Allston-Brighton Infill and Small Developments

That's too bad. I was seriously hoping they'd tear the building down and build a store right up against the street edge.
 
cden4 said:
That's too bad. I was seriously hoping they'd tear the building down and build a store right up against the street edge.
Click to expand...

You're talking about CVS here. They tend to veer towards building a store as an island in a sea of parking whenever possible, rather than moving it to the back of the building or something sensible like that.

Walgreens and CVS both are guilty of creating cartoon buildings that try to evoke some Main St. sentiments, but end up rubbing their suburban detachment from the urban fabric in your face.
 
Work is well underway on the CVSification.

From today:

3661122492_d97fb303b8.jpg
 
Either that photo is distorted or there is an alarmingly serious deflection issue in the existing structure.
 
Lurker said:
Either that photo is distorted or there is an alarmingly serious deflection issue in the existing structure.
Click to expand...

not to mention the trucks, fence, bollard, and orange cone
 
A condo/retail development has been planned to replace the Shell gas station at 332 Chestnut Hill Ave in Brighton, near Cleveland Circle (current conditions on Street View here). The BRA article 80 PDF is available here:

http://gis.cityofboston.gov/arcgisoutput/report433409.pdf

The plan has been public for almost a year now and has eluded me until now. Naturally the NIMBYs have been active. I have been unable to find any renderings.

Neighbors organize against Chestnut Hill condo plan

BRIGHTON - Community opposition to a proposed development at 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. continues to grow, as the Aberdeen Brighton Residents Association has announced the formation of a ?Citizens Committee for Proper Development at 332 Chestnut Hill Ave.? to coordinate the neighborhood?s response to the proposal.

The proposal by developer Michael Argiros would replace the Shell gas station already on the site with a mixed retail and condo building, which has drawn criticism from the ABRA, the Brighton Allston Improvement Association, City Councilor Mark Ciommo, as well as number of other groups in the area over its proposed size and density, which exceed zoning regulations for the lot.

?We think that this site offers an excellent opportunity to enrich Cleveland Circle?s retail, and thus make it a more attractive and interesting destination,? wrote ABRA President Eva Webster in an e-mail interview. ?However, the size of this proposed new retail ? and whether it should be one big store, or a few smaller ones ? need to be decided by weighing in a variety of factors (such as details concerning deliveries, parking, trash disposal and general impact on abutters).?

Current proposals call for a five-story building taller than 55 feet with a floor-to-area ratio of 2.5, in an area where zoning regulations limit building height to 35 feet and floor-to-area ratio to 1, according to Webster. The building would include 58 condo units, as well as a large retail space on the first floor and more than 100 parking spaces in an underground garage.

?We don?t believe that developers should be marching on, making money on the backs of residents who bought their units with the promise of sunlight and views of parks,? Webster said at a Jan. 5 meeting of the ABRA.

Webster said that she first heard about the project in May 2008, and attempted to get in touch with Argiros to arrange a community meeting before he filed with the BRA. No meeting took place, but the project was filed in August, and the BRA sponsored a community meeting on Oct. 1 with little preparation time, according to Webster.

?Those of us who were there, felt intimidated because the developer?s consultants essentially monopolized the meeting, and blatantly disregarded our concerns about height and density, and their impacts on abutters and the pedestrian environment,? wrote Webster.

Owners of the abutting properties have expressed concern about the size of the building blocking natural light to their properties. Additionally, residents in the area have been concerned about the increased traffic on Chestnut Hill Avenue and Englewood Avenue, the presence of a loading dock in the street and about the removal of trees from the lot, Webster said.

As reported in a previous story in Allston-Brighton TAB, Argiros commissioned a traffic study that claimed that the proposed development would actually reduce traffic along Chestnut Hill Ave versus traffic to the current gas station. However, Webster criticized the study because it uses traffic standards that don?t represent the Shell location in Brighton.

?The parcel is located along the stretch of [Chestnut Hill Avenue] where traffic jams frequently form, and the narrow sidewalks are heavily used,? Webster wrote. ?Retail use, replacing the gas station use, would be appropriate ? but combining retail use with a 52-unit housing development on top, will be creating major conflict.?

