Hey, there! Log in / Register

Proposal would allow denser development along Dot Ave. in South Boston in exchange for more affordable housing

Urban Liberty provides an update on BRA planning for development along Dorchester Avenue from Broadway to Andrew.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

...more affordable housing for the well-connected who don't actually need it. I call BS.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't see it. For such a vague land use plan, how would one even begin to get at that level of detail about who would go into such units?

up
Voting closed 0

Could you elaborate on this?

up
Voting closed 0

It goes the relatives of political, townie hacks.

The same people that complain about government hand-me outs.

up
Voting closed 0

The midpoint of the Broadway and Andrew T stops is 0.4 miles from each -- an easy walk. My suggestion (and a popular one around here): very little parking garaged parking, and exclusively metered parking on-street (along with loading, handicap, taxi, etc.). Build great bike infrastructure to get residents to South Station; bonus if you make W 4th/E Berkeley better for bikes too.

And, while both Broadway and Andrew have lots of bus routes, I'm not aware of any(!) that go from one to the other. If DotAve gets full of residential in this area, it sure would be nice if buses that currently terminate at Andrew instead went down DotAve to terminate at Broadway, and vice versa. It would open up lots of residents to lots of bus lines without a one-hop Red Line or a long walk. It would also allow handicap users (and others for whom 0.4 miles is too far a walk) a way to hop onto the bus in order to get to the Red Line.

Hell -- have a bus/bike lane in each direction that's separated from auto traffic. As long as the bus stops have a little cut-in to the right the bikes can pass the stopped buses, and stop frequency will ensure that buses don't lose more than a second or three to bicycles.

[I used to live on Woodward right behind the Lil Peach]

up
Voting closed 0

At this time only the 47 terminates there. Both the 9 and the 11 terminate at City Point.

One idea is a loop route that goes around the perimeter of south boston, like the Ashmont Loop.

Say Broadway to Andrew sq.
Up Dorchester St and take a right on 8th. Take the same route as the 11 to City Point. the challenge would be coming back. Go through the Seaport and come back on A or D? Or come down 1st?

I think taking the L to A st would include the most road that already has bus stops on it.

up
Voting closed 0

Why not continue all the way up Dorchester street, left on 1st, right on D, loop through seaport and take the Bypass Road as far as you can and cut over to A street back to Broadway. Not only do you connect the Seaport to more "affordable housing" you also give an alternative to people who live south on the redline as you can by pass the silverline and south station by taking a bus right to Broadway or Andrew. Silverline could certainly use some relief at rush hour.

up
Voting closed 0

past Broadway Dorchester St is not wide enough for a bus.

but if a Silver Line took a left onto Dorchester Ave, then they could go to Broadway, and then follow the path of the 11 back to the regular silver line route.

By the way, when does the silver line go to andrew Square? oh wait, never.

up
Voting closed 0

you witnessed an MBTA bus pull to the curb in the space that is cleared for it, and not just double park in a travel lane while drivers pile up and curse behind it? Clearing space for busses is just wasting space, they don't put it to use.

up
Voting closed 0

When was the last time you were on a bus that didn't have to stop in the middle of the street because somebody was parked in the bus stop, or a truck was stopped making a delivery, blocking the bus stop?

$100 fines are useless if the law is never enforced.

up
Voting closed 0

This goes back several years, but I was going down washington street in Roslindale and a bus stopped in the middle of the road. After a minute there was no oncoming traffic so the driver in front of me and I went around the bus. The reason the bus was in the street was because a BPD cruiser was parked in the stop and pulled both of us over for crossing a double yellow. Cop let me go but held the other driver. Guessing because I had a Boston address but not sure.

Maybe I should have made a citizen's arrest on the cop!

up
Voting closed 0

Block traffic so you can ticket people for going around you? Must have been short on quota.

up
Voting closed 0

They will for elderly and wheelchairs etc. When cars arent parked there illegally. I'm guessing ADA laws are going to require clear paths.

up
Voting closed 0

either way, I'm really excited to see this area develop. The section of Dot Ave from Andrew station to Marr scaffolding is currently nothing - its just land with enormous bushes and weeds, a broken down fence, and some cement. It looks terrible - people use it as a giant garbage can, scratch tickets, nips, and DD cups everywhere. Its prime land next to a red-line stop. It's mind boggling that this wouldn't be developed. Hopefully it will be.

up
Voting closed 0

There are scratch tickets and nips everywhere in Boston and there will be even after all available land has been developed and likely even until the sun turns into a red giant and burns the world.

This city is full of world class litterers is what I'm saying.

up
Voting closed 0

I think that lot is/was owned by teh MBTA or the state. But you're right it's useless right now. Only issue is no one wants to live behind a busy train yard

up
Voting closed 0

Denser development IS affordable housing!!

Allow dense development and EVERYONE benefits!

up
Voting closed 0

More development doesn't always lower housing costs.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/06/15/why-more-housing-won-make...

up
Voting closed 0

Reducing the potential increase is effectively the same as lowering. More supply better prices. This is an economic fact.

up
Voting closed 0

Not to sound TOO much like a libertarian, but why in the world are we talking about "allowing" developers to build more housing when we should be begging them to do it?

If you want money to build housing for low income residents, just fucking tax me. Housing developers are the last people we should be shaking down for money.

up
Voting closed 0

It actually works better if they include low income housing in their project. Altogether it's more affordable for everybody. Low income housing tends to be more successful if low-income housing is distributed evenly in a city. It is safer and the people that Live there are more likely to achieve

up
Voting closed 0

It's a tax that I'm not paying, for a policy goal that we should ALL be lining up behind. The burden should not go just on the developers.

(And yes, low income housing should be integrated everywhere, not warehoused out of sight.)

up
Voting closed 0