Concerns re. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave.
Eva Webster
This Wednesday (tomorrow), Oct. 1, at 6:30 p.m., in the basement of Roggie’s Restaurant, 356 Chestnut Hill Ave., the BRA will be holding a public meeting about this project.
-----------------------------------------
Dear Neighbors:
There seems to be a consensus that redevelopment of the parcel at 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. at the corner of Englewood Ave. (currently Shell gas station), is potentially good news because it offers an opportunity to improve things.
But as with most development/business proposals, “the devil is in the details” -- and so I feel an obligation to expose that “devil” here, as I see it.
Sure, we need improvement. Cleveland Circle is an important “town center” for thousands of Brighton (and beyond) residents — and the mix of businesses is not as impressive or inviting as in the Brighton Center/Washington St. corridor, or on Beacon Street (Washington Square and Coolidge Corner) in Brookline.
The Shell Station site is zoned as Neighborhood Shopping District, and allows “as of right” a building of up to 3 stories high and 32,000 SF (Floor-to-Area Ratio of 1.0). A new structure of that size and function would be wholeheartedly welcome by the neighborhood.
However, the developer wants to build a mixed-use building that would have 5 stories -- with retail on the ground floor and 58 run-of-the-mill apartments above, and underground and surface parking totaling over 100 parking spaces. The square footage of the building (93,000 SF) is nearly 3 times what the zoning permits.
Additionally, the proposed building violates setback requirements and eliminates a buffer of mature trees that separates it from a large condominium complex — and that loss would infringe on the comfort of abutters, as well as pedestrians.
The attempt to “marry” a 58-unit residential building with ground-floor retail will not be, in my opinion, of benefit to either use. Commercial and residential uses do not function well, or enhance each other, on a tight footprint on a very busy street (issues of deliveries, storage, noise, pedestrian & vehicular conflicts, etc.) There are good reasons why our zoning usually separates those uses.
Just as we would not want an infringement of retail uses on quiet neighborhood streets, retail businesses are also more at home and able to function better in their own environment. (The few apartment buildings in Brighton that have retail on the ground level usually attract only a transient population — and this area already has a disproportionate share of that.)
There are examples of retail locations in Brighton, Allston and Brookline that are similar to 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. — but in sharp contrast with this excessive proposal, the developers there have adhered to commercial (single-use) zoning. I am talking about (pls. see attached photos):
- 470 Washington Street in Brighton (the Starbucks & Beacon Hill Athletic Club);
- 214 Harvard Ave. in Allston (Staples);
- 226 Harvard Ave. in Allston (new 3-story 30,000 SF retail/office building under construction; see http://www.226harvard.com/ );
- 1285 Beacon St. in Brookline/Coolidge Corner (Staples and a health club) -- previously a gas station as well;
- 1309 Beacon St. in Brookline/Coolidge Corner (Trader Joe’s and offices upstairs)
All of those parcels appear to be larger than 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. -- and yet the buildings are far more reasonable (smaller). Additionally, all those buildings are on streets that have better traffic capacity than this very narrow and difficult stretch of Chestnut Hill Ave. (complicated by the presence of trolley tracks, and Englewood Ave. being a one-way street).
So my question to the City of Boston officials is: Why can’t we have a reasonable -- compliant with zoning -- development at 332 Chestnut Hill Ave.? Why does it have to be a mixed-use project?
Adding to the inventory of apartments here is not doing us any favors. If there is anything that this part of Brighton is not missing, it is small apartments. Many are now vacant and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
With BU and BC finally taking care of housing their students, many units will become available — therefore, demand for apartments in Cleveland Circle will fall or stay stable.
Increasing the supply by 58 units will only hurt nearby homeowners by bringing the value of their units down. And we are supposed to support the zoning variances that this developer needs to build his oversized project?
While there is no demand for more apartments, the Cleveland Circle retail situation is strong. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. should adhere to zoning and satisfy demand for more quality retail in this area.
With tens of thousands of people living within a walking distance, this part of Brighton doesn’t even have a grocery store! (forcing residents to drive to distant supermarkets, thus increasing traffic and wasting gas).
I believe that property owners can do whatever they want within zoning. But if their proposed projects require major variances, the City planners need to view the project through a prism of what the neighborhood really needs.
We shouldn’t be asked to tolerate development that is not right for a given spot just to let the developer maximize his profits.