In reaction to concerns about the lack of green space, the revised proposal also included green space in the development?s layout. As Webster pointed out, though, the proposed green space would be located on top of the first-floor retail location, in a space that would not be visible from the street.

The project is currently under review with the BRA, which is standard procedure for all projects in Boston, while the Authority determines the impact the project would have on the neighborhood.

?We?re going back and forth with both sides to determine if there can be a compromise,? BRA spokesperson Jessica Shumaker said, in response to questions about the project?s current status.

Shumaker said that the BRA has received a number of public comment letters in regards to the development, with 48 of those letters expressing opposition, while only nine were received in support.

After the review has ended, the proposal will go before the BRA board to determine whether or not the development will be accepted. The proposal would then go before the Boston Zoning Commission, which will vote on whether or not to allow the variances to the zoning code for the property.

?If the BRA ends up approving the project despite public opposition, leading to variances, we will help the affected abutters to file a lawsuit,? wrote Webster. ?The variances that this developer is seeking will not stand in the court of law ? because he can demonstrate no hardship that the zoning code requires for variances to be granted.?

In a letter to the BRA, Ciommo listed a number of the residential concerns, and proposed that a smaller project on the lot would be the best way to rectify to problems.

?Residents have expressed support for a project like the current proposal, but one that is more in line with zoning,? Ciommo wrote. ?The replacement of the current gas station and the addition of ground-floor retail space are desirable aspects of this proposal. I have heard from many residents, however, that the proposal in its current form is too dense.?


Public comments can still be made on the proposal by contacting Project Manager John Fitzgerald at the BRA. Comments can be e-mailed to him at John.Fitzgerald.bra@cityofboston.gov or mailed to John M. Fitzgerald, Project Manager, Boston Redevelopment Authority, One City Hall Square, Boston, MA 02201.
Click to expand...

Link

Similar story available here.

Initial story about the development.
 
One thing that I really don't understand is why the city doesn't update the zoning to reflect what they would actually allow to have built? Not doing so just gives residents fodder to oppose new development as being "too dense". I realize that in some cases, the city is able to negotiate more with developers to allow them to get variances, but it seems like it may be more trouble than it's worth when you have groups of residents with way too much time on their hands who seem to be obsessed with traffic and shadows.
 
?We don?t believe that developers should be marching on, making money on the backs of residents who bought their units with the promise of sunlight and views of parks,? Webster said at a Jan. 5 meeting of the ABRA.
Click to expand...

Sorry guy, you don't own the view. The developer has every right to build in front of your view if he owns the property.

In reaction to concerns about the lack of green space, the revised proposal also included green space in the development?s layout. As Webster pointed out, though, the proposed green space would be located on top of the first-floor retail location, in a space that would not be visible from the street.
Click to expand...

Dick move, but one that makes me smile.

So let me get this straight, people are flipping out because they want to build a building that is basically the same height as the one next to it? And they want more "green space"... across the street from the Chestnut Hill Res.?

*shakes head*
 
cden4 said:
One thing that I really don't understand is why the city doesn't update the zoning to reflect what they would actually allow to have built? Not doing so just gives residents fodder to oppose new development as being "too dense". I realize that in some cases, the city is able to negotiate more with developers to allow them to get variances, but it seems like it may be more trouble than it's worth when you have groups of residents with way too much time on their hands who seem to be obsessed with traffic and shadows.
Click to expand...

This is how the city gets stuff it doesn't want to have to pay for. You want to build a taller building? We want a park! Win-Win. Except it totally doesn't work out in the end.
 
regarding the green space, i couldn't agree more with vans. let me add that 103 parking spaces for 58 units and 14,000 SF of retail is beyond excessive considering the site is within walking distance to three trolley lines. three!
 
It always amuses me that the concerned residents always ask for more parking for new development but at the same time express their concern about additional traffic. Somehow it never occurs to them that providing more parking = more cars in the neighborhood. Ugh...
 
It's simply people being really really selfish. I am by no means a supporter of the Ayn Rand thing but sometimes these people make me consider her.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I am by no means a supporter of the Ayn Rand thing but sometimes these people make me consider her.
Click to expand...

