Hey, there! Log in / Register
As Roxbury real-estate market heats up, residents vow to fight apartment building on street with 19th-century homes
By adamg on Tue, 02/07/2017 - 10:17pm
City Councilor Tito Jackson (Roxbury) tonight joined residents to condemn a developer's plans to replace the Perrin Street house where S.S. Pierce himself once lived with a four-story apartment building with a steeple and an underground garage.
At a meeting with about 20 residents from Perrin, Copeland and Moreland streets, Jackson called the plan for 35 apartments and a 43-space garage at 63 Perrin St., in a neighborhood with numerous 19th-century houses, "absolutely outrageous."
Developer Patrick Hoban had originally had a Jan. 10 hearing scheduled for his plans before the Zoning Board of Appeals, but asked for a six-month deferral to try to reach some accommodation with neighbors.
At a meeting at the Boys and Girls Club, though, residents were not in an accommodating mood, saying the building is simply too big, would result in too much traffic on the narrow Perrin Street and would have little buffer for residents on the back, Copeland Street side of the building.
Hoban did not attend tonight's meeting.
In addition to concerns about the building being too large, residents worried about noise from early morning construction of a garage built into the hillside and about rats that might be dislodged from the site by all the work.
They said it's not their fault if the developer paid more for the property than could be supported by a more modest development and that they worry about the precedent the project could set.
Residents said that after decades of neglect by the outside world, the area around Dudley Square has suddenly become such a hot real-estate market that people now drive around the area in vans during the summer offering residents cash for their houses. One resident said she has a four-inch stack of cards from would-be buyers who just walk up and ring her bell.
And when it's not foreign investors offering cash, it's drug and alcohol rehab programs that think the large houses in the area would be ideal for their residential programs. "Where are the sober houses in West Roxbury?" one resident asked. "In Hyde Park? In Lower Mills?"
Jackson told residents he would advocated for them before the BPDA and the ZBA. And if that doesn't work, he said he would simply call a City Council hearing to demand Hoban explain himself. He pointed to a similar hearing the council called to discuss the affairs of City Realty.
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
It's currently a historic
It's currently a historic house over 150 years old with many of similar houses near it. Protecting more of these historic structures like a lot of other communities do would be a good thing. Redeveloping it with a property of that size seems like a waste. Even the real estate ads are marketing it as developable land.
This is more confirmation that far off speculators are paying a bigger role in the local real estate driving up prices. It's not as much as other places, but you can't really say it's not there anymore. There's ways to restrict. Some places charge a fee for buyers who aren't residents.
And exactly what is so "historic"
about this property that demands it be preserved? To quote my best friend (a History major) - Some old things are just that - old things
The type of construction is
The type of construction is not often reproduced today.
So you're willing to be
So you're willing to be forced to drive a Model T because they don't make them any more?
Not comparable. There's
Not comparable. There's interesting architectural details in older houses that don't become obsolete the same way what you are talking about does.
It's actions like these
That have led to the housing crisis. Refusing to build a little denser everywhere starves the city of housing. I'd note that just around the corner, there are old, brick apartment buildings that appear to be 3-4 stories. Far from being out of scale, this _is_ the scale the neighborhood would be in, had zoning not frozen it in some prior state. If we built like this everywhere, on every decayed or vacant lot, rents would rapidly fall.
I'd guess 2/3 of building cost is compliance
In my small forays into this 2/3 of the high cost of building comes from code compliance. Then they save money so it looks shoddy.
Okay
So twenty people burning to death due to a fire that never should have started is preferable to what YOU think looks ugly?
Nice set of values you have there. They'd be great in China.
You are talking about
You are talking about increasing the number of units many times over on a street of historic houses. Cohesive neighborhoods have a lot of benefits.
You can stand on the sidewalk
You can stand on the sidewalk in front of the house and see several multifamily houses a hundred feet away. So, this actually fits into the neighborhood.
There's also many other
There's also many other historic houses all around it. This would be reduction in them.
No, it doesn't fit the neighborhood, at all.
It's very easy to see why the residents in the area are so up in arms about this proposal.
"Historic" - the most overused
statement by NIMBYS to block beneficial and necessary changes and improvements.
That's your opinion. They
That's your opinion. They are historic because of the type of construction and architectural style.
This area of Roxbury already
This area of Roxbury already has high density. We're not talking Newton here. Perrin is a narrow street surrounded by one way streets that already cannot handle the traffic it has. A building like this belongs on a broader street with better access. Once again, Roxbury is being asked to take on what other neighborhoods refuse - higher density housing, sober houses, group homes.
Density is what MAKES a city
Density is what MAKES a city - by definition. If you don't like density, move to the suburbs.