Eva Webster
sarah correia
| I think they want 5 stories because it is very expensive to clean up the gas that leaks into the ground under the tanks. Sarah --- On Tue, 9/30/08, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote: |
Eva Webster
> I think they want 5 stories because it is very expensive to clean up the gas
> that leaks into the ground under the tanks.
Also, how come that the development that replaced the gas station that used to be next door to the Coolidge Corner Post Office (photo attached) could be built as a 2-story building.
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net>
Subject: [BC_Neighbors_Forum] Concerns re. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave.
To: "ABRA Group" <aberdeen-brig...@googlegroups.com>, "BC_Neighb...@googlegroups.com" <BC_Neighb...@googlegroups.com>, "AllstonBrighton2006" <AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 9:18 PM
Concerns re. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. The message below is being sent to the Aberdeen group, BC Neighbors Forum, and AB2006 — trying to reach as many residents as possible -- because the proposed development project is on a major A-B thoroughfare (we’re all familiar with traffic bottlenecks that often form, in both directions, on Chestnut Hill Ave. near Comm. Ave. & Cleveland Circle).
B Irish
Fred Hapgood
> retail situation is strong. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. should adhere to
> zoning and satisfy demand for more quality retail in this area.
> With tens of thousands of people living within a walking distance,
> this part of Brighton doesn’t even have a grocery store! (forcing
> residents to drive to distant supermarkets, thus increasing traffic
> and wasting gas).
I don't see how anybody can say that retail is strong in this section of
Brighton. Open Door in Brighton Center has been vacant for almost a
year, the grocery and pizza store locations on Chestnut Hill Ave. have
been vacant for years, and the Blockbuster space in Cleveland Circle has
been empty for Lord for a while. I forget how long.
Now you can say that the problem is that all these properties are owned
by ignorant landlords who are for some reason willing to lose money
month after month -- and the insurance rates for vacant buildings are
significant -- instead of dropping their rents. Maybe. Or maybe they
aren't getting potential tenants. Whatever, in either case, the core
problem is the same -- not enough people. Why did we just lose our
local movie house? Fundamentally we just didn't have the population
base to support it. If you want urban amenities you have to have an
urban environment. They go together.
The idea that retail and residential uses are antagonistic was certainly
popular in the 50s. I have no expertise, but I had honestly thought
that Jane Jacobs' brilliant "The Death and Life of Great American
Cities" had buried that idea once and for all. Anyway, there are many
successful Boston neighborhoods, rich and poor alike, from Chelsea to
the South End, that are built on integrating the two uses. Anybody who
thinks the two can't co-exist is invited to take a stroll down Newbury
St.
Fred Hapgood
http://www.BostonScienceAndEngineeringLectures.com
http://www.pobox.com/~fhapgood
Eva Webster
> I don't see how anybody can say that retail is strong in this section of
> ...the core problem is the same -- not enough people. Why did we just lose our
> local movie house? Fundamentally we just didn't have the population
> base to support it. If you want urban amenities you have to have an
> urban environment. They go together.
Fred, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you’re making generalizations that don’t hold true upon closer inspection and point in the wrong direction.
It’s frustrating to respond to you because to demonstrate errors in your thinking, I need to make this message longer than I feel I have time for.
Our part of Brighton is as dense, if not denser, than Brookline — and yet both Washington Square and Coolidge Corner are staying in business, thank you very much. So does and will Cleveland Circle (which benefits from the presence of 3 trolley lines, which increases pedestrian traffic). It’s only a matter of adjusting the retail mix to reflect current needs.
Also, who says we want an urban environment? I (and most Brighton people I know) don’t want down-town Boston here. And we don’t need urban-size retail; it can be on a semi-urban scale, just like this area — which should stay in sync with the abutting Brookline and Newton.
The Cleveland Circle area does NOT need more people to sustain more or better retail. What this area needs is more higher income people who are viewed by chains and store-keepers as able to sustain quality retail. That’s the difference.
There are lots of suburban towns with first-class retail in their town centers — though they don’t have density that’s higher than ours.
I know from my work years ago that before leasing space, stores/companies often commission research to find out about the level of affluence (income, including amount of discretionary income) in the area. The income figures in the Cleveland Circle/Commonwealth Ave. area are low because of the presence of large numbers of students, seniors, and low-income renters. (My entire activism is geared towards bringing economic diversity to this area.)
