Condo Development | 33-61 Temple Street | Beacon Hill

D

dirtywater

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
677
Reaction score
333
A letter of intent was filed before the end of the year for a new residential project on two Suffolk University properties on Beacon Hill. From Globe Street:

The project in Beacon Hill by JDMD Owner, LLC if approved would redevelop properties at 33-61 Temple St. Sean T. O’Donovan, an attorney representing JDMD Owner, states in the Letter of Intent to the BRA that the project would redevelop two buildings currently being used by Suffolk University into residential space. JDMD Owner is managed by Rafferty, Matthew Snyder and David Ridini. The team also includes The Architectural Team and EBI Consulting.

As detailed in its letter, the firm would redevelop the existing six-story building at 61 Temple St. known as the Gleason L. & Hiram J. Archer Building and the existing building at 33-51 Temple St., known as the Franklin J. Donahue Building, into a 75-unit residential condominium development. Currently, both buildings are being used for classroom and administrative functions by Suffolk University.

O’Donovan tells the BRA in its letter that it intends to file an Expanded Project Notification Form “providing significant additional details and plans for the proposed project within approximately 90 days…”
Click to expand...
 
Re: 33-61 Temple Street

Interesting. I walk up/down Temple Street quite a bit. Temple Street Park is one of my favorite places to have lunch in the summer when schools out as it's almost always shaded and quiet. Converting these buildings (which are, by far, the worst buildings on the street) to condos is definitely going to make the street a quieter place in general. The school generates most of the activity there.

also, isn't there theater/auditorium space in one of those buildings? If so, what's going to happen to it? Is it worth saving?
 
Including these two buildings, this would make 4 buildings that Suffolk has sold off. Can we assume that they're relocating all the uses of these buildings to their newly built classroom/academic building? Do they own any additional buildings on Temple Place or Cambridge Street?
 
Those buildings are so "institutional" and ugly. It would be better to demolish them and build new contextual residential buildings. Or by "redevelop" do they mean to tear them down and rebuild?
 
Re: 33-61 Temple Street

Lrfox said:
Interesting. I walk up/down Temple Street quite a bit. Temple Street Park is one of my favorite places to have lunch in the summer when schools out as it's almost always shaded and quiet. Converting these buildings (which are, by far, the worst buildings on the street) to condos is definitely going to make the street a quieter place in general. The school generates most of the activity there.

also, isn't there theater/auditorium space in one of those buildings? If so, what's going to happen to it? Is it worth saving?
Click to expand...

I had no idea that Temple Street Park existed! Looks like an amazing pocket park! Will definitely check it out this spring.

This is the perfect locale for some housing.
 
Very nice infill. More like this please.
 
Inoffensive ...and invisible when complete. Still expensive though.

cca
 
"2-6 bedrooms"

Too bad the vast majority of residential developments don't offer that kind of range. It's mostly 1-2 bedrooms, which don't accommodate families for the long haul.
 
RandomWalk said:
"2-6 bedrooms"

Too bad the vast majority of residential developments don't offer that kind of range. It's mostly 1-2 bedrooms, which don't accommodate families for the long haul.
Click to expand...

I grew up, with my family, on the second floor of a triple-decker in Somerville. I now live in a large Somerville two-family with a whole bunch of Millennial housemates. One of my brothers lives in another Somerville triple-decker, also with a bunch of Millennial roommates. My empty-nester parents live in a fairly large multiple bedroom family house in the near-suburbs (my family moved there from the Somerville triple-decker during my mid-childhood for the better schools), and they have more bedrooms than people.

If we build enough 1-2 bedrooms to meet the huge demand created by young professionals and retiring baby boomers, this will free up our traditional housing stock for families. I, my brother, and my parents would all prefer to live in smaller units than where we live now, but the short supply of these types of units is one of the main factors preventing that. As a result, we're all taking up larger, more family-oriented units than is optimal. This applies to my brother and me more than my parents--realistically, they're pretty attached to their house and probably wouldn't move even though they say they'd like to--but plenty of their peers are itching to downsize and finding few options.
 
