Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer signals intent to build 25-story tower in Dudley Square
By adamg on Fri, 05/19/2017 - 1:49pm
A Roxbury-area developer has filed a letter of intent with the BPDA to build a 25-story tower at 2345 Washington St., on what is now a parking lot.
The project, which would incorporate the former Roxbury Institute for Savings Building and the former Boston Consolidated Gas Company Building, was the dream of developer Kenneth Guscott, who died in a Milton house fire in March. His family's Rio Grande Limited Partnership submitted the letter to the BPDA in advance of a more detailed project-notification form.
Rio Grande proposed 236 residential units, from two bedrooms down to micro (smaller than a studio) - and says it will set aside 20% of the units as affordable in what it says is a project that will have a "transformative impact" on Dudley Square.
Rio Grande did not specify how many parking spaces it would provide, or where, but said it would seek permission to provide less parking than required by zoning because the tower would be directly across the street from the Dudley T station - and that making it harder to get parking would encourage transit use.
The first two floors of the building would be leased as commercial space.
Letter of intent (180k PDF).
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
cool
so i assume there are plenty of reasons why ppl want to halt this project & will explain in detail why a parking lot is more valuable
Umm...
I can give you one. Gentrification. Why not make all of the apartments affordable? Ohh right, because they want to appeal to a certain demographic. SMH!
And actually the parking lot is very useful. Its always packed with cars during the weekdays. So whats the problem?
Because....
The developers, very reasonably, need to make a profit.
Well, yes...
however don't you think the city has any responsibility in what is built in the city?
And can we please have discussion on what does "affordable" mean? Most of the "affordable" apartments in new builds are not affordable to me, and I make a lot more than the average salary of the average Bostonian. How about no more than 30 percent of someone's monthly income and scale the rent to match that figure? We don't need yoga studios, art studios, exercise rooms, indoor pools, cafes, doggie grooming, whatever...we need housing that is affordable for the masses.
And while I am at it, many of these affordable places are only gotten by lottery for the initial tenants (who tend to stay). So a lucky few get lucky the rest of us get nothing. How about no lottery and no strings attached?
nonsense
"How about no more than 30 percent of someone's monthly income and scale the rent to match that figure?"
Someone clearly doesn't understand how development works. In fact, this seems to be a pretty common thread around here. So let's make it simple:
Developers are not charities. They are businesses who build buildings to make a profit.
Developers might want to make
Developers might want to make money, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to build anything they want if its not zoned for it, or that there can't be other requirements about what they need to do on any development.
If developers can't make money given what's allowed, then things don't need to be changed just for them if there's other concerns that residents have that are also worth considering.
"this seems to be a pretty common thread around here."
It seems to be pretty common that people just assume basic zoning doesn't matter whenever someone thinks there isn't enough being built.
This not really about this in particular, just more generally.
issues with zoning
One problem with zoning is that it can become outdated. Zoning codes in Boston haven't gone through a comprehensive review since Boston was basically a different city in terms of population and growth. Not to mention zoning codes are established by humans with agendas, theories, and beliefs, who commit errors. They are not perfect laws, and sometimes they do more harm than good, often by being too constrictive, or historically, flat out racist.
You can have a zoning code established that set a max height or max floor-area-ratio that was thought of as appropriate thirty or forty years ago, but is no longer, that is now just prohibiting development because the developer cannot afford to build a building that small in that area when they know the units will only sell for $X. This is why so many projects go to the board of appeals - because if they were built per zoning, the developer would not make even the slimmest of profits, and that parking lot would still be a parking lot.
Not arguing that there should be no zoning, but the argument that all developers should follow zoning is very weak because there are many arguments to be made against current zoning codes in Boston.
Also, many projects (possibly
Also, many projects (possibly a majority) actually are built according to current zoning (aka. "as of right") but you don't hear about them because they do not go through this public review process. Projects that do not require zoning relief are also not required to include any affordability so be careful what you wish for.
Not trolling - genuinely
Not trolling - genuinely interested. How would you propose units be allocated with no lottery if the demand exceeds the supply? First come, first served for each specific project? A City-wide waiting list that moves in order?
The units are not "affordable
The units are not "affordable". They're "Affordable".
It's unfortunate that the two terms are used interchangeably. One describes a desire to lower the cost of all housing. The other describes a type of certain type of housing restricted to lower income buyers.
And the city does have a
And the city does have a legal definition of "affordable" for the sake of the usual inclusionary development rules, which is 70% of the area median income. So by definition if you earn more than the "average" Bostonian, you should be able to afford these units (however you will not be eligible for them because you earn too much).
These are the income limits
These are the income limits for affordable housing. They are not filling these units with "the poors" as you seem to want to think.
http://www.bostonplans.org/housing/income,-asset,-and-price-limits
Another take on a "mixed" building
I live in an affordable unit in a "mixed" building - I feel that the market rate units helped "lift the tide" for all the units. Affordable units were built out with nearly identical amenities as market rate units, so for me, that meant high-er end/energy efficient appliances including full sized washer/dryer, thoughtful additions like pre-wired ceiling speakers in every room for music/tv, custom millwork, very well designed and maintained public areas in the building, and a monthly HOA fee that is proportionally tied to my smaller unit footprint and affordability formula that determined the unit's selling price.
