Developer proposes residential building next to the 99 in Charlestown

By adamg on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 3:14pm

New England Development says it wants to build a 240-unit residential building on an undeveloped bit of its Bunker Hill Mall, along Rutherford Avenue and bordered by Austin and West School streets.

In a "letter of intent" filed with the BPDA, the company says it will incorporate some units that would be smaller than normally allowed under Boston zoning in exchange for possibly reduced rents, as part of the city's "compact living" pilot program.

In addition to putting up the new building, New England Development says it would spruce up the existing mall with "new canopies and facade treatments" along Main Street as well as new sidewalks, or, in development terms, "new open-air pedestrian connections" between Main Street and the mall. The company would also renovated the Austin-Main Plaza, also known as O'Reilly Park.

The company adds that construction would mean "no closure or substantial interruption" for stores in the mall.

By filing the letter, the company is signalling that it will soon file detailed plans for the project.

201 Rutherford Ave. letter of intent (1.3M PDF).

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

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

Comments

Ok so...

By Friartuck on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 4:32pm.

Instead of the rehab and overhaul of mixed income units in the much dilapidated Bunker Hill Housing Project, the Charlestown Neighborhood Council and the other asshole NIMBYS who blocked that because of varied building heights, corresponding headcount capacity and carpet/drape color palates (I jest) are on-board with adding additional traffic/construction in an already notoriously heavy traffic area? In addition, this seems as though it would effectively block any semblance of a Back Bay view for folks living off of Main St from School St to Sullivan Square.

Y'all NIMBYs better get off your asses and shut this down because you'll never find parking at Whole Foods/CVS/Dunkys ever again. Word.

This'll rile up the 99 crowd

By JimmyV on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 4:51pm.

Oh god - these are the same NIMBYs who are filing a legal appeal to force the city to close the new Tatte since "retail" shouldn't include coffee shops.

https://charlestownbridge.com/2020/07/29/fight-on-40-warren-goes-to-lega...

I live in Charlestown and I'm

By David on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 7:48pm.

I live in Charlestown and I'm really happy that New England Development is proposing to do something there. All that surface parking is a huge waste of space. While it does occasionally get busy on the weekends, most of the time large parts of that lot are empty. Most people in Charlestown walk there and if you live elsewhere there are much better grocery stores to drive to. I am a little disappointed that they're not proposing to do much with the existing structure. It really turns its back on Main Street and at one story it's also not in keeping with the rest of the Main Street street wall. That said, anything that replaces surface parking is good by me.

I will be interested to learn about the "transit-oriented" part of this. Community College is right there but pre-COVID it could be pretty impossible to actually get on an inbound train there in the morning. Hopefully one of their community benefits will be some funding to add additional trains or to improve services on the nearby 92 bus. All in all, I view this as a very welcome proposal.

I'm curious about any transit

By waspypants on Tue, 08/04/2020 - 2:45pm.

I'm curious about any transit improvements as well. That intersection, Austin & Rutherford, is a chokepoint at rush hour so adding another 240 units is just going to exacerbate an already bad intersection.

That is/was the problem with the Bunker Hill Projects redevelopment - adding population density but no planning on how to get people in and out of the neighborhood. One just has to look at the Seaport and the Silver Line to see how BPDA doesn't really "plan" that part of the process.

I assume the transit-oriented

By anon on Tue, 08/04/2020 - 8:04pm.

I assume the transit-oriented aspect is a rule preventing residents from getting a street parking permit, since that's part of the city's compact living pilot.

Because the role of city government should be to force new residents to be car-free and use public transit, so existing residents don't have to.

Hilarious

By Brian Riccio on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 8:07pm.

Ever think the residents of the Bunker Hill projects (of which I was one) give two shits about a Back Bay view? Or the Mishawum residents?

Get over it.

Would you care to explain

By Section77 on Mon, 08/03/2020 - 9:33pm.

Why you are in favor of rehabbing the projects to add many more units than this, and why that wouldn't create traffic? (Oh, those asshole NIMBYS.) Meanwhile you yourself want to NIMBY this much smaller project on the same basis?