Hey, there! Log in / Register

Developer proposes 28-condo project next to Roslindale forest; residents say that's the wrong place

Rough rendering of proposed condos

Initial sketch of proposed condos.

A Roslindale developer last night showed off his initial plans for 28 townhouse condos in two buildings on a narrow acre off Dale Street, between the Sherrin Woods forest and the Northeast Corridor train tracks in Roslindale.

James Guerrier said all the units would be sold as affordable to people making between 80% and 100% of the Boston area median income.

He said that would mean prices of between $213,000 and $368,500 - and that deed restrictions would limit unit sales to people making no more than city affordable guidelines for 30 years. Although Guerrier said he would seek state housing subsidies or credits, he is financing the project on his own. He said he wants to do more with his work than just make money and that he sees the proposal as a way to create a way for Black and Brown families to build equity and stay in a city that has increasingly priced them out.

Nearby residents, though, worried about the impact of any development right next to the 25-acre Sherrin Woods forest - which extends into Hyde Park - and their neighborhood, during an hour-long Zoom call with Guerrier.

They said the project could ruin Sherrin Woods, which they said was one of the largest urban wilds in the city, flood the neighborhood with displaced rats and pet-chomping coyotes - and literally, with water - and even possibly lead to the entire area burning down if residents had barbecues during dry season and set the woods on fire. Residents also worried about traffic on what they said were already congested streets like Dale and Windham and doubted that the 28 parking spaces Guerrier said he would propose, on the advice of BPDA planners, would be enough.

Jeanne DuBois, a Roslindale resident and executive director of the Southwest Boston Community Development Corp., which seeks to create affordable housing in Roslindale and Hyde Park, said she admired Guerrier's proposal, but said the location was simply a poor choice because of its potential impact on Sherrin Woods.

DuBois offered to drive Guerrier around Roslindale to see other locations that would work equally well for 28 units - and even offered to work with him on a joint-venture project, if he needed any development help. Guerrier said he would like to sit down with DuBois.

Pat Alvarez, who lives nearby and who is assistant director of the Southwest Boston CDC, also praised Guerrier's design and goal, but said destroying a wooded parcel in an era of climate change is just the wrong way to go.

"This is a beautiful design, but you cannot destroy an existing woodland" because woodlands are "critical to protecting us from climate change," she said. "If you don't have woodland, you are not safe from climate change, it's just that simple."

Guerrier said he would do more than his part for the environment, by putting solar panels on the building roofs, by not adding a natural-gas hookup to the site and by replacing the invasive Norway Pines and weeds with more local alternatives, especially along the driveway off Dale Street - as well as by removing all the empty propane tanks and other trash that now litter the site. He added he is also talking with the MBTA to try to get permission to clean up a particularly ragged piece of land it owns just off Dale Street and to let him landscape it.

At one point, he grew a bit frustrated with all the tree talk, asking if people on the Zoom call were really "talking about prioritizing trees" over affordable home ownership.

Residents said no, just that this one specific parcel is the wrong place.

"We can do both and do both well," Alvarez said. "This is the wrong place for this beautiful design."

But Guerrier said he is determined to do something for Boston residents of color who could not otherwise afford to buy a home in the city - and that he remains committed to the specific site and project.

"I'm totally committed this project, to see it through at all costs," he said. "It's something I'm extremely passionate about."

At one point during the Walsh administration, the city had an agreement with the lot's owner, Fred Van Dam, to try to buy it for roughly $600,000 and to formally add it to Sherrin Woods, resident Frank O'Brien said. But through the changes from Walsh to Janey to Wu, the city never followed through and now his heirs have a deal with Guerrier to sell him the land should he get the project permitted.

Guerrier said he wanted to discuss the plans with nearby residents before formally filing with the BPDA to start the regulatory approval process.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

Fine - if it’s the wrong place let’s seize the NIMBY neighbors land, knock down their houses and build denser housing on their parcels.

up
Voting closed 0

Isn't it always the wrong place ?

up
Voting closed 0

He should come back with a proposal to build four times as much housing. Every time there's an objection he should increase the size of the project.

up
Voting closed 0

How dare you propose building apartments across the street from a park. This kind of thing just can't be done. And even if it could, would it be appropriate for Boston? Has this kind of thing ever happened here before? How many other forests have burned down? Certainly it wouldn't be appropriate in our neighborhood.

up
Voting closed 0

The new residents will doubtless take inspiration from noted barbecuer and forest-burner Henry Thoreau.

up
Voting closed 0

In the service of more parking, of course.

up
Voting closed 0

Sure, this is just about conjoined with Stony Brook reservation but there's no space for poor people near these privileged gatekeepers because of the forest.

