Malden Center and untapped potential

Can CARD just change their name to CTSAMalden. Christmas Tree Shoper's Association of Malden. B/c they're clearly the small minded New Englanders that you often find at the Tree. If they really want to use CARD, then they would have to live up to the name. Becuase anyone who is actually concerned about responsible development would factor in enivormental impact. And putting housing near public transit is the least we can do (in the big picture) to ensure a livable planet for our grandchildren both in Malden Center and elsewhere. But why try to be part of the solution (granted extremely small percentage) to the biggest challenge facing humanity when your main agenda is "responsible developement".

My hatred for NIMBYs grows each day.
 
I can't judge this without knowing more about the developer's proposal, or what alternative use or structure the group prefers for the parcel. Does the proposed building have street-facing retail, for instance?
 
GW2500 said:
Can CARD just change their name to CTSAMalden. Christmas Tree Shoper's Association of Malden. B/c they're clearly the small minded New Englanders that you often find at the Tree. If they really want to use CARD, then they would have to live up to the name. Becuase anyone who is actually concerned about responsible development would factor in enivormental impact. And putting housing near public transit is the least we can do (in the big picture) to ensure a livable planet for our grandchildren both in Malden Center and elsewhere. But why try to be part of the solution (granted extremely small percentage) to the biggest challenge facing humanity when your main agenda is "responsible developement".

My hatred for NIMBYs grows each day.
Click to expand...

I think you are misguided and your push on shaming Malden of not being environmental enough annoys me. Yes! It's a great idea that Malden should support the environment by slowly leveling its town center to be apartment central.

When Malden allowed the MBTA to expand to Malden, I think the idea was more Davis Square and less commuter rail station in the suburbs. My understanding is most people in Malden desires to see a revitalized square, another residential stump into the commercial center does not do that. Calling them NIMBYs and scolding them because they are using the word "responsible development" meaning that Malden must sacrifice its ideal of a lively square for the environment does not earn my sympathy.

If "residential overlay district" means what it sounds like (and since the article mentioned that Combined Properties is expressing an interest in building apartments), it is calling to zone more apartments with no arrangements for shopping in the center of Malden. Another Pleasant Street Apartment (though that one is even worse, they destroyed a whole row of small shops to build that, at least this one is a virtually abandoned old building that housed Super Fitness). CARD sounds like a reaction group that probably carry the same vision most people of Malden had for years: a revitalized downtown. Building more apartments in the center of Malden will not do a thing to revive the town center.


Now, to be fair, if the proposal is including street level stores and CARDMalden is resisting anyway, then you can call them a bunch of NIMBYs, but not because CARDMalden don't care about the environment. Right now, it sounds like to me that the proposal isn't developed at all yet, but it doesn't sound like they want to build a nice building with more stores (which Malden Square really needs, 1 street of stores - and mostly dollar stores and empty store fronts - isn't enough to create a lively center). I won't be surprised if CARDMalden knows as much as we do, which Combined Properties want to build apartments. If that is all they mentioned, I will be joining with CARDMalden too.
 
Just a hunch (and I hope I'm wrong) but my guess would be the CARDMalden vision would include:

1. Open space (in the form of parks)
2. Open space (in the form of parking)
3. Open space (in the form of plazas)
and if there is any room left over, maybe a quaint shop or two (but not too much because would cause overcrowding, traffic congestion and possibly attract a 'bad element'!).
 
The surest way to revitalize a town center which happens to be a transit hub is to build dense residential. However shasty, people will move there on the promise of 10 minutes to downtown and more for your money. They will demand places to go for dinner and other neighborhood amenities. Any proposal that builds out residential to the street line - especially one like this which replaces an underused block - should be a no-brainer.

Street-level retail would be nice, but I doubt that's what CARDMalden are after. NIMBYs are rarely in the business of being YIMBYs in disguise.
 
To me, and I am guessing, CARD is against a 12 story structure, in an area where it would not be out of place. It would actually get good use being close to two seperate mass tranist rail lines and numerous bus routes. I'm farily certain they would still be against it if it had ground floor retail, which I think would be a good idea. What these people ulitmately want is to take an affordable city (really inner city in many areas) and turn it into this rich suburban looking place to please their own insecurities. I can promise you when they start saying what they do want, it will all be very suburban in nature. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I doubt that will be the case.

