Harvard - Allston Campus

Harry Mattison said:
Hi Stellarfun,

Too much density just means too much density. Our neighborhood has 30 people per acre. Charlesview proposes 150 people per acre. The amount of parkland proposed (<1 acre) is insufficient for 1000 people (on average the City has 7 acres of parkland for every 1000 residents). Putting 4-6 story buildings across the street from 2-3 story buildings is not integration with the existing neighborhood. There is a lot of under-utilized land around here and if more of it was used a better result might be possible. With better public transportation it would be a lot easier to feel that much higher density could work.

No more rentals just means no more rentals. We already have one of the lowest homeownership ratios in Greater Boston and high turnover in our population. New development can help stabilize and improve the community if it maximizes opportunities for homeownership.

As you noted, the proposal is for the majority of this development to be subsidized low-income housing. The community is not trying to get rid of subsidized housing. A true mix of low-income, median income, and market rate housing is what is being built all over the country and yields the best outcomes for everyone.

Briv - why waste your life spewing such negativity? What do you think you are accomplishing.
Click to expand...

I suspect a reason why there is no Allston countersuggestion is that there is no community agreement on what that should propose. From what I read,
> the community prefers there be no housing on the north side of Western Ave, for reasons such as obstructed views, etc.
> the community prefers the new housing to be near Western Ave, and not deeper into Allston

For example, I suspect that if Harvard offered to add this land it owns on Holton St, and use that to lessen the density of the lower-income housing, there would be objection to that as well, because it would push some of the lower income housing deeper into Allston.


SNAG-01749.jpg

SNAG-01750.jpg


> the community wants more open space, which you could get by increasing the building(s) height and shrinking the building footprint, but greater height is a no no.

I don't particularly empathize with the open space claim. Several hundred yards from both the new and old Charlesview there is a 631,000 sq ft. city park for sports and recreation.

Re: the density, I do find it a bit amusing that in Brighton, the neighbors are calling on BC to increase density (on campus) and in Allston, the neighbors claim they want less, more dispersed density.

Ultimately it comes down to how hard is the Mayor going to push for more units of affordable housing to be built in Allston as part of his Boston-wide initiative, and how much in the way of condo sales does the non-profit developer need to help underwrite the cost and long-term upkeep of the lower income rental housing (I assume thats why the non-profits are building and selling condos as part of this development).
 
A few years ago there was a real effort to reach a consensus with Harvard, the community, and the BRA to resolve issues like where new housing should be built in North Allston and North Brighton. The result was the North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning. It made a lot of good suggestions but really did not go far enough into detail to figure out the best places for the 2000+ new units of housing it proposed.

The "framework" admitted that more work was needed and proposed, among other things, a "Holton St Corridor Special Study" to consider the future of the Brighton Mills shopping center and the land shown in the photos that stellarfun posted above.

For at least 2 years many people have been stressing the importance of this study and the BRA has told us over and over it will start "soon" without actually ever starting it. It is true there is not total community agreement or professional-quality counterproposals for how to redevelop all this semi-empty land. We have spent the last two years talking about ad-hoc development of Harvard projects and Harvard and the BRA have insisted that there be no consideration for other issues like how and where new housing could be built across the neighborhood. That may be changing - last week Kairos Shen announced that the BRA would soon start a serious and comprehensive planning process to shape the future of the community.

I think a lot of people here support new housing on the north side of Western Ave. It is hard to understand how much those 20 acres should be built-out (5 stories, 10 stories?) without understanding how transportation, open space, and other improvements will me made to support that influx of new activity.

Having some low-income housing in the "core" of the neighborhood could be a good thing if it were part of a mixed-income development. I agree with my neighbors that a big block of segregated low income housing in the middle of the existing community is not the answer.

What mixed-income housing developments in Boston or elsewhere do people on this forum really like? How do they compare to what Charlesview is proposing?
 
Since we seem to have Mr. Mattison's ear, if he has the time, I would love to hear how he views "the big picture" in Boston? How does he think we should address the cities housing crunch? How does he think we should address job creation? How does he view Boston's economy? How does he picture Boston in the future?
 
