Hey, there! Log in / Register
Bitter battle on Fort Hill over big old house
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.
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
not enough emphasis
on the record of the buyer/developer. According to direct abutters around the LaRosa-Cedar Street building, there are regular noise disturbances via students. The Cedar Street building fills the lot; inconsistent with the neighborhood fabric. Why would the neighborhood trust this developer to work appropriately?
why doesn't the BPDA help at all? why does the BPDA even exist?
Why would the BPDA even be
Why would the BPDA even be involved? It's an as-of-right project. This is totally normal and within zoning and shouldn't even require variances.
The Cedar Street building
Wait the Cedar Street building has been there since 1910s. Don't you mean you're inconsistent with the neighborhood fabric instead?
145-149 Cedar is the LaRosa property in question
You must be thinking of another Cedar Street property. The LaRosa development in question is 145-149 Cedar Street. An existing two-family was demolished, the Roxbury Pudding Stone ledge at the rear of the lot was jackhammered to make room and a six-unit building was erected. The Google Street view shows the demolished house and the lot to the left (west) that now holds the new construction.
Why does the BPDA exist?
In this case it is to set the zoning code for the area, which they did. The developer wants to build in accord with the zoning code. That means the BPDA did their job in this case. One of the rare times when people can say "good job, BPDA."
They are not there to account for noise disturbances. That's the BPD. Drop the final A for law enforcement.
House Wouldn't Even Be Demolished
Plan would involve removing a bunch of old garages and replace them with a 6 unit building.
These NIMBYs are really exposing themselves for what they truly are. They claim to be about preserving history or ensuring affordability, but they're really just co-opting those admirable causes for their own purposes: making sure nothing changes for themselves.
And what's even worse, they're not even willing to put their own money behind these reactionary world views. They could've easily bought the land instead of a developer and kept those concrete garages. Instead, they expect the current homeowner to pay for it by donating his home to become a community center.
Such bullshit. Why does anyone pay attention to these two faced jackasses?
For real - the house is on
For real - the house is on Redfin currently for under 3 mil - not chump change, sure, but by no means hugely overpriced considering the size of the house / lot / amenities / historical value. Put together a nonprofit and fundraise to buy the thing, then you can do whatever you want with it.
"It's too expensive to live
"It's too expensive to live here! I know! Let's make it harder to build any new housing so NOBODY can live here!"
Some places are always more expensive
It's not possible to put enough housing in every location to make everything affordable to everyone in the market. Some places are just going to have less housing built.
Selling to Joe LaRosa , Mission Hill's student housing czar
Why would anyone trust LaRosa -
not a friend of preservation, years ago involved with the joe feaster scandal at the zoning board, demolishs 19th c. homes and pudding stone walls in Roxbury,JP, Hyde Park, has turned Mission Hill's Alleghany St into party central...
http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/2008/08/15/historic_houses_face_demolition
Who care whether you trust
Who care whether you trust him or not? He's following zoning regulations - trust has nothing to do with it. You petty commissars would send him to a death camp if only you had the power.