Jamaica Plain Infill and Small Developments

Whenever anyone wants to build something, it's somehow right next to a "crown jewel." How many "crown jewels" does this city have? 200? 400?
 
#bancars said:
Update on this project. The Arboretum appears to be throwing a fit about shadows or even the mere visibility of the new building. For the life of me I will never understand why so many people lose their minds over seeing a building next to greenery. (The Globe's framing, as usual, is also extremely bad, as it suggests that the building would somehow be a threat to the life and vitality of the Arboretum.) Something something, housing crisis?

www.bostonglobe.com

An attempt to build new housing in Jamaica Plain runs into trouble with its neighbor: the Arnold Arboretum - The Boston Globe

A vacant monastery could soon be transformed into senior housing, with a new condo nearby — if the developer can figure out how to build it while protecting one of the region’s crown jewels of public space.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...
This is a terrible project in a terrible location. With or without the redesign of the rotary, it’s a very poor location for a large volume of entries and exits. And there’s nothing wrong with advocating for aesthetics. I’m with the Arboretum on this one. I don’t want to see buildings when I’m in the Arboretum. Housing crisis doesn’t mean we need to develop every square inch that just happens to become available; that’s just the mindset that happens when barriers are so high to building smart well planned developments in appropriate locations.
 
If you’re that butthurt about seeing buildings from a park, there’s a lot of parks & reservations in the metro area where you won’t have to see them. This is the middle of JP, I think buildings in close context to a park is appropriate. 920 Centre Street is a 3-acre parcel - huge by urban standards. If units cant be added behind the monastery, then demo it and build toward the front of the parcel. Not ideal, but there has to be a path forward. We can’t hem and haw about a housing crisis and then freak out every time somebody tries to build housing.
 
FK4 said:
This is a terrible project in a terrible location. With or without the redesign of the rotary, it’s a very poor location for a large volume of entries and exits. And there’s nothing wrong with advocating for aesthetics. I’m with the Arboretum on this one. I don’t want to see buildings when I’m in the Arboretum. Housing crisis doesn’t mean we need to develop every square inch that just happens to become available; that’s just the mindset that happens when barriers are so high to building smart well planned developments in appropriate locations.
Click to expand...

If the specific buildings lining the park are attractive they complement the experience of a metropolitan park (e.g. the El Dorado along Central Park West, Manhattan).

1747654622694.png
 
FPJ said:
If the specific buildings lining the park are attractive they complement the experience of a metropolitan park (e.g. the El Dorado along Central Park West, Manhattan).

View attachment 63314
Click to expand...
That is true up to an extent, and the irony here is that in the case pictured here, more height is actually better, because it highlights the building’s grace and form… without the two towers, Dorado would be a pile. I think it’s unfortunate that all across Boston we are so fixated on height rather than form we get nothing but these fat low rises and the reality is that that heavy urban feeling all of the NIMBYs are fighting is actually worse rather than better with triple the heights but elegant design.

