Gillette/P&G Redevelopment | South Boston

An interesting anecdote to the folks that have called for housing. Many folks who called for more housing in the master plan wanted to go from 30% up to a 33% threshold. They appeared to be referencing some survey/study/something that was advising that 33% threshold.

A chuckle I gave myself is when I chatted with a non-profit member after the meeting and mentioned how I wanted to go taller and even hinted at 50% housing and she mentioned I would not be making friends in that room with that approach.

While a foot bridge would be "nice" it seems more like a throw-in to see how much the neighborhood could get. I would also ask "where to"? The two logical options to me would be below, but both run square into Post Office or ventilation building. Do advocates believe that the Post Office will realistically be gone in 10/15 years? If not, doesn't seem to make sense to spend the presumed $50 to $100 million for the foot bridge. Dealing with the ACoE may prove to make the request a folly.
1754502179897.png
 
Justbuildit said:
There's got to be a point where the only thing that pencils in today's Boston is new housing. Lab space would be insane and while Class A offices are doing OK there's a ton of softness in the market. Interest rates are going to dampen any new construction but the demand for housing is super high still. New construction apartments and a range of condos could do OK. It could even be politically wise to dangle some incentives for developers by reducing inclusionary zoning thresholds if they pledge to get their plans together quickly.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hold your breath. A slow commercial market isn't enough for housing economics to overachieve commercial alternatives. Highrise residential product in Boston is uniquely (potentially) possible in mixed-use developments because the commercial product can help subsidize it. Its hard to find land that costs $0, but when costs to build one residential unit are $1 million, approximately zero is what you can pay for land.
 
CBCArch61 said:
A chuckle I gave myself is when I chatted with a non-profit member after the meeting and mentioned how I wanted to go taller and even hinted at 50% housing and she mentioned I would not be making friends in that room with that approach.
Click to expand...

One interpretation is that the objections are not always on the merits, and that "more housing" is not an acceptable solution if it means height is over an arbitrary limit. And even if the height issue is addressed the four horsemen of parking/character/affordability/amenities are always right there. Oh well.

Rosarino said:
I wouldn't hold your breath. A slow commercial market isn't enough for housing economics to overachieve commercial alternatives. Highrise residential product in Boston is uniquely (potentially) possible in mixed-use developments because the commercial product can help subsidize it. Its hard to find land that costs $0, but when costs to build one residential unit are $1 million, approximately zero is what you can pay for land.
Click to expand...

Totally correct that it's a challenge, so we'll probably see what we've seen with a bunch of approved projects, which is...nothing happens. All the more reason for the city to incentivize project starts as much as possible.
 
Justbuildit said:
One interpretation is that the objections are not always on the merits, and that "more housing" is not an acceptable solution if it means height is over an arbitrary limit. And even if the height issue is addressed the four horsemen of parking/character/affordability/amenities are always right there. Oh well.



Totally correct that it's a challenge, so we'll probably see what we've seen with a bunch of approved projects, which is...nothing happens. All the more reason for the city to incentivize project starts as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're spot on - nothing happens.
Meanwhile our elected officials will add these 'approved housing units' to their 'Expanded Future Housing Pipeline' talking points and progress we will all have made.
 
I am by no means saying don't take the swing, it would never happen if not asked for. I would just hope that it isn't a hill the neighborhood is wanting to die on. If the ask is being made, I am just asking for the rational arguement for it. Knowing that P&G is most likely doing the horizontal improvements and then parceling out the vertical construction having that arguement to back up why you are asking for that footbridge will be important.

One of the reasons I was told they weren't going tall closer to the channel was primarily because of not having a Municipal Harbor Plan and having no plan to pursue one. I wonder if not having an MHP would also hamper a footbridge across the channel.
 
I wish they would go another 100 fr higher with these. The convention center and seas of parking lots it’s behind them, what is there to block? And a footbridge connection to cut down the walk to South Station and revitalize the other size of the canal is a must IMO.
 
Read the public comments and you'll see that every residential group from the artists on A street to the old timers in Southie want nothing to do with this project. The neighborhood groups had pre-filled commentary mailers that used scary language about big looming high rises ruining the nature of the neighborhood (a closing razor factory...) and many of the comments were very hostile to the development.