People in Aberdeen often go to Brookline to spend money, but would gladly do so in Cleveland Circle if the businesses were appealing to them.
Nevertheless — and because of existing high density — the Cleveland Circle commercial area has been strong. Businesses stay for decades, and turnover is rare (I know; I’ve lived here much longer than you).
Occasional or periodic vacancies happen everywhere as landlords wait for higher-paying retail tenants to appear, and later, adapting the space for a new tenant also takes time.
A kid’s clothing store just closed down in Coolidge Corner, and no one in their right mind would be calling for increasing density in Brookline to sustain a kid’s clothing store. Ditto for the Circle Cinema here.
The fact that the theater and the video store on Chestnut Hill Ave. closed down only attests to changing times — now that more people are switching to Pay-per-View or Netflix (plus there is a lot to watch on Youtube and other internet sites).
As for Open Doors in Brighton Center, this was a completely wrong business for that site. The owner blamed the store’s demise on the lack of parking — but I think that the real issue was that peddling non-essential items (gemstones, candles, etc.) belongs in a touristy area, somewhere where people go to shop for pleasure. Brighton Center does not have enough such businesses to attract customers who shop for pleasure.
The couple of small storefronts on Chestnut Hill Ave. near Embassy Road that stay unoccupied are victims of low pedestrian traffic in that area (and there is no critical mass of retail stores there to attract enough people) -- but that, luckily, is not Cleveland Circle’s problem.
However, the fundamental error in your thinking lies elsewhere. How can you be calling for more people/housing when the real estate here is in the gutter, and will remain for the foreseeable future?
The kind of dense development (58 apartments on a noisy, super-busy street) that the developer of 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. wants to build may provide more customers for pizza shops, but it will not make us a better neighborhood.
You also wrote:
> The idea that retail and residential uses are antagonistic was certainly
> popular in the 50s (...) I have no expertise, but (...)Anybody who
> thinks the two can't co-exist is invited to take a stroll down Newbury
> St.
To deny that the quality of life suffers in a building that has busy retail downstairs and is on a noisy street is like denying that rain is wet.
I would bet anything that most people who live in Brighton cherish this neighborhood for being what it is — and that is not Newbury Street, intenionally.
Eva
Eva Webster
> Anybody who thinks the two [retail and residential] can't co-exist is invited to take a stroll down
> Newbury St.
Alright then! I’ve dismissed your example too quickly. Let the developer of 332 Chestnut Hill Avenue build a row of charming 3-story townhouses with small retail on the “garden level”, and room for outdoor café seating on the sidewalk.
Let’s ask for that in the meeting tonight — and see the developer’s chin getting tense as he is grinding his teeth, because to him it’s not about what we need. Which is why the planning/development people in City Hall should stand up for what we need.
The reason the gas station next to the Post Office in Coolidge Corner did not become a 5-story building is because Brookline Town Hall puts the interests of Brookline people first.
sarah correia
you can look closer and see this. There is a row of apartment/condo buildings across from TJ Maxx each of which has retail on the first floor. Retail likes to be on the first floor because of the foot traffic most people don't want't to live there because people can see in. Other examples of this can be seen all over downtown Boston, also the Atrium down by Packards Corner (for Allston Brighton, it's a high rise) has a gym and other retail on the first floor.
Sarah |
From: Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> |
sarah correia
Cleveland Circle is sitting on the Brookline line. Why is there this issue about shopping in Brookline you are virtually in Brookline. Ditto for a supermarket there's a Shaws down by Tappan St.
I personally don't get this Brighton-Brookline issue. I am up next to Whole Foods we don't have a problem with going to Coolidge Corner to get to a GAP store these retailers are down in Coolidge Corner & the Chestnut Hill Mall what advantage is there to them to open up another store in Cleveland Circle when the customers who live near there can easily get to Coolidge Corner on the train or walk to Washington Sq. This saves gasoline etc. Granted I have no car & don't live near next to BC but one of the reasons I live in Brighton is because of the T access which for many people eliminates the need for a car. In any case you can buy virtually anything through Amazon.com why the need for so many brick & mortar retail outlets. But in this group's emails considering that most of you live near BC I don't understand why when there are meetings on the BC campus there is so much discussion about where to park since most of you are probably at most
a 20 minute walk from their campus. |
Eva Webster
> ...the condos immediately to the left, right and behind the gas station in
> Cleveland Circle are about the same height as the 5 story building will be. So
> it will conform with the buildings around it.