However, Central Park and the Arnold Arboretum are not the same. The other reasons buildings like Dorado work is because Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan, and buildings like Dorado are in dialogue with the heights of buildings the city is famous for. The context of JP is quite different, and the Arboretum was not designed to be urban, nor a city park. It’s a botanical garden, which means natural is ideal, right down to the fact that shade actually will change the light exposure of plants. But aside from that, the Arboretum is a gem and it’s nice the way it is. There are too many people on this forum who are just so virulently in favor of height and density at any cost that they’ll support it anywhere. As I said already, this is the unfortunate consequence of overly restrictive zoning that makes every opportunity for increased density a fight to the death… but that doesn’t mean that any density, anywhere is a good idea. And as far as disrupting the Arboretum, this couldn’t be worse: it is right adjacent to the entrance, and it’s a big, ugly blob. Put crap like this at Forest Hills, which, in fact, is where an actual proper tower would go nicely and make sense.
Smuttynose said:
If you’re that butthurt about seeing buildings from a park, there’s a lot of parks & reservations in the metro area where you won’t have to see them. This is the middle of JP, I think buildings in close context to a park is appropriate. 920 Centre Street is a 3-acre parcel - huge by urban standards. If units cant be added behind the monastery, then demo it and build toward the front of the parcel. Not ideal, but there has to be a path forward. We can’t hem and haw about a housing crisis and then freak out every time somebody tries to build housing.
Click to expand...
Rude. And misguided,
Again, “housing crisis” does not justify any density, anywhere, all the time, and it gets pretty tiresome on this forum hearing zealotry like this which just tramples over any appreciation for context in favor of “more, more, more!” The Arboretum is NOT Central Park and this is NOT in an urban part of JP. Towers along the rest of the Olmsted parks is one thing—here, I think you actually do have an opportunity cultivate that urban grace exemplified by the Dorado (even the Jamaica tower, as bland as it is, contributes a little of this merely by its height). As for the specific impacts on the Arbo, building close to Centre St would make more sense, yes, but it’s still a dumb project because it’s gonna have a driveway with heavy, frequent use precisely at a major intersection. Can all of that be surmounted, in an ideal world? Yeah, probably, but it’s just not a great place for a project like this.
curcuas said:
If you don't want to see buildings when you're in the Arboretum, shouldn't the Arboretum buy all the land around it so you can't see those buildings? But wait, then that land would be in the Arboretum and you could see buildings from it.
Click to expand...
Again, misguided logic. The preservation and care of sight lines and views and the overall context in which scenic locations, landmarks, and other important places are situated is a core aspect of intelligent urban design and government function. All successful urban locales pay due attention to these principles. You also don’t have towers looming over Green Park in London, and you never will, because people there recognize that it’s not just about the park but about the dialogue between park and city. If you want to hack away every individual component and pretend that it exists in complete isolation from its surroundings, well, you’re certainly living in the right place, which is 21st century United States. But that’s the opposite of the contextual approaches necessary for good urban design. Build a skyscraper next to Yosemite would be the logical next step, and I don’t think there needs be any explanation of how this would be a bad idea. And no, to those who want to violently cry out “but the Arboretum is in the CITY!!!” are wrong, too; this is not the city and the grace of what the Arboretum IS—a place of relative quiet and seclusion—should absolutely be preserved.
 
A sightline isn't a material outcome. Houses for people to live in are part of reality. Let's focus on real things. People have this idea that a building occupying a place that was previously sky is psychically damaging. That makes no sense. Buildings for the most part just sit there. It's not a toxic chemical plant spewing fumes or something.
 
FK4 said:
That is true up to an extent, and the irony here is that in the case pictured here, more height is actually better, because it highlights the building’s grace and form… without the two towers, Dorado would be a pile. I think it’s unfortunate that all across Boston we are so fixated on height rather than form we get nothing but these fat low rises and the reality is that that heavy urban feeling all of the NIMBYs are fighting is actually worse rather than better with triple the heights but elegant design.

However, Central Park and the Arnold Arboretum are not the same. The other reasons buildings like Dorado work is because Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan, and buildings like Dorado are in dialogue with the heights of buildings the city is famous for. The context of JP is quite different, and the Arboretum was not designed to be urban, nor a city park. It’s a botanical garden, which means natural is ideal, right down to the fact that shade actually will change the light exposure of plants. But aside from that, the Arboretum is a gem and it’s nice the way it is. There are too many people on this forum who are just so virulently in favor of height and density at any cost that they’ll support it anywhere. As I said already, this is the unfortunate consequence of overly restrictive zoning that makes every opportunity for increased density a fight to the death… but that doesn’t mean that any density, anywhere is a good idea. And as far as disrupting the Arboretum, this couldn’t be worse: it is right adjacent to the entrance, and it’s a big, ugly blob. Put crap like this at Forest Hills, which, in fact, is where an actual proper tower would go nicely and make sense.

Rude. And misguided,
Again, “housing crisis” does not justify any density, anywhere, all the time, and it gets pretty tiresome on this forum hearing zealotry like this which just tramples over any appreciation for context in favor of “more, more, more!” The Arboretum is NOT Central Park and this is NOT in an urban part of JP. Towers along the rest of the Olmsted parks is one thing—here, I think you actually do have an opportunity cultivate that urban grace exemplified by the Dorado (even the Jamaica tower, as bland as it is, contributes a little of this merely by its height). As for the specific impacts on the Arbo, building close to Centre St would make more sense, yes, but it’s still a dumb project because it’s gonna have a driveway with heavy, frequent use precisely at a major intersection. Can all of that be surmounted, in an ideal world? Yeah, probably, but it’s just not a great place for a project like this.

