Hey, there! Log in / Register

Apartment building proposed off Centre Street in West Roxbury with no affordable housing, but way more parking than city now calls for

Rendering of proposed 5 Redlands

Rendering by Context of the view from Centre Street.

A Medfield developer yesterday filed plans to replace a vacant nursing home at 5 Redlands Rd. in West Roxbury with a three-story, 30-unit apartment building with 45 underground parking spaces - and real spaces, not some complex mechanical stacker system.

The proposal by the Larkin Real Estate Group contains no affordable units. A city requirement that at least 13% of the units in a development of this size be rented at reduced rates to people making no more than a certain amount is only triggered if the project requires zoning variances and, unusually for a Boston project, Larkin says its new building fully complies with the zoning for the lot.

This includes the lot's zoning for parking - at 1.5 spaces per apartment. In recent years, the BPDA has generally looked askance at proposals with more than one space per unit, especially for projects on multiple bus lines and a short walk to a train station - the site is a short walk to both three bus lines and two Needham Line stops. But agreeing with the BPDA that the Boston zoning code has not been updated to reflect more modern thinking on the role of cars in a big city and so file a proposal with less parking would trigger the need to go before the zoning board for a variance for inadequate parking, which in turn would require at least four of the apartments be rented at reduced rates.

The city recently changed its affordable requirements so that all projects that require planning review, regardless of zoning compliance, would have to to include affordable units, but that change - which also ups the percentage of required affordable units from 13% to 17% - doesn't go into effect until Oct. 1.

Larkin says it is "being mindful to the chosen site proximity to several bus stops and commuter rail stations" and will encourage residents to walk, bicycle or take public transportation rather than constantly driving their cars up the relatively narrow and steep one-way Redlands Road. The company says it will pay to have the pedestrian crossing at Redlands and Centre Street re-aligned to make it safer for pedestrians. It adds:

The Proposed Project would foster density growth in an area while adding minimal vehicular traffic due to its proximity to several public transit options, a pharmacy, grocery store, post office, banks, and restaurants. The unit mix leans towards attracting families especially with the proximity to the Holy Name Elementary School within easy walking distance.

Apartments will range from studios to three-bedroom units.

The filing says the building was designed to blend in with the rest of Redlands Road, which consists mainly of single-family homes:

The elevation along Redlands Road pulls from the residential expressions up the road,using the shingle siding from the single families as a base massing for the building. Along the façade, gabled bays and forms are introduced to pull the residential environment down to Centre Street and create a rhythm down the hill that creates these almost single-family scale moments to break up the façade. The largest move is the introduction of recessed decks to maximize the adjacent entrance and reduce the massing visually into two smaller ones.

The Stonehedge Rehabilitation and Skilled Care Center closed in 2021.

The Boston Planning Department will hold an online meeting about the proposal at 6 p.m. on Sept. 26.

5 Redlands Rd. filings and meeting/comments schedule.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

Most people have cars, and I dare say actually need them. The policy of fewer parking spaces than residential units is a huge long term mistake. Until the T is adequately funded and substantially rebuilt and expanded, public transit is not a viable alternative. Boston is not Manhattan, and most of the blow-ins doing planning here won't be around when their shit really hits the fan in 10 years.

up
Voting closed 50

Most folks just refuse to entertain alternatives like walking, biking, or taking the bus. If you aren’t in need of a handicap space and you aren’t doing commercial delivery/transportation, then you don’t need a car.

up
Voting closed 45

Aggghh. Greedy control freaks think they're going to walk and bike everywhere their whole life. This is B.S. Not sustainable. Let us do whatever we want whether bike, drive. Etc. This is too much control. Leave us with options. Stop pushing this is for the good of all. This doesn't work for all.

up
Voting closed 40

Driving everywhere is not sustainable.

#climatecrisis

up
Voting closed 32

If you need a car then live somewhere with a parking spot. If you don't, don't. Not sure what the problem is here.

up
Voting closed 27

you're literally forcing parking minimums on us you dolt. wanna drive? good for you
figure out parking on your own

up
Voting closed 17

West Roxbury has pretty horrendous non-car infrastructure. There's three busses that breeze by here - and those busses only go to Forest Hills, so you're looking at a transfer to get anywhere. Or you could walk (from here, a reasonable walk) to the commuter rail for a once-an-hour trip to South Station.

Walking and biking on Centre street is still taking your life in your hands. And there's not a TON on that stretch to walk to... groceries, and take out.

up
Voting closed 9

The policy of fewer parking spaces than residential units is a huge long term mistake.

