests have burned down? Certainly it wouldn't be appropriate in our neighborhood.
Yes
The new residents will doubtless take inspiration from noted barbecuer and forest-burner Henry Thoreau.
Will there be Extinction Rebellion Signs?
In the service of more parking, of course.
Shameless NIMBY
Sure, this is just about conjoined with Stony Brook reservation but there's no space for poor people near these privileged gatekeepers because of the forest.
Protecting woodlands is the favorite canard of the NIMBY in the Parkway now, in spite of the existing of Stony Brook, Cutler, Hancock, Allandale Woods, never mind the Arbs. Disgraceful people, all of them.
Stony Brook?
There are a couple of large developments right next to Stony Brook. And some fairly large apartment buildings just across the street (granted, that means taking your life in your hands trying to get across Washington Street without being flattened, but still).
This is pure NIMBYism
None of their arguments are any reason to say no to this. I mean the house on the corner of Dale and Metropolitan has a pool. Don't they have a grill? I'd be surprised if they didn't have one.. who would have a pool and no grill? So their arguments are invalid.
I admit I agree that the density doesn't match the rest of the neighborhood but we need more density and less single family homes. And right now its unused, and we need more housing so.. enough with the NIMBYism
Anger and Hatred
So much anger and hatred. These comments make me feel that there is no hope for Boston.
Not appropriate for this parcel!
Please no, do not approve this project.
The map link is misleading on the location. It's actually abutting the pedestrian overpass and shown in green on the Google map. Hence the 1 acre parcel most would think is already a part of Sherrin woods as they are contiguous. If the development is approved, likely every tree on the property which is entirely forested would be removed, essentially shrinking Sherron Woods. Find another location for this type of development.
Better map
Yeah, the Google map I linked to just shows a nearby intersection - the problem is that the site does not currently have a street address (it's just listed in the assessors/registry records as "Dale Street," and, of course, Boston has two Dale Streets).
The map below is from the assessors mapping system. The privately owned parcel in question is the sort of skinny butcher-knife-shaped green parcel just to the left of Providence Street and with its "handle" touching Dale Street (with the train tracks in gray between Providence and the green). The rest of the green is Sherrin Woods, with a DCR playground and tennis court up top (the white-ish dotted lines).
Okay. Looking at this map
I wish I had been at the meeting, in general, but I'd like to see a good plan of this development to see how it would interact with the urban wild.
Still, the City should have bought the land. The City should buy the land.
No offense
But fuck the entirety of those woods. The Neponset and Stony Brook Park are within walking distance of that huddle of trees you're trying to protect from development. Build up to the train tracks.
We need housing more than we need that spat of trees with the entirety of the Emerald Necklace surrounding that spot.
We need trees in
every neighborhood to mitigate stormwater and rising temperatures, to improve the soil and clean the air. A tree canopy improves the physical and mental health of area residents.
Having tree cover 1-5 miles away just doesn't work. It's an environmental justice issue, where lower income people have been shortchanged.
It's not a bad development but it is in the wrong place.
Development of additional housing units can happen without destroying the landscape.
Trees are the most economical way to fight climate change and increasing severe weather events.
What? Did you really say that?
You are actually arguing that because trees are important for social justice, we shouldn't build this low income housing right next to a bunch of trees? Rethink the logic of the point you aren't making.
Yes.
I said it.
Do you think housing lower income people next to a train line spewing pollutants is a good thing? Green cool places away from RR tracks are only for those who can afford to spend more?
It's not like living next to the Riverside line.
As a professional
Who deals with climate and environmental pollution I am getting overwhelmed by your toxic bad faith arguments here.
You either don't know what you are talking about, are grasping at any/all "popular" arguments without understanding the deeper issues, or are completely full of it and disingenuously using poor people as a meat shield for your NIMBY nonsense.
So now you are saying that trees next to RR are bad?
It's amazing you don't realize how ridiculous your position sounds.
Nice talking point
Too bad you are just putting up a greenshield as a NIMBY front and not understanding the issue.
We need more trees WHERE THERE ARE NO TREES NOW - as in redlined, paved over industrial areas.
We need more housing EVERYWHERE including in an area surrounded by trees!
Not sure if this comment is bad faith, poor understanding of the actual issues, or both.
EDIT: I'm becoming convinced that these "truthy" statements are in complete bad faith
Hilarious
that I am accused of being a NIMBY. I have walked Sherrin Woods but do not live in the area.
Don't paint people with that meaningless label.
Some people can civilly disagree with whether the location is a good one for a development.
How about developing half the Boston Common?
The land’s more valuable, and a variety of amenities are walking distance. I know what’s walking distance from this parcel because unlike you, I walk around there.
Personally I'd develop the Pike
n/t
As one who is often by this parcel
I agree.
I also agree that there's a need for more housing in the area, which is why I'm torn on the Crane Ledge development. That said, Jeanne DuBois, who lives as far from this place as I do and who loved getting housing built for average people, agrees that there's better places for this.
I think the developer is trying his best, and should be commended for what he is trying to do, but the City should have bought this parcel years ago.
And for the record, I try to run through the woods once a week, and I run by it a few other times a week, the last instance being yesterday. It's really nice. I recommend people visit the urban wild. And being someone who is in those woods, I will say that clearcutting a portion is not a good move.