Protecting woodlands is the favorite canard of the NIMBY in the Parkway now, in spite of the existing of Stony Brook, Cutler, Hancock, Allandale Woods, never mind the Arbs. Disgraceful people, all of them.

up
Voting closed 0

There are a couple of large developments right next to Stony Brook. And some fairly large apartment buildings just across the street (granted, that means taking your life in your hands trying to get across Washington Street without being flattened, but still).

up
Voting closed 0

None of their arguments are any reason to say no to this. I mean the house on the corner of Dale and Metropolitan has a pool. Don't they have a grill? I'd be surprised if they didn't have one.. who would have a pool and no grill? So their arguments are invalid.

I admit I agree that the density doesn't match the rest of the neighborhood but we need more density and less single family homes. And right now its unused, and we need more housing so.. enough with the NIMBYism

up
Voting closed 1

So much anger and hatred. These comments make me feel that there is no hope for Boston.

up
Voting closed 1

Please no, do not approve this project.

The map link is misleading on the location. It's actually abutting the pedestrian overpass and shown in green on the Google map. Hence the 1 acre parcel most would think is already a part of Sherrin woods as they are contiguous. If the development is approved, likely every tree on the property which is entirely forested would be removed, essentially shrinking Sherron Woods. Find another location for this type of development.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, the Google map I linked to just shows a nearby intersection - the problem is that the site does not currently have a street address (it's just listed in the assessors/registry records as "Dale Street," and, of course, Boston has two Dale Streets).

The map below is from the assessors mapping system. The privately owned parcel in question is the sort of skinny butcher-knife-shaped green parcel just to the left of Providence Street and with its "handle" touching Dale Street (with the train tracks in gray between Providence and the green). The rest of the green is Sherrin Woods, with a DCR playground and tennis court up top (the white-ish dotted lines).

Map
up
Voting closed 0

I wish I had been at the meeting, in general, but I'd like to see a good plan of this development to see how it would interact with the urban wild.

Still, the City should have bought the land. The City should buy the land.

up
Voting closed 0

But fuck the entirety of those woods. The Neponset and Stony Brook Park are within walking distance of that huddle of trees you're trying to protect from development. Build up to the train tracks.

We need housing more than we need that spat of trees with the entirety of the Emerald Necklace surrounding that spot.

up
Voting closed 0

every neighborhood to mitigate stormwater and rising temperatures, to improve the soil and clean the air. A tree canopy improves the physical and mental health of area residents.

Having tree cover 1-5 miles away just doesn't work. It's an environmental justice issue, where lower income people have been shortchanged.

It's not a bad development but it is in the wrong place.

Development of additional housing units can happen without destroying the landscape.

Trees are the most economical way to fight climate change and increasing severe weather events.

up
Voting closed 0

You are actually arguing that because trees are important for social justice, we shouldn't build this low income housing right next to a bunch of trees? Rethink the logic of the point you aren't making.

up
Voting closed 0

I said it.

Do you think housing lower income people next to a train line spewing pollutants is a good thing? Green cool places away from RR tracks are only for those who can afford to spend more?

It's not like living next to the Riverside line.

up
Voting closed 0

Who deals with climate and environmental pollution I am getting overwhelmed by your toxic bad faith arguments here.

You either don't know what you are talking about, are grasping at any/all "popular" arguments without understanding the deeper issues, or are completely full of it and disingenuously using poor people as a meat shield for your NIMBY nonsense.

up
Voting closed 0

It's amazing you don't realize how ridiculous your position sounds.

up
Voting closed 0

Too bad you are just putting up a greenshield as a NIMBY front and not understanding the issue.

We need more trees WHERE THERE ARE NO TREES NOW - as in redlined, paved over industrial areas.

We need more housing EVERYWHERE including in an area surrounded by trees!

Not sure if this comment is bad faith, poor understanding of the actual issues, or both.

EDIT: I'm becoming convinced that these "truthy" statements are in complete bad faith

up
Voting closed 0

that I am accused of being a NIMBY. I have walked Sherrin Woods but do not live in the area.

Don't paint people with that meaningless label.

Some people can civilly disagree with whether the location is a good one for a development.

up
Voting closed 0

The land’s more valuable, and a variety of amenities are walking distance. I know what’s walking distance from this parcel because unlike you, I walk around there.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

I agree.

I also agree that there's a need for more housing in the area, which is why I'm torn on the Crane Ledge development. That said, Jeanne DuBois, who lives as far from this place as I do and who loved getting housing built for average people, agrees that there's better places for this.

I think the developer is trying his best, and should be commended for what he is trying to do, but the City should have bought this parcel years ago.

And for the record, I try to run through the woods once a week, and I run by it a few other times a week, the last instance being yesterday. It's really nice. I recommend people visit the urban wild. And being someone who is in those woods, I will say that clearcutting a portion is not a good move.

up
Voting closed 0