Hey, there! Log in / Register

Roslindale casts wary eye at Forest Hills; residents wonder if they're next

For the second time this month, a community meeting on a proposed Roslindale development that would be small by South Boston or Forest Hills standards raised fears that Roslindale is about to be rushed by developers who will try to completely overwhelm the neighborhood with projects far denser than allowed under a rezoning plan worked out by residents and the city only a few years ago.

At least this time, the developer had some good news for neighbors: Tony Ferrara told about 30 residents, gathered at the Sons of Italy hall, that he will not tear down the large house at the top of the hill at 175 Poplar St. where Mary Baker Eddy briefly worked and lived.

Neighbors of the large house, who include City Council President Michelle Wu, agreed to postpone a hearing on the house before the city Landmarks Commission scheduled for mid-October for at least two months to try to work with Ferrara on a proposal that would keep the house, now divided into four condos, and build up to five additional units - four in two townhouse condos, one as a single-family house - on the 39,000-square-foot parcel.

Residents had sought the hearing to try for official landmark status to protect the house and its leafy property after Ferrara filed for a demolition permit this summer. They said tonight they would still need to see detailed plans for the new units on the relatively steep hill and for the trees that Ferrara would try to keep before agreeing to back his plans before the Boston Planning and Development Agency - what the BRA is now calling itself - and the Zoning Board of Appeals, where his current plans would require a use variance - but would meet zoning requirements for height and setback.

Several residents pointed to the possible look of the new buildings Ferrara might put on the Poplar Street land as a key factor for them - they don't want that clapboard stuff going up on apartment buildings across the city, but instead something that looks like all the old houses along Poplar and Augustus.

Well, except for Joe Cappuccio of Augustus Avenue, who said he's fought three times since the 1940s with developers who wanted to tear the big old house down and who said he would fight whatever Ferrara proposes. Noting that Ferrara lives in West Roxbury, Cappuccio told him: "There's plenty of land you can build on there. Go to West Roxbury where you belong!"

Ferrara said he is giving up one of the total of ten new units he could put on the land under its existing zoning to work with neighbors to preserve the unique property. But Wu told residents they should look out for what's best for them, not worry about what a developer says is necessary to make a project economically viable for him.

Wu said she's hearing from all over the city that negotiations between developers and residents are starting from the developer's financial minimums, not what's best for their neighborhoods.

It's a particularly sensitive issue in Roslindale, where residents and Menino-administration officials came up with a new zoning map for the neighborhood that preserved the less dense nature of the area while still allowing for some commercial and residential development.

Dennis Kirkpatrick, who spent long hours at some of those meetings, warned that Roslindale is in danger of being subsumed by developers who aren't content to live within the neighborhood's zoning and are beginning to start "stripping this community of the zoning that has kept Roslindale what it is."

He pointed to the demolition of two houses on Taft Hill Terrace to make way for a new condo project and a proposal on Cummins Highway to tear down a three-family house to make way for a four-story, 14-unit apartment building - which would require several zoning variances for being too tall, too dense and too close to neighboring properties.

Given the BRA/BPDA's penchant for approving dense projects and then backing them before the zoning board, he worried Roslindale could one day become as dense as the South End - something he said people moved to Roslindale to escape. "It's not going to be quirky Roslindale anymore," he said.

The largest current proposal for Roslindale is a 137-unit apartment complex on Walk Hill Street, off American Legion Highway.

Cathy Slade, president of the Roslindale Historical Society, had something even closer to worry about: The massive apartment projects along Washington Street in Forest Hills, where she said the BRA approved "boxes with punched out windows" that she said are "ugly as hell."

At a meeting last week on the Cummins Highway proposal, residents expressed similar concerns about the neighborhood's future - and also pointed to Forest Hills as something they don't want Roslindale to turn into.

