L Street Station Redevelopment (née Old Edison Plant)| 776 Summer Street | South Boston

^^^ I thought there was a private MBTA marina at the end of this road. Massport wouldn't dare to mess with this little MBTA perk (?).
 
stellarfun said:
As I read the site plan. Blocks H, F, and A are along the north property line, across from Massport property. A is low rise residential. Directly south of H, F, and A are Blocks E and B. B is residential, E, is a combination hotel, residential, A and B are each 64' high; E is 210'

The other residential block, Block C, is at the southeast corner, and is the most distant from the port. C is 63' and 206'

https://goo.gl/maps/r9cRXcURVQiw7Huw8

^^^Boston Edison property on the left of the street; Massport property on the right. The street leads directly to the haul road entrance checkpoint to Conley, and beyond that towards the Channel, is Massports underutilized parcel.
Click to expand...

The site plan is rotated by 90 degrees, and so is your frame of reference.

reverend_paco said:
p9RTg7rh.png
Click to expand...

The water is north of the site, but shows on the left side of the plan.

Block H = NE Corner
Block A = SE Corner
Block C = SW Corner
"ADMIN" = NW Corner

Summer St runs along the bottom of the plan, E 1st up the right side.
 
I don't live in Southie so I don't have a dog in the fight, but I get the resident's concern. When Massport wanted to expand Conley, Southie pols got an agreement that they needed to move the haul road before they could open an expanded terminal. This was and remains a reasonable request - the existing haul road traversed residential neighborhoods.
In order to preserve the new haul road and at the request of local pols, Massport got the owner of Boston Edison to include an AUL on the property that forbid residential. It's reasonable to question why a 5 year old agreement that was made in part at the behest of your elected representatives is now being tossed aside.
 
Jumbobuc,

pdf p. 3 on the owner's latest submission to BCDC is an aerial view that shows the haul road, and the Channel (the water), to be to the left of the site, not north of the site.
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/a7e226bb-4d5d-48a0-9e18-fe1da410532b

(I don't have time at the moment to rip this image off using a PC and posting it, apologies.)

When you match the aerial image on p. 3 with the image supra of the site plan with the multi-colored blocks, Block H is the NW corner of the site, across from the heart-shaped feature on the Massport property. Block A, residential, is at the NE corner, where the unnamed street to the haul road runs off E. First St. Block E and Block B are to the south of Block H and A. A new street, an extension of M St., will be built between Blocks H and A, and Blocks E and B.

https://goo.gl/maps/FGhMNnxUoc6B6SMt5

This is M St, looking west across E. First St., to where it will be extended. Block A will be to the immediate right of the white car by the stop sign. The green swath of treetops in the distance mark the unnamed road between the haul road and E First St.

The aerial on p. 3 of the submission indicates that Block E (the residential with hotel) will be directly across the haul road from the Massport property with the heart-shaped feature.

I don't have any issues, per se, with the most recent development proposal (it has many attractive features), but I can certainly understand the concerns of politicians and advocates of commercial/industrial use of the harbor that this plan creates a new and very large chorus of NIMBYs who will object to industrial use of the harbor near their newly-bought property. I am not sure how Massport was able to introduce a deed restriction on the Boston Edison property, but it did. And the developer / owner has to work with that limitation.
 
stellarfun said:
Jumbobuc,

pdf p. 3 on the owner's latest submission to BCDC is an aerial view that shows the haul road, and the Channel (the water), to be to the left of the site, not north of the site.
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/a7e226bb-4d5d-48a0-9e18-fe1da410532b

When you match the aerial image on p. 3 with the image supra of the site plan with the multi-colored blocks,
Click to expand...

page 3 aerial has north oriented bottom left corner. the colored site plan (page 15) has north on the left.
the plans on pages 10, 11, 12 have a north arrow on them.

stellarfun said:
Jumbobuc,
https://goo.gl/maps/FGhMNnxUoc6B6SMt5

This is M St, looking west across E. First St., to where it will be extended.
Click to expand...
that is looking north, not west
 
BKNA said:
page 3 aerial has north oriented bottom left corner. the colored site plan (page 15) has north on the left.
the plans on pages 10, 11, 12 have a north arrow on them.


that is looking north, not west
Click to expand...

