McHale Charleview Comments
Bostonm...@aol.com
Memo
March 26, 2008
To Jay Rourke, BRA Project Manager
From: Tim McHale, IAG Member
Re: Charlesview
Sub: Comments on PNF Filing by Proponent
Please accept my comments as a record of my participation in the review of the PNF.
- No Charlesview residents on the IAG, need to rectify that.
- Unit makeup of BR’s is not family friendly. Can we have more 4 BR’s?
- The rapid pace of neighborhood project approvals during April 2008 is inordinate and provisions could be made to receive comments as community planning by the BRA and the neighborhood’s urban planner unfold. The two parallel planning processes shall inform the Charlesview project and not the other way around. We are designing by reaction not by good planning practice. The project does not integrate into the community via its scale and building layout. It is a project unto itself. It does not invite the community in. It replicates the original Charlesview in that way.
- The property management of existing Charlesview is unacceptable. How will it differ here?
- What is the tenant selection process, how is it policed?
- The community and Harvard collaborated in its community housing policy making through the NASPF. Yet, why is Harvard absent from participation in this project?
- The community is calling for affordable home ownership for families. It is not in the proposal. How can the deal be structured to give local preference to units?
- The grouping of the buildings does not lend itself to inclusiveness. The home ownership units are a block away from the rental units. The ownership units, preferred to be family units abut Soldiers Field Rd…not family friendly with traffic and small children.
- Will the BRA ask Harvard for more land to mitigate the height, open space, and density issues? The Holton Street Corridor is in play as a special study area. Can Charlesview be an anchor project in developing this corridor?
- Can the community review a draft of the scoping document before the BRA publishes it?
- Clarify the financing package of this project. How do we know the proponent can fulfill its obligation to complete the project?
- HUD official stated that there is no rush to complete this project yet the proponent says they are pushed for time. Who is correct?
- There is no eco-diversity as suggested by enlightened design practices. Present day practices suggest merging units in a 1/3,1/3,1/3 formula of affordable, median, and market rate units, with a mix of rental and home ownership. Why can’t this project fit that criterion?
- Why is the Charlesview board so reluctant to meet with the community? Why are the residents excluded from participating? There is fear expressed on the part of the residents due to moving into the neighborhood. According to the proponent, they don’t feel wanted. Whose responsibility is it to insure a gradual easing of relations?
Page 2/2
- What are the ramifications of a 121A? Can the site be rezoned by eminent domain?
- Density of people per acre is seven times that of the existing neighborhood.
- Where is the traffic study? Where is the logic in road layout?
- All utility lines buried…Litchfield Street too?
- Height of buildings is twice to three times the height of existing building, goes against NASPF. Once these heights are established, buildings that follow will always get higher and higher. The neighborhood loses sun, light, wind, vision, sky, a sense of connection. Instead there is a barrier to face.
- Retail proposed is 1/7 what was originally there.
- Open space is choked off from the neighborhood and seems to be privatized only to the project.
- Parking formula of .7 spaces/unit does not meet the reality of how many cars will be there.
- Litchfield St. elevation needs to come down to meet the existing building elevations. Make these units home ownership.
- Corner of Western and Litchfield needs to come down and meet existing buildings and then step up.
- Units that abut Frugal Fannies, Auto Warehouse, and the Shaws parking lot are out of tune with respected design principals.
- What are Harvard’s intentions to use the rest of the parking lot?
This project needs a fundamental refocus of intent, program, and integration into the neighborhood. It needs to be informed by the BRA’s community planning process and the neighborhood’s own planning process on housing. Only when these events culminate into a cohesive plan of action can a project the size of Charlesview be evaluated.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
Kevin Daly
Ms. Cathleen E. Campbell
58 Aldie Street
Allston, MA 02134
March 26, 2008
Mr. Jay Rourke
Project Manager
Boston Redevelopment Authority
RE: Proposed Charlesview Development at Brighton Mills
Dear Mr. Rourke:
I am writing to join many of my fellow Allston Brighton residents in voicing my strong opposition to the current Charlesview Development at Brighton Mills.
Amongst my comments are the following:
1.) 400+ residential housing units on the space is much to large and dense for the square footage allocated for the development. Charlesview is on a 4.5 acre site and has only 213 units and it has very little commercial space. (There is one little convenient mart.) Using the same density ratio for this new development the total space allocated for the project must be greater than 9 acres. (The new Charlesview calls for lots of commercial space on the bottom floors. Approximately 22,000 square feet ) Both combined parcels for the new Charlesview Proposal total 6.92 acres.
2.) The development will increase traffic in the area adding to the Allston/Brighton gridlock which currently exists. At rush hour, all major thoroughfares in the surrounding area except for Western Avenue are gridlocked. See Market Street, Cambridge Street, the upper end of Everett Street (accessing Union Square), North Harvard Street (the full length) The increase in traffic caused by the development will add Western Avenue to the gridlock which already exists in the community.
3.) The proposal disingenuously states that it will be developing new green space and open space for the community. The proposal places the green space and open space in a courtyard design surrounded by the dense development. This is not open space for the community, but it closed off and very uninviting.
4.) The proposal for the extension of Antwerp Street from Lincoln Street to Western Avenue and the development of a new street to be named later, which travel through the center of a development like this cause major safety concerns, especially for young children.
5.) They claim that this project furthers “smart growth transit oriented development” because it is near 3 bus lines. This is disingenuous. Smart–growth transit oriented development works near commuter rail/train lines. And anyone who has used the bus lines knows they are inherently “unreliable.”