In that case, the developer, City Realty, agreed to consider a request from residents to take a floor off the four-story proposal.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The development discussion is complex. In my view, one of the critical failings of the City is the lack of integrated land use and transportation planning. We're seeing a big push to accommodate more residents--rightfully so given the housing crisis and the toll it takes on people's lives (and commutes) plus the drag on our economy. But if the city is to grow by 100,000 residents, we can't possibly have 100,000 more cars, or even 10,000. We need dramatic and creative action on parking and transportation policy, as well as investment in that infrastructure, but we're seeing extremely little--mainly token tiny projects.

And while it's appropriate to insure new development fits into the neighborhood and minimize negative impacts through smart design choice, zoning is the wrong frame for the discussion. An extraordinary amount of our existing stock is "nonconforming"--which means the zoning doesn't reflect how the neighborhood is, but rather provides a mechanism to block virtually every project and give neighbors and politicians veto and reward rights. It's also sometimes the case that what a developer can build as of right is worse than what they would do with the zoning variances. In other words, we can and should have lots of community engagement and discussion about the future direction of Roslindale, but the zoning code should not be an argument in and of itself as to why something is good or bad.

up
Voting closed 0

Remember the Urban Ring project?

up
Voting closed 0

There is an urban ring, and it's called the 86 bus.

up
Voting closed 0

city can and should push for transit expansion, but since that process takes a lot of time, money, and support from legislators who don't really care about Bostonians, the only thing the city can do to make a dent in the parking and transportation issue immediately is to move a lot faster on bike infrastructure - which the city doesn't seem serious about right now.

In our neighborhood, with a safe bike network, this would mean a shift a significant number of people from multi-car households where people commute daily by car to one-car households where the car is used occasionally. This won't be true for everyone, but would help a lot of people. Especially this 2-car household where I would definitely bike the kids to school if it were safe.

up
Voting closed 0

Right now we're a one car family. If I commuted into the city instead of south on 95, I'd totally bike to work (especially once the Arboretum bike path is complete).

up
Voting closed 0

I CAN'T WAIT for the bike path. I really want to bike - it would cut down my commute into jp so much - but Washington is so sketchy at the best of times and I'm not a good rider and it just doesn't feel safe.

up
Voting closed 0

Arboretum path would be helpful for my spouse's commute. I need a path to my kids' school in Dorchester and to the seaport. This would be American legion to blue hill ave and Columbia. Then across 93 to day Blvd and then through southie.

I used to work in Cambridge and my route was along the emeralds necklace - which was an awesome bike commute. It takes about the same amount of time to bike as to drive to my current job, but it felt very unsafe especially where the bike lane cuts out and I'm trying to maintain my position with drivers who don't respect me. As long as I'm physically able, there should be no reason why I can't choose to bike to work. But right now I fear for my life out there. My kids love riding on the bike, but I wouldn't want to put them in that kind of danger where we are getting passed within inches of a truck. So now I drive. I resent driving. I sit in traffic wasting money. I can't just stop somewhere on the way like I used to.

up
Voting closed 0

A group of residents are working to make your route happen - join us! http://www.bulletinnewspapers.com/mobile/displayarticle.aspx?smid=23511&...

up
Voting closed 0

Solar-powered, ride-sharing, self-driving cars—which use all of the existing meter spaces to recharge—are the future, and the city should prepare its infrastructure to accommodate that. All other parking should be in private lots. Forcing more people to share rides to go into the city, whether from the suburbs or from already in the city, will solve many of the expected problems.

up
Voting closed 0

Will self-driving cars cure cancer, too?

The problem isn't lack of self-driving cars ... THE PROBLEM IS TOO MANY CARS AND SELF DRIVING CARS WON'T FIX THAT.

up
Voting closed 0

Self-driving cars are expected to all but eliminate traffic once it gets to 10 pct. of vehicles on the road. And ride-sharing=less cars. Or did you conveniently skip over that part of the description?

up
Voting closed 0

Or prediction?