Again, misguided logic. The preservation and care of sight lines and views and the overall context in which scenic locations, landmarks, and other important places are situated is a core aspect of intelligent urban design and government function. All successful urban locales pay due attention to these principles. You also don’t have towers looming over Green Park in London, and you never will, because people there recognize that it’s not just about the park but about the dialogue between park and city. If you want to hack away every individual component and pretend that it exists in complete isolation from its surroundings, well, you’re certainly living in the right place, which is 21st century United States. But that’s the opposite of the contextual approaches necessary for good urban design. Build a skyscraper next to Yosemite would be the logical next step, and I don’t think there needs be any explanation of how this would be a bad idea. And no, to those who want to violently cry out “but the Arboretum is in the CITY!!!” are wrong, too; this is not the city and the grace of what the Arboretum IS—a place of relative quiet and seclusion—should absolutely be preserved.
Click to expand...
Just going to say that I agree with you, so you are not alone in being a YIMBY (I would vote for densification quite literally next door to my home) and also being opposed to this project.

In a perfect world, 920 Centre would become part of the Arboretum, which is a gem worth preserving and expanding. The Arboretum should extend to Centre St. Any parcel on the other side of the Arborway (including on my block) could be redeveloped to add density and I’d be strongly in favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4

Kitchen-supply warehouse store in Jamaica Plain wins OK to expand with apartments, restaurant and bakery​

New entrance to BMS Paper


“The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans by Bob Harrington to expand his BMS Paper, 3390 Washington St. in Jamaica Plain, with 82 apartments, a restaurant and a bakery.

Under his plans, Harrington will retain the existing two-story BMS building, but add a five-story extension to its rear and then a separate six-story building behind that, all on roughly two acres of land. The new restaurant and bakery would go into the extension connected to the BMS building - and would include a covered walkway from Washington Street.

Some 19 of the apartments will be rented as affordable - or 23% of the total number, even though Harrington only had to offer 13% of the units as affordable based on the city requirements when he first submitted his plans…….”

www.universalhub.com

Kitchen-supply warehouse store in Jamaica Plain wins OK to expand with apartments, restaurant and bakery

The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans by Bob Harrington to expand his BMS Paper, 3390 Washington St. in Jamaica Plain, with 82 apartments, a restaurant and a bakery. Read more.
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com

Render from bostonplans
1748980837937.jpeg

3390 Washington Street | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org
 
6/6:

3371 Washington Street (39 senior units)





----

Doyle's Cafe Project - 3478-3484 Washington Street (16 units)







----

28-30 Hyde Park Avenue (9 units)





----

265 Amory Street (7 units & new Youth Enrichment Services [YES] HQ)







----

72 Hyde Park Avenue (6 units)



----

305 Chestnut Avenue - Fowle-Davis House (Renovation - 6 units [4 net new])





----

Department of Public Heath - Jamaica Plain Campus Tower Renovation



----

38 Spring Park Avenue - Thomas Burton Kinraid House (Gut renovation)



----

Murphy Playground (Field renovation)





----

Arnold Arboretum - Washington Street Entrance (Renovation)



----

561 Centre Street (Pop-up beer garden)

 
stick n move said:

Kitchen-supply warehouse store in Jamaica Plain wins OK to expand with apartments, restaurant and bakery​

New entrance to BMS Paper


“The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans by Bob Harrington to expand his BMS Paper, 3390 Washington St. in Jamaica Plain, with 82 apartments, a restaurant and a bakery.

Under his plans, Harrington will retain the existing two-story BMS building, but add a five-story extension to its rear and then a separate six-story building behind that, all on roughly two acres of land. The new restaurant and bakery would go into the extension connected to the BMS building - and would include a covered walkway from Washington Street.

Some 19 of the apartments will be rented as affordable - or 23% of the total number, even though Harrington only had to offer 13% of the units as affordable based on the city requirements when he first submitted his plans…….”

www.universalhub.com

Kitchen-supply warehouse store in Jamaica Plain wins OK to expand with apartments, restaurant and bakery

The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans by Bob Harrington to expand his BMS Paper, 3390 Washington St. in Jamaica Plain, with 82 apartments, a restaurant and a bakery. Read more.
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com

Render from bostonplans
View attachment 63751

3390 Washington Street | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org
Click to expand...
This is a great building. I’m glad they’re preserving it
 
Regarding the Doyles Bar project, that is a pretty small sliver of the original building left standing. I was hopeful that some of the historic atmosphere of the pub would be preserved, but it looks like most of the building is gone so I'm not sure if that's possible now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top