Methinks "the community" (was there even one before people in this area began to gang up on Harvard?) overstates its own importance and necessity. Harvard wants to build a new campus of potentially national and/or global significance. To design it with so many concerns of "the community" in mind is to sap it of this power by freighting it with a mandate to cater to the provincial.

A development such as this demands the balancing of many diverse interests. There is Harvard's interest, the neighborhood's interest, the city's interest, the region's interest, even the nation's interest. The first and latter three all support giving Harvard free reign to shape this campus as it pleases. In a world where China can bulldoze entire neighborhoods willy-nilly overnight to build whatever gradiose asset it chooses, favoring a group of loosely-affiliated property-abutters over the need for one of the country's most important universities to expand is a severe competitive disadvantage. And to what end? Democracy? Hardly - the neighborhood's voice is not the only relevant one when it comes to a project of such scale and significance. Why do the rights of people who live in the vicinity of these projects always trump the need of the rest of the city and state for jobs, tax revenue, and other benefits that would accrue?
 
What was that housing development that was partially financed by the Archdiocese of Boston in the South End? It was a great example of subsidized housing that was well built and attractive.
 
cszs - Your cheap shot about the Allston/Brighton community isn't really helpful. Could you give us some example of how you think we are trying to "trump the need of the rest of the city and state"? When we talk about planning for sufficient transportation, a vibrant public realm, and alternatives to Harvard's property mothballing, I don't see what this has to do with the narrow self-interest that you impose upon us.

vanshnookenraggen - Are you thinking about Rollins Square? Thanks for mentioning it

underground - those are some pretty big questions. I think I can offer more insight into Allston and Brighton than what might be happening in Roxbury, Dorchester, or the Fenway. If there is anything in particular you have in mind?
 
^^ czsz's and underground's questions are related.
What happens in Allston/Brighton affects the rest of the city. The community is not a city/state unto itself. As much as it may want to be.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
What was that housing development that was partially financed by the Archdiocese of Boston in the South End? It was a great example of subsidized housing that was well built and attractive.
Click to expand...

It's Rollins Square. That is probably the best example I've seen to date.

I also think the Metropolitan in Chinatown turned out rater well for being more that 50% affordable.
 
>> It is 'blessed' (pun) with the density and height being objected to by the Allston neighbors

Do any of you agree that "appropriate density" is somewhat relative? A level of density that might work well in the South End, Roslindale, Allston, Somerville, and Belmont is not necessarily the same.

It looks like the height and density of Rollins Sq is very similar to those attributes of the older buildings around it. That is absolutely not the case with the Charlesview proposal. I'm not suggesting that everything new in Allston and Brighton must exactly match what is already here, but I do think we should think about how these pieces will fit together.

Charlesview will be the first major project directly abutting the neighborhood. It is likely to set precedents. We'd like to set these precedents properly so with millions of square feet of new development we are also creating transportation and open space and other systems so it will all work well together. Is some part of that unreasonable? Isn't that what architects and planners believe should be done?
 
I think part of the problem we're seeing is that people are being painted as being either totally opposed or totally in favor of the current proposal. Part of this may come from people not giving enough vocal support for the good parts of the project in addition to any constructive criticism, and part of it probably comes from the media reporting only the juicy bits.

I think the neighbors and community members definitely have some valid points and concerns:
- Is the height appropriate given the buildings surrounding the development, the current zoning, and the master plan developed just a few years ago?
- Can more and better open space be included, particularly for use of families?
- Should there be more 2-3 bedroom units for families and fewer 1-bedroom units?
- Should the subsidized and market rate units be better mixed within the development?
- Should there be more retail spaces?

These are all good question. What has happened over time though, is that what people read from the outside is "Neighbors oppose Science Complex", "Community rejects Charlesview Redevelopment", etc.

In reality, I think most people agree that a new Charlesview will be better for the residents of the current Charlesview, better for the neighborhood, and will provide new housing opportunities for those looking to move into the neighborhood. The question is how can the community best address their concerns without appearing like nay-sayers. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to this.
 
