Hey, there! Log in / Register
South Bostonification comes to Jamaica Plain
By adamg on Mon, 07/03/2017 - 9:30am
Jamaica Plain developers who have largely looked to vacant parcels or old commercial and industrial buildings to increase the number of housing units in the neighborhood are now eying single-family homes.
A developer has proposed demolishing a single-family house at 281 Lamartine St. and replacing it with a three-story, six-unit residential building - with a six-car parking garage. The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council's zoning committee gets a look at the proposal and other densification plans on Wednesday, in a meeting that starts at 7 p.m. at Farnsworth House, 90 South St.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
These are mail-order houses.
There used to be three in a row, but the middle one was abandoned for a long time, and I think the owners of this house bought the land, tore down the house and made it a space to park cars and also expanded their garden and yard.
I'm told the houses were bought from Sears, and came with numbered parts. The purchaser assembled them.
What a shame, to lose that history.
Prefab, but not sears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aladdin_Company
This house was built in 1939. Historic prefab? eh.
In 100 years, this building
In 100 years, this building will be quaint 'history,' and people will be demanding that it be preserved.
Then they can build a nicer single family building
Your sarcasm aside, it is mostly single family now, and there are many nice single family homes on that street. Putting multifamily between them adds density that would be different to residents of that street.
Not really
That property is surrounded by 2-3 unit buildings.
That's two to three times the number
There's other single family, and that's two to three times the number of units in those.
That's architectural style, not housing type
They can replace it with another single family, as many of the other buildings are on that street.
More like a redensification
Of sorts.. If you look at the 2007 Street View, you'll see that there was a house where the driveway is now.
The neighborhood is mostly
The neighborhood is mostly single family, so to redensify that way would not be good for the neighborhood's streetscape and the residents.
It is not mostly single family
I lived in a three unit building at 291 Lamartine in the early 2000s. I could probably count the single family homes in the neighborhood on one hand when I lived there. And there are fewer today than at that time; the house opposite of where I lived was one of them, and that was torn down to make way for a three unit building soon after I moved.
Then build a two or three family.
There's other single family on the street, and the multifamily units generally have no more than half of this proposal.
It doesn't work that way
That's not how cities work. That land was farmland a couple centuries ago - should we build only farms?
Build only farms?
No, but what is happening in Boston seems to be instance after instance of spot rezoning with no overall community planning or input.
I don't know the details of these projects, but they wouldn't be coming before the JPNC if zoning variances weren't involved.
It isn't too much to ask that legal site appropriate developments are built. And it's not too much to ask that the BPDA and zoning take advantage of their roles and work with the community. Residents are not all a bunch of NIMBYs. People actually want to work with developers to negotiate solutions.
I don't subscribe to the idea that the unelected semi-autonomous BPDA knows what is best for the community.
If an area needs to revisit its zoning regulations, lets do it. Right now all we see is the failure of public process.
This.
People like the commentator above you apparently assume that zoning rules don't matter.
It does, because they need zoning approval
This is just spot zoning.
It is not.
Honestly--where do all of you people live who are claiming that Lamartine is "mostly single families?" It is not--these three little singles are complete aberrations. Virtually the whole area is multifamilies.
They don't often have as many units though
Many of them are just two or three family.
Then they should say that.
And not make a ridiculous claim that the area is "mostly single families" which is not even remotely true. A six-family building hardly sounds as if it'll ruin the character of the neighborhood. And I loved that little row of singles but they're hardly characteristic.
It's not zoned for that.
It's zone for three family, and spot zoning is not always preferable for many reasons.
Shitstorm
Incoming. Grab your rain ponchos people!
Actually the residents would have reasonalbe considerations
Residents would have reasonable considerations about replacing a single family house with multiple units on a street with many other single family houses.
Density Whether You Like It Or Not
Those residents in single family houses that remain on that street better get packing because they're next. Single family homes in the city are wasteful.
Zoning Whether You Like It Or Not.
You don't get to decide what's too low density or too high density. A variety of neighborhoods and housing densities are good. Not everything needs to be higher density. Residents who think otherwise can, as you say "get packing" because everyone's not going to just build whatever anyone wants just because some people think a street doesn't have enough housing. Sorry, but there's going to continue to be low density. It's not going to lower housing costs enough for most people anyway.