You unfortunately have this inverted. The policy of free, unlimited, taxpayer subsidized parking citywide has led to the housing crisis we're currently in and the disastrous traffic problems which plague the city.

up
Voting closed 48

Free, unlimited parking citywide? Have you ever been downtown?

up
Voting closed 11

… two parking spaces per bedroom plus one extra for the unit for guests, cleaners, whatever.
If we did this, we could solve the MBTA problem. In fact, we could just close the MBTA down and convert the tunnels to housing for those loser people who cant find housing due to fewer units built in order to accommodate parking.
Or those who are just too stingy to pay for parking included because they don’t need it. Utter madness! Those people are as selfish as taxpayers who protest that public funds pay for the education of children. It takes a village to maintain available parking. Cars are our future!!

up
Voting closed 30

I’ve said the need to convert the whole transit system to walking and bike paths and give the streets back to the cars for the most part

up
Voting closed 15

Brilliant.

up
Voting closed 18

I won't rest until the city looks like Mad Max

up
Voting closed 16

So I guess if you don't make $120000 a year or more then your a loser and deserve being abused????

up
Voting closed 17

Not even if your satire sensor is on the blink.

up
Voting closed 16

Did you read what Adam wrote? 1.5 parking spots per apartment.

up
Voting closed 15

Cars are for 1st class citizens. Not having a car is a time tax…though it feels as though people are trying to level the playing field with excessive NTOR signs and whutnot. Plus, the arrogance of youth &c…

up
Voting closed 14

Owning a car, traveling in one is also a time tax.
Looking for parking, gassing up, sitting in traffic, assaulting people who touch your car, etc are all time wasters too. Depends on your situation.

up
Voting closed 20

Time it takes me to get to work downtown, bike to train to walk: 40-50 minutes

Time it takes to drive: >1 hour, including the walk from a $35 parking space

E-bike: 35 minutes, parking in the building.

So tell me - what is the time tax here? Especially when non-car routes include substantial exercise that replaces workout time? When I can chill, read, and/or sift through the morning's emails on the train? When driving is so stressful that it takes years off your life?

up
Voting closed 23

It takes 2x the commute for me to take a bus, Redline to green line to a ten minutes to hobble my old ass the rest of the way to work than it does to drive and park for free. Plus, when the T runs fast I have to eat the time waiting until my shift starts, because not having a buffer and being late is not an option. Then reverse. Rinse and repeat.
I could literally work 2/3 of a part-time job if I didn’t have to rely on the antiquated MBTA hub ‘n spoke, ball-and-chain albatross to get around this parochial, non-grid, cow pasture inspired and automobile finished road layout.

If I have a Dr.’s appt. I need to use > 2x more of my sick time as a buffer and for travel when I take the T to go to an appointment. Plus, parking is free, or $12 depending on appointment benue.

I already had to suffer the cold, sobering indignity of receiving an AARP card I’m not ready to surrender my last ties to my self-image of youth and health to “The Ride.”

These apartments without parking are fine for the fit, with disposable income for an app taxi and the liability of “surge pricing” and without charges to tend to, or with furry charges one may leave at home without care, but it’s not hyperbole to say there’s a car on one side of the divide.

Then I walk my dog. Walking is great exercise, the gym would be nicer. I resolve to stat going to the gym…next year.

up
Voting closed 25

Do you work in a suburb? That's a rare perk in the city!

I'm not young or thin, and I'm going to have my knees replaced within a few years, but I'm not going to start using a car because "oh I'm old" because that would make me old. I saw what driving everywhere did to my parents. It's move it or lose it.

up
Voting closed 20

Swirly I generally agree with you but as someone who lives in Rozzie and works at BU I can’t deny that even on heavy traffic days driving from home to BU is fastest, and BU (unfortunately) subsidizes parking in a way that makes it cheaper than the commuter rail + train or bus transfer. Generally, based on years of personal data, driving is 22-33 minutes depending on time/traffic, bike is 27-35 plus shower time once I arrive, and T is 45-1:15 depending on the bus/train combo and timing. Now all that said I still prefer bike or train for exercises and mental health reasons but I’ll admit that when not going in to the hub, the timing sucks. I want that to not be true - I want to support the T and take those options - but it’s not the reality right now. I hope it can be!

up
Voting closed 24

Fair point. I’ve not heard anyone yet regret new knees, or hips. I’ve only heard, “don’t wait.” (And, maybe I won’t wait ‘till next year for the gym!)

I definitely need to read urban planner vision statements for managing growth in Boston and surrounds/Greater Boston, because my emotional, gut feeling is the driver is immediacy and urgency of growth and development (plus political responsiveness is not always tempered by wisdom and farsightedness).

Is Boston being driven to a phase change brought on by uncontrolled growth? At some point won’t the solutions require destruction and reformation in order to move more people around, or are we centuries away from that? Is there a natural cap on growth? Growth did not sustain the Romans.

up
Voting closed 13

How on Earth could anybody possibly think Boston's growth has been "uncontrolled"? Growth around here is suppressed and stymied at every turn. Uncontrolled growth in America looks like Phoenix, and we do not look like that at all.