I honestly don't see this part coming to fruition. If people can own their own cars, have the cars drop them off at work and then drive their own selves back to their house, why would they share a ride with a stranger? If people were so hot to share rides with strangers, hitchhiking would still be a thing.

up
Voting closed 0

People won't own shared cars. The price point for using one will be so low, due to the lack of a driver, that it'll be more like the T - pay 200-500 dollars a year, get unlimited rides to wherever you need to go in a self driving taxi. For people who already are teetering on the edge of one-car households or getting rid of their car entirely, except for the fact the T turns a 20 minute commute into a two hour one, having a door to door commute service might be the deciding factor.

I would absolutely not own a car if I could buy into a self-driving membership program.

up
Voting closed 0

Then how does Uber pool exist? It wouldn't necessarily be a "car" as we know it. It could be more of a 15-passenger looking thing that has little compartments for each person. For $160/month (Uber currently charges $160 with a driver for 40 pool rides a month) that's cheaper than insurance and the cost of a 2nd personal vehicle. The gov't doing its part to incentivize these vehicles (which are energy-efficient and more dependable than the T or buses) by putting in spaces for these vehicles to get a charge and wait to be hailed would be a big step to getting people to use the service.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah. Right. Ick.

Mobile South Station Restroom!

Oh, and those people will be ENORMOUSLY OBESE.

Biking, walking - facilitating those and public transit is the RIGHT ANSWER.

Self-driving privatized monorails ... no.

up
Voting closed 0

Is that a self-driving car would pick you up and drop you off at work and then that same car would move on an Uber people around of drive someone else to work. The car would, in this theory, stay busy most of the day, rather than taking up a parking space. I don't think this is all that likely to happen, but it's an interesting thought.

up
Voting closed 0

On the road, creating traffic 24 hours a day in every direction.

up
Voting closed 0

Those passengers will take all the crap I leave in my self driving car. They'll probably have sex in it, too, so it will have a strange funk to it. Oh, and speaking of odd smells, you know all summer the passengers will be overdue for a shower.

up
Voting closed 0

Surely the first thing you want to smell when you get out of work is other people's farts in your car.

up
Voting closed 0

You wouldn't own the car. You would only use a personal car for garage-to-garage or garage-to-driveway personal trips. Like going from Roslindale to Canton to visit a friend; or taking a road trip somewhere.
As far as citation, this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/05/07/self-driving-cars-woul...

And basically any study that's come out in the past five years. The previous estimate was that 2% of self-driving cars would eliminate traffic. It's now been revised upward to about 10%.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a17718/just-a-handful-of-self-drivi...

up
Voting closed 0

I would own my own personal self-driving car, but I would leave it in the garage and take the public fartmobile instead, even though my self-driving car could drop me off and go park itself...

You really think that makes sense?

up
Voting closed 0

Think of it as an "upgrade" of transit to the Cable provider monopoly model. Only this one doesn't let you watch netflix on your computer.

up
Voting closed 0

Please provide citations.

You just saying JUST IMAGINE is not the same as reality.

Put down the kool-aid and show your work.

up
Voting closed 0

is the biggest problem in Boston. You're right, everyone can't drive to work in a city the size of Boston. It just won't work. But because the MBTA is run by the state, who don't care about Boston despite it's being the economic engine of the area, and has been mismanaged for years we are really hamstrung in terms of development. It's all going to include too much parking and the traffic is going to get worse until the MBTA starts fixing things and getting the system up to something close to capacity.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a good thing our State Reps. work so hard on this issue.

Oh wait, my state rep (Sanchez) appears to only worry about Mission Hill/JP stuff and the health care sector.

up
Voting closed 0

10,000 of those people could fit into a transit oriented redevelopment of Sullivan Square with an eye to providing housing for middle and working class people. With few neighbors to bother, something similar to Assembly Square, but with high-rises would be optimal.

up
Voting closed 0

So basically, given the size of the lot, the developer could put in 10 units without any variances, but he would have to raze the house. Those opposed to development are pinning a lot of their hopes on the house somehow being declared a landmark. If the opposition loses, they could lose big.

