Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

The Roxbury Crossing Senior Center seems close to being finished.

VPjyis1.jpg
 
I just dont understand why it isnt bigger... there are essentially no neighbors here, just vacant lots other then the building next to fuente's
 
Art Park is a very cool little project, a mix of gardens and housing on the southeast face of Mission Hill with an emphasis on quality landscape and environment design. I haven't heard anything about it in a while, and it looks like they being sued by the same couple that sues most projects in the area:

Over the past 15 years, the Brookinses have filed lawsuits against several real estate projects in Mission Hill and the Longwood Medical Area, sometimes gaining settlements, sometimes having the suits tossed out of court. In 2012, they were among the plaintiffs who settled a lawsuit out of court, reportedly for a large sum of money, over zoning approval of Northeastern University’s controversial East Village dorm project.

- See more at: http://missionhillgazette.com/2014/...gainst-art-park-project/#sthash.d13hXOhh.dpuf
Click to expand...

I think I remember them from when I lived in a temporary sublet on Mission Hill right after moving to Boston. They were collecting signatures opposing a small residential building to be built on a parking lot at the corner of Parker and Allegheny. I was cranky about how poorly my search for a permanent apartment was going and pretty rudely refused them.

Anyways, the latest news on Art Park was from early June, court date in early September.
 
they really are the worst people ever. what shitheads.
 
Hmm. I wasn't familiar with them in this regard. Oscar Brookins I had heard of due to his running against Mike Ross for District 8 City Councilor. Didn't know he and his wife were active in the community, too.

Sounds as though in each case they had a legitimate reason to complain - zoning - and instead of just going away they pushed until they had to be dealt with.

I've found three situations where they sued:

1993 - Harvard wishing to turn Boston English into a medical facility, requiring zoning relief; lawsuit filed.

2009 - 2012 NeU plans to build Grandmarc, requiring zoning relief, lawsuit filed. (Rumored $500,000-$600,000 settlement paid to Brookins husband & wife.)

2015 Art Park site proposed for mixed-use project including 44 apartments (10 affordable), 58,000-square feet of green space, 4,000 of retail space, 30 parking spaces and 82 bike racks.

The couple own 3 properties 4 Hillside St, 6 Hillside St (adjoining lots) and 803 Parker St, around the corner. The parcels are located nowhere near the YMCA / Grandmarc project. The Art Park is down Parker Street from where they live, at the next corner, near Allegheny.

Oscar Brookins ran against Mike Ross. Brookins was an opponent of Ross's "four students to an apartment" proposal, among other things. Ross pulled out a 85-15% win.

Anyone have any details on other lawsuits? Post them here or DM me. Or email me john@johnakeith.com Thanks.
 
BRA board approves Heath St. project

The Boston Redevelopment Authority board approved the $17.4 million General Heath Square Apartments during its meeting on Dec. 10, according to a press release.

The General Heath Square Apartments will be built on City-owned land formed by the triangle of Heath, New Heath, and Bromley streets, and is expected to created 42 construction jobs.

The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation (JPNDC), a community development corporation, is partnering with Back of the Hill Community Development Corporation (BOTH CDC) for the project.

The plans calls for 47 affordable units—a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments—in a four-story, 56,000-square-foot building. The building will also house 2,000 square feet of community and office space.

BOTH CDC and JPNDC previously co-developed the Back of the Hill housing. The team entered the sole bid for the City-owned land after the Department of Neighborhood Development held three community meetings and a site tour to discuss development options.

The parcels in question total almost 29,000 square feet. The City acquired them through tax foreclosures and is planning their development as the last stage of the 15-year-old Heath Street Planning Initiative.
Click to expand...

http://missionhillgazette.com/2016/01/15/bra-board-approves-heath-st-project/
 
There's a 33 unit complex proposed for the corner of Tremont and Sewell:http://www.universalhub.com/2016/students-would-be-barred-proposed-new-apartments

One triple decker to be torn down, one handsome brick building to be reused, and one interesting little stone rowhouse to be built over.

---

The Art Park trial happened in December, decision should be issued by the judge after late February: http://missionhillgazette.com/2016/02/05/parties-await-art-park-lawsuit-decision/

Nothing is happening at the site, is the lawsuit actually holding things up or is it an issue on the developer's end?
 
I don't think it is okay to exclude students or anyone else for that matter without a darn good reason. You cannot blame a person for a keg party someone else may have had and exclude them based solely on that.
 
Glad the rowhouses are retained even in the first proposal.

I assume we're all familiar with the famous Roxbury Puddingstone. The stone was common for ornamental masonry towards the end of 19th century, but a few major works (I think it's the Covenant Church in the Back Bay - I fuck the names up, it's the one on Newbury) were executed mostly in puddingstone. Prior to annexation by Boston, however, Roxbury had developed as a substantial satellite industrial city with many of the oldest factories and worker houses built in the naturally available materials, aka puddingstone, particularly in the 1850(ish). There are a few structures left in Mission Hill over on Parker, but many were torn down and reused for other projects over the years and most of the then-survivors in Roxbury were wiped out during the 1950s and 60s. So there's only a handful of puddingstone buildings left and the short, horizontally-divided rowhouse-style itself if extremely rare around these parts, so it'd be shame to lose these buildings needlessly. Looks like they'll get a bit of weird "hat" in the form on the structure built on top, but they'll also get a renovation and it's a bunch of units in a good spot - keepin an eye on this, looks solid.
 
I don't think it is okay to exclude students or anyone else for that matter without a darn good reason. You cannot blame a person for a keg party someone else may have had and exclude them based solely on that.
Click to expand...

Students aren't a protected class. I completely support restricting where students can and cannot live. Students ruin neighborhoods because they don't really care about the long term interests of the people who actually own or rent property beyond a 9-month lease.
 
That is not necessarily true some students do care about where they are living and may even be thinking of living where they rent long term I wouldn't generalize that students don't care about where they live. Students are willing to live in worse housing and worse neighborhoods more often and landlords of student housing often don't keep up with maintenance as well but that doesn't necessarily mean that students don't care at all. For some that is true but definitely not all students.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top