Ashmont development

KentXie

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
4,189
Reaction score
750
Destination: T showpiece: $100M Ashmont plan setBy Paul Restuccia
Sunday, July 2, 2006


Turning an urban no-man?s land into a vibrant destination is no easy task.

But after six years of planning, work is getting under way on a major T station rehabilitation and 116-unit residential complex that promises to turn the now-decrepit Ashmont Station area into a showpiece of the state?s push for transit-oriented development.

Almost $100 million is being invested in the project - a $44 million rehab of the station itself into a glass-canopied architectural landmark, a $50 million condo/apartment complex with 10,000 square feet of retail and a multimillion-dollar makeover of the adjacent Peabody Square intersection to make it more pedestrian-friendly.

The area is along Dorchester Avenue between the Ashmont Hill and Ashmont Adams neighborhoods, two areas with dozens of imposing Victorian homes built for wealthy 19th-century Bostonians that are now diverse neighborhoods of middle- and upper-middle class families and young professionals.

The yet unnamed residential project, developed by Boston?s Trinity Financial and set to break ground later this month, will have 116 units - 74 affordable rental units with rents between $900 and $1,100 and 42 one- and two-bedroom market-rate condos, which will start at around $300,000. The project, which will take two years to build, has received state tax credits of $2.5 million and $2 million in transit-oriented development funds and will be built on land leased from the T.

?Some people thought we were crazy to want to do this, but we think there?s a lot of people out there who want to live in the city and be right on the T,? says Vince Droser, project manager and vice president at Trinity, who also lives in the neighborhood.

The condos will get high-end treatments like granite and stainless-steel kitchens and hardwood floors with parking beneath the multistory building.

?The project will not only provide needed rental housing to people with moderate income, but the condos are geared toward buyers who want a sleek and modern place in the city but who can?t afford the South End,? says Larry Gettings of At Home Realty, the broker for the complex, whose design will feature brick, glass and metal panels.

?The retail space is being put along Dorchester Avenue and near the station exits to liven up the street,? says project architect Philip Renzi of The Architectural Team.

The T?s decision to lease the parking lot in front of the station for housing had wide community support as it has long been a magnet for trouble.

?The station as it is now has too many places to hide and it just invites people to hang around,? says Barbara Boylan, the T?s director of design. ?The new station will keep people moving - it?ll be modern, safe and secure with easy and accessible transfers from train to bus to trolley that will dramatically improve the quality of life here.?

The three-year Ashmont revamp is already under way and will create a brand-new Red Line station as well as an attached new looping stop for the Ashmont-Mattapan trolley, which just closed for extensive renovations along its entire route.

The 40-foot-high glass-canopiedAshmont station redesign promises to be an attractive gateway to the community with a north entrance right from Peabody Square.

?It?s going to be a focal point for the neighborhood and will make getting in and out of the station a lot easier and more organized,? says Patricia Intrieri, principal of station architect Cambridge Seven Associates, who says the station is used by 17,000 riders daily.

The retail area along this stretch of Dorchester Avenue has a pub, pizza shop, liquor store, a few convenience markets and a Dunkin? Donuts, but lacks more upscale shops and services catering to residents who have bought and rehabbed the historic houses on the adjacent hills.

The popularity of the upscale Ashmont Grill bistro that opened here last fall demonstrates there is a market here for more chef-owned restaurants, says Dan Larner, executive director of the St. Mark?s Area Main Streets. He says the community would like to see a cafe, bakery, upscale small grocer and even a bookstore here.

?The new retail space is an opportunity for shops to get in on the ground floor in an up-and-coming area,? Larner says.

The city is also doing its part, with plans to make the intersection of Dorchester Avenue, Talbot Avenue and Ashmont Streets more walkable and connected to the existing flower bed and clock in the center of Peabody Square.

?We?re going to make it easier to cross the square,? says Vineet Gupta, director of planning for the Boston Transportation Department. ?Reconfiguring the streets will improve traffic flow and create a plaza area with some green space. Along with the station revamp and the housing, it?s going to transform the look of the area.?

