Nubian Sq. Parcel P-3 (nee Tremont Crossing) | Roxbury

BeeLine

BeeLine

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
13,981
Reaction score
22,075
BeeLine said:
www.universalhub.com

BPDA getting ready to re-advertise long vacant parcel across from police HQ for housing, local shops and restaurants and maybe life-sciences labs

The BPDA has posted its final draft RFP for the 7.6-acre field of scrub, grass and parking lots on Tremont Street, across from BPD headquarters, which has been vacant since it was almost all bulldozed in the 1960s for an I-95 extension that was never built. Read more.
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com
Click to expand...
"Under the proposal, buildings should not exceed 150 feet talle unless they "clearly demonstrate the greater benefits to the community" of extra height."

So it needs to be significantly shorter than everything around it?
Screenshot_20211002-213547_Chrome.png
 
"The BPDA will be seeking developers willing to commit to way more affordable housing than required for privately owned land as well as locally owned shops, internships and other programs tied to two neighboring high schools, arts, maybe a museum and lots of trees for the parcel. Specifically not preferred: National-chain big-box stores..."

The BPDA keeps doing this to themselves on P3. You can't limit density and promise a shitload of community benefits (that generate below-market or even nominal rents) and then be surprised when the developer can't get financing. Pick one or the other.

BPDA: "You can't build much. But what you do build needs to generate very little revenue.... What do you mean the banks hung up on you?!?!"
 
dhawkins said:
Roxburg has an interesting marketing sound to it. A suburb of Roxbury?
Click to expand...
I think it harkens back to era of German immigrants and the breweries along the stony brook, haha

… or perhaps a very local take on a form of baked lobster
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
"The BPDA will be seeking developers willing to commit to way more affordable housing than required for privately owned land as well as locally owned shops, internships and other programs tied to two neighboring high schools, arts, maybe a museum and lots of trees for the parcel. Specifically not preferred: National-chain big-box stores..."

The BPDA keeps doing this to themselves on P3. You can't limit density and promise a shitload of community benefits (that generate below-market or even nominal rents) and then be surprised when the developer can't get financing. Pick one or the other.

BPDA: "You can't build much. But what you do build needs to generate very little revenue.... What do you mean the banks hung up on you?!?!"
Click to expand...
But who will think of the DeVeLoPeRs?

Of course there is a breaking point and you may or may not have a point. Hopefully they will get some players
 
Yeah this is one of the most well connected parts of the city (OL, E Branch, and bus hub at Nubian Sq), close to a grocery store and lots of retail. You could have a lot of good housing right there. I don't think it needs to be a retail heavy space like in the last iteration.
 
Would be so good if this could happen. Something (anything) to fill that giant hole in Roxbury's urban fabric will be game changing. Between this type of project, Ruggles Station, Northeastern, and proximity to LMA, this should be a major employment destination. This will bring jobs and housing, and really make Ruggles in to the peripheral sub CBD that it ought to be.
 
Last edited:
I hate to say it, but both these proposals are ridiculous and not worth a second thought.

The first one; you're going yellow, brown, green, and orange, for real? No no no. The second one; whether you like it or not history says that this part of a vibrant LOCAL community and should NOT be turned into a lab park. Please. We all know those apartments will be grabbed by post docs if offered. I'm sure their will be a yoga studio and a dog walking service... I digress, it's late, yuck.
 
This parcel's just set up for failure and relies too heavily on the developer to figure out what's right for the neighborhood, which their own highest and best use analysis will dictate against, leading to this...

The city needs to break this up, provide some planning, and put some of their money into this. The taxes in return will be worth it.
 
stefal said:
This parcel's just set up for failure and relies too heavily on the developer to figure out what's right for the neighborhood, which their own highest and best use analysis will dictate against, leading to this...

The city needs to break this up, provide some planning, and put some of their money into this. The taxes in return will be worth it.
Click to expand...

The prevailing thought/development process is large developers and deep pockets need to be attracted in order to make action happen. They should split the development in half as an experiment- keep half the development one lot and entice the biggest fish they can get and split up the other half into many smaller lots in hopes of attracting a smaller, more diverse, more local development groups and see which half is more successful in the short and medium term.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
The prevailing thought/development process is large developers and deep pockets need to be attracted in order to make action happen. They should split the development in half as an experiment- keep half the development one lot and entice the biggest fish they can get and split up the other half into many smaller lots in hopes of attracting a smaller, more diverse, more local development groups and see which half is more successful in the short and medium term.
Click to expand...
The last 60 years of urban design has shown us the huge upsides to allowing developers build densely on small lots. It should be a guiding principle but it is frequently ignored because real estate interests are easier served by these megablock projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top