6.) There are major issues as to possible shadowing caused by the development for the owner’s of property along Litchfield Street. They are claiming that a four story height along the neighborhood is “in character” with the community. This is not true. The houses across the street from the development on Litchfield Street are mostly ranch styles one story or some are 2 stories. Nothing is anywhere close to a four stories.
7.) There are major concerns for the 10 story tower along the River, which could cause shadowing upon the Artesani Playground, the only DCR playground along the River in Allston Brighton. Also, the number of parking spaces for the units at the corner of Telford Street and Soldier’s Field Road is miniscule in comparison with the number of units. It is obvious that owners/tenants of that building will do what employees of businesses along the Soldier’s Field Road corridor already do. They will park in the public lot adjacent to the Artesani playground and walk across the street to their building, diminishing the ability of the public to use and enjoy access to the playground and river.
8.) A 10 story building along Soldier’s Field Road, contrary to the statements of the proposal, does not make access to the River more attractive. It closes the neighborhood off from the River. Look at figure 2-16, the 10 story tower is monstrous. Look at how dense that development is in relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. Further, a 10 story tall building in that location will set precedent for all of the property along that corridor to be developed at that level when most of it is about 2 stories in height right now.
9.) All condominium units are to be in the Telford Street development (along the Charles River) completely separating them from the rest of the development. As such, this is not a mixed income development. Further, the plan currently calls for all low income units to be isolated in certain buildings within the development. That is not integrated housing.
10.) They are using a model that allows them to allocate on .7 parking spaces for all low income units developed, where market rate units must have 2 spaces. Every house has a least 1 car. The allocation of a .7 ratio for parking spaces should not be permitted. (See section 1.4.6)
11.) Charlesview has proven by its past actions that it failed to properly manage its property allowing it to fall into major disrepair. Charlesview was lucky Harvard was around to bail them out. 40 years from now, Harvard may not need to bail them out again. Why should the community have faith that they will not just let the same thing happen again, that they can properly manage and run a bigger development? How can we be sure that they will not allow history to repeat itself? What measures have they put in place to make sure this does not happen again? What oversight will the community have into the development’s financial viability going forward?
12.) Almost all of the units proposed are 1 and 2 bedroom units. How can we attract families with children to live in Allston Brighton without many many more 3 bedroom plus units?
13.) The FAR’s listed in section 1.4.4 are way out of line with proper zoning for the area illustrating the density and scope of the development.
14.) At one previous community meetings (last year), Charlesview basically threatened the community (of course this is my opinion) saying they could have just sold out their property to Harvard and walked away because there is nothing requiring them to continue to provide low income housing, but they see it as “their mission.” What guarantees do we as a community have that this will be preserved as low income housing “ad infinitam” going forward?
Thank you for taking into consideration these comments as well as those of others from our community.
Sincerely yours,
Cathleen E. Campbell
Montanez, Carlos
Please attend a community participation workshop, coordinated with other City of Boston agencies, and organized by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). The BRA is beginning the process to create a North Allston-Brighton Community-Wide Plan (CWP) that will build upon the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning (NASFP). The CWP will parallel Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan to ensure that both efforts are consistent and coordinated throughout 2008.
Meeting Location: Honan-Allston Library, 300 North Harvard Street, Allston, MA
Dates: April 9, Wednesday 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
April 12, Saturday 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
The content for the April 9th workshop will be repeated on Saturday April 12th for those unable to participate in a weekday evening workshop.
For questions or more information contact:
Carlos J. Montañez, Senior Planner Mary Knasas, Senior Planner
Boston Redevelopment Authority Boston Redevelopment Authority
Phone 617.918.4442 Phone 617.918.4489
Fax 617.367.6087 Fax 617.367.6087
E-Mail E-Mail
carlos.mo...@cityofboston.gov mary.kn...@cityofboston.gov
Sincerely,
Carlos
_________________________________________________
Carlos J. Montañez, Senior Planner
- Neighborhood Planner for
Allston-Brighton & East Boston
- Rutherford Ave/Sullivan Sq
Planning Initiative
- Navy Yard Waterfront
Activation
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square | Boston, MA 02201-1007
617.918.4442 | carlos.mo...@cityofboston.gov
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper.
Montanez, Carlos
Please attend a community participation workshop, coordinated with other City of Boston agencies, and organized by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). The BRA is beginning the process to create a North Allston-Brighton Community-Wide Plan (CWP) that will build upon the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning (NASFP). The CWP will parallel Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan to ensure that both efforts are consistent and coordinated throughout 2008.
Meeting Location: Honan-Allston Library, 300 North Harvard Street, Allston, MA
Dates: April 9, Wednesday 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
April 12, Saturday 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
The content for the April 9th workshop will be repeated on Saturday April 12th for those unable to participate in a weekday evening workshop.
For questions or more information contact:
Carlos J. Montañez, Senior Planner Mary Knasas, Senior Planner
Boston Redevelopment Authority Boston Redevelopment Authority
Phone 617.918.4442 Phone 617.918.4489
Fax 617.367.6087 Fax 617.367.6087
E-Mail E-Mail
carlos.mo...@cityofboston.gov mary.kn...@cityofboston.gov
Sincerely,
Carlos
_________________________________________________
Carlos J. Montañez, Senior Planner
- Neighborhood Planner for
Allston-Brighton & East Boston
- Rutherford Ave/Sullivan Sq
Planning Initiative
- Navy Yard Waterfront
Activation
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square | Boston, MA 02201-1007
617.918.4442 | carlos.mo...@cityofboston.gov