Did you get the place via a lottery?
n/t
Lottery
Yes. I applied for every project that matched my circumstances - 1 bedroom at the 100% AMI. Usually never placed higher than number 50, but for my winning project, I was #2 on the list (#1 passed). It took me about 15 applications over a multi-year period before my lucky position. The income verification process then took 10 weeks, with 2 full years of financial statements required. Once you are income verified, you have 90 days to close. Once closed, your salary can increase above the AMI you qualified at, but condo resale is governed by Boston Planning (former BRA). I am allowed a 3% appreciation per year, any future buyer has to income qualify at the then current 100% AMI set at the time of the sale by Boston Planning. Unit must be owner occupied at all times, not rented. In a nutshell, the housing stock's deed keeps it "affordable", and I as the owner, cannot speculate and make a huge profit. I look at it as IRA that pays 3% interest compounded. The affordability clause in the deed does expire in 50 years, but as I am 50 myself, I think I will probably expire before the deed does, lol.
dont sell yourself short mike
you should try to out live that clause
If you ever sell, you'll
If you ever sell, you'll probably find yourself with several dozen offers. All will be exactly equal to the asking price. The "best" buyer will be someone like a medical resident or a trust fund kid who can guarantee a quick close. The doctor's bank will have a mortgage preapproved with no contingencies (not even a home inspection). The trust fund kid use their dad's checking account as the mortgage company.
That's what eventually happens to 40B affordable units.
Why is gentrification bad?
Why is gentrification bad? Are neighborhoods supposed to stay the same way forever?
It depends to a certain
It depends to a certain amount if it's happening from basic market appreciation, or changes in market speculation and investors.
Parking lots and "very useful
Parking lots and "very useful" don't belong in the same sentence in a city. Housing is vastly more important than storing cars. Parking won't be lost with this building if it has an underground garage. In the amount of space 5 cars take up you could open a store and create jobs. Other than an empty lot that is fenced up there is nothing less useful than a parking lot.
Housing is vastly more
Housing is vastly more important than storing cars.?
Screw all the Dudley Square natives who park in that parking lot, because developers creating housing for yuppies are way more important, right?
There are already plenty of developments going on in Boston already..Have you been to Inkblock lately?? One thing Boston is NOT lacking is housing....AFFORDING housing though, is a whole different conversation..
lol hahaha
One thing Boston is NOT lacking is housing....AFFORDING housing though,
lmao hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahaahahah
Any use at all is better than a parking lot
If someone lives in greater
If someone lives in greater Dudley, they can walk to the commercial core, rather than driving and parking in this lot.
Pick a Sin to Accuse The Developers Of
Are they trying to gentrify out all of the "certain demographic" you're referring to? Or are they greedy?
And also, don't bother checking on who the developers are because then you'll find out that not only is the Guscott family part of that "certain demographic" you so coyly allude to but they have been one of the strongest community advocates in all of Roxbury and Dudley in particular for longer than most people have been alive.
But don't let facts get in the way of your "all developers are evil" messaging.
Yep.
It's 20% affordable, tho offsite. This project has been in the works for a long time and if you read up a little, you'd see that both Tito Jackson and Ayanna Pressley are both in favor of it--Presley actually said it would help retain local professionals who are currently moving to Randolph or Milton. Agree or disagree, but this is a locally-birthed project, so enough with all the yuppie stuff. Saying that right now, Dudley is poor so we need to build only more housing for poor people sounds like a pretty solid way to create a ghetto instead of creating mixed-income housing.
25 stories?
That will cast a shadow over Madison Park. Time for some outrage!
Not gentrification
I remind those saying this is gentrification that the developers of this project are African Americans who have a very long connection to Roxbury.
If a person wants to build housing, they can't do it for free. If they want to build subsidized housing, they need government grants to offset the costs. All subsidized housing requires grants, or otherwise the builder would have to make it at a loss. The grants are in short supply and hard to get.
There is a housing crisis in this city, and the shortage of housing is driving up costs. Every time I read on here people fighting against "gentrification" by saying it's bringing in too many yuppies, I cringe. What new construction would actually bring in is More Units, which would drive down rental costs.
The more you fight to keep out new construction, the more you are keeping housing in short supply. The more you force housing supply to stay low, the more you are making rental costs go up. In other words, your way of "fighting gentrification" is exactly the thing that is accelerating gentrification.
People need to step back and see the big picture. Housing is needed in this city. If you fight housing, you are causing prices to go up. If you keep demanding impossible numbers of affordable units that no developer could make and still run a business, then you are driving up costs on the older properties that remain.
What is needed is more housing plain and simple. The more housing that gets built (whether marked as affordable or not) the more prices will come down. If you fight this, you are causing your own gentrification.
I say bring it on - this tower looks great and it will flood the area with tons of units rather than the current short supply that is keeping prices up.