The Vale Boston (Kraft Foods Redevelopment) | Woburn

DrFreewind

DrFreewind

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
175
Reaction score
356
If you've seen the signs on 93 north of the city for "blasting" this is the reason.

800k sqft of office and lab space
75k sqft of retail space
75k sqft of hotel space
- 95 townhomes and 122 garden-style apartments on the Winchester side
- 3 multi-story apartment buildings (one 50-unit structure and a pair of 36-unit complexes)
- 84-bed long-term care facility and a separate memory care wing with 36-units
- 100-plus unit congregate senior apartment complex

Zwx6q7Z.png


https://www.thevaleboston.com/
 
Last edited:
Nice. And direct connection to the Tri-Community bike path as it ducks under 93. Too bad there’s not (yet) a station on the Lowell line at Montvale
 
Last edited:
Ahh just a couple days ago I drove down there and was surprised by just how much that hillside had been blown open.

Those are some squat looking buildings though...
 
Growing up in Stoneham you would smell the flavors of the jello when the winds were blowing right. It was pleasant but I believe it ended up being an EPA violation.
 
Last edited:
- 95 townhomes and 122 garden-style apartments on the Winchester side
- 3 multi-story apartment buildings (one 50-unit structure and a pair of 36-unit complexes)
- 84-bed long-term care facility and a separate memory care wing with 36-units
- 100-plus unit congregate senior apartment complex

homenewshere.com

Woburn 'Gelly' site to be transformed into 'The Vale'

MIDDLESEX - After four years of careful planning and deliberations, Woburn could be just months away from witnessing the largest ever private development in the city's history break ground.
homenewshere.com homenewshere.com

DrFreewind said:
Couldn't find any info about the residential portion, but:
Three multi-story residential buildings
Townhomes
And a senior living complex
Click to expand...
 
I bet they remediated the heck out of the area, but after decades of jello, and tanning and chemicals before that - after that Civil Action movie, I would never live in that part of Woburn.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Charlie my friend, you even have to ask? I'm sure it's the same ole pearl clutching, but what about the traffic, the overcrowded schools, the town's small town character, the noise, the water? I'll throw into the mix, OMG, the shadows, the police and fire department will be overwhelmed, the height, my views, it's where I walk my dog. 😜🤣🤪
 
Last edited:
I don't know how Woburn government works, so just wondering if the Council president's opinion on the idea has meaning or significance vs the mayor or rest of council?
 
atlantaden said:
Charlie my friend, you even have to ask? I'm sure it's the same ole pearl clutching, but what about the traffic, the overcrowded schools, the town's small town character, the noise, the water? I'll throw into the mix, OMG, the shadows, the police and fire department will be overwhelmed, the height, my views, it's where I walk my dog. 😜🤣🤪
Click to expand...
I interpreted the “Why” as a question to the poster, possibly agreeing that an additional 500 homes would be too much.
 
type001 said:
I interpreted the “Why” as a question to the poster, possibly agreeing that an additional 500 homes would be too much.
Click to expand...
Should've been clearer, but the "why" was aimed at the opposition of Woburn’s city council president, Robert Toro to the addition of 500 homes to the development. I hit a paywall for the second linked article, which may have had the answer. But as atlantaden said above, it's probably the perceived impacts on schools and traffic. But that's a rather narrow minded reaction given the overall housing shortage in the metro area.
 
It's even more perplexing than that. It looks to be proposed as a 55+ community with 0 impact on schools, and the developer stated that traffic is projected to be lower than the life sciences proposal.

I really don't get their angle at all.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Should've been clearer, but the "why" was aimed at the opposition of Woburn’s city council president, Robert Toro to the addition of 500 homes to the development. I hit a paywall for the second linked article, which may have had the answer. But as atlantaden said above, it's probably the perceived impacts on schools and traffic. But that's a rather narrow minded reaction given the overall housing shortage in the metro area.
Click to expand...
It could also be tax revenue impacts. Residential will pay less than lab and office. Of course, lab and office won't work there anymore, but maybe he's clinging to the dream of a "second Kendall" like every municipal official within a 50-mile radius of Cambridge did.
 
3decker said:
It's even more perplexing than that. It looks to be proposed as a 55+ community with 0 impact on schools, and the developer stated that traffic is projected to be lower than the life sciences proposal.

I really don't get their angle at all.
Click to expand...
The residential portion of the original plan to the south is largely complete, including the senior living community, townhomes, and apartments. All in that's about 420 units I believe. I don't know what the breakdown is for the 500 that are being proposed now. I recall the Woburn fire department had some issues due to access originally. The only way to get in and out of the overall development (the residential already built and the undeveloped portion) is a single road at the Montvale/93 intersection. But I agree commercial vs residential tax base would cause Woburn to push back some.
 
Nobody has mentioned access. There's only one way in or out, which is by the McDonald's. There is no connection down to Sunset or Forest so every single additional car is going to come out to this one light on an already brutal section of Montvale.

If they're planning on connecting one of the streets to Sunset or Forest I could see that actually being a reason to oppose, but only if that person happens to be living in that immediate area. If they're NOT planning on connecting the streets and it's all based on one access point then I could see a broader reason to oppose, based on traffic considerations. Personally I think connecting Archer to Forest is the way to go. Forest also has easy connections to 93 so connecting this development to there would go a long way towards easing traffic concerns.

1774449442629.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top