And the other nearest residential building on Englewood (across the street) is 3-stories high (followed by 2.5-story houses). The building next door on Chestnut Hill Ave. has 4 stories, not 5. And the Bank of America building is 1-story, and so is the entire adjacent Roggie’s, etc. section along Chestnut Hill Ave. So it’s a wash.
Chestnut Hill Ave. is not Comm. Ave, with its generous width.
Just because some other buildings in the vicinity are taller doesn’t mean that every new building should rival that.
What’s next? Roggie’s block becoming 5 stories high? This section of Chestnut Hill Ave. cannot take such density without hurting nearby residents, as well as all passers by (that sidewalk is very congested when people go and come from work).
B Irish
Eva Webster
> There is a row of apartment/condo buildings across from TJ Maxx each of
> which has retail on the first floor. Retail likes to be on the first floor
> because of the foot traffic most people don't wan't to live there becauseBut these are not 5-story buildings, Sarah, and they even have small green space in the front. This developer wants to bring this tall building all the way to the narrow sidewalk. I lived in NYC (Manhattan) long enough in my previous life to remember I didn’t like narrow streets with building facades closing in on me everywhere.
> people can see in.
One of the features that the Aberdeen District designation is supposed to protect is our green front setbacks (Comm. Ave. in Brighton, and most of Allston too, has them -- which is a distinct feature characteristic to the neighborhoos). This guy wants to build a building that is inconsistent with the Aberdeen District.
> Other examples of this can be seen all over downtown Boston, also the Atrium
> down by Packards Corner (for Allston Brighton, it's a high rise) has a gym and
> other retail on the first floor.
Residents in those apartments that this guy wants to build will have a double whammy of having retail with its impacts (deliveries, additional trash, lots of foot traffic), plus the noise of a very congested road that links Route 9 with Brighton, Watertown and Cambridge right outside their windows.
So this will be the kind of housing (with heavy turn-over) that I think we can do without. Zoning says it’s Neighborhood Shopping District. I’m tired of zoning being disregarded. Want to rezone it? Let’s have a conversation with the City if such a move makes sense. But we should not have effectively rezoning by variance.
Eva Webster
> In any case you can buy virtually anything through Amazon.com why the need for
> so many brick & mortar retail outlets.
Vibrant town centers are indispensable to a good neighborhood. Humans need to interact in person, and people like to go out close to home. Most have a need to see up close, and sometimes touch, the things we want to buy. When was the last time you ordered fresh produce, or had nice lunch with a friend, or bought a plant for holidays, on Amazon?
Shopping leisurely for things, or walking through a nice town center, is -- or at least can be -- one of life’s pleasures.
Regarding BC meetings and parking, you wrote:
> I don't understand why when there are meetings on the BC campus there is so
> much discussion about where to park since most of you are probably at most a
> 20 minute walk from their campus.
Also, your lecturing that people from the Cleveland Circle area can shop at Shaw’s in Brookline misses the point. It’s not within easy walking distance, especially walking with bags that are heavy with fruit and liquids. I think that thousands of people around here would love to have a store with a varieties of good foods in Cleveland Circle, not just twinkies and chips at 7-11.
sarah correia
I buy all sorts of good stuff on the internet including plants clothes books & virtually every thing else you can think of. It saves time I hate shopping not everyone thinks it's fun. In person it can consume inordinate amounts of time. Quality groceries can also be obtained at the click of a mouse from Peapod. Also to me from Cleveland Circle to Coolidge Corner is not far. To me far is from Brighton to Macys on Summer St.
As to the groceries I don't think that Shaws or Stop & Shop would set up shop in Cleveland Circle even though the BC kids constitute a large market for them as the other store is too close. |
From: Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> |
Theodore Baar
There is something very odd about this proposal. In a world where money is becoming more expensive and the main market for lower end units (students) are being pulled out to live on campus someone is rushing out and going “oh goody - let’s build more apartments”. Let’s follow the money.
This is not a niche building, as in luxury units, but at this stage is just referencing itself as apartments.
Based on the current financing availability, demographics and trends I would venture a guess that the developer will seek affordable housing funds or some such public assistance support. This is not what the neighborhood needs. In fact it would immediately effect resale.
