Hey, there! Log in / Register
Building with small studio apartments proposed near Forest Hills station
By adamg on Tue, 06/01/2021 - 9:20am
Rendering by RCA, LLC.
A Dorchester developer has filed plans with the BPDA for 13 "compact" studio apartments in a four-story building on Woodlawn Street, behind We Are Hair and across Hyde Park Avenue from the Forest Hills T-station parking lot.
James McClure's proposal, which would replace a parking lot, would have two affordable units.
The building would be built under Boston's "compact living" pilot, in which developers are allowed to put up units smaller than normally allowed under city zoning, on the theory this will reduce the cost of the units for tenants. In this case, that means units between 305 and 425 square feet, compared to the normal minimum 450 square feet the city normally requires for studios.
In addition to the BPDA, the proposal will also need approval of the Zoning Board of Appeal because the lot is smaller than required and the building is taller and too close to its lot lines under the street's zoning.
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
Odd solution?
Instead of simply building an adequate amount living space, we're seemingly choosing to develop as little as possible and just stuff people into smaller apartments. The desire to preserve outdoor character at the expense of quality of life is an interesting tradeoff!
An aspect of the housing
An aspect of the housing crunch in Boston is the issue of multiple adult roommates who snap up what was considered family housing a century ago, partially due to a dearth of single-occupant options - three adults who will share 1100 sq feet and each contribute a full amount of rent to do so. Which makes them unaffordable for parents (children aren't paying their share of the rent).
So here you have micro units designed for one person to try and diversify the rental portfolio. I'd way rather pay my 900$ rent towards 400 sq feet of space that's totally mine than the same amount towards a shared apartment where you're getting 350, 360 sq feet once the apartment's split between the three of you (and you have to share a bathroom).
That's presuming, of course, that these micro units would be priced comparable to what a share of a triple decker floor is. There's room to criticize developments that bring these things online and then charge 1400$ for one of them.
Thats why we need these in JP, HP and dorchester
micro apts at the Seaport don't help the housing crisis. They are just a pied a Terre for rich people.
If you build them in a neighbor where the price per square foot is reasonable, then it will work.
Even in the Seaport it likely
Even in the Seaport it likely makes a difference, albeit at the higher end of the rent spectrum. The demand for "small" apartments is definitely real (I put small in quotes because 305-425 isn't actually THAT small for a studio). If you don't build them that demand doesn't just evaporate. Those same people who would have rented those units either bunk up with roommates in multi-bedroom units or they move further out to more affordable neighborhoods where they displace people in existing housing.
Excellent. Build it.
Excellent. Build it.
gonna keep saying it
This area needs a full-size mid-market grocery store, and the increasing density only intensifies this.
Increasing density also makes
Increasing density also makes it more likely to happen.
Supermarket?
There are two Stop and Shops 2 miles from here. A Whole Foods even closer.
Roche Brothers is 2.5 miles - A good stretch of the legs. You live in a sea of markets from an urban development perspective.
Harvest closed. There's your testament on supermarkets in the area. There are no sites big enough in Forest Hills to support a market. If you say Arborway Yard, then you are against environmental justice by moving the buses to another location for your benefit to the detriment of others. That is terrible.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Those aren't that close if you don't drive
That said, you are right about Harvest. I wasn't a fan, but if there was a need for a grocery store, Harvest would have filled it. As it is, it's becoming some kind of school.
The T / Uber / The Stores
Gives You A Lot Of Options.
My Mom did not have a car when I was little and took the 20 from Fields Corner to Adams Corner with her groceries and then lugged them up the street.
I used to walk with groceries from the Pru to the South End.
Today each of the stores has their own delivery service.
You choose urban living, don't expect suburban conveniences. Somehow Forest Hills has gotten by since its build up circa 1910 without a big grocery store. There are more housing units there now, but there used to be a higher population density.
Now that suburban raised (not you) people have moved in, they don't want the downside but only the upside. Sucks, doesn't it?
I'll take it a bit further
Forest Hills Convenience is a block away from this site. Long before our time, that was considered to be a grocery store. Nowadays, I am amazed when I see CVS locations that used to be "supermarkets." With that in mind, what is considered a supermarket is just that much bigger.
You're right about T accessibility. Stop and Shop is at Jackson Square. Star Market a block or 2 from Back Bay (and at North Station.) Roche Brothers at Downtown Crossing (accessible from the concourse?) It's still a pain, and I have lugged items from the Back Bay to Roslindale via the T relatively recently.
Doyles proposes a market
Some kind of market has been proposed for the former Doyles (Braddock) Cafe as part of that development.
The Jackson Square stop and
The Jackson Square stop and shop is by far the worst grocery store I’ve ever been to. I could write a short novel about the terrible experiences I’ve had there despite having only been there a few times.
The Gig Economy
Slave Quarters
Magoo sez
Magoo wonders do apartments this size have a toilet. That will prove to be a real stinky scenario in the unit if one has a bad oopsie-doodle. Magoo.
evil
compact housing is evil and dehumanizing
"evil and dehumanizing"?
Tell that to someone now living with 2 roommates in 1000 SF. Or living in an outer burb and commuting 90 min to work each way every day.
I agree that 300/400 sf isn't for everyone, but it sure makes sense for some.
cramming 4 unrelated 30
cramming 4 unrelated 30-somethings into a 3 bedroom flat is dehumanizing. build compact and make it AFFORDABLE.
Are slightly larger studio
Are slightly larger studio apartments starting at $2300 (like, say, The Andi by the luxurious South Bay Mall) a better option? Is anyone going to be forced to live into this evil housing?
There are things about housing that the "let them eat cake" crowd will never understand.
https://theandisouthbay.com/floorplans/
...you know these are voluntary, right?
There are people who choose to live in tiny houses and RVs that are even smaller than this. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean that it's somehow evil - what a bizarre idea.
350 square feet really isn't
350 square feet really isn't even that small. Considering the number of 4 person households currently crammed into 800-1000 square foot 2/3-bedrooms around Boston right now, 350 square feet for one person, especially a young person who does not yet have a lot of stuff and doesn't cook much (if at all), is actually pretty luxurious by comparison.
Build it!
Then build another one on the corner of Weld Hill and HP Ave., and keep going until we've used up all the pocket parking lots within a half mile radius of any transit station.
Seinfeld
I'm not sure if it's politically correct anymore, but his reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about "Japanese business hotels" and people sleeping in dresser drawers.
This is one of the things
This is one of the things that makes Japan's housing so affordable. They don't have snobby land use laws that "protect" people who don't care about having more space from being able to rent a microwave-oven sized sleeping space for a few bucks a night. Instead we tell people the smallest we'll "allow" them to rent is 450 square feet. And of course it's not like this makes the price per-square-foot any cheaper, so if you can't afford the $2,500/month for that 450 square foot apartment and you don't want to live with roommates, you're basically SOL.
Meh design
But At least it replaces a parking lot.
Really wish Boston was more comfortable with contemporary architecture so we didn’t keep getting these mediocre faux-traditional buildings.