As for the visions of urban planners, they have almost no power around here and most of their projects culminate in presentations that get posted online and forgotten because there's no political will to enact anything of any consequence. And maybe that's OK, since lots of their plans seem pretty bad in retrospect. They'll always have Assembly Square and the Seaport.

up
Voting closed 11

I certainly don’t miss the purple nitrile gloves and spent face masks littering the lower end of Redlands Road since the nursing home closed. However, the dilapidated and rapidly deteriorating property replete with wildly overgrown landscaping, smashed windows, glass shards on the sidewalk, the bulging retaining wall behind the unsecured gate to the left of the facility make it a prime candidate for a Halloween haunted house. Several of us neighbors have contacted the City’s 311 hotline to complain about the situation only to be told that inspectional services has issued a fine. The owners of the building are going to have some explaining to do at that Zoom meeting later this month if something isn’t done in the interim because it doesn’t look like they give a damn about the neighborhood.

up
Voting closed 16

Really curious whether all these people whinging about parking spaces live in WR without a car. Infrequent buses to the end of a transit line and a commuter rail that runs at best once an hour are enough for some households to cut down to one shared car, but not enough to go car free.

At the end of the day, more housing is more housing. Let's celebrate building density and move on. Are you really a YIMBY if no development plan ever passes your perfect litmus test, or are you just another loudmouth making developers decide it's not worth their time to build here?

up
Voting closed 7

“ Infrequent buses to the end of a transit line and a commuter rail that runs at best once an hour are enough for some households to cut down to one shared car, but not enough to go car free.”

Huh? I can hear the whining now. “This household will shrivel and die if we can’t have on demand transportation of our own. How will ever cope?!!”

up
Voting closed 7

This building is pretty and I'm a fan that the parking spaces will be all below ground. Not increasing the city's number of affordable units near critical business and transportation hotspots? Eh, not the vibe I am looking for in my neighborhood. But build baby build! It's much better use of space than the completely useless NEW Chase bank at the intersection of Belgrade and Centre.

up
Voting closed 42

At least the gas station offered, well, gas, and inspections. Now all that's left on Centre is the Speedway, where the prices are always higher than the Speedway on Washington Street - which has competition right across the street.

up
Voting closed 29

Speaking of Speedway, the one on 109 in Dedham has always been at gas "war" with the Sunoco across the street. As such, their price for gas is typically about 20 cents cheaper than the one on Centre St. Capitalism works (sometimes.)

up
Voting closed 10

Once they got rid of the BP for the bank, that Speedway on Centre Street had no competition, so they were able to raise prices higher. They now enjoy a premium on gas.

up
Voting closed 13

I mean, it is a car.

up
Voting closed 9

Larkin says it is "being mindful to the chosen site proximity to several bus stops and commuter rail stations" and will encourage residents to walk, bicycle or take public transportation rather than constantly driving their cars up the relatively narrow and steep one-way Redlands Road.

Then why do you need 45 parking spots for 30 units?

That said, build it. It's still a net good. I wish the developer was proposing less parking and more housing (including some affordable), but I want it to be easy to build in Boston, so except in extreme cases I'm fundamentally against adding cost by requiring them to make alterations.

up
Voting closed 48

Agreed. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But ideally it would be less parking and more housing.

up
Voting closed 47

I didn't fully grok it until I re-read it: They're adding the parking to comply with outmoded zoning laws in order to avoid the need for a variance because if they don't need a variance they're not bound by the affordability requirements.

I don't blame the developer... but maybe Mayor Wu should update our zoning laws to reflect the city's current priorities? The parking requirements should be out and the affordability should be in.

up
Voting closed 43

I've added something to the story about that: New requirements will make developers offer affordable units in projects even if they do meet zoning requirements (and at 17% rather than the current 13%).

But they go into effect on Oct. 1, which means this project will be grandfathered, unless the BPDA, um, Planning Department, is feeling feisty and gets obstreperous, like it's been known to do for West Roxbury (see Roxbury Prep on Belgrade) and refuses to grant its OK without the developer agreeing to some affordable units.

up
Voting closed 39

The economics of the change are not as favorable to low parking/high affordability projects as they should be. Instead letting developers avoid the protracted article 80 process by building less parking and more affordable units, they simply took away the possibility of avoiding the process by building more parking. That may cause some developers to say screw the parking let’s just do the process, but it will also likely push some developers to build even smaller projects that don’t meet the new, lower article 80 threshold.

up
Voting closed 12

"Affordable" (with a capital A) income restricted housing is not a good system. There's plenty of demand for market rate housing that can be satisfied first. Or don't satisfy it. Keep Boston population's level at about 800k people instead of trying to scale it up. People who afford to live in Boston will come and stay. Those who can't afford it will move to any of the other 49 states where there's more space.

up
Voting closed 7

If the project is 50,000sf or larger Then it triggers the maximum parking requirement of one space per unit or less. Since this is smaller than 50k, then it falls to the neighborhood zoning parking requirement which is a minimum of 1.5 cars per unit.

