South End Infill and Small Developments

PaulC said:
One of the main complaints about the prior Hites project from the 'abutters was the lack of on site parking even though none of the abutters have on site parking. One of these nimbys lives several building away from the project but stilled called herself an abutter. Now they will be paying the price for their selfish nimby whining. The new developer, in my opinion, produces substantially inferior work the the prior developer. He also is likely to squeezes in a lot more units. Good luck finding parking now nimbys, you didn't know how good you had it.
Click to expand...

Has a new developer purchased the property? I havent read anything since the South End News published that the owner of Mike's diner dropped his plans.
 
I think so, there may be something on this in the South End News latter today or tomorrow.

Hint: I can't wait for the people in the Allen House to say what kind of developer would build so many units without parking!!!!
 
Jesus Saves! church is demolished; residential housing on tap.

IMG01954-20111006-1703.jpg
 
Latest on the Hite building is for 7-8 units. The building would extend all the way to the sidewalk in front.
 
Infill going up on Berkeley by Appleton.

Before:
berkeley_infill_before.jpg


Today:
berkeley_infill_nov_11.jpg
 
Paul, I did some research on the internet. It looks to be related to the St. James Company selling 11 East Newton to the Franklin Preservation Associates Limited Partnership. The FPALP was just incorporated in September 2011. It's sole office is Amy Anthony, who runs the 'POAH Franklin Apartments, LLC'.

Here's the minutes from the South End Landmark District Commission from October where they discussed approving renovations to the exterior of 11 East Newton.

http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/SELDC Agenda October 4 2011_tcm3-28051.pdf

The 11 East Newton parcel is exempt from property taxes (we should all be so lucky!) under Chapter 121A.

Presumably, the authorization requested above is a formality in order for the new owner to be able to continue as a tax-free entity.
 
I find this to be very bizarre:

The second issue has to do with building on the 10 Taylor lot. That lot is currently under a BRA Land Disposition Agreement. Under the LDA, 10 Taylor is required to be open space for a set number of years (even though the property is physically owned by Mr. Rizkalla). Our January meeting double as a BRA Public meeting concerning modifying the LDA to allow construction on 10 Taylor before the current LDA expiration. BRA representative Maria Faria will be on hand to discuss and answer questions on BRA Particulars.

Mr. Rizkalla has been meeting with the BRA and Landmarks over his designs. The city has been happy with the way design is progressing, and is generally OK with the building onto 10 Taylor property and the current design of the addition. Mr. Rizkalla has also been meeting with abutters to discuss the project and it’s local impact.
Click to expand...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eightstreets/message/892

They just anounced that the residential tax rate is going up again so why not encourage any development.
 
West Springfield at Shawmut has two projects sheathed as of today. One is a gut reno, the other new construction on the corner.
 
Apparently that candy store next to "the Eagle" on Tremont Street will be no more. Has anyone ever seen it open? From the South End Patch:

A proposed six-story condo building, with first-floor retail, that would replace the Olde Dutch Cottage Candy building at the corner of Tremont and Dwight Streets got the “OK” Wednesday night from the Eight Streets Neighborhood Association, despite some questions about its design.

After a lengthy presentation and discussion, about 90 minutes in all, about 15 to 20 association members voted “not to oppose” the proposed project for 518 Tremont St. No one voted against the motion; however, a number of members did not vote either way.

Before the vote, the association heard from the proposal’s architect, Guy Grassi, who was there with the proposal’s developer, Peter Georgantas, and its lawyer and marketer.

Grassi, a Boston-based architect, said the proposed building would be six stories and near the 70-foot zoned height limit. The current Olde Dutch Cottage Candy building, which would be razed, is only one story.

He said the new building, which would house two retailers on the first floor and five high-end, 2,500-square-foot, two-plus-bedroom condos above, would be art-deco style, preferably Indiana limestone (although he said it’s expensive) with some brick.

‘Back Bay kind of building’

After viewing computer models of the building, association members questioned whether the Indiana limestone and lighter brick would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, especially when looking at computer models of the Berkeley Street side of the building.

“It seems to me like a Back Bay kind of building, rather than a South End kind of building,” one resident said. “It looks like one of the newer buildings on Harrison (Avenue) or Albany (Street),” another added.
The residents’ comments were going to be added to the association’s letter to the city, according to the association’s president, John McLachlan.

Process

The proposal has already received an initial rejection letter from the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals, meaning Georgantas and crew will have to go back before the board, most likely in mid March, to apply for variances. It failed due to non-conforming floor-area ratio (FAR), open space and parking issues, Georgantas said.

The Olde Dutch Cottage Candy building has some of these issues as well, such as it occupies the property’s entire footprint. However, it has been grandfathered in, Georgantas said.

The new building would have five parking spots in a basement garage, with access from Public Alley 705. However, the spots would be too short, 18 feet instead of the required 20.

Georgantas said if everything goes as planned, he would like to break ground on the project this coming June or July. He said it should take about a year to complete.

Other Facts

- Georgantas has redeveloped a number of brownstones in Boston but also worked on The Modern at 255 Northampton St. in the South End.

