Hey, there! Log in / Register

Developers propose 44 affordable condos and a community garden on vacant city-owned land on Mission Hill

Rendering of proposed 77 Terrace St.

Rendering by JGE Architecture and Design.

A trio of developers awarded a series of unused lots owned by the city between Terrace and Parker streets on Mission Hill have filed plans for a four-story condo building with retail space on the ground floor and a community garden out back along Parker Street, next to an "urban wild" that will be formally turned into a city park.

The proposal for a 1.3-acre site at 77 Terrace St., half of which were once part of a brewery turned distillery turned plumbing supply company, the other half of which were once homes torn down by the city between the 1960s and 1980s, was submitted to the Boston Planning Department by Jonathan Garland, Dariela Villon-Maga and Kevin Maguire of Oxbow Urban, DVM consulting and JGE Development.

The proposal calls for 21 parking spaces in a garage that would be accessed through Terrace Street. Indoor storage for 44 bicycles would be provided in the building, roughly a five-minute walk to the Roxbury Crossing T stop.

The developers say the units will mostly have one or two bedrooms, with some studios and three-bedroom units. Sales will be split between ones sold to people making no more than 80% of the Boston area median income and people making no more than 100% of that amount.

The development is part of a program by the Mayor's Office of Housing to sell vacant city lots to developers at very low prices in exchange for them putting up residential buildings with far more affordable units than the 13% (rising to 17% next month) called for by city regulations.

The property sits next to a building remaining from Terrace Street's industrial/commercial past, at 87 Terrace St., now covered in tributes to musicians and graffiti and topped by a smokestack.

In 2021, the city announced a plan to clean up more than a century of industrial pollutants on the overall site by digging up and hauling away contaminated soil.

The filing details plans for the park and community garden:

Along Parker Street, will be a new City of Boston Park and Community Garden. The Parker Street sidewalk will be expanded from its current 6' width to 9' and backed with a row of street trees. A new fence with gates will define the extents of both Gardens and Park. The Community Garden, at the north end of Parker Street, will contain 57 garden plots, some of which will be accessible, pathways, benches, a tool shed, and water spigots. A planted buffer at the north end of the gardens separates it from the abutters. A retaining wall at the eastern boundary of the garden levels out the grade, so that it is accessible, and separates the space vertically from the resident amenity space to the east.

South of the Community Garden will be a City of Boston Park. The design of the park was driven by the community's interest in a passive park with walking paths and seating, as well as the desire to retain the mature tree canopy and the presence of contaminated soil. The heavily treed areas to the south and east of the parcel will be largely untouched with trees and vegetation preserved and protected. To the north and west, where soil tests indicate cleaner soil, the park will be landscaped to host a grassy lawn, landforms, and a paved overlook with seating. Entered from two gates off the Parker Street sidewalk or from the Community Garden, an accessible paved path will weave through the park providing barrier free access. Granite blocks, likely dating back to the site's time hosting a brewery, are currently scattered throughout the site. Some of these blocks will be salvaged and repurposed to retain grade and serve as rustic seating opportunities while providing an artistic link to the site's past. The park's focal point will be an overlook where a paved area including furniture will provide views of Boston's Fort Hill neighborhood.

Proposed site layout (Terrace Street on the bottom, urban wild, community garden and Parker Street on the top):

Proposed site layout

77 Terrace St. filings and meeting/comment schedule.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The "building [...] now covered in tributes to musicians and graffiti and topped by a smokestack" was most recently Mississippi's of Roxbury, which closed in 2010. Hopefully all the development in this area eventually leads to somebody re-activating the building in its current form.

up
30

This looks great to me! I’m sure there are people who think it sucks for some reason, but most likely they’re
misinformed.

up
29

It’s good to see some kind of housing being proposed for this site that’s been sitting vacant for so long, but why on earth would someone propose to build another community garden just a few dozen feet from an existing community garden? The city needs HOUSING, not a few more cordoned off sections of boutique farmland to be used by an exclusive few.

Also, the height is lame. Four stories barely puts the roof level with the top of the hill, let alone nearby rooftops. This building should be 7 stories at a minimum.

up
42

I believe there are two community gardens within a few yards and another just a few streets over. This is some dumb mandate from the city because they thinks folks want it.

up
33

They have a list of things that people in particular neighborhoods requested.

As for your comment below, well, no. They'll dip a spade and ship off some samples to UMass Amherst ag extension (yeah - land grant college) and get a list of anything and everything that might be problematic. Then they will either work with what is on the site and/or use raised beds with clean soil and amendments, like any number of urban gardeners do throughout the world.

Community gardens are high on the list of priorities for most neighborhoods. You don't need even soil on site to start one. Some of the biggest buildings in the city have rooftop gardens, including Fenway Park.

up
29

I have followed this development for ten years now and most in the neighborhood do not want or see the need for another community garden as there are enough already nearby to fill the demand. This is was a mandate from the city in the RFP. Residents would like more affordable units here not another garden.

The site of the previous garden was shut down and fenced off due to high levels of toxins. So much for your theory.

up
25

There is a waitlist in the neighborhood for community gardening space. I know people who are waiting for said space.

Using the space for housing will require remediation, if there is a history of finding toxics on the site.

This may not be a good place for a garden if it won't get light or they can't do raised bed, but it isn't like there is "too much space already". As with all wanting to believe something or dismiss something that might compete with their wants, I'm sure there are people who will say that and people that will believe them.

up
14

The site can support more housing as a previously approved proposal shows. Environmental reports for this site show it needs to be cleaned entirely so it seems like a great opportunity to add more housing. I think most would choose affordable housing over another garden.

up
25

It fronts on two streets - they could build out both sides and still have greenspace.

May have to do with keeping it from broiling in the summer given the dearth of greenspace.

up
12

Community gardens are often contaminated with centuries of waste. Yes, it warms our hearts to see tomatoes and squash come from urban decay, but it must be done carefully with raised beds built from the proper material. Since something like a garden is a bonus, the party responsible for creating it coughs one up and walks away without caring much about the long term health consequences of everyone that will use it and or consume the food from it.

up
15

Than a community garden on a contaminated site?? Seems like they new the site was dirty but no one told the previous gardeners. Not good

up
25

So a half a block is an "Urban Wild" now? Seems kind of small for that designation,

up
19