Bunker Hill Housing Redevelopment | Charlestown

cden4

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
179
This looks like a big project to redevelop very dated public housing into a large mixed income, mixed use community in Charlestown. Take a look at the DPIR. What do you think?
 

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,664
Reaction score
665
All and all I think this will be a vast improvement. Boston has been very proactive in replacing it's housing projects with better development and this looks no different.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
2,389
Mods, please merge? And note that the thread should be named "Bunker Hill Housing Redevelopment | 55 Bunker Hill Street | Charlestown".

 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
940
I opened the DPIR for the first time (link). The Phasing Plan for constructing this makes quite the slideshow... Figures 1.6a to 1.6w (begins on page 49). On-site construction from January 2021 through 2028. It's not exactly Assembly Row, but it's certainly of comparable magnitude. It sucks there will be a net loss of 90 affordable units (8% of current amount) when the development's complete... I imagine that'll make up the lion's share of comments.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
500
Reaction score
530
^Well that’s unacceptable. There should be a net increase in affordable units, especially since they’re doubling the total number of units.
 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
940
^Well that’s unacceptable. There should be a net increase in affordable units, especially since they’re doubling the total number of units.
In the DPIR section explaining Changes since the ENF/EPNF (1.4), the project removed 501 units from the original proposal (90 affordable, 401 market rate). Scaling back the heights from 22 to 10 stories on one building and scrapping the ownership units affected project cost feasibility.
 

617

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
970
Reaction score
90
They indicated that the other units would end up on another site in charlestown, possibly at BHCC.
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
500
Reaction score
530
In the DPIR section explaining Changes since the ENF/EPNF (1.4), the project removed 501 units from the original proposal (90 affordable, 401 market rate). Scaling back the heights from 22 to 10 stories on one building and scrapping the ownership units affected project cost feasibility.
Well that sounds like a change for the worse on all fronts!
 

curcuas

Active Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
497
Reaction score
280
Well that sounds like a change for the worse on all fronts!
You have Councilor Lydia Edwards and Charlestown NIMBYs to thank for that. This project has been around for 4+ years; it should've been approved in original form, 3 years ago (much as the tenants desired!). If that had happened, we'd have new housing, both affordable and market rate in Charlestown already and rents would be lower
 

#bancars

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
389

TomOfBoston

Active Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
991
Reaction score
138
Latest update: 250 trees will have to be removed. Plans call for full replacement, but off-site opponents are using this as a point of opposition anyway:

So these opponents would have the poor continue to live in decrepit 80 year old buildings to save the trees. Have any of them ever been there?
 

kjdonovan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
555
Reaction score
161
It's a straw man opposition. No one is marching in the streets to save these trees. That being said, down the road, Somerville has done a masterful job this past year of removing dying trees without public furor. They put up notes at the trunk that empathetically tell the history of the tree, how it is falling into poor health, and that well-wishers are encouraged to say goodbye. Kids and people of all ages write letters to the tree and leave them there. Then it is gone and nobody freaks out. It's silly to say, but it has been one of the more humane approaches to urbane reality I've seen in recent years. If this developer did something similar, it would curb the caterwauling.
 

fatnoah

Active Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
101
Reaction score
67
So these opponents would have the poor continue to live in decrepit 80 year old buildings to save the trees?
I can't believe you're even asking this. Ask any low-income family whether they'd rather have a place to live or the health benefits of a nearby tree, and you'll get the obvious answer of "tree". Clearly that's more beneficial than a semi-modern place with working climate control systems. /s


Totally unrelated, but my son played in the Charlestown Lacrosse League (great program, BTW) and our home field was the athletic field adjacent to the complex. It was hilarious when teams from the burbs, like Weston, showed up to play. Home field advantage started before the game when they had to find parking.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
753
So these opponents would have the poor continue to live in decrepit 80 year old buildings to save the trees. Have any of them ever been there?
My understanding is that this is largely a last gasp effort by the NIMBYs who oppose the project on all levels.

FWIW these are the same NIMBYs who insisted that the height of the project be reduced, forcing the ground footprint be increased to accommodate the required number of units to make this work financially. Increased ground footprint means cut down more trees. Want to save the trees? Go back to a higher-rise design. :rolleyes:
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,636
Reaction score
724
So these opponents would have the poor continue to live in decrepit 80 year old buildings to save the trees. Have any of them ever been there?
They claim that's not what they are doing, but it sure looks that way to me. You cannot build the new, well designed, clean, healthy, and by the way, ecologically more sound development without removing the trees, many of them as diseased as the buildings. If the tree NIMBYs were to explain how the project could proceed without tree removal, I'd be interested in seeing the proposal, but they are only complaining.

Totally unrelated, but my son played in the Charlestown Lacrosse League (great program, BTW) and our home field was the athletic field adjacent to the complex. It was hilarious when teams from the burbs, like Weston, showed up to play. Home field advantage started before the game when they had to find parking.
Hah hah, my daughter played in a softball league like that, where hers was the only team from Boston and the rest were from W suburbs. I always got a kick out of the parking issue.
 

Top