Jamaica Plain Infill and Small Developments
- Thread starter coleslaw
- Start date
This is a terrible project in a terrible location. With or without the redesign of the rotary, it’s a very poor location for a large volume of entries and exits. And there’s nothing wrong with advocating for aesthetics. I’m with the Arboretum on this one. I don’t want to see buildings when I’m in the Arboretum. Housing crisis doesn’t mean we need to develop every square inch that just happens to become available; that’s just the mindset that happens when barriers are so high to building smart well planned developments in appropriate locations.Update on this project. The Arboretum appears to be throwing a fit about shadows or even the mere visibility of the new building. For the life of me I will never understand why so many people lose their minds over seeing a building next to greenery. (The Globe's framing, as usual, is also extremely bad, as it suggests that the building would somehow be a threat to the life and vitality of the Arboretum.) Something something, housing crisis?
Along the edge of the Arnold Arboretum, can new apartments co-exist with a ‘museum’ of trees? - The Boston Globe
A vacant Jamaica Plain monastery could soon be transformed into senior housing, with a new condo nearby. That is, if the developer can figure out a way to build it while also protecting one of the region’s crown jewels of public space.www.bostonglobe.com
If you don't want to see buildings when you're in the Arboretum, shouldn't the Arboretum buy all the land around it so you can't see those buildings? But wait, then that land would be in the Arboretum and you could see buildings from it.
Smuttynose
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 3,668
If you’re that butthurt about seeing buildings from a park, there’s a lot of parks & reservations in the metro area where you won’t have to see them. This is the middle of JP, I think buildings in close context to a park is appropriate. 920 Centre Street is a 3-acre parcel - huge by urban standards. If units cant be added behind the monastery, then demo it and build toward the front of the parcel. Not ideal, but there has to be a path forward. We can’t hem and haw about a housing crisis and then freak out every time somebody tries to build housing.
That is true up to an extent, and the irony here is that in the case pictured here, more height is actually better, because it highlights the building’s grace and form… without the two towers, Dorado would be a pile. I think it’s unfortunate that all across Boston we are so fixated on height rather than form we get nothing but these fat low rises and the reality is that that heavy urban feeling all of the NIMBYs are fighting is actually worse rather than better with triple the heights but elegant design.
However, Central Park and the Arnold Arboretum are not the same. The other reasons buildings like Dorado work is because Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan, and buildings like Dorado are in dialogue with the heights of buildings the city is famous for. The context of JP is quite different, and the Arboretum was not designed to be urban, nor a city park. It’s a botanical garden, which means natural is ideal, right down to the fact that shade actually will change the light exposure of plants. But aside from that, the Arboretum is a gem and it’s nice the way it is. There are too many people on this forum who are just so virulently in favor of height and density at any cost that they’ll support it anywhere. As I said already, this is the unfortunate consequence of overly restrictive zoning that makes every opportunity for increased density a fight to the death… but that doesn’t mean that any density, anywhere is a good idea. And as far as disrupting the Arboretum, this couldn’t be worse: it is right adjacent to the entrance, and it’s a big, ugly blob. Put crap like this at Forest Hills, which, in fact, is where an actual proper tower would go nicely and make sense.
Rude. And misguided,
Again, “housing crisis” does not justify any density, anywhere, all the time, and it gets pretty tiresome on this forum hearing zealotry like this which just tramples over any appreciation for context in favor of “more, more, more!” The Arboretum is NOT Central Park and this is NOT in an urban part of JP. Towers along the rest of the Olmsted parks is one thing—here, I think you actually do have an opportunity cultivate that urban grace exemplified by the Dorado (even the Jamaica tower, as bland as it is, contributes a little of this merely by its height). As for the specific impacts on the Arbo, building close to Centre St would make more sense, yes, but it’s still a dumb project because it’s gonna have a driveway with heavy, frequent use precisely at a major intersection. Can all of that be surmounted, in an ideal world? Yeah, probably, but it’s just not a great place for a project like this.
Again, misguided logic. The preservation and care of sight lines and views and the overall context in which scenic locations, landmarks, and other important places are situated is a core aspect of intelligent urban design and government function. All successful urban locales pay due attention to these principles. You also don’t have towers looming over Green Park in London, and you never will, because people there recognize that it’s not just about the park but about the dialogue between park and city. If you want to hack away every individual component and pretend that it exists in complete isolation from its surroundings, well, you’re certainly living in the right place, which is 21st century United States. But that’s the opposite of the contextual approaches necessary for good urban design. Build a skyscraper next to Yosemite would be the logical next step, and I don’t think there needs be any explanation of how this would be a bad idea. And no, to those who want to violently cry out “but the Arboretum is in the CITY!!!” are wrong, too; this is not the city and the grace of what the Arboretum IS—a place of relative quiet and seclusion—should absolutely be preserved.
obvious_bicycle
New member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2022
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 145
Isn't the proposal like 4 stories...
All of this text to complain about a single 4 story building adjacent to a 300 acre city park.
All of this text to complain about a single 4 story building adjacent to a 300 acre city park.
Longfellow
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2023
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 676
A sightline isn't a material outcome. Houses for people to live in are part of reality. Let's focus on real things. People have this idea that a building occupying a place that was previously sky is psychically damaging. That makes no sense. Buildings for the most part just sit there. It's not a toxic chemical plant spewing fumes or something.