Developer still plans to replace two-family homes near the Fairmount train station with a single, larger building, but plans now call for condos instead of apartments
The Zoning Board of Appeal yesterday gave the owner of four two-family houses on Fairmount Avenue, near the bridge over the Neponset and the train tracks in Hyde Park, an extra year to start razing them to make way for a four-story, 47-unit residential building.
But the DiSipio Building Group now plans to sell the units in the building as condos, rather than rent them as apartments, the company's lawyer, John Pulgini, told the board.
What with the rise in interest rates and a weakening economy, "it just pencils out that way," Pulgini said.
But that means DiSipio - which built the two-family rental buildings in 2004 - needs more time to win new approval from the BPDA for the the status of the six affordable units in the building, because the BPDA had approved them as apartments rather than condos. Zoning-board approvals come with a deadline by which a developer has to start construction.
The BPDA approved the rental proposal in 2019.
The building's plans call for a 33-space garage and ground-floor retail space.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Has been rated to be one, if not the ugliest, building in the world.
It’s obvious that most developments in the City's neighborhoods are trying to follow in it's footsteps.
At least City Hall has some thought behind it
It fails in the vast majority of what it attempts, but at least those failures were the result of overthinking and overreaching.
Today's ugliness is the result of laziness and greed to the point of cynicism.
Wrong city hall!
Not sure which city you are referring to? Boston City Hall is one of the finest examples of that period architecture anywhere. It needs some updating and modernizing, though keeping the same character and intent. The rebuilt plaza adjacent is a good start!
I always wonder
How many of the people who think City Hall is ugly have never seen it in person. The best way to appreciate City Hall is to walk across the plaza and experience the enormity of the civic cathedral before you. It is truly awe inspiring.
City Hall is badly dragged
City Hall is badly dragged down by the plaza. If that building was in the middle of greenery, with landscaping and lighting, it would actually be pretty cool looking. It's hideous because that red brick wasteland is hideous.
Magoo had a dream last night that Magoo ate a ginormous marshmallow. When Magoo woke up in this good morning Magoo had a stomach ache something fierce. But thankfully Magoo’s pillow was still there. Based on Magoo’s dream, when Magoo first woke up with the tummy rumble, Magoo thought that maybe Magoo ate Magoo’s pillow. Magoo.
That is just awesome, Magoo.
That is just awesome, Magoo. And it's on topic, because surely these condos will include beds with pillows.
This will be interesting to watch if it gets built
I support more dense development in that area, however with the Park 54 restaurant in the building next to it, all of the parking along both sides of the bridge is taken up half of the nights of the week, so it will be fun to watch where the owners of the condos park their cars? And will the units sell without dedicated parking for each unit? It will likely add customers to the businesses in Logan Square which is a positive.
Business Customer Parking
This is an argument made about almost all of these new, higher density residential buildings. My response is always that the business customers have no more, perhaps even less right, to store their vehicles on the street compared to residents. It shouldn't be an issue, and whenever somebody tries to make it one, they are implicitly endorsing subsidized parking for one group at the expense of the other. Why does nobody demand that every business opening include private customer parking? If we are fine with not requiring it for business openings, then we should be consistent and also be fine with not requiring it for housing.
Not that old
According to the state housing database, those buildings were built in 2002. They're not particularly attractive, and maybe not that well-built, but 23 years is an awfully short life span for a house. I guess they're not old enough that they contribute to the character of the neighborhood (although anon above things the new building is "ugly" because apparently all new construction is "ugly").
Anyway, this isn't a problem, and I wonder if it might be a better land use to have more housing units across the street instead of an auto repair shop. Maybe some day!
Wow, take a look at what is there now. Four attractive, nicely landscaped houses.
This guy built those in 2002 and now he wants to knock them down and build something new. I guess he can do what he likes, but that seems like a terrible waste of time and materials.
What a waste
You have 4 houses that are only 2 decades old and house 8 families. You know that the cost of tearing them down and then building a new structure means that the new housing will almost certainly be more expensive than what's there now, not to mention the environmental cost of wasting the materials and energy needed to rebuild. Meanwhile, 8 families will lose their homes and have to move, probably someplace further from work and more expensive. Unless the existing houses were badly built and are unsound, this is a waste.
Archetecture is dead.
It's not dead
but it is very sickly.
(Which is a long way of saying, "D'OH!")
Love all the architecture
Love all the architecture critics in here who are clearly well-housed. Meanwhile we have a massive housing shortage for anyone not lucky enough to be born between 1944 and 1980.