Since this is going to go into a master plan there's more community input than usual, and at the margin local pols will listen and act for their constituents if it gets loud enough. I bet this becomes a massive slog with several years before the master plan/rezoning is finalized, and years beyond that before anything breaks ground. Too bad because it's a great waterfront spot that will do a lot to connect two parts of the city!
 
Justbuildit said:
Read the public comments and you'll see that every residential group from the artists on A street to the old timers in Southie want nothing to do with this project. The neighborhood groups had pre-filled commentary mailers that used scary language about big looming high rises ruining the nature of the neighborhood (a closing razor factory...) and many of the comments were very hostile to the development.

Since this is going to go into a master plan there's more community input than usual, and at the margin local pols will listen and act for their constituents if it gets loud enough. I bet this becomes a massive slog with several years before the master plan/rezoning is finalized, and years beyond that before anything breaks ground. Too bad because it's a great waterfront spot that will do a lot to connect two parts of the city!
Click to expand...
We live in hell…

Can someone remind these people that WE LIVE IN A CITY!
 
I'll give them the fact that there should be more housing (and I've written widely to the developers and various politicians to that point) but that's not the reason they oppose the zoning changes, it's an excuse. I've followed enough projects across the city and around the channel to know that everyone hates everything new that's near them, and if the city is serious about making changes, then they can listen to their constituents, but shouldn't grind every program to a halt at every signal of opposition.

Anyways, it's great Gillette is moving on and that the space will be redeveloped but my money is that not a single actual building breaks ground before 2033 (roads and infrastructure improvements don't count).
 
Justbuildit said:
I'll give them the fact that there should be more housing (and I've written widely to the developers and various politicians to that point) but that's not the reason they oppose the zoning changes, it's an excuse. I've followed enough projects across the city and around the channel to know that everyone hates everything new that's near them, and if the city is serious about making changes, then they can listen to their constituents, but shouldn't grind every program to a halt at every signal of opposition.

Anyways, it's great Gillette is moving on and that the space will be redeveloped but my money is that not a single actual building breaks ground before 2033 (roads and infrastructure improvements don't count).
Click to expand...
If it’s in South Boston there 100% chance they hate it because they’re worried about their parking. Every time
 
I'm going to get in trouble if I say too much more, but it has been odd to see car-brained Southie residents and the virtuous Fort Point artists come together to hate on the remediation of an old industrial site that adds resiliency to the channel, create new services, and objectively will have way too much parking. On one hand "where will I park", and on the other "with that many garage spaces traffic will be unbearable". Sprinkle some bike lane hatred and this very quickly becomes a boondoggle that doesn't move forward and...nothing happens. I've heard residents complain that the parking lots are good places to walk their dogs and even with the new green parks there may not be enough dog space and therefore they're opposed to the development. We deserve everything we (don't) get.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
If it’s in South Boston there 100% chance they hate it because they’re worried about their parking. Every time
Click to expand...
Thought just occurred to me- if developers offered free parking in their garages to nearby residents, all of these people would immediately shut up and approve these projects. Obviously it would be at a cost, but seems worth it to get built what they want
 
Planning Dept and APCC (where under their jurisdiction) would not allow it even developers could afford to build parking and not get revenue from that parking.
 
Though I am loathe to tout Quincy as a model, they have done this with their underutilized municipal garages in Quincy Center. I suspect it was even part of the intended purpose when building them.
 
KCasiglio said:
Though I am loathe to tout Quincy as a model, they have done this with their underutilized municipal garages in Quincy Center. I suspect it was even part of the intended purpose when building them.
Click to expand...

The problem is that we are not building any new highways or widening existing roads. So we can build as much parking as we want - City-owned lots or private ones - but you’re going to hit a capacity problem. The existing road/highway infrastructure was not built for all these cars. The only way to grow ourselves out of the problem is to really move trips from cars to alternatives (public transit, walking/biking, etc.).
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Thought just occurred to me- if developers offered free parking in their garages to nearby residents, all of these people would immediately shut up and approve these projects. Obviously it would be at a cost, but seems worth it to get built what they want
Click to expand...
I'll let you in on a little secret -- it has never been about parking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top