Also note, CARDMalden is not 60,000 strong so DON'T act like it represents all of Malden, it's like all other NIMBY groups a vocal minority. And furthermore isn't it irresponsible to not reasonably maximize housing near tranist stops. Unless your a Republican and don't believe in the enviorment, its clear we (the world) need to do a lot to ensure later generations have clean air, water, and food. A lot of that will require sacrifice and paying higher rates for things. Smart growth most certainly isn't the end all be all, but it's very little sacrifice and a step in the right direction. Why try to minize it's benifit? Unless of course you really don't care about contributing to important things, which makes your whole acronym a P.O.B.S.
 
GW2500 said:
To me, and I am guessing, CARD is against a 12 story structure, in an area where it would not be out of place. It would actually get good use being close to two seperate mass tranist rail lines and numerous bus routes. I'm farily certain they would still be against it if it had ground floor retail, which I think would be a good idea. What these people ulitmately want is to take an affordable city (really inner city in many areas) and turn it into this rich suburban looking place to please their own insecurities. I can promise you when they start saying what they do want, it will all be very suburban in nature. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I doubt that will be the case.
Click to expand...

I am running on the assumption that the people of CARD have the same goals as complaints that most Maldonians have since way before I was born: the return of a lively town center. With that in mind, I am running that they are against it because they already seen what the past 12 story buildings have done. Did it revitalize the center? No. Did it boxed in Pleasant Street from the north? That it did. There's several blocks of condos and apartments from that side, I don't see a lot of positive effects to the center revitalization. They probably see Pleasant Street Apartments all over again. I don't support that building (where it took down a block of stores too BTW), and I can't support this one unless it have ground floor retail (and it doesn't sound like it does).

However, that's my assumption. If we go by your assumption, they are a bunch of assholes who wants to turn Malden into some elitist rich city, I still see that it is uncalled for. I am not a big fan of suburbia, but I can understand their problem. They probably want Melrose, which is a suburb, but pretty prosperous with its lively town center and I just read that its property values have continued to rise despite the economy. Prosperity is prosperity. If they want to push for Melrose, I only have a slight problem with that. If they pushing for other type of suburbia, the highway hell type in Revere, then we got a problem.


GW2500 said:
Also note, CARDMalden is not 60,000 strong so DON'T act like it represents all of Malden, it's like all other NIMBY groups a vocal minority. And furthermore isn't it irresponsible to not reasonably maximize housing near tranist stops. Unless your a Republican and don't believe in the enviorment, its clear we (the world) need to do a lot to ensure later generations have clean air, water, and food. A lot of that will require sacrifice and paying higher rates for things. Smart growth most certainly isn't the end all be all, but it's very little sacrifice and a step in the right direction. Why try to minize it's benifit? Unless of course you really don't care about contributing to important things, which makes your whole acronym a P.O.B.S.
Click to expand...

You're right, they don't represent all of Malden. Seeing how we talk about our elected officials here all the time, I guess it is working great. Anyways, for CARD, the R for responsible means a lot more than environment that you are harping on. Like the long term economy future of the town center. I'm all for clean air, water, and food, but I don't see making Malden Square as blocks of towers with no retail so everyone can go take the train as the answer. Personally, I view development of clean technologies as the answer. I do support TOD for lifestyle reasons and I believe many people share that desire to live that lifestyle over the suburban life that haven't been given the chance. However, that also means that I won't support residential buildings around stations at all cost, for I want Malden Square to pull a Davis Square and I do not see how more towers without retail will accomplish that. In fact, I see that it would sow salt from that ever happening, as even if demand ever comes, there's will be no place to build it anymore.

The blocks of Exchange Street, Main Street, and Pleasant St should be an area of ground floor retail. The City Hall with the police station and that office building where all that mail sorting needs to go and be replaced with a nice shopping and cultural area that will attract people up to visit (though an anchor, will probably help alot, unfortunately, it is hard to bring enough support that kind of center without something to anchor it). Making the south side of Exchange st a bunch of apartments and condos (with no provision for ground floor retail) will keep that from ever happening. Telling me "it's for the environment" doesn't give me a lot of comfort.
 
