Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer wants to triple approved number of parking spaces at West Roxbury condo project; says nobody wants to live there without dedicated parking
By adamg on Fri, 01/10/2025 - 10:02am
Rendering by McKay Architects.
A developer who won approval in August for a 30-unit condo project with 11 parking spaces on Grove Street at Washington Street in West Roxbury yesterday asked the Boston Planning Department to let him put in 30 parking spaces instead.
In a project-change request, an attorney for Derrick Fitzgerald's S & F Development said denial of the request could lead to the project's financial demise before ground is even broken because there just aren't enough people ready for the car-less lifestyle at an intersection only directly served by a bus route - and that without the extra parking, he could also lose the 17-unit condo building he recently completed next door, on Washington Street at Grove, where the Lee Myles transmission place used to be:
As you are aware, the developer also completed the adjacent 5205 Washington Street building and has been marketing those units for approximately eight months. In that time, he has only sold seven of the seventeen units and most of the interested buyers are requesting two parking spaces. When his brokers explain the parking situation, they are told by the interested buyers that this part of the city is not transit friendly, and the potential buyers move on to other buildings. It is a near certainty he will encounter the same issue when marketing units for 231-245 Grove Street with its current parking ratio. He understands the city's position on parking, however, if he cannot add additional parking to the building, he believes he could lose these buildings to the bank.
In summary, he is facing the realization that prospective buyers will not purchase home ownership units without the promise of a dedicated parking space in this part of the city.
Under the requested change, Fitzgerald would supplement his originally requested and approved ten-space ground-floor garage with a 20-space underground garage. Also changed: A reduction in the number of proposed ground-floor retail spaces from four to three.
Although city zoning codes still generally call for at least one space per unit, especially in the city's less dense neighborhoods, in recent years, the planning department and its predecessors have worked with developers in recent years to reduce the amount of provided parking. Officials have long held that more people are turning to public transit supplemented by ride-sharing services such as Zipcar and that reducing parking reduces construction costs, theoretically helping to ameliorate the price of units. The Zoning Board of Appeal would then typically grant the variance needed for the reduced amount of parking.
Just this week, two city councilors proposed eliminating parking requirements altogether, saying it would help spur additional housing in a city with some of the nation's highest housing costs.
In his initial filing, which called for 11 parking spaces, Fitzgerald played up the proposed building's transit connections - if not going so far as to call it "transit oriented:"
The Proposed Project is well-served by public transportation provided by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (“MBTA”). The MBTA 34E Bus, both inbound to Forrest Hills and Outbound to Walpole Center, has stops less than 250 feet from the Project Site. The MBTA 34 and 35 Buses also have multiple inbound and outbound stops within 0.3 miles of the Project Site. Additionally, the aforementioned West Roxbury MBTA Commuter Rail station is approximately 1.5 miles from the Project
Site.
The planning department is accepting comments on the proposed change until Feb. 13, after which its board will make a decision.
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
less units
Can't have 30 units with 30 parking spaces
Also, are they planning to cover the building with algae? I see green but no trunks.
Trees
The tree trunks blend in with the browns of the first level in that rendering. Trees are clearly shown in the floor plans.
Where are the roots?
I can't see where the trunks leave the earth.
Look at the bit of grass in
Look at the bit of grass in the middle of the rendering, that’s where the tree would be planted
one invisible tree trunk does
one invisible tree trunk does not explain where that green stuff all over the building is coming from.
Algae.
lol!
Ha! Ghost trees hide the
Ha! Ghost trees hide the chintzy, unsightly non-brick blight of all these (temporary) new builds.
Baby trees that will get the axe before they …
… can actually provide shade to humans, etc and shelter to endangered songbirds.
This how it should work
I'm not in favor of parking but this is the "let the market decide" mentality that's good for housing. Instead of specifically mandating a min/max of spots, let developers chose however many they think is profitable. People will move to units that match their needs and price.
In this case, let the market decide is code for ….
… let the wealthy decide.
Whether they like it or not, developers have a responsibility to the communities they exploit.
Housing for humans, not machines, is the priority.
It's hard to force change from the top down
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that if apartments are prohibited from having parking spots, people will stop driving and/or housing will be cheaper. The past ~60 years have been increasing layers of housing requirements aimed at solving some problem and all that's happened is that housing is progressively more expensive and scarce. The pre-WWII housing that was built with few regulations and is still some of the most suitable.
For the same reason I think they should drop the requirement to have ground-level retail. Wouldn't ~6 more apartments be preferable to the 3 or 4 empty storefronts that are going to be created from this project?
You have a good point with the ground level…
… retail. For the disabled, which is a growing segment of the population due to aging and other factors, having easy access to street level without needing an elevator is especially nice.
Families with young children and dog owners appreciate this too.
Let it go
People want cars.
Just relax dude
Imagine that people want to
Imagine that people want to drive and be able to park their car. The horror.
People want housing, too
We have too much of one and too little of the other.
Plenty of parking in the burbs - not every place needs to be favored habitat for enormous machines.
It’s amazing how a majority
It’s amazing how a majority Democrat state (pseudo-Democrats!) so frequently champions the laissez-faire philosophy! Housing, gambling, homelessness, drugs….