No, People make a city and they get to define it
I love how people who don't know Roxbury comment on what it should be. I drive Perrin Street every day and it is already dangerous because the width does not support two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides,This project would sit right at the T-intersection with Alaska and create a terrible traffic problem. And the Perrin-Morehouse intersection is already extremely dangerous as people try to make the blind turn from Perrin. It also has an elderly project on one side which requires lots of The Ride, and other large vehicles in use. There are plenty of vacant lots on main streets in Roxbury that could better accommodate such a large development. Perrin Street is mostly single and two family historic homes with slightly larger multi family properties at the end. This project would be in the middle. The notion that we should destroy our community to "save" it is ridiculous, especially since gentrification means that the people who benefit from this increased housing stock are not going to be current residents. Roxbury residents have a right to define their community. Roxbury is already denser than most of the city, and asking this neighborhood to disproportionately bear the burden for more housing in the city is unreasonable.
In this view, I don't see
In this view, I don't see traffic that's too much to handle. I see some very pleasant lowrise apartment buildings, which fit in just fine on a tree-lined one-lane street with parking on both sides. https://goo.gl/maps/KE9hMfHU6Zs
We have 3 options:
1) Add housing with off-street parking
2) Add housing without off-street parking
3) Prohibit adding more housing than we have today
1 and 2 make it easier/not as expensive to find a place to live. 1 adds some cars to the neighborhood. 2 adds a few cars, but not as many, and makes it harder for existing residents to park on the street. 3 benefits existing residents, especially owners, at the expense of newcomers and renters.
I think 3 is an immoral choice, and I see why so many people support it to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
I live on Copeland and drive
I live on Copeland and drive down Perrin to get to my one way street. I am amazed Perrin is not one way as there is parking on both sides. It gets hectic and yes cars have been hit and run on this street. There is constant traffic and already 200 units going up in the quarter mile. We aren't afraid of development but with three large parcels coming up for sale next to each other including 63 Perrin St, this needs to be planned before we are stuck with three buildings that don't fit the neighborhood and lead to overcrowding. As an abutter I would rather see a restoration and maybe a 6-10 unit building behind it which would be reasonable. This plan looks like it belongs in new Southie.
Newcomers have no significant
Newcomers have no significant stake in the neighborhood if at all, because they by definition don't live there yet. Every place has can only sustain so much construction.
I'm glad the neighborhood is
I'm glad the neighborhood is finally taking a stand, but if you watch any of the ZBA meeting it's like an Orpah Christmas special..."you get approved, you get approved, everybody gets approved!" (Granted some proposals are more reasonable than others) Perrin St. has some beautiful homes, I wish I had the dough, I'd buy and fix them up. For as many beautiful homes I see around the city in disrepair, I see just as many empty lots. I see much more of tearing down structures than building on the empty lots. Buy the lots!!!
Density
Destroying the fabric of a neighborhood solely for the purpose of increasing density when 500 new units are being constructed within a mile would be tragic. They call for a roof deck behind the house which all of the abutters would have to deal with. They are going to sell multiple units to investors in those will be turned into rental properties. This type of development on a small crowded side street does not belong here. I think Tito for hearing us out last night.
Lots of pretty houses in Roxbury
Titi is a publicity seeking ass
But the neighborhoods have some really nice houses, beautiful features, taken care of, not wrecked by energy-crisis crapass remodelers yet.
Developers draw up stuff that looks like the bad remodel jobs, bug-eyed replacement windows, crappy vinyl siding, froo froo home depot doors.
Wait long enough and every
Wait long enough and every house is a historic landmark for one reason or another. That area needs higher population density. If the house is so historic move it down the block, Boston has don't that with house substantially more important historically.
It doesn't "need" higher
It doesn't "need" higher density just because other people have an opinion about it. It's already mostly multifamily anyway.
Well it's either that or
Well it's either that or raise rents and evict the renters who are here today. Personally I prefer to increase density because displacing people unnecessarily is disruptive and wrong.
You assume that you will be
You assume that you will be able to increase the amount of housing enough that it will lower prices in a way that isn't too much for the neighborhood.
Can you explain what you mean
Can you explain what you mean by "too much for the neighborhood?"
Architecturally
It looks like the same crap they're building in South Boston.
Some questions ...
Looks like a nice house, although showing some age. If you check out Google Maps for 63 Perrin, you'll see the house (building) is quite large - going back from the street. The city's assessing site says it has 17,360 sq ft of space (so ... quarter acre? (I dunno.)) but then there's another 10,000 sq ft of space right behind that, owned by the same entity, so half an acre in total?
I'm not sure who owns this. The city's website, and the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds (remember them?) say the Boston Islamic Center. I don't know anything about them. (This isn't the Islamic Society of Boston, I don't believe, and not the owners of the mosque at Columbus & Malcolm X Blvd.