The cooling water intake pipes (I assume that's what they are) at the bottom left of the site plans, are these north or west of the buildings titled Block D and Turbine I?

https://goo.gl/maps/1HbdXLWfP113X1R78

^^^ From Google maps, these two 1+ story brick buildings with the yellow railing are like a headhouse and are associated with the kluge of pipes. On what road do you suppose this Google street imagery was taken from?

https://goo.gl/maps/3Cy5gyrjPq7hYw6F9

^^^In the site plan with the lettered blocks, this is the Admin building shown in the lower left of the plan. It is to the left of Block D in the site plan image, and just below the pipes.

I can't help it if Stantec can't find its way around a compass rose, or publishes mirror-imaged pages.
 
Summer St is the west side of the property
E 1st is the southern edge.
the new massport road that allows for the bypass of E 1st St (known as Freight Corridor) is north of the site.
the cooling pipes in your pic, taken from Freight Corridor is looking south at the north side of the site.
the admin building, with the view from Summer is looking east at the northwest corner of the site. The admin building is to the north of Block D.

architects arent great with directionality many times (the whole bottom of the sheet has to be the front door and all that), but in this case the N arrows, when used, are right.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
I don't live in Southie so I don't have a dog in the fight, but I get the resident's concern. When Massport wanted to expand Conley, Southie pols got an agreement that they needed to move the haul road before they could open an expanded terminal. This was and remains a reasonable request - the existing haul road traversed residential neighborhoods.
In order to preserve the new haul road and at the request of local pols, Massport got the owner of Boston Edison to include an AUL on the property that forbid residential. It's reasonable to question why a 5 year old agreement that was made in part at the behest of your elected representatives is now being tossed aside.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the residents near by would prefer people living on the site instead of everyone working in the Biotech Labs living off the site and commuting on neighborhood streets

If the NIMBYS are smart they sell their own properties in Southie-proper for big $$ and then move into the newly built condo units on the redeveloped Power plant site
 
stellarfun said:
Local politicians apparently don't want any residential.

Article has link to a short video showing effects of sea level rise in the next 30 years on the proposed development.

For now, Redgate remains at odds with elected officials, who say they’d prefer no housing at all on the site. They’re pushing for development that they say would better complement the port and bring jobs to the neighborhood. State senator Nick Collins, who represents South Boston, said it makes little sense to put high-end condos on what is a working waterfront with a bright industrial future.

“The Commonwealth has invested a lot in the success of the port,” Collins said. “We have to get this right.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...outh-boston/mGq8TFx4ACBFHna00eoM0L/story.html
Click to expand...

Methinks Senator Collins' concerns over the high end condo people coming into the working class area has more to do with his future election polling.
 
shmessy said:
Methinks Senator Collins' concerns over the high end condo people coming into the working class area has more to do with his future election polling.
Click to expand...

Shmessy -- me thinks Sen Collins knows the reality -- he's just posturing to make his Southie locals think he gives a hoot about what the old-timers are concerned about

As I posted previously the Southie old-timers should take a look at the real estate market and think about selling now while the market is white hot
 
Globe: in-a-city-hungry-for-housing-sparks-fly-over-plan-for-more

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...an-for-more/ifZeFNEjDEZWPYRWEOTIGN/story.html

Tim Logan Globe Staff

More than two years into planning for the redevelopment of the former Boston Edison power plant that looms over South Boston, a debate still simmers over what to build there.

In recent weeks, developers and a group of South Boston elected officials have been squaring off over whether the 15-acre site along the Reserved Channel should include housing, and how much. It’s the latest and highest-profile development fight in a neighborhood that has had several in recent years. The conflict pits those clamoring for more housing against residents worried about overcrowding.

On Monday, the developers proposed an either/or approach, filing a plan that included an option with 750 condos and apartments — fewer than half as many as in the original proposal — and another with no housing.....
contd
 
odurandina said:
Globe: in-a-city-hungry-for-housing-sparks-fly-over-plan-for-more

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...an-for-more/ifZeFNEjDEZWPYRWEOTIGN/story.html

Tim Logan Globe Staff

More than two years into planning for the redevelopment of the former Boston Edison power plant that looms over South Boston, a debate still simmers over what to build there.

In recent weeks, developers and a group of South Boston elected officials have been squaring off over whether the 15-acre site along the Reserved Channel should include housing, and how much. It’s the latest and highest-profile development fight in a neighborhood that has had several in recent years. The conflict pits those clamoring for more housing against residents worried about overcrowding.