I'm curious to see what this latest proposal looks like. That is a mighty big lot, and while it is a great house, compared to all of the properties around it, there is a lot of unused space that could help ease the housing crunch.

up
Voting closed 0

What they showed last night were basically just maps of the lot with boxes drawn on them. The architect asked for a month to come up with renderings, which would be especially useful given the lot's topography.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for reporting on this, Adam. I wanted to go to this but couldn't.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for posting. I wish I had been able to go to this. What exactly is it about Forest Hills that people don't want Roslindale to turn into? Just an honest question. I must not be in the loop on what Forest Hills "is like" in the eyes of the average Roslindaler. As for development in Roslindale, we are in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, I fully support enforcement of the zoning that was developed with community input a few years back because that is the bargain that was struck as far as development is concerned, and it should be honored. On the other hand, Roslindale is a neighborhood of beautiful housing stock much of which is in great need of investment and repair. We are an entire neighborhood of houses with "great bones." I am concerned that we have reached a price point where the kinds of work needed can mostly only be done by professional developers who can use the economics of either demolishing, or subdividing, property to finance the renovation. This is largely what happened in JP, although much more of JPs housing stock had already been subdivided in the 70s-80s and was just condo converted from apartments. There will always be some people who can afford to buy a $600K single family and then put in the $250K needed to rehab it, but that is probably going to be the exception and not the rule in Roslindale in the foreseeable future. This is a long way of saying that we need to be aware of, but not entirely beholden to, the economics of the neighborhood and that makes for some difficult navigation. Otherwise, over time we will go from being quirky to just shitty as housing stock continues to deteriorate with age or gets renovated poorly by people who can't really afford to do it well.

up
Voting closed 0

One is the sheer massing of the buildings - those things are huge, at least when compared to what people in Roslindale are used to.

The other is, as Cathy Slade put it, those things are butt ugly, especially when compared to what people in Roslindale are used to.

Now throw in Michelle Wu's comments about rolling over for developers and starting the discussion with the assumption that a developer should have the right to exceed local zoning - it's just a question of by how much - and should be rewarded for taking a risk by spending a lot of money on land not zoned for what he wants to do. His risk shouldn't be the neighborhood's concern.

It was unfortunate that Ferrara bore the brunt of this, since, by right, under the zoning residents came up with, he could do something the neighbors would hate and he is willing to work with them to come up with something better, even at the risk of lower profits (one less unit). But it shows the concerns in the neighborhood about the overall future.

up
Voting closed 0

One is the sheer massing of the buildings - those things are huge, at least when compared to what people in Roslindale are used to.

They are huge and they should be huge, because they are next to a T station. Density is necessary to have a proper use of resources in public transportation and should be allowed if not mandated.

When Roslindale Village gets an extension of the OL we can talk about density and tall buildings, until then, let Roslindale be Roslindale.

up
Voting closed 0

But that does not forgive the butt-ugly aspect.

up
Voting closed 0

Until they're all covered with innovative greige vinyl. Then they'll be lovely.

up
Voting closed 0

This keeps popping up over and over.

1) Existing tracks cannot be shared - federal law. You'd either need to wipe out the Needham Commuter rail or build a whole new ELEVATED set of tracks to Roslindale adjacent to that.
1A) The land next to the tracks between the tracks and the Arbs is a wetland - adds environmental issues not to mention stability of land for building - anything
2) Needham CR is one-track. Likely not wide enough to accommodate 2 tracks under modern standards. All bridges would need to be rebuilt and hoards of land taken to make it wide enough under federal standards for rail systems.
3) Ridership demands are unclear. T operates on a "passenger-per-mile" system. Unless there is a definite and demonstrated need that more people will use it, or transfer to it, it won't happen.
4) No space for a station. As it is they would need to cut into the revetment that is holding up the side of Conway St and the Arbs to make it wide enough just for the tracks. You'd loose the existing parking lot for a stub-end station..
4A) Loss of layover tracks. FH has 3 lay-over tracks for train storage at night to start the next day's service. You'd loose 2 of those. No storage for the next morning.
5) No parking. No new T station is being built anywhere without parking - period. They won't do it.
6) Bike lobby wants a new path from the T station to FH. Now you have the bike lobby pitted against the people wanting the OL extended. Coordination? Nope.