A little history, from a different transit extension:

When the MBTA first proposed to put the Red Line into Davis Square, there were development plans to build high-rises here. The neighborhood residents of the late 70s-early 80s didn't like that idea and prevented it, resulting in the current 4-story, 50-foot height limit. I think the 'new' Davis Square that eventually emerged, mostly through reuse of old existing buildings, is more urban and lively than if those towers had been built.

Union Square is getting a higher limit in anticipation of its Green Line extension, but there's a lot more unused or underbuilt land there than in Davis.
 
Davis Square is horribly underdeveloped considering it sits on top of a heavy rail station. When you consider that stations with the same capacity service Harvard, Central, and even South Station, Davis station is probably criminally underutilized. Its residents enjoy its quasi-suburban quaintness at the expense of traffic and sprawl everywhere else.
 
If the apt has ground floor retail then all the bases are covered. If that is what CARD is for then cool, but I'm pretty sure it ain't.
 
That makes sense. I wouldn't rail against Davis about its transit-oriented density, especially compared with the likes of Porter (a strip mall!) Wellington (a parking lot and faux "main street" development!) Shawmut (smack in the middle of a low-density neighborhood with no retail whatsoever!), and nearly every Blue Line stop north of Airport.
 
Alewife and Porter aren't really apt comparisons for Davis because they don't show the full capacity potential of a Red Line station, but the point is well taken - the areas around those stations have even more room for improvement.
 
Well, if you look at the article's comments. Most of them are asking for retail and restaurants. Granted, one guy mentioned parking, but it seems the sentiment is retail and restaurants. Perhaps CARD isn't representing them and just a bunch of anti-build NIMBYs, but I'm optimistic that the wants of CARD include retail and not just build nothing.

Even if they are against the building, I think it is justified, more apartments will not revitalize the center. It will remove any chance that any retail or restaurant can be built in those blocks til the next century. Unless they actually have provisions for it, but they haven't done any of that in the buildings built so far.
 
This is the person who started CARDMalden. For all of you who "assume", "presume," "guess," "think," etc., you can check out our statement. It's on our facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/CARD-Malden/189820737694644 Go to the entry "News about downtown Malden and the city's future." If you are not on facebook, write to CARDMalden@yahoo.com and I will send it to you.

We are not NIMBY's. I'm a 3rd generation Maldonian who lived in NYC for 10 years and came back with my family to raise my kid here. We are not trying to go back to a "lily white suburb." Malden's rich mix of people is one reason why we chose to live here.

The main reason CARDMalden exists is to delay the rezoning to allow for increased public input. We are not against the apartments per se; though there may be concessions we would like to see from the developer. Whether this is street level retail, improving pedestrian access, incorporating some owner occupied units, or a million other possibilities, the main thing is to allow for more public discussion.

Please don't presume to know what we are about if you haven't looked at the statement or spoken to one of us. And if you live in Malden and are concerned about this issue, please come to the meeting Wednesday 1/12 @ 7pm at City Hall. We look forward to seeing you!
 
GW2500 and Statler, you are off the mark. Ant8904, you are closer to what we are going for.
 
I think it's awesome that in my post two years ago I propose razing Super Fitness and building on that site, and now it's an actual developers plan! I should totally be a developer!

1.Post development ideas on internet
2.?????
3.PROFIT!


Seriously though, if the plan has ground floor retail/restaurant, then it's a great idea. If not, I think it's a bad idea. Though the developers might be worried about attracting a tenant in this economy.

I still think Malden Square has a lot of potential. Anyone ever eaten the authentic chinese food at Fu Loon (not the lunch buffet. blech). Seriously awesome stuff.
 
Well if you guys do go by your objective, which mainly seems to be you want ground floor retail, then I am happily wrong about your group. Time will ultimately tell what more community input will lead to...
 
lensma

Is there an alt-date if the the Wednesday meeting gets snowed out? Also is there someplace where this info would be posted?
 
Hi Statler,
The Planning Board meeting has been rescheduled for February 9. We are working on a website, but for now you can get info at our facebook page- CARD Malden. Or write to CARDMalden@yahoo.com. Thanks for your interest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top