Hey, there! Log in / Register
Six-story residential building approved for Dot. Ave. in South Boston
By adamg on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 11:55am
Architect's rendering.
The Board of Appeal today approved a 114-unit, six-story residential building on Dorchester Avenue near B Street that takes advantage of new city zoning for the Dot Ave. corridor to rise higher than normally allowed in exchange for more affordable units and affordable commercial space.
In exchange for permission for a 70-foot-tall building, developer Mark Edwards will set aside 20 units as affordable, rather than the 15 that would normally be required. And 40% of the commercial space will be rented at an affordable rate to Ultimate Self Defense, which provides karate training for local youth, Edwards's attorney, Mark LaCasse, told the board.
The building will have 120 parking spaces in an automated underground garage.
Nobody spoke against the proposal.
The BPDA has already given its approval.
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
Great addition! Had the
Great addition! Had the Dorchester Ave. corridor been developed 5-7 years ago, with access to the red line and major highways, developers likely would not have crammed so many development onto every side street and spare parcel of land throughout the rest of Southie and caused the traffic/parking scenarios that everyone is now stuck with.
Unless things have changed
The affordable units do not come with a parking spot. So while it sounds good and seems that they are adding parking spaces for every unit, its not so, because the affordables will be parking in the street anyway.
Or taking the T or Uber. My
Or taking the T or Uber. My roommate and I both live car - free on this corner.
Wasn't really trying to get
Wasn't really trying to get in the car/no car debate. Just wanted to point out that when the developers are pitching the idea, they make it sound as if parking is included for every unit built, but the fact is that not every unit gets a spot and will need to park in the street if they do have a car.
Interesting. I thought by
Interesting. I thought by law affordable units had to be identical in amenities and construction as the non-affordable ones. Wasn't there a bunch of drama about some New York buildings where the affordable units had a separate entrance and it was illegal? Or is this a state by state thing?
Yes. This commenter has no
Yes. This commenter has no idea what they're talking about. The number of affordable units is less than the total number of units. That doesn't mean parking is only dedicated to market rate units, it just means there's less parking than housing, which is both common and smart.
They also don't come with a
They also don't come with a stall for each resident's horse.
As the trend towards car-less
As the trend towards car-less Boston households continues...in 10-20 years all these parking spots are going to be wasted space.
It is automated, so
It is automated, so theoretically a car-sized container could work just as well, now you have auxiliary storage on-demand.
But lets be honest it will still be cars.
Nope.
Take a look at West Square. That place has a huge parking garage that has plenty of spots available.
I hope so
then I can buy a couple real cheap to house my car and SUV.
Great
A few artificially cheap units for the well-connected, and a bunch of completely unaffordable units for everyone else to make up for the lost profits.
"completely unafffordable"?
To whom? Most of these new buildings are 80-90% capacity. Clearly someone can afford them. And please don't stay trust funders and/or Chinese billionaires are buying units on Dot. Ave.
Nobody spoke against the proposal
because it doesn't do any good to oppose developments. The City is going to let developers do whatever they want. On the other hand, build up Dot Ave and keep the beautiful people out of the neighborhoods.
Nah, they haven't broken people yet
If people really object to a project, even if they think the fix is in, they will somehow find the time to show up in City Hall on a Tuesday morning and object. Trust me on this.
I've shown up dozens of times
In opposition to some developments, in support of others and on s small project for myself. It does not matter how many are in favor or opposed, or how many written comments the board has, they always do what they are told to do. The City is run by puppet boards and a puppet City Council. And if anyone believes otherwise you are mistaken.
Just because you don't agree with the outcome
Doesn't mean the process wasn't fair. The board has often pushed back on projects that don't do enough to appease abutters. They generally don't just oppose a project because abutters would prefer to have nothing (thank god), but to say they never listen to the neighbors is just plain wrong.
Flammable panels
Given that the type of flammable panels which led to the London tower fire disaster are legal in MA, I'd like to know how many of these recent mid-size developments, if any, use that same stuff.
Legal in MA?
Not for buildings over 40'.
40' is still pretty tall, no?
Plenty of new buildings around here which are 40' tall or under and still have a lot of people living in them. Not that it would be the same level of disaster but I think that's info the public should have.
Where were you when ...
developments in Peabody and Quincy went up because they had wood siding? One was a ciggy in mulch fire, another a grill fire.
They might have done better with these panels, not that they really are legal in MA. You haven't shown that or shown that they are actually used.
Laboring under a misconception
You are saying, in effect, that since it isn't outright banned, it must be permitted.
That is simply untrue - the specific use of the material in question is still subject to regulation. It is absolutely not allowed in structures over 40'. It also has to pass the tests set forth in 780 CMR 1406.2.
Please do your research on the building codes before you reply.