Peabody Square is named after prominent Boston banker Col. Oliver Peabody. Waylayed here during a 1879 blizzard, he was so impressed with the hospitality he received at then-small chapel that he provided funds to build a major church in Ashmont. Designed by architect Ralph Adams Cram, All Saints Ashmont revolutionized church design and brought Cram worldwide fame. Peabody later built a distinctive apartment building in the square that still stands.

To give the square more of an identity, the community is considering asking the T to call the revamped station Ashmont/Peabody Square.

?The idea is to create a destination place where people will come out here to eat and do other activities - not just pass through as they do now,? adds Gettings, who is also president of the Ashmont Hill Neighborhood Association and a local homeowner. ?We think this area could eventually become the next Davis Square.?
 
For funding reasons, the initial phasing plans for the station construction called for constructing the station without the roof over the tracks (just over the headhouses), with money for the roof to be appropriated later. Does anybody know if this is still the plan or if the T reverted to sanity and is constructing a wholly covered station?

justin
 
DarkFenX said:
The condos will get high-end treatments like granite and stainless-steel kitchens and hardwood floors with parking beneath the multistory building.
How much does this add to the cost of construction? Mainly the kitchens & floors, since underground parking seems pretty standard with these places. I get this sense that all construction in town includes expensive luxury features, and then we complain about how expensive housing is here. I for one would prefer having more modest features and a lower price tag, and this project targets people "who can?t afford the South End" so shouldn't they be tryng to keep their costs down?
 
If one has land to develop, its going to be built out to make the most money. The supply to demand ratio is so skewed right now thanks to our lovely NIMBYs and slow approval process that everything that can be built winds up being most profitable as high end luxury housing. Now if the supply was increased such that the demand was met for luxury housing and developing it was no longer a guaranteed maximum profit against the risk. Developers would switch to the next high demand market such as middle class housing where the maximum profit would be guaranteed against the risk. Banks aren't going to loan money to developers who don't seek to most efficiently build out property in terms of profit. If a bank sees that you want to take a valuable lot of land and develop it to simply break even, it doesn't meet their desire to make money as a business.
That's why only mega development corporations, who have good credit and money to begin with, are able to build "affordable housing" as more of a public relations move rather than an intelligent decision on the most efficient economically determined use of land. Our current system is great at driving away small developers right now and the so called McMansions in the burbs' are the result of zoning laws that prevent any other kind of profitable projects to be built besides large single family detached homes vs. multiplex condos, etc.
 
^ That makes sense. So, there are so many people in the market for high-end housing that some are squeezed out of the South End, and this is who the Ashmont development is catering to. Without the luxury features, they wouldn't consider moving in, and even though the features drive up construction costs, they drive up profits even more. It puts into perspective how many rich people we have here, and how long it's going to be before middle class housing gets built. For the record, I'm all for rich people in the city instead of out in the burbs. Yes there are side effects, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

Lurker said:
That's why only mega development corporations, who have good credit and money to begin with, are able to build "affordable housing"
Well, Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services, a small non-profit community group, is building affordable housing at Parcel 25, funded by profits from the office building it's also putting up on the site. But this is a rare exception.
 
Looking at the number of luxury developments that recently were approved, I believe within the next year or two we will see many more developments for the middle class popping up as the luxury market's demand will pretty much have been fulfilled.
 
The cities are banking on older properties to "downcycle" into an affordable window, the developers and their financiers could care less. That is exactly what is happening here in Austin, but everything close to downtown isn't moving down the money ladder, it is going up since the big downtown projects are just starting. So "affordability" is being pushed further outside the city and nowhere near public transportation.

My wife works for a non-profit that works for accessible and affordable housing. It is getting more difficult here but not at all like it would be up there up there since the market upswing is just starting here and not as established. I just know that looking for a place to live up there is an eye opener.
 