NIMBYs, NIMBYs, all trying to prevent the city from growing, and part of it is higher density. Boston's population will continue to stagnate if we don't allow more construction and height, and I don't think a 10 story building should be opposed anywhere in the CITY. It's the city, for god's sake, and for the excuse about parkland, they actually provide parkland, unlike most projects, plus there's a gigantic park nearby anyways.
 
Harry Mattison said:
underground - those are some pretty big questions. I think I can offer more insight into Allston and Brighton than what might be happening in Roxbury, Dorchester, or the Fenway. If there is anything in particular you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of what I was getting at, in terms of how do you see this project fitting into the grand scheme of things in all Boston neigborhoods? How do you see this project addressing the city's lack of housing? How do you see this project addressing the city's slow rate of job creation? Do you even see housing and job creation as a problem in Boston? I'm being open ended because I'd like to hear you really go at it. Usually, in terms of projects we just get a "I don't like it" or something to that effect, but I'd be interested to hear more from you.
 
I don't think a 10 story building should be opposed anywhere in the CITY
Click to expand...

I agree that more height is needed and should be encouraged throughout the city. However, if the city is going to allow 10 stories, it should update the zoning to reflect this. What's the point of zoning and master plans if the city is just planning to ignore them? It just sets itself up to opposition by saying one thing and doing another.
 
I don't have any strong opinion about Allston at all, but there are plenty of places in Boston where I would not want to see 10-story buildings: the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay (north of Boylston St), Bay Village, South End, and the residential blocks of the Fenway.
 
underground,

Of course Boston needs more housing so the supply-demand balance allows more people to find affordable housing here and Boston gets the many benefits to having a growing population and workforce in the City. I don't have a quick answer to say how many of those units should be built in Allston, Brighton, or any other part of Boston. As I said, the City published a plan with a 20 year goal to create 2,500 new housing units in North Allston and North Brighton. That could be great and I welcome the next stage of planning to figure out where they would be located, the best income mix, and other factors.

Creating more jobs, businesses, and commerce? Absolutely! That's why many of us here are advocating for a Western Ave and Barry's Corner that is alive with stores, attractions, and other things that will attract people to interesting places where they will spend money, create jobs, and invigorate the local and regional economy. When Charlesview proposes a large "community center" on the first floor of a building on Western Ave I think that would be a terrible waste of valuable space. A community room can go anywhere (maybe on the 2nd floor) but a lively street depends on lively public uses on the first floor.

With many of my neighbors I welcome new housing here and, as I have said, it needs to come with some real transportation improvements. For just one example, have you tried to get on or off the Mass Pike in Allston at rush hour recently? When we sense a rush to build and build while avoiding even a discussion about the reality of our transportation situation, it is true that we think the process has gone awry.

Here's a Globe op-ed that sums up my thoughts on transportation and planning pretty well.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...cles/2007/11/08/on_life_sciences_keep_moving/

I really think Western Ave and Barry's Corner can be one of the best public places anywhere. It will take some imagination and investment, but if Harvard builds cultural institutions like it has the potential to, tens of thousands of new people come here to live and work, and a thriving retail area grows around it the result could be amazing.

Harry
 
I'm sorry, Harry, that there are some on this forum that rail against "NIMBYs" but fail to see that they are as one sided and blinded as the very stereotypes they love to throw around. I have to agree that some of this comes from how it is reported. When you look at what the community is saying I think even ablarc would agree with it.

BarbaricManchurian brings up the good point that this is a city and it should be dense. And Allston seems to want to be Harvard Sq 2.0. I don't see how these are contradictory, except I do see where one would differ. Midtown Manhattan is a city, so is the North End, but they are not equal.

One of my favorite building types in Boston are the middle class apartment houses that are prevalent in Brighton, Allston, Fenway, and Brookline. They are attractive, affordable, and are a good use of space. The other type of good housing is triple-deckers. Both of these types of housing would fit in perfectly in Allston, not to mention that Harvard is building some across the river in Cambridge. This is the type of city building that is appropriate in Allston and I think the community is right to demand it. A 10 story building would be nice but only if it was in the center of the new campus, not along the edge where it will completely dominate the area.

What I think is a huge shame here is that this is a very powerful and influential university that actually can make a difference economically and urban design wise (seriously, all you fucking planning profs. need only send their students to Harvard Sq and stop filling their heads with modernist bull shit.), yet they chose to be total dicks. This isn't only Harvard, Columbia is doing the exact same thing in Harlem with the exact same results.