The extension of the OL to Needham or well in that direction was considered and dropped back in the 1980s when the current configuration was built. It was decided then that this was all that could be done for then and well into the future. The T is not going to add a 1-mile construction project. If they could extend it several miles and get Needham on board, and get federal money to widen and replace Bridges, maybe. But a 1-mile extsnion is not happening for way-too-many yearons.

You are better off trying to get shorter trainsets running extra runs that pass through Roslindale. The T is actually looking at that for Fairmount line. Get on board with that.

up
Voting closed 0

Not being an expert on the issue, my take:

3) Demand unclear? Really? Washington street is probably the only mile in the city with 9 (!) bus routes. The number of users from these routes speak for themselves. Anybody who has used FH through one of those feeding routes knows about the potential demand.

1-1A-2-6) As fast as I know, the Right-of-Way is already there for the tracks to be built. None of these comments are a problem.

4-5) There is more public parking space today at Roslindale square, 2 MBTA lots plus one city lot, than at FH. Not saying it doesn't need to be taken into account, but it definitely can be done.

4A) That is a real issue but doesn't feel enough to stop this.

I read in archboston that what is impossible (funny enough, they are big believers on the +1 OLX) is better frequencies for the CR. There are issues at South Station beyond my understanding that make it a no-no.

By the way, 1980 was 36 years ago.

up
Voting closed 0

Shorter train sets running more frequently through Roslindale sounds Great!!! What's the best way to show my support, because I'M IN!

up
Voting closed 0

I tend to agree, practically, that this is just not feasible nor the best bang for the buck. For the price and disruption of extending the subway, we could accomplish so much more with the same resources. Let's first take on the lower-hanging fruit:

- Same fare to get downtown from Roslindale whether you go by bus/subway or commuter rail

- Dedicated bus lanes on Washington Street with fewer bus stops along the way -- if you could get to Forest Hills in 5 minutes from Rozzie Square and never have to wait more than 5 minutes for a bus, this would get us 90% of the benefit of an extended subway at a tiny fraction of the cost.

- More frequent commuter rail service, especially on weekends. The short trainset idea is quite interesting as well. The weekend CR doesn't get a lot of ridership, but I suspect that's because it's so infrequent (and zero on Sunday) that it's not useful enough to be a mode of transportation for anyone who has other options.

- Build the Gateway Path! http://walkuproslindale.org/gateway

Maybe in a perfect world we'd also get the Orange Line, but these things can be accomplished for a fraction of the cost, getting most of the benefit, and freeing up funds for other good transit/bike/ped projects.

up
Voting closed 0

as Cathy Slade put it, those things are butt ugly, especially when compared to what people in Roslindale are used to.

Bwahahaha! Stop, you're killing me! Beautiful, bucolic Rosi will be spoiled by Big Buildings!

Bwahahaha! Oops, I think I peed!

up
Voting closed 0

And people wonder why there's no workforce housing in this City.

To Hell with NIMBYism.

It's not buildings that make neighborhoods but people. And by not allowing anything to get built we're ensuring that the only people living in this city were those fortunate enough to buy in 30 years ago, when no one was objectintg to their houses being built, or millionaires.

You stay classy Baby Boomers and keep on screwing your children and grand children!

up
Voting closed 0

Likely goes without saying, but the views expressed at this meeting are not necessarily the views of all or even most Roslindale residents. Most welcome change.

up
Voting closed 0