Question
Why do you get to decide what someone does with their land when it satisfies "as of right" zoning?
If you don't like that the area is zoned for higher density, you can sell and move to a place that isn't.
Question
Why do you assume everything that is higher density is "by right"?
You apparently did not read the comment, because the other person was talking about upzoning.
If you don't like than an area is not being zoned for higher density, and requires spot zoning, then move to a place that isn't.
Please quote which comment you are speaking of?
Not a single comment in this line talks about "upzoning". You can have an area with existing buildings that are multifamily (like this street in question) and it may not be ZONED for that density.
Existing construction != zoning
Your comment was just incorrect.
Your comment was incorrect and you appear not know what you are talking about, because that area is zoned for three family, not twice that density.
You incorrectly spoke about "by right" zoning, but as another commentator pointed out, they would not be appearing before the committee if there wasn't some kind of variance required.
By right zoning is not the same as needing variances, and you do not appear to know the difference.
actually this request does not exceed the original zoned density
This case is a request to combine 2 lots and build a 6 unit building with a parking garage for 6. This area is zoned for 3-families.
Under current zoning they could a build a triple decker on each lot. It would probably look nicer if it was combined into one 6 unit building.
Actually, that's not how the zoning works
The area is zoned for three family. They aren't allowed to automatically combine a limitless number of housing units on a single lot.
Here's a suggestion
Why don't YOU buy the land and do what YOU want since YOU seem to be so intent on controlling it?
thus the request.
Obviously, a zoning variance is still required. I was just pointing out that the number of units would still be 3 for each plot.
As you point out, they are
As you point out, they are allowed three family, and many residents would probably prefer two smaller developments rather than a single larger one because that's how most of the other housing nearby looks.
Flat out lie
I rode my bike down Lamartine last night. There is a ton of small apartment buildings and new construction. This block is unusual compared to rest of the street and area.
Zoning for high density doesn
Zoning for high density doesn't mean you can't build lower. Zoning is a cap that protects incumbent owners by limiting supply. Raising the amount you can build allows for variety, for population growth, for dynamism, for a mixture of people, and for urban life. Capping density is merely a subsidy to the landed gentry.
Limiting density is often for good reason.
You are suggesting that there be no zoning whatsoever. Clearly that's not desirable to most people, and for good reason.
Limiting density can be justified for all sorts of reasons, because it doesn't make sense to put that kind of growth everywhere.
The historic character of this neighborhood is more dense.
The population of Boston in the 50's was above 800,000. Currently the population is about 680,000. There used to be a lot more people packed into these houses. The biggest difference between then and now is the amount of cars people drive.
It is dishonest to justify limiting density because of neighborhood character, because that is the opposite of the cities history.
There is no zoning change necessary to build an apartment building. They will need variances because the foot print and height of the new building will be different.
It is selfish that abutters are allowed block new development. It is also shortsighted. Laws can be changed so that residents won't have much say if growth continues to stagnate.
Selectively choosing prior densities is irrelevent
The population of the overall area was not even a half of what it is now at the time you selected. There's much more density all over. All neighborhoods have had different densities over the years. That doesn't mean it's used as a baseline for future zoning. Things can become more dense or less dense or stay the same.
If you go even further back from the time you arbitrarily selected, things were farmland. You could just as easily argue that is should be farmland or natural land.
You are basically arguing for no zoning if you suggest that there should never be limits on density. That is something most people would find completely unreasonable.
That's a highly selective definition of the "historic" character
It's not "shortsighted" to limit density in some locations depending upon a variety of reasons. You are basically arguing that residents should have zero say in how their neighborhoods get developed, something most people would not agree with. Using a phrase like "stagnate" to refer to housing growth in already dense areas is basically a misrepresentation of the realities of accommodating extra density.
nimby all you want but stop
nimby all you want but stop lying about the buildings in that area. When I have i every said no zoning? or not letting the residents have a say? What I said is that it is selfish to block development and in the end it could backfire.
All of these dishonest anon comments are starting to smell.