JumboBuc said:
I grew up, with my family, on the second floor of a triple-decker in Somerville. I now live in a large Somerville two-family with a whole bunch of Millennial housemates. One of my brothers lives in another Somerville triple-decker, also with a bunch of Millennial roommates. My empty-nester parents live in a fairly large multiple bedroom family house in the near-suburbs (my family moved there from the Somerville triple-decker during my mid-childhood for the better schools), and they have more bedrooms than people.

If we build enough 1-2 bedrooms to meet the huge demand created by young professionals and retiring baby boomers, this will free up our traditional housing stock for families. I, my brother, and my parents would all prefer to live in smaller units than where we live now, but the short supply of these types of units is one of the main factors preventing that. As a result, we're all taking up larger, more family-oriented units than is optimal. This applies to my brother and me more than my parents--realistically, they're pretty attached to their house and probably wouldn't move even though they say they'd like to--but plenty of their peers are itching to downsize and finding few options.
Click to expand...

I feel this too, but a big part of Millennial apartment sharing isn't only the dearth of 1-2 br units. It's also defraying the costs. Lots of these Millennials shacking up with 2-4 roommates in a multi-br unit wouldn't be able to afford a 1bed on their own, or even a 2bed with one roommate.

Granted if enough of these units are built prices on 1/2beds could decrease, but a lot of Millennials living with multiple roommates want to live near the city, but can only afford it in an arrangement that significantly defrays costs.
 
JumboBuc said:
I grew up, with my family, on the second floor of a triple-decker in Somerville. I now live in a large Somerville two-family with a whole bunch of Millennial housemates. One of my brothers lives in another Somerville triple-decker, also with a bunch of Millennial roommates. My empty-nester parents live in a fairly large multiple bedroom family house in the near-suburbs (my family moved there from the Somerville triple-decker during my mid-childhood for the better schools), and they have more bedrooms than people.

If we build enough 1-2 bedrooms to meet the huge demand created by young professionals and retiring baby boomers, this will free up our traditional housing stock for families. I, my brother, and my parents would all prefer to live in smaller units than where we live now, but the short supply of these types of units is one of the main factors preventing that. As a result, we're all taking up larger, more family-oriented units than is optimal. This applies to my brother and me more than my parents--realistically, they're pretty attached to their house and probably wouldn't move even though they say they'd like to--but plenty of their peers are itching to downsize and finding few options.
Click to expand...

All of this.

There is no shortage of family sized housing stock in the Boston area. I know I have seen graphics from some city report on how many 3+ bedroom homes there are in the city. The answer was: way, way more than there are families with multiple children.

The city studies this stuff and influences developers. It is no mistake that the vast majority of what is being built is 1-2 beds. Just because there are people screeching that not enough "family" housing is being built doesn't mean it is true.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
I feel this too, but a big part of Millennial apartment sharing isn't only the dearth of 1-2 br units. It's also defraying the costs. Lots of these Millennials shacking up with 2-4 roommates in a multi-br unit wouldn't be able to afford a 1bed on their own, or even a 2bed with one roommate.

Granted if enough of these units are built prices on 1/2beds could decrease, but a lot of Millennials living with multiple roommates want to live near the city, but can only afford it in an arrangement that significantly defrays costs.
Click to expand...

Right, but the costs are high because of the dearth of apartments. Some with small family sizes (both young and old) will always choose large units over small units, but more would choose small units if there were more of them to choose from.
 
TomOfBoston said:
Those buildings are so "institutional" and ugly. It would be better to demolish them and build new contextual residential buildings. Or by "redevelop" do they mean to tear them down and rebuild?
Click to expand...

Replying to an old post, but I just found this thread. They’ve gutted the interiors of both buildings to the structure, and also removed the exterior envelope of the newer/uglier one altogether. I tried to get a closer look inside the older one on the corner of Derne, and it looks like they’re removing structure related to the theatre space to accommodate the new residences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top