We need a healthy, functional and effective Democratic Party that sticks to the basics of being the yin to the conservative yang and we will never do that by thinking we can have our cake and eat it too by being both the Democratic Party and the Bernie Sanders Democratic-Socialist Party (Ultimately Socialist.) The unnatural expansion of the Democrat’s tent by the appeasement of those who are naturally part of an entirely different ideology and philosophy has neutered our Party and made the agenda of the minority we patronize socialist Sanders - and other forces far, far worse) - the controlling force of policy and politicking. It’s almost like the Progressives are the tool undermining the powerful Democratic Party we once knew. The current illusion of Democrats’ power is by virtue of the good we do for the wealthy and elite we serve by the patronizing, inane and ultimately empty, feel-good posturing, virtue-signaling and hand-waving.
Parking restrictions (bans for some) age-/health-/circumstance-/class-/ and ideologically-selective housing/zoning such as this are creating - and will create where they don’t yet exist- structural determinants of inequality.
wut
relax, it's a story about parking spaces
Sometimes a parking space is
Sometimes a parking space is not just a parking space.
This is a Wendy's.
This is a Wendy's.
Conservative yang
What passes for "conservative yang" these days?
Lol! This has me a bit preoccupied as well.
I only blame myself, though.
Did you ever consider that
Did you ever consider that all this developer needs to do to fill the units is... make the rent cheaper?
He can rent the units for less, without parking. He wants the city to change OUR rules for HIS MARGINS.
Agreements were made, Permits were granted. He now wants to change the rules after the fact, otherwise he will take the bath that MARKET FORCES are handing him.
He misread the market. You want to change the Megabucks Lottery rules too so people who don't pick all the right numbers still get their windfall?
Tough cookies.
The market
has built a building that nobody wants to live in at the moment.
The guy is proposing that We The People should change the rules, after the fact, to protect this developers capitol investment AND allow him to do it next door as well.
To save him taking a bath, and having to offer the units for less than HE WANTS for HIS PROFIT.
On a bad decision he privately made.
Privatize the profit, socialize the risk. That's the market they want.
100%
Let the developers provide what they think they need to sell the units.
BUT… the city needs to take action where they can by charging a market for parking on city streets rather than give-aways to car owners.
Floor Plans
Speaking to my previous comment about the floor plans. I'm surprised there is not "back entrance" to the retail spaces. That seems short sighted (although, yes, these are supposedly early stage drawings). Secondly - there is a "dog run" on the site which is laughable and no one will use it. It looks to be about 6' wide by 45' long. Who will use that for their dog? Honestly.
Good for me
For the dog that's often a house guest, that would be perfect. All she wants to do is run after a thrown ball and that would be ideal dimensions.
Although I am skeptical of the long term upkeep of these urban dog areas.
They are using “dog run” as a euphemism…
…. for dog toilet. Probably will be filled with cheap gravel that irritates dog paws and will waft dog urine odors into nearby units in hot humid weather.
Probably intended to placate neighbors who worry about dog owners who don’t scoop the poop.
This sounds reasonable. The
This sounds reasonable. The developer asked for less, the market responded and he increased the number.
It should also be a wake up call for the car-free crowd that even when a developer seems amiable to going down that road it is not ideal if you do not back it up with robust transit and local store options. A developer would gladly not pay for parking spaces built into a structure as they get expensive to build. So for a developer to want to put in garage parking they have to overcome that additional expense by increasing the asking price.
I'm sorry
Is your line that parking is more expensive per sq foot than finished retail, residential, or industrial space?
Show us how that is accurate. Citation, please.
The developer asked for less,
If "the market responded" by not buying the units, then that means the developer overpriced the units.
Let them eat . . .
err, use bike lanes.
"In summary, he is facing the realization that prospective buyers will not purchase home ownership units without the promise of a dedicated parking space in this part of the city."
Maybe just cut the price to sell them?
Might not be possible
To sell the units for above cost at a price that doesn't include a parking space. Sucks for the developer with his existing building but it also means the new project doesn't get built if it can't be sold for more that it costs to make it.
Strategy #2: price it right
Strategy #2: price it right and it will sell, even without off-street parking.
It's actually a great way to keep housing more affordable without subsidy. That's how it works in the rest of the city. A much preferable way than, say, high crime or undesirable schools.
.
Perhaps you should try being a developer
And see how far you can go when you sell property for less than the cost of building it.
Have the developer
Pay into a transit fund - if they're going to complain "people won't live there without parking", contribute to other options. Could also stand to have a BlueBikes station here...
83% of the completed building next door has been sold
only 3 units of the 17 unit completed building are left (as per Zillow). They only started selling last Aug. That's roughly 3 units a month. No idea if that is considered a fast or slow selling rate.
Plus throw in that the holiday season is usually very slow for sales and rentals.
Are his agents well explaining the public transportation options to potential buyers? The bus stop is right outside the building(s). easy 34/34e buses to Forest Hills and easy 35 to the West Roxbury commuter rail stop (I take it to Traders Joe's in Needham & the WR stop has Zipcars). The downhill bike to the WR stop is super easy. For me the uphill bike back requires some walking, but it's a beautiful street. Easy 34/34e to the Dedham Mall and Stop and Shop.
