101-105 Washington Street

[Eva Webster]

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development-projects/101-105-washington-street

The proposed project at 101-105 Washington Street (it consists of three smaller contiguous parcels abutting the Fidelis Way development) also has not been filed with the BRA yet, but the developer has already announced at the last BAIA meeting that they wish to build 73 units of housing, plus two separate buildings for religious uses (continuation of the current use) on a parcel totaling 35,772 SF (0.8 acre).

By comparison, the project on the St. Gabriel’s site (159-201 Washington St.) calls for 680 housing units, plus some accessory uses in to-be preserved historic buildings, on 514,008 SF of land (that is 11.8 acres — nearly 15 times as much land as 101-105 Washington Street).

So it’s easy to see that 101-105 Washington St. aims to have a much greater density than 159-201 Washington Street (St. Gabriel’s).  If the St. Gabriel’s project was aiming for roughly the same density as 101-105 Washington, it would be asking for about 1,095 units (73 x 15).  Needless to say, I’m glad that is not the case. The green space at St. Gabriel’s is very precious — it contains many large, mature trees — and it looks like much of it will be preserved.  

But generally speaking, is it fair when some developers/property owners are expected to contribute generous green space to the neighborhood, and others are not expected to do so at all?

Case in point: 89 Brighton Ave. in Allston. You may recall that I was really bent out of shape over that project (back in August, during the first comment period, and then again in February during the second comment period) — due to the project’s very large mass/height, too narrow sidewalks, lack of open space, insufficient parking, and because it was calling for demolition of two structurally sound and architecturally valuable buildings.

 

Just for comparison:  89 Brighton Ave. was calling for 130 units on only 33,820 SF of land — that is even smaller parcel than 101-105 Washington St. (but proposing nearly twice as many units as 101-105 Washington St.) — which is why it had no open space whatsoever.  Thank goodness the ZBA has killed it (yes, you read it correctly - those of you who didn’t know).

I was overjoyed when I learned that news on May 10. A kind soul called me shortly after the ZBA hearing to let me know. I was quite sick that day, disabled at home by a massive, crushing headache, lying in a fetal position. I answered the phone with a voice that sounded like I was on my death bed — but when I was told that the project was shot down, I jumped to my feet, and was instantly free of any pain. This proves definitely that there is such a thing as mind-body connection, and also, in my case at least, development-mind-body connection ;-)

Anyway, I wish I could hug all the people who wrote in opposition to 89 Brighton Ave. either during the first or the second comment period — you know who you are — thank you! And specials thanks are also due to the BAIA members who voted against the project.  Although officially their objection was based mostly on the lack of sufficient parking, it was an indirect acknowledgement that the project was too dense (since lower density would have resulted in a better unit-to-parking ratio).

To be clear, that project had fans too — mostly Allston folks who believe that Boston has a shortage of housing that can be cured by adding supply (of course, it’s not that simple, and actually not true — but that’s a topic for another posting).

People who say that we need more housing, and that’s why they are willing to accept any greedy, overbearing, ill-fitting project, are like a person who needs a coat, and is willing to purchase any ill-fitting frock just because it would cover their back (or perhaps because they just don’t know what design looks good, or not good, and why). However, unlike a poorly fitting coat that one can return or replace, a big new building stays with us for the rest of our lives (and beyond) — and it changes the character and demographics of the area.  

Another specious argument that some people make is that we need big buildings that come right to the public sidewalk, because that’s what makes the city “walkable”.  Allston-Brighton is very walkable – and the fact that most streets/buildings have green setbacks only helps with that.  The most walkable street I know, Beacon St. in Brookline, has buildings with generous front setbacks. I don’t think anyone would love walking on Beacon St. more if it was a canyon of tall buildings coming all the way to narrow sidewalks.

Back in February, someone pointed out to me that a 6–story building at 900 Beacon Street in Audubon Circle (St. Mary’s) that is being built right now (http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/465d4b96-4896-4524-8f3b-7379634fbd1c) is an example of a well-fitting new building, similar perhaps to the 89 Brighton Ave. project.  Not a good example, I thought, because 900 Beacon Street (38 units only, with a nearly 1:1 parking ration) is full 30 feet from the curb (15 ft. wide existing sidewalk, plus 15 ft. front setback) — while the façade of 89 Brighton Ave. would be only 10 ft. from the curb on Brighton Ave. side, and 8 ft. from the curb on Linden St. (no setbacks). Talking about overbearing.

Sure, there is high demand for housing — but it is a regional (Greater Boston) issue.  While new construction in Allston-Brighton can, and is adding needed supply, it cannot possibly satisfy all the demand that is out there.  That means that not everyone who would like to live in A-B will be able to live here — but there are other places where one can also live comfortably (Watertown, Waltham, Somerville, Chelsea, Quincy, and many others — for all practical purposes, they are “Boston” too), not to mention other neighborhoods within Boston.

So when the developer of 89 Brighton Ave. argued that they wanted to build that massive tenement to “keep young professionals in the neighborhood”, it was pure demagoguery.  That very dense, expensive rental building, just 8-10 feet from busy roads, with tandem parking, small units with poor views, no balconies, was not going to have the quality of life that would keep “professionals” for longer than just a couple of years. (Most renters, even “professionals”, chase cheaper rents — especially if they live in small units, since moving when you live “small” is easy to do.)

The bottom line: we cannot be sacrificing the quality of life in Allston-Brighton by accepting projects that are “poorly-fitting coats".  If we have to accept increased density, the buildings should be fantastic, contextual, making long-term residency possible (owner-occupancy plays a big role in that), and not so greedy that there are no setbacks (setbacks are necessary for trees/vegetation, decent views, and fresh air).

Eva

[Marisa Angilletta]

Nooo mistake this is the 3rd building not by the shrine but by the Temple!

Sent from my iPhone

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Eva Webster]

Marisa, please clarify what you’re saying.  What 3rd building?  I am not sure what you may have misunderstood.