New "affordable housing" is an oxymoron and always has been, absent massive subsidies ... for the same reason that there is no such thing as an "affordable" new car. The reality is that the cost of the wood floors and granite countertops is tiddlywinks compared to the total cost of any new project. To find what is "affordable," you need to look for what was built some time ago, properties that are more than serviceable but a bit tatty around the edges, just as you'd look for a '98 Taurus or Camry rather than a new car if you were looking for affordable wheels.

For several generations, "affordability" in Boston was defined by triple-deckers in Dorchester and Eastie, walk-ups in the South End and Charlestown, and Philly-style two families in Cambridge and Somerville. As these nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings have been gut rehabbed and essentially rebuilt into new condos, they predictably cease to be "affordable." Increasingly, what's "affordable" now is defined in terms of unrenovated mid-century housing stock that's a bit further from the center.

The expectation that there will be an abundance of "affordable" housing close to the center runs counter to experience throughout history ... and I'm thinking globally, all the way back to Roman times. "Affordable" housing in center city did exist in the latter half of the 20th Century in the USA (much less so in Europe and Asia except where heavily subsidized!) thanks to the automobile and the way that taxation schemes in the USA work, which helped to ensure that cash that fled to the 'burbs stayed there, where schools were better and crime was lower. But it seems fair to view this situation as a historical aberration. We're returning to the more normal state where prime location commands a premium, where property in the South End is "worth more" than property in Malden.

I don't mean to suggest that this is good or bad ... it just is. It follows, however, that the schemes to set aside a certain number of designated "affordable" units in new center city projects require large subsidies and inevitably don't create many units. From the standpoint of promoting "affordability," you'd like to see a huge overbuilding of "luxury apartments" to the point where prices drop a lot. But even then, it would be incorrect to presume that what is new would be what is affordable ... when/if the $600K Ashmont condo is slashed to $400K, the bargains will still be found in the unrenovated ranches and capes further out.
 
As long as we have zoning we won't have affordability. What I mean is that there were many types of affordable housing in cities (rooming houses, hotels, apartments, etc) up until zoning laws forced home builders to build a certain way. If you mandate that all new homes must have x,y,z then the cost of x,y,z makes the home less affordable. Another thing zoning did away with was mixed use, such as small apartments over shops. Sure we are bringing back retail on the ground level of new luxury apartment buildings but that is far from what I'm talking about. Look at how many one storey buildings that are small retail stores in Roxbury and Dorchester and think how many apartments you could build if you added a storey or two. Because they are above stores and restaurants they are less desirable and cheaper.

I'm not saying there were problems with the housing of the past, there were, but doing away with zoning would go along way to improve affordable housing in many cities.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
As long as we have zoning we won't have affordability. What I mean is that there were many types of affordable housing in cities (rooming houses, hotels, apartments, etc) up until zoning laws forced home builders to build a certain way. If you mandate that all new homes must have x,y,z then the cost of x,y,z makes the home less affordable. Another thing zoning did away with was mixed use, such as small apartments over shops. Sure we are bringing back retail on the ground level of new luxury apartment buildings but that is far from what I'm talking about. Look at how many one storey buildings that are small retail stores in Roxbury and Dorchester and think how many apartments you could build if you added a storey or two. Because they are above stores and restaurants they are less desirable and cheaper.

I'm not saying there were problems with the housing of the past, there were, but doing away with zoning would go along way to improve affordable housing in many cities.

I don't think the abolition of zoning would improve affordable housing at all.

Zoning wasn't the reason those buildings in Roxbury and Dorchester were initially built as single story buildings, nor does zoning necessarily prevent an addition being built on the top. I spent a couple of years on the Dorchester PZAC which rezoned all of Dorchester so I'm familiar with many of the issues. For example, there is a bowling alley on Adams Street in Dorchester that, if the developer carries through on his initial proposal, will have housing built on top of it. The single story buildings you see were often called tax-payers, structures built cheaply to provide a little income to pay the property tax on a speculative lot until a more profitable use or larger building could be found or built. For many of those properties today, the problem in adding more floors is the expense of trying to add elevators and other modern conveniences as well as the lack of parking.
 