City really needs to change all zoning to be maximum parking instead of minimums. Right now there’s a mismatch for projects over 50k sf. They won’t make it out of BPDA since BTD has parking maximum requirements for large projects, but zoning has parking minimums so all large projects have to get a variance from ZBA for parking.

up
Voting closed 19

It should be amusing to watch the strategies employed by the infamous West Roxbury NIMBY collective in order to stop this. I'm certain they will not be satisfied, even with an excessive amount of underground parking and an absence of affordable units.

The only question is whether they can get it converted to the preferable vacant lot surrounded by chain link fence. They had success against a similar project that also employed the excessive parking gambit and it has remained a lovely dirt tribute to "the neighborhood character" ever since:

Tue, 02/09/2021 - 1:13pm

CAD Builders of Canton this week filed plans for a 21-unit condo building to replace the former Peoples Federal Savings Bank bunker and the old Gilmore place on Centre Street.

Because this is West Roxbury, the proposal calls for 33 parking spaces, even though the company notes the building is on three bus lines and a short walk to the Highland stop on the Needham Line.

up
Voting closed 27

Sometimes you have to give the land a rest.

Plus sometimes they eventually end up benefiting communities as community gardens or parks or wildlife shelters.

As a kid, I loved them. They were places to escape the everything must be useful and tidy mindset.

up
Voting closed 13

Why do you still live in the city?

up
Voting closed 31

You can take the girl off the farm, but she’s still a horse’s ass.

up
Voting closed 14

You aren't a horse's ass.

I'm not suggesting that you do anything - other than read your own posts and think about the things you complain about here day in and day out.

You seem to hate noise, hate being around people, and want wide open, uncurated spaces. You aren't going to get those in the city.

New England offers more than a few smaller, more affordable places where you can live a quiet village life and still walk most places - been considering them myself now that I no longer need to commute more than 1 day a week and the area is far noisier and stressier than when I moved here a quarter century ago.

Maybe you should think about what makes you happy and where you can get that instead of how everyone and everything annoys you where you are now.

up
Voting closed 29

… I’m actually referring to as a horse’s ass, swilly girl. Blow on out yourself, you clueless elitist suburban blowhard blow in.

Too funny! Too typical.

up
Voting closed 18

It produces reflections, not projections.

Elitist? That's all you got, honey? I grew up in a fucking trailer - three different trailers and five different trailer courts, to be exact. I also spend a lot of my working time listening to and working with local community groups and rural health orgs.

Is this what came up on your Chat GPT insult generator?

Really?

Or is that your trust fund talking - you seem to live well for someone who doesn't appear to have an actual job. I somehow doubt you know how to pick produce for cash.

up
Voting closed 22

.. recollections of a trailer park childhood and how it made you the wonderful fabulous bigger than life person you want us to think you are.
And now we are again subjected.

Your elitism comes from having no connection or sense of responsibility to the city you work in and live near and benefit from.You are only committed to you and those you believe you own. You can’t conceive of why anyone would want to work to make their home and city better and protect the environment by living in one. Keep living your cushy humorless life and tooting your horn. Your new country neighbors will be pleased as punch to have you to take over and renovate their ex neighbor’s home for summer and weekends. Will it be in a trailer park or some quaint chocolate box village?
You don’t matter much afterall.

up
Voting closed 12

Self published!

You don't know the half of what I've done for the environment of my community and the commonwealth. Hint: it is a hell of a lot more of consequence than your complaining on the internet about your specific personal issues has improved.

Kind of a shame as you seem to have a lot of time.

up
Voting closed 21

.. out of tune horn again.

up
Voting closed 12

marketing and selling these. After all Facebook is loaded with people looking for parking in this area.

up
Voting closed 20

Apartments will range from studios to three-bedroom units.

I thought the interesting thing about this project is that it includes just 2 studios (450 sq fr) and all the other units are 2 or 3 bedrooms. Must be something I don't understand about the local real estate market. What gives?

up
Voting closed 13

But note that the filing specifically mentions the site is within walking distance of, no, not BPS's Lyndon School (half a mile away) but Holy Name School. So it'll appeal to young Catholic families?

up
Voting closed 18

As you surely know, the BPS assignment system means that, even if you live close to a school, it's basically up to the luck of the draw whether your kids could go there. A few bonus points to them for not mentioning something that might not be a possibility. (More points for not listing the distance to Legacy Place, which way too many places see as a selling point.)

up
Voting closed 12

I'm sorry but this rendering is hilariously bad. The lines of perspective and vanishing points are all over the place. As an architect I know they still teach that kind of thing in schools. This is just lazy.

up
Voting closed 11