The developer mentioned above, Patrick Hoban, doesn't seem to have an internet presence. I don't know if he's the owner now, or if he's just the general contractor. If he is in the process of buying it, but hasn't closed yet, then that's why Suffolk Deeds doesn't show him as owner. The story above implies that "someone" paid "too much" for the property, so maybe that's what's happening.
BIC bought the Perrin parcel for $225,000 back in 2009. Not sure about the parcel behind that. And, again, if Mr. Hoban is buying it now, there's no way to see the price. (Did he mention it in his presentation?)
If the BIC is behind this, then is it possible that this property would end up being a place of worship plus housing for themselves? I dunno. If so, could that be part of the resistance?
The Islamic Center tried to put a mosque there
About ten years ago. The neighbors successfully fought them over parking and traffic. Neighbors say Hoban (who was listed as the applicant on the ZBA hearing notice) has an agreement to buy the property, but hasn't yet actually done so.
It looks like BIC sold it
Boston Islamic Center recently opened up a mosque in the former tire / auto repair shop on Washington Street between Marcella and Townsend Streets in Roxbury... Given the Islamic belief in not taking on commercial debt, plus the fact that the Washington site is pretty valuable, I'm going to guess they bought Washington Street with the proceeds from Perrin Street.
I was sure a developer was going to grab the Washington Street site since you can put 20+ units there; it's not far from Jackson Square and Egleston; and the community would've likely supported replacing the eyesore auto lot.
Won't somebody think of the rats?
"In addition to concerns about the building being too large, residents worried about... rats that might be dislodged from the site by all the work."
It's just the wind.
Traffic
There's a lot to be said for maintaining historic structures. Perrin St is a really beautiful street with gorgeous old, large homes. So I understand why people wouldn't want this there. But one thing that is annoying is that people consistently misunderstand that developments like this have next to no effect on traffic. You're talking a minuscule number of cars compared to overall vehicle trips on a road and it's not far from Dudley Station so you can expect some of these new residents to walk there as well. Most of the traffic on this road and most roads is from commuters passing through.
Too many unsubstantiated parking / traffic claims
" ...developments like this have next to no effect on traffic"
And your proof for this comment is?
Assuming every single
Assuming every single resident of this building drove to work every day (which is unlikely considering the proximity to public transit), that's 43 additional cars over the course of the 150 minutes between ~7 am and 9:30 am, or roughly one car every 3.5 minutes on average. Can you honestly say that, on any given street in Roxbury (save perhaps a dead end), you would really notice an additional car every 3 and a half minutes?
I don't like bringing additional cars into the city either, but to be clear the problem is not with the effect on the side streets, but the arterial roads and, more generally, our carbon footprint and all of the other externalized effects of driving. But the thing is, we need the housing (desperately) so if you're really worried about the traffic, ask them to build less parking so that people who own cars will not be inclined to want to live there in the first place.
I sincerely wish the
I sincerely wish the neighbors luck in this fight. The developers have obliterated Southie's historic hometown appeal and characteristics over the past several years. Now that Walsh and his administration have allowed them to gentrify our landscape to the nth degree, they are turning their attention to Dorchester and Roxbury. Glad you have a City Councilor looking out for you -- maybe you'll fare better than we did.
Future Headline…
“Residents of Roxbury who previously opposed increasing housing capacity now priced out of neighborhood”
Aside from the ones who were lucky enough to already own property and stand to get rich from the lack of supply, of course.
Nope
There's plenty of land in Roxbury for dense new construction - it probably has more publicly owned vacant land than anywhere else in the city. And that's even before you look at things like the old Radius hospital site. You can have dense development where it makes sense (like right in Dudley Square) and still have room for people who want to live in a single-family home.
Same false dichotomy is playing out in Dorchester - greedy developers are just ignoring zoning that calls for dense development right along Dot Ave. and buying up houses in the neighborhoods a couple blocks away. At some point, you have to ask what the point of zoning even is if the ZBA just gives developers what they want.
greedy developers are just
You're saying you have evidence of developers passing up perfectly buildable property on Dot Ave where they would face few restrictions in favor of building on residential streets where they're virtually guaranteed to get substantial pushback from the neighbors? I feel like you might be oversimplifying things a bit here. The community engagement process is the most expensive part of any project. I very much doubt any greedy developers would bother with it unless there was some financial reason to stay away from Dot Ave.
What the point of zoning even
What the point of zoning even is if the ZBA just gives developers what they want?
Grift. Menino was a master of this. Downtown sites were zoned for 4 stories but he would allow skyscrapers to favored developers (like Millenium) while telling people Chiofaro would be able to build something in Boston again "when hell freezes over." Most other developers though could drastically change zoning if they made the right moves to curry Meninos favor, talk about how great he was, donate to his favored charities, etc. Why was the Seaport district mapped out ahead of time with what could happen where? Because then how does the mayor/BPDA make anything off it. And how can they select favored people to develop and construct on those sites?