^ Is that proposal for Lucky Strike bowling alley?

My favorite development of a single story commercial building into multiple is 309 Old Colony Ave. Its that restaurant between the Old Colony and Old Harbor Projects on the rotary and should serve as a visual gateway to the residential part of South Boston.
 
cityrecord said:
For many of those properties today, the problem in adding more floors is the expense of trying to add elevators and other modern conveniences as well as the lack of parking.

That's one place where modifying (not eliminating) the zoning law would help. There should be no parking requirements for any development within a half mile of a T station.
 
Ron Newman said:
cityrecord said:
For many of those properties today, the problem in adding more floors is the expense of trying to add elevators and other modern conveniences as well as the lack of parking.

That's one place where modifying (not eliminating) the zoning law would help. There should be no parking requirements for any development within a half mile of a T station.

Not everyone can get everywhere on the T. There is a need for parking, as much as you like to go on your anti-car crusades every 5 minutes.

Example: I'm planning on attending BU. I'm also planning to work through college. I cannot reasonably get to my job on the T (it would be like a 3+ hour trip each way, Green Line>Red Line>Orange Line>Bus through shady parts of Boston>long walk). Therefore, I need parking. This is just one example, and there are thousands of other examples of people in the city who need cars.
 
I'm not saying that developers should not be allowed to provide parking -- just that they should not be required to.
 
People who grow up in the suburbs cannot conceive of life without cars. This makes complete sense, since they cannot get anywhere worth getting to without one, and know no other reality.

Dude, I don't think Ron has anything against people for whom owning and using a car is a necessity for life. I think he just wishes that suburban development patterns had not created the current state of things, in which this necessity has been forced on people.

In the suburbs, you have no choice (with regard to car ownership). In the city, you do. That's the bottom line. A libertarian like you can certainly feel that sentiment. When you take into account that today's car culture is largely a result of maneuverings by oil, auto, and other corporations to manipulate the government into letting public transportation decay and into building more and more roads to more and more distant places, I wonder how a libertarian could not be downright heated.

Think about it - the more people who are born into the suburban lifestyle, the more profit for the auto and oil companies.

Cars = the illusion of freedom (to move around), the reality of slavery (to a wasteful, inefficient, corporate-dominated system).
 
Scott said:
^ Is that proposal for Lucky Strike bowling alley?

Yes, that's the one. There is also a parking lot/office building right next to the tracks in Fields Corner that is being looked at for residential development.
 
Ashmont.jpg
 
In 3 plus hours you can walk from BU to Weymouth, Dover or Saugus--where is Dude's job that it will take that long on the T? I might suggest buying a T pass and walking from Copley over to Back Bay Station if your destination is off of the southern portion of the Orange Line. That could save you about 20-30 minutes, bring your commute to a more reasonable 2.5 hours.
 
belmont square said:
In 3 plus hours you can walk from BU to Weymouth, Dover or Saugus--where is Dude's job that it will take that long on the T? I might suggest buying a T pass and walking from Copley over to Back Bay Station if your destination is off of the southern portion of the Orange Line. That could save you about 20-30 minutes, bring your commute to a more reasonable 2.5 hours.

You can not walk to weymouth in 3 hours. How many miles is that? I'd day 5-6 hours, maybe.
 
belmont square said:
In 3 plus hours you can walk from BU to Weymouth, Dover or Saugus--where is Dude's job that it will take that long on the T? I might suggest buying a T pass and walking from Copley over to Back Bay Station if your destination is off of the southern portion of the Orange Line. That could save you about 20-30 minutes, bring your commute to a more reasonable 2.5 hours.

It's on route 1 in Dedham, near 128.

You have to factor in walking to one station, waiting for the train, getting to another station, waiting for that train, going to another station, waiting for an infrequent bus, taking the bus to Dedham, and walking from there.

Sorry if I'm impatient, but that's not something that I would ever be remotely willing to do.
 

Back
Top