You're too smart not to consider Ayn Rand. Without our ability to reason, we're meat puppets. And is there any greater virtue than a benign sense of purpose?
 
Beton Brut said:
You're too smart not to consider Ayn Rand. Without our ability to reason, we're meat puppets. And is there any greater virtue than a benign sense of purpose?
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant, I meant her contempt for everyone who tries to to pick apart her deified capitalist. Having a purpose is a greater virtue than feeding off those who don't but vilifying those who don't have the means to help themselves or those why fight against oppression by her hero is disingenuous.

In her world there are polar opposites but I see it more as a matrix of Those Who Can w/ the means, Those Who Can w/o the means, Those Who Cannot w/ the means, and Those Who Cannot w/o the means.

Those Who Can w/ the means: do.
Those Who Can w/o the means: abide.
Those Who Cannot w/ the means: fight.
Those Who Cannot w/o the means: complain.

NIMBYs usually fall into the last category, unless they have money, in which case they have the means.

I realize that I am generalizing quite a bit here but my point still stands that feeling entitled is different than feeling persecuted. If they were proposing a dump on this land then the neighbors would have every right to complain, but they are proposing a building of equal height to the one next to it and density that is supported by the transportation in the area. In my mind they are feeling entitled to something they have no right to and should shut the hell up.
 
I figured my drive-by defense of Ayn Rand would put a crimp in someone's hose. To be fair, I was listening to The Clash when I read this post on the T last night. Joe Strummer's taught me a lot more about the human condition than Ayn Rand ever did...

vanshnookenraggen said:
NIMBYs usually fall into the last category, unless they have money, in which case they have the means.
Click to expand...

Sounds like our pal Ned.

vanshnookenraggen said:
In my mind they are feeling entitled to something they have no right to and should shut the hell up.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Developer wants apartments on Greylock Road
By Julia Bird, Correspondent
Thu Jul 23, 2009, 09:10 AM EDT

Allston-Brighton - The Allston Civic Association met Monday night and assessed the level of community support for a variety of issues, ranging from a housing development on Greylock Road to live entertainment at the Joshua Tree bar.
The hottest issue of the night was a proposed housing development at Greylock Road and Glenville Avenue. Developer Dmitry Baskin and architect Kevin Deabler of RODE Architects presented their plans for the new development.
The pre-existing homes at 17, 19R, 21 and 23 Greylock Road would be torn down. Those are currently a collection of five-bedroom family houses that are mostly rented out to students. Baskin has owned the property for two years.
?We feel there will be a better response from the community to get rid of five-bedroom groups of students, and replace them with smaller one-bedroom units,? said Baskin.
Deabler explained that the new structure would have 36 bedrooms made up of 18 two-bedroom and two one-bedroom apartments. There would be an underground parking structure with 21 spaces. It would be 38 feet in height, and 2 1/2 stories high.
?Smaller units are key,? said Baskin.
The architects would try to replicate the feel of the neighborhood with architectural features already highlighted in the area. The examples given were a mansard roof and panelized concrete.
?We are trying to do a balancing act with the monumental brick facades of Commonwealth Avenue with the more residential feel of Greylock,? said Deabler.
Baskin pointed out that the new demographic for the development would be young professionals and people starting up families. The current demographic for the area is made up of mostly young students.
Baskin said that private investors and banks were interested in the development.
?We have the financing to get us to the point where we would talk to the banks and private investors,? said Baskin.
There was a lot of apprehension and questions from neighbors. Concerns were voiced as to what would happen to artists? community there, the availability of financing, the quality of the management, zoning laws and the size of the development.
The next meeting is Thursday, July 30, at 6 p.m. at Jackson Mann.
In other issues, the ACA gave its support for the Common Ground?s request for a higher seating capacity. Approval was also given to Joshua Tree?s request for live music on Wednesdays and Sundays and for Allston Billiards to serve food.
The ACA requested more information about replacing a billboard by Sports Depot with a new electric sign.
Click to expand...

http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston/news/x540126783/Developer-wants-apartments-on-Greylock-Road

http://www.bostonredevelopmentautho...rojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=1412


Couldn't find a rendering, but here is the streetview for the location.

greylock1.jpg

75341853.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top