What kills me is there are places in Boston where really nice housing and development are being built (Jackson Sq and Ashmont are two) but when it comes to big projects that could make a difference we are left with really banal plans (SBW and in New York there are the West Side Yards and Atlantic Yards). This just proves to me that if you want to have a nice city you can't build it all at once.
 
Harry Mattison said:
>> It is 'blessed' (pun) with the density and height being objected to by the Allston neighbors

Do any of you agree that "appropriate density" is somewhat relative? A level of density that might work well in the South End, Roslindale, Allston, Somerville, and Belmont is not necessarily the same.

It looks like the height and density of Rollins Sq is very similar to those attributes of the older buildings around it. That is absolutely not the case with the Charlesview proposal. I'm not suggesting that everything new in Allston and Brighton must exactly match what is already here, but I do think we should think about how these pieces will fit together.

Charlesview will be the first major project directly abutting the neighborhood. It is likely to set precedents. We'd like to set these precedents properly so with millions of square feet of new development we are also creating transportation and open space and other systems so it will all work well together. Is some part of that unreasonable? Isn't that what architects and planners believe should be done?
Click to expand...

Harry, I agree that density is relative. Though I don't know where or how you could squeeze 2000 new housing units in Allston except by going up.

In the case of Charlesview redux, we have 400 units, 187 of which are new. I don't know what is magic about the 400 number, except the Mayor and the BRA and the city are pushing for more affordable housing, and I think there is an expectation that Harvard will do something more -- housing wise -- beyond simply replacing the existing 213 Charlesview units.

But getting back to density. Assuming instead of height, all the 400 units are row homes in a townhouse style. Then assume that each unit is built on a lot averaging 1200 sq ft, and that the average square footage for each unit is around 1700 sq ft on 2 or 3 floors, with no basement. (I'm giving each unit more sq ft than the current Charlesview plan because of a need for utility space and stairs). Then assume that you add 600 sq ft per unit for streets and sidewalks etc. At 1800 sq ft of land per unit, thats 720,000 sq ft. or 16 acres. No open space to speak of, no common areas, no ground floor retail. Just town houses cheek to jowl.

16 acres is more than double what Charlesview proposes to build on. So the tradeoff as I see it is: twice the land; a wall of housing with much more horizontal density; and less open space, in exchange for capping height at 35 feet or so.
 
stellarfun - Thanks for running those numbers. There is quite a bit of land around here that could be used for housing - 25 acres in the Holton St Corridor (between Western Ave & Lincoln St and Everett St & Litchfield), 20 acres on the north side of Western Ave west of North Harvard St, several acres around the Windom & Hopedale neighborhood where Harvard has mentioned building housing, and also the wedge of land west of Market St along Soldiers Field Rd where the Acura dealer, Martignetti liquors, the McDonalds, Starbucks, iParty, and IHOP are.

I don't pretend to know how much of this should be residential and how much should be office/research space. Chris Gabrieli wrote an interesting piece on this subject last month - http://www.xconomy.com/2008/02/11/harvards-opportunity-to-lead/

I think we agree that not all of these 2000 units (if 2000 is the right goal) should be 3 story townhomes. Of all the possible locations, the ones alongside an existing residential neighborhood seem like they should something like their abutting neighborhood (which at 30 people/acre is not that sparse) and other places (like the north side of Western Ave and west of Market St) could be denser multi-story condos.
 
Harry, sometimes it takes a picture to show the type of linear massing that can result from horizontal density:

SNAG-01751.jpg


This is Lawrence St. in the South End. Assuming 400 rowhouse units of similar scale and height in Allston, averaging 15 foot frontage each, thats 1.2 linear miles of this type of housing for the neighborhood. Put another way, take the perspective in this picture (which shows about 10 units) and multiply it by 40.

The lot size for the Lawrence St house at frame right is about 800 sq ft, the house has 2500 sq ft (3 stories) of space and the assessment is about $1 million. For my hypothetical Allston unit, the lot size is 50% greater, and the house is about 35% smaller.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top