On Monday, the developers proposed an either/or approach, filing a plan that included an option with 750 condos and apartments — fewer than half as many as in the original proposal — and another with no housing.....
contd
Click to expand...

I like the developer's approach. Pick option 1 or option 2 and enough of all the bullshit. I don't understand the NIMBY's however. If your concern is traffic, why would you want an office park which people will drive to from outside the neighborhood, instead of residences? Developer called their bluff and instead of paying extortion has figured out a way to make their $$$ either way and a place that has been vacant since 2007 will now be put to good use.
 
Rover said:
I like the developer's approach. Pick option 1 or option 2 and enough of all the bullshit. I don't understand the NIMBY's however. If your concern is traffic, why would you want an office park which people will drive to from outside the neighborhood, instead of residences? Developer called their bluff and instead of paying extortion has figured out a way to make their $$$ either way and a place that has been vacant since 2007 will now be put to good use.
Click to expand...

I'd like to get a good understanding of what the NIMBY's are against as well. Sometimes, overcrowding and traffic are simply go-to PC reasons to rationalize opposition, even if such factors do have merit. So what else is there? Is it opposition against further gentrification? Isn't this area already "yuppified" though? I personally do not see the appeal in fighting to retain a hulking unused decaying plant on the premises.
 
I agree.

Can someone break it down in black and white for me?

jl326 said:
I'd like to get a good understanding of what the NIMBY's are against as well. Sometimes, overcrowding and traffic are simply go-to PC reasons to rationalize opposition, even if such factors do have merit. So what else is there? Is it opposition against further gentrification? Isn't this area already "yuppified" though? I personally do not see the appeal in fighting to retain a hulking unused decaying plant on the premises.
Click to expand...
 
jl326 said:
I'd like to get a good understanding of what the NIMBY's are against as well. Sometimes, overcrowding and traffic are simply go-to PC reasons to rationalize opposition, even if such factors do have merit. So what else is there? Is it opposition against further gentrification? Isn't this area already "yuppified" though? I personally do not see the appeal in fighting to retain a hulking unused decaying plant on the premises.
Click to expand...

Every public meeting I've gone to in Southie in the last few years - including meetings that have nothing to do with this project - someone demands that the city turn this site into a giant parking garage that would be free for residents, and gets a big cheer.
 
stevebikes said:
Every public meeting I've gone to in Southie in the last few years - including meetings that have nothing to do with this project - someone demands that the city turn this site into a giant parking garage that would be free for residents, and gets a big cheer.
Click to expand...

As someone who drives, is a self-proclaimed car enthusiast, and who pays for residential parking in the city, that is some next-level sense of entitlement here :-D.

I have no stake in what this gets turned into, but if there's ever a remote chance that a garage gets built, it better be privately funded and I'd be happy for Southie residents to pay market rates.
 
jl326 said:
I'd like to get a good understanding of what the NIMBY's are against as well. Sometimes, overcrowding and traffic are simply go-to PC reasons to rationalize opposition, even if such factors do have merit. So what else is there? Is it opposition against further gentrification? Isn't this area already "yuppified" though? I personally do not see the appeal in fighting to retain a hulking unused decaying plant on the premises.
Click to expand...

People talk of Southie as a single entity, but the absolute bulk of Southie's transformation is still in the western half -- especially the western third, west of Dorchester St, and to a lesser degree the middle third, between Dorchester St and L St. The western third is almost an extension of the South End now, and people seem to apply its changes to all of Southie, which isn't really the case.

Once you head east, approaching the L St area and east of that, it hasn't changed nearly as much, and you're still going to get a lot more people using cars in their daily life the further away you get from the Broadway T station, and thus more people worried about traffic/parking. I think it was last year when the city proposed to do a bus-only lane experiment on E Broadway for just one single block off L St, and outraged ensued, which was a good indication that the eastern half hasn't quite changed as much as people thought (this was also the same area as the Starbucks outrage).
 
"Yuppification" or whatever you call it goes along fine with car-centric NIMBYism. That's how it works in the suburbs and in basically all American Cities. Heck, in SF and Seattle people are constantly complaining about bike lanes taking space from cars. NIMBYism is NIMBYism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top