Hey, there! Log in / Register

Redeveloping area near South Bay mall could get 90 more apartments

A developer signaled yesterday he hopes to build a five-story building with 90 tiny apartments at 115-121 Boston St., behind the ScrubaDub and near where a 403-unit complex won approval in 2021.

Developer Adam Burns' letter of intent, filed with the BPDA, says he hopes to soon file detailed plans for his building, which would include apartments smaller than normally required by the city as part of a pilot to reduce rent prices. Some 12 of the units would be rented as affordable.

Burns's proposal calls for 57 parking spaces - 41 for residents and 16 for the tenants of ground-floor commercial space. In addition to South Bay Center, the building would also be within "easy walking distance" of the Andrew Red Line station and a half-mile from a Fairmount Line commuter-rail stop.

The new building would replace an existing one-story commercial building on the site.

In addition to housing at South Bay Center and the approved project on Jan Karski Way, the city in recent years has approved new residential buildings on or near Allstate Road, most recently on Tuesday, when the Zoning Board of Appeal approved a nine-unit building on Allstate Road, near an earlier approved 191-unit apartment and condo complex.

115-121 Boston St. filings and meeting schedule.

Free tagging: 


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


A lot of brave pioneers took a chance on that neighborhood back in the '70s, and wound up creating a nice place to live and a building lot of real estate value. It'd be great to see some gentrification in the South Bay area, especially since (unlike the South End) there would be minimal disruption and displacement of existing residents.

Voting closed 30

This is a very snobbish response.

"Brave Pioneers"? You mean people? It was a nice place to live. Were there doggie day spas and throw pillow stores? No there weren't but there were corner stores, local restaurants / take out places and bars. There were very few abandoned places (unlike 1970's South End).

You make Boston Street in the 70's sound like it was Warsaw in 1945. It wasn't.

Voting closed 18

Fixed that for you.

A gentrifier is "A middle-class person who moves into a disinvested neighborhood when a critical mass of other middle-class people do the same, exerting economic, political, and social pressures upon the existing community," according to the book "Gentrifier."

Also the developer is building micro-apartments and only 12 are slated to be affordable? That makes no sense.

Voting closed 7

Housing cost should be coming down now.

Voting closed 17

You couldn’t pay me money to live there and I’d never allow my wife or son to live there either. Godspeed to all the unknowing/brave future residents though!

Voting closed 41

If he's an adult, he might just not listen to you, because it isn't your call.

If he's a kid, ten years can really change a neighborhood.

Oh, and does your wife know that she has no say in such things as where to live? That doesn't sound very healthy.

Voting closed 28

My wife wouldn’t step foot in South Bay. Why would we? We use Red Dog for boarding and it’s a disaster down there.

However, after a little more though maybe I’ll buy a condo in this building. Probably a good investment after 10 years, per your suggestion.

Voting closed 20

Gentrification will drive out the poor junkies at Mass and Cass. The next thing you know they will be living on Morrissey Boulevard. On the other hand, the community could just suck it up and let them pitch tents at the Victory Road Armory. It's a transit-oriented site within "easy walking distance" of Fields Corner. Since the Braintree line doesn't stop in Dorchester after JFK, there would be no threat to the South Shore.

Voting closed 17

is a bullshit term made up by desperate developers. And everyone knows that.

Voting closed 7

is within easy walking distance of Fields corner T Stop.

Voting closed 8

and you'll probably have an easier time selling or renting your property there.

Voting closed 18

More people living in a city is usually good for everyone. More people with middle class incomes, and so able to contribute more to the paying for the services that benefit everyone, is usually beneficial for all. But claiming a relationship between housing costs and supply and demand is not real and can not address the problem of housings costs that are too high for many people to afford.

Creating more housing will not cause rents or home prices to rise slower or even decrease just because there is more supply. The demand will simply match the supply with no overall beneficial change in rents. A parallel exists in the induced demand created by building more highways, tunnels, bridges, etc.

What causes rents and housing prices to decrease are either lower demand or higher costs that are outside the actual cost of housing, such as interest rates. Today the sale prices of housing have decreased. Why? Because mortgage rates have increased. Result is that the same people who would buy at a higher price and lower interest now have less to spend on the price side of the equation.

Another reason that housing supply will not impact either rents or prices is how long it takes to build new housing. Result is that the correlation between demand of today has no connection of the supply 1 or 2 years down the road.

There is a less noted reason that rents are problematic. Insufficient competition. The per centage of rental units owned by the fewest owners (e.g., corporations) is greater than the per centage of just a few units owned by individuals. Result is that the owners controlling the largest number of units have greater power to influence what can be charge for rents.

Voting closed 14