The Chandlery | 270 Dorchester Ave | South Boston

George_Apley

George_Apley

Not a Brahmin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
1,658
Don't think I've seen this one here.
The Chandlery is proposed as an 8 story, 150 unit residential with 70 "workforce" middle income units.

chandlery.jpg
 
^120 parking spaces! Affordable housing should not have that much parking, especially for this location so close to the Red Line.

Besides that I like it.
 
tysmith95 said:
^120 parking spaces! Affordable housing should not have that much parking, especially for this location so close to the Red Line.

Besides that I like it.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- for 150 units to only have 120 parking spaces means there will be a lot of cars circling around looking for parking -- particularly during a declared snow emergency
 
Are there any details on funding the workforce units, or is it going to be self-supported?
 
tysmith95 said:
^Boomer Lexington (aka suburbanite) mentality.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- No reality -- especially based on spending my summers living in a double 3 decker in East Cambridge when I was at MIT. While I didn't have a car until the last term that I spent at MIT, I got to drive my Aunt's Old's from time to time. When I got back to Cambridge from going to the beach or hiking in the White Mts -- sometimes in the winter -- I had to find a place to park it. This was especially difficult when during declared Snow Emergencies Cambridge banned parking on ones side of the street. Note that the were no parking spaces titularly linked to the deed for the place when my Uncle and Aunt when bought the place in the 1950's.

Cars still exist and people need a place to park them -- they don't magically fold-up [some old Walt Disney Show] --they take up space and you either park them off the street or on the street -- your choice if you have one.
 
Because low income people living in urban areas definitely choose to spend their limited income on cars ;) (sarcasm)
 
This is a very real fact in this city. Living without your own car in the city happens much more often now. With all the mass transit options, hubways, ubers, taxis, (incredibly high rents cough cough), and the option to take a zip car to the beach. It is not the hardship your old school mentality thinks it is. Truly. Not a dig.

I'm pretty sure of the 18 people in my office, at least 3 of them don't own cars. That's roughly 17% if my math is working. Which means out of 150, that would mean about 25 wouldn't own cars.

My small example works with the new units being constructed. Units who insist on having cars or even two vehicles would be forced to find off-site parking possibly, or to reconsider the need. When everything is at your doorstep, you realize your feet can get you over the threshold just fine.

This is 2016 reality, not 60's or 70's.

Btw, only about 4 or 5 of the 18 take a car to work on a regular basis, which means you a rent struggling to find parking after work if you choose to have a car. It never moved. If you travel on a weekend and can't park out front. Boo hoo, poor muffin.
 
And that's office workers. If you include retail/restaurant/blue collar workers that would fill lots of the "affordable" units then i'm sure that the car ownership rate is even lower. There is no reason for to qualify for affordable housing to have a car if they live a 0.2 mile walk from a Red Line station and has multiple buses stop in front of their door. I think a better option would have been to have 1 spot for every market rate unit, so 80 spots would have made more sense. There is just no need for a car these days with Uber/Zipcar, and in 10-15 years self driving cars could make owning a car in the city center obsolete. Also with self driving cars the cars could drive themselves to the outskirts of the city when not in use, having parking at this central of a location would not make sense.

According to a 2012 study 37% of Boston households do not own a car. This would most likely include parts of the city where car ownership is almost a must, for example West Roxbury or Rozzie. Such a central neighborhood like this would have a higher car less rate, with half of the development being affordable I wouldn't be surprised if 50% or more of the renters at this development choose not to buy an automobile. That's why I believe that a development like this has no need for more than 0.5 parking spots per unit.

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21923-hitchin-a-ride-fewer-americans-have-their-own-vehicle
 
citylover94 said:
Because low income people living in urban areas definitely choose to spend their limited income on cars ;) (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what a lot of poor people spend their money on... and a lot of other superficial useless shit too... victims of the stupidity of a western, commercialized and bankrupt value system.
 
odurandina said:
isn't Dorchester, Quincy, Southie or some such place down this way supposed to be getting a new tall corridor?
Click to expand...

Yes, the industrial area across the street from this development and south along Dot Ave.
 
FK4 said:
Actually, that's exactly what a lot of poor people spend their money on... and a lot of other superficial useless shit too... victims of the stupidity of a western, commercialized and bankrupt value system.
Click to expand...
That's quite a generalized comment with no evidence to back it up. The issue isn't a bankrupt value system, it's zoning, infrastructure, and supply - when we don't build enough housing it forces lower-income works to live further away from jobs or in areas not served by public-transit, which then forces them to buy a car in order to get to work because our infrastructure investments all center around the expansion of roads and highways.
 
FK4 said:
Actually, that's exactly what a lot of poor people spend their money on... and a lot of other superficial useless shit too... victims of the stupidity of a western, commercialized and bankrupt value system.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're talking about conspicuous consumption, which is funny that you think you are immune, or that this is just a facet of low-income people.

anyways... I really hope this gets built as the sidewalk next to it is really a sad state and kinda dangerous tbh.
 
Rhino said:
That's quite a generalized comment with no evidence to back it up. The issue isn't a bankrupt value system, it's zoning, infrastructure, and supply - when we don't build enough housing it forces lower-income works to live further away from jobs or in areas not served by public-transit, which then forces them to buy a car in order to get to work because our infrastructure investments all center around the expansion of roads and highways.
Click to expand...
Both can be true, and they are. The fact that we as a society care more about zoning for rich people’s aesthetic preferences and allowing poor people to get screwed over in the precise ways they do in this particular country very much speaks to our values. Which are bankrupt. I stand by that statement, despite your quoting a six year old post. And I’d say that things have gotten even worse than they were when I made it.

I think you’re misreading my post as being anti poor or dismissive. My views are quite the opposite. But the system tricks people in different ways.

DAVE said:
Sounds like you're talking about conspicuous consumption, which is funny that you think you are immune, or that this is just a facet of low-income people.
Click to expand...
Certainly not, everyone participates. Commodity fetishism affects everyone… but it’s an opiate of the masses in particular. People in material comfort can be distracted from their lack of meaning in their life, and people lacking real material comfort can be distracted from their lack of same. Without lip service to a planned economy and an all-powerful media-advertisement machine, we would have had a revolution a long time ago.
 
I think the massing and materials on this look to be high quality and a nice addition to the area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top