- The project’s marketer, Pam Holian, said “90 percent” of interested buyers are coming from the Atelier building across the street.
Click to expand...

http://southend.patch.com/articles/eight-streets-not-opposed-to-condo-proposal-for-olde-dutch-cottage-candy-building
 
Tut tut. It may not be the most-attractive building(s), but The Modern is the type of project Boston should have had more of during the building boom. 27 + 32 units (phases I and II) on an empty / underused lot.

3312.jpg


Guy Grassi has done a couple of empty-lot single-family homes in the South End. Don't know of his other projects.

I think Peter does a fine job. Now if he could only find someone to buy his $14.95 million single-family at 74 Beacon Street.

Oh, and, yes, the shop is open, almost every week, but during odd hours. I've never been inside even though I live just four buildings down. It's an overstuffed antiques (or, "junk") store. They've sat on it for so long, I never thought they'd sell. I like the idea of floor-through units.

I would have supported a taller building but not sure if everyone else would. Given that it's a corner lot and across from Atelier (which is ten+ stories) and kitty-corner to the Franklin Institute, it makes sense to have height. But if they can make the numbers work by keeping it under 70-feet (which it is zoned for), then everyone can be happy.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Tut tut. It may not be the most-attractive building(s), but The Modern is the type of project Boston should have had more of during the building boom. 27 + 32 units (phases I and II) on an empty / underused lot.junk") store.
Click to expand...

I was referring to construction quality not design.
 
Why is parking always brought up in a project like this? The Atelier garage across the street is huge and I'm sure could accommodate a few more cars from the people who would live in this building. Also, Back Bay on the Orange line isn't that far away, and the 43 and 9 buses are right outside.

Is it too hard to sell a condo without parking attached to it? Wouldn't requiring less or even no parking for a building like this keep the costs down for the developer and result in less expensive homes?
 
It seems foolish to me to require the building of an underground garage for five cars, as proposed.

Yes, when you're paying $2.5 million (based on the 2,500 square foot per unit proposal at $1,000 per square foot), you might prefer parking. Most buildings in Boston do. In this case, there are several issues that would probably make people want direct access parking: the buyers might be older, less mobile. Plus, the buyers may be fearful of crime in the neighborhood and wish to get into their cars quickly. Finally, Tremont Street can be busy and a pain to cross from 6-8pm every night. A hassle.

The Times has an article today about condos and parking. The city of NY did an analysis of parking in Manhattan recently. Parking garages are being replaced with condo buildings. They discuss whether or not parking is necessary in condos, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/realestate/developers-eye-garages-and-parking-lots.html
 
Dwight Street isn't the safest street, people don't like paying for parking in South End, and on street parking is a nightmare here.

The safety issue is increasingly becoming a problem again as the PSI is getting overstuffed with the rest of the metro area's problematic populations, thanks to other cities' budget tightening, in addition to all the out of state people migrating here now that many other states have curtailed benefits. People like the feel of the neighborhood, the look, and the amenities. But at night they do want to be able to come and go safely without having to worry about the increasing number of derelicts shuffling about like zombies. The closer one lives to the PSI or BMC's intake center the worse it gets after dark.

Anyone in a building dependent on on street parking does not want another building going up to compete for the ever shrinking pool of it. It doesn't help either that more restaurants are snapping up metered spaces for valet zones. Those same valets often scam customers by illegally parking cars on street or in alleys and pocket phony garage fees, making the parking situation even worse.

The local garages aren't cheap or very secure either. Who wants to spend a lot of money on a garage which there's still a good change of being jumped or arriving to find some valuable parts of your vehicle missing?
 
MBTAddict said:
Why is parking always brought up in a project like this? The Atelier garage across the street is huge and I'm sure could accommodate a few more cars from the people who would live in this building. Also, Back Bay on the Orange line isn't that far away, and the 43 and 9 buses are right outside.

Is it too hard to sell a condo without parking attached to it? Wouldn't requiring less or even no parking for a building like this keep the costs down for the developer and result in less expensive homes?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is hard. Most people in the market for million dollar condos don't typically take the bus or fuck around with the orange line crowd.
 
MBTAddict said:
Why is parking always brought up in a project like this? The Atelier garage across the street is huge and I'm sure could accommodate a few more cars from the people who would live in this building. Also, Back Bay on the Orange line isn't that far away, and the 43 and 9 buses are right outside.

Is it too hard to sell a condo without parking attached to it? Wouldn't requiring less or even no parking for a building like this keep the costs down for the developer and result in less expensive homes?
Click to expand...

Tadict -- You are presupposing that everybody is living in the South End just to take the T or walk to downtown -- some of the people want to live in the city and commute out to a suburban office park

Even if they want to live in the city and work in the city -- they may want to own a car to get out of the city to ski or climb mountains, shop at an outlet mall or a Walmart, bring back a load of big pots from Home Depot or a table from Ikea

This is not the 19th Century or even 1947 -- people want to have cars and that implies that they want parking for their cars and preferably parking that they control and / or own and that is close by -- this is true in the city as well as in the suburbs
 
As much as the reason is that owners would want parking is that neighbors demand it. "We can't have five extra cars looking for parking on our streets!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top