Hey, there! Log in / Register

BRA approves new residential building near Ashmont station

Ashmont project approved

The BRA board of directors today approved a six-story esidential building with 81 units on Dorchester Avenue, across from the Carruth and the Ashmont T station.

The building, which will also have ground-level retail space, will have 53 units marketed as affordable on what is now the home of Ashmont Tire, under plans by developer Trinity Financial. The project will have 44 parking spaces and storage space for 81 bicycles.

The Project will improve the urban design characteristics of the area by constructing a human-scaled, transit-oriented building along Dorchester Avenue and transforming the use of an uninviting cinder-block structure on a commercial site.

The project also needs approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Neighborhoods: 

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

Comments

Than the Carruth.

up
Voting closed 0

Units are selling for $300k+ it is well managed and IMO looks great too. Plus i go to Flat Black and bank at Eastern and have eaten at Tavolo. I dont understand why all the negativity. While i use the services of asmont tire it will be great to get more sidewalk retail and more residents to support it. While the affordable mix seems a high percentage Trinity Financial does a great job taking care of their property ( see assisted living facility The Foley [former TB hospital on River Street] it is beautiful). So i am going to say the development is a win win for the neighborhood.

up
Voting closed 0

Can't wait to go shopping at the Retail Signage store!!

up
Voting closed 0

I wonder if it'll sell ACME products..

up
Voting closed 0

The Letter of Intent from last summer says:

Floors 1-4, 45 apartments, "low to moderate income"
Floors 5 & 6, 40 condominiums, "market-rate"

The Carruth had trouble for a variety of reasons, including the cratering economy. This should be able to take advantage of the "good times".

Trinity Financial, the developer, makes it a point to include affordable elements in many of its projects. Admirable.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/eb5413b7-0941-...

up
Voting closed 0

The federal government provides project based subsidies for these units to the developer.

I also understand that Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Act permits for affordable housing that will over-ride local zoning laws allowing developers to build more than what would be permitted in an area.

I don't know if that is the case here though.

up
Voting closed 0

40B doesn't apply to Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

As noted above, 40B doesn't apply in Boston. However, there's a whole bunch of state, federal and local subsidies which support a wide range of income levels, including 30% of Area Median Income, 60%, 80%, etc. as a result developers have to piece together a bunch of separate loans to get these projects developed. The condo structure helps them to build a building with a range of income levels while keeping parts of the building legally separate (as separate parts of the condo regime) to meet lender and investor requirements.

Put simply, it's take a lot of work, and lawyers and accountants, to get buildings like this developed. Good news for Trinity and the Ashmont neighborhood, at least in my opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

The Letter of Intent from last summer says:

Floors 1-4, 45 apartments, "low to moderate income"
Floors 5 & 6, 40 condominiums, "market-rate"

The Carruth had trouble for a variety of reasons, including the cratering economy. This should be able to take advantage of the "good times".

Trinity Financial, the developer, makes it a point to include affordable elements in many of its projects. Admirable.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/eb5413b7-0941-...

up
Voting closed 0

Condos mixed in with rental apartments in the same building? Yuck. What a nightmare for that condo board.

Commercial space is bad enough, add in 40 people who don't give a crap about your investment.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually the number of condo only buildings (that are not just multi-family homes) seems minute. In condo buildings and complexes there are often high rates of non-owner occupancy. It's a shame really, because those investment focused landlords just rent out to college kids or other such people with no vested interest in the long term. I have even seen extreme instances, in a condominium building, where non-owner occupancy has led to brothels, flop houses, drug dens, or over population of a unit. It sucks for the people that do own and occupy in those situations as the ability to re-finance and insure, not to mention property values, take a hit.

It's hard to find a good solution because if you already have non-owner occupied units you can't readily enforce rules on the percentages. It's not like a co-op where everyone has a say in the sale of a unit. And efforts to increase ownership rates [whether on a building, city, state, or federal level] have often led to foreclosures. Those foreclosed units are even more vulnerable to being bought by predatory investors. It would be most interesting to see the number of owners of property in Boston that either live in Florida [the stereotypical slumlord paradise] or more recently China. And if you can show me a house flipper that is not an evil scumbag I would be highly surprised.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually it could be GOOD for the condo people.

Remember those apartments have to be managed by someone. One entity that represents the 40 units. And I'd even go out as far as say the same company that manages the apartments will also managed the condo-side also. So since it is same company, the condo owners can urge (and probably win) to make the management company to keep up the whole building, not just the condo side.

I mean yeah the interiors of the apartments are a different story, but as far as the bones/utilities, exterior, and general up keep it will be done.

Think of those condos more like "owned" apartments. Less hassle, more hands off. Anyone who wanted more "control" would buy into a smaller building or simply buy a single family home.

of course I'm making several broad assumptions here, but from understanding this is typically this is how it's done. (and I welcome any Realtor folks to correct me)

up
Voting closed 0

Actually it could be GOOD for the condo people.

Never. That's a dream world.

Nobody likes to buy a condo that has a high percentage of rentals, and by high, I mean 10-20%. You have a bunch of people living there that don't have a vested interest in the place. You also have a bunch of owners that may or may not be local, and may or may not participate in the actual running of the building(s). Remember, you're maintaining a building and all the systems in it worth a ton of money. When you have someone living there putting stuff in the toilet who doesn't care about the whole waste system in the building, nothing good can come out of that.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd take Ashmont Tire over this eyesore any day.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

could we get any less imaginative and any more generic with the architecture?....sheesh, Trinity is usually better than this...what the hell happened here?

up
Voting closed 0

one of the nicest local business' I have ever had the please of being served by. The decor was rough, the prices were fair, the staff polite and efficient
and the work was ACE

up
Voting closed 0

what is meant by "human-scaled" in reference to this building? I get the "transit-oriented" part...

up
Voting closed 0