From:
aberdeen-brig...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:aberdeen-brig...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eva
Webster
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:52 PM
To: ABRA Group; BC_Neighb...@googlegroups.com; AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [Aberdeen] Re: Concerns re. 332 Chestnut Hill Ave.
On 10/1/08 10:55 AM, "Fred
Hapgood" <fhap...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't see how anybody can say that retail is strong in this section of
> Brighton. (...)
> ...the core problem is the same -- not enough people. Why did we
just lose our
> local movie house? Fundamentally we just didn't have the population
> base to support it. If you want urban amenities you have to have an
> urban environment. They go together.
Fred, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you’re making generalizations
that don’t hold true upon closer inspection and point in the wrong
direction.
It’s frustrating to respond to you because to demonstrate errors in your
thinking, I need to make this message longer than I feel I have time for.
Our part of Brighton is as dense, if not denser, than Brookline — and yet
both Washington Square and Coolidge Corner are staying in business, thank you
very much. So does and will Cleveland Circle (which benefits from the
presence of 3 trolley lines, which increases pedestrian traffic).
It’s only a matter of adjusting the retail mix to reflect current
needs.
Also, who says we want an urban environment? I (and most Brighton people
I know) don’t want down-town Boston here. And we don’t need
urban-size retail; it can be on a semi-urban scale, just like this area —
which should stay in sync with the abutting Brookline and Newton.
The Cleveland Circle area does NOT need more people to sustain more or better
retail. What this area needs is more higher income people who are viewed
by chains and store-keepers as able to sustain quality retail.
That’s the difference.
There are lots of suburban towns with first-class retail in their town centers
— though they don’t have density that’s higher than
ours.
I know from my work years ago that before leasing space, stores/companies often commission research to find out about the level of affluence (income, including amount of discretionary income) in the area. The income figures in the Cleveland Circle/Commonwealth Ave. area are low because of the presence of large numbers of students, renters, and low-income renters. (My entire activism is geared towards bringing economic diversity to this area.)
People in Aberdeen often go to Brookline to spend money, but would gladly do so
in Cleveland Circle if the businesses were appealing to them.
Nevertheless — and because of existing high density — the
Cleveland Circle commercial area has been strong. Businesses stay for
decades, and turnover is rare (I know; I’ve lived here much longer than
you).
Occasional or periodic vacancies happen everywhere as landlords wait for
higher-paying retail tenants to appear, and later, adapting the space for a new
tenant also takes time.
A kid’s clothing store just closed down in Coolidge Corner, and no one in
their right mind would be calling for increasing density in Brookline to
sustain a kid’s clothing store. Ditto for the Circle Cinema here.
The fact that the theater and the video store on Chestnut Hill Ave. closed down
only attests to changing times — now that more people are switching to
Pay-per-View or Netflix (plus there is a lot to watch on Youtube and other
internet sites).
As for Open Doors in Brighton Center, this was a completely wrong business for
that site. The owner blamed the store’s demise on the lack of
parking — but I think that the real issue was that peddling non-essential
items (gemstones, candles, etc.) belongs in a touristy area, somewhere where
people go to shop for pleasure. Brighton Center does not have enough such
businesses to attract customers who shop for pleasure.
The couple of small storefronts on Chestnut Hill Ave. near Embassy Road that
stay unoccupied are victims of low pedestrian traffic in that area (and there
is no critical mass of retail stores there to attract enough people) -- but
that, luckily, is not Cleveland Circle’s problem.
However, the fundamental error in your thinking lies elsewhere. How can
you be calling for more people/housing when the real estate here is in the
gutter, and will remain for the foreseeable future?
The kind of dense development (58 apartments on a noisy, super-busy street)
that the developer of 332 Chestnut Hill Ave. wants to build may provide more
customers for pizza shops, but it will not make us a better neighborhood.
You also wrote:
> The idea that retail and
residential uses are antagonistic was certainly
> popular in the 50s (...) I have no expertise, but (...)Anybody who
> thinks the two can't co-exist is invited to take a stroll down Newbury
> St.
To
deny that the quality of life suffers in a building that has busy retail
downstairs and is on a noisy street is like denying that rain is wet.
I would bet anything that most people who live in Brighton cherish this
neighborhood for being what it is — and that is not Newbury Street,
intenionally.
Eva
On 10/1/08 10:55 AM, "Fred Hapgood" <fhap...@pobox.com> wrote:
>