But as a (small, owner-occupied) landlord in West Roxbury, applicants always ask about parking. I've been renting out for 30 yrs now and I have yet to have one applicant without a car. And if two adults move in, they both have cars. People without a car seem to prefer being more central with more convenient, pedestrian shopping (e.g downtown, back bay, seaport, Rozzie, JP). Living in WR without a car requires having a lot of time to commute and just run errands. WR does need better public transportation
But… but… I loved the 36 bus!
But… but… I loved the 36 bus! <.heavy sarcasm >
I wonder if the bus stop in front of the VA and a person‘s property has been moved. In fact, I hope the bus stop has been moved back to the corner of VFW Parkway and Spring Street. Living in the end of West Roxbury was always a challenge.
I think the greatest moment was when I lived across the street from Shaws and the road was flooded. I stood out on my front porch and watched a transit bus execute the best U-turn ever!
The 34/34E isn't so easy anymore
During pre-Covid rush hours, the 34 was scheduled every 10-12 minutes, with an additional 34E every 20-30 minutes. This meant an average waiting time of 6-8 minutes at Forest Hills.
Since 2022, the rush hour 34 and the 34E have been scheduled every 30-40 minutes during rush hour. But instead of staggering them so that it's 15-20 minutes between each bus, the T's genius schedulers put them almost back-to-back to maximize riders' pain (example: 7:05pm, 7:06pm, then nothing until 7:31pm, 7:40pm).
The 35 has also seen cuts...morning frequencies used to be every 20 minutes, and since 2022, the T has reduced to every 30 minutes. Midday frequencies remain horrible at 40-45 minutes per bus.
All that to say, this is not a transit desert but it's far, far from high-quality transit that warrants zero parking -- hard to sell! And there are only 2 directions to go: south to Dedham Mall/Walpole or north to Forest Hills. Going into Hyde Park, Brookline, or Newton? Forget it! Just see this post on the Boston subreddit.
(And for what it's worth: even with the post-Covid cuts, the 34/34E combined consistently serves many more passengers than the high-frequency 71, 73 buses in Cambridge...)
I can concur with the bus ride
I've lived in West Roxbury for 13 years (after living in Hyde Park for 36) but having seven dedicated bus routes (34, 34E, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 52) plus the Commuter Rail is cheaper than owning a car. Even with the $6.50 commuter rail fare to Downtown, it's much cheaper than driving and parking.
Centre Street might be easy
Washington Street in West Roxbury is a different animal.
It is commuter friendly, assuming you work "normal" hours, but it's a hike to amenities otherwise.
My fantasy is that the is somehow extended up Washington Street, perhaps to Legacy Place. The Dedham Mall could be remade into a new neighborhood. We can all have our dreams.
34 or 34E?
Do you mean the 34 or the 34E? Either one I could see extended to Legacy Place.
The plan is in place
Part of the MBTA "Better Bus" plan would see the 34 extended to Legacy Place and terminate there instead of at Dedham Mall. They already ran some test runs as far as Dedham Plaza a while back. The 34E would loop through there on its inbound and outbound trips.
Both would use Elm Street and loop into the area near the back of the theater. At least that was the original plan.
You're right about the time
You're right about the time cost, and time is money for most people. I've commuted and run errands via these bus routes from WR. Between the slowness of the buses and the unpredictable time spent waiting, you lose so much of your day. And forget going anywhere after 8 PM, when the routes are more infrequent. It's not a choice that many who have the means to own even a beater car would make.
If anything, I hope this is a wake up call that the city needs to push the MBTA harder on transit. Several WR bus routes are proposed to run more frequently under the Better Bus Project, but who knows when that will come to fruition. In a world where buses run down Centre and Washington every 10 - 15 minutes, I can see more people being comfortable living carless or at least as one car households. Before then, it's clear there's no market for carless development in WR.
Misleading article, Adam.
More parking doesn’t require a variance. It’s the change in floor area that requires a change in the granted variance. For large projects the max is one space per unit.
Except that's not what I wrote
There are several things that can trigger the need for a variance, including, yes, FAR, but also providing less parking than a lot's zoning calls for based on the number of units. So if a parcel's zoning calls for 1 space per unit, but the developer, acting at the request of the BPDA (or BPD now), files plans that call for only, oh 1/3 parking space per unit, then he needs a parking variance from the zoning board.
Mindsets
The mindset that availability to public transit is all you need in life is skewed. This developer is learning it the hard way after caving in to pressure from various groups. If you didn't know a host of special interests groups insist on special meetings now with developers once a project is announced. They coerce the developer to reduce parking or even eliminate it. The developer changes their blueprints and that is what the public sees when abutter meetings take place. So the public never sees the original plans for comment.
So part of this a neighbor vs. neighbor thing and it's stealth as well. Even the IAG's are being stacked. If you know, you know.
Indeed the apartments across from Forest Hills station and the ones nearby that line up across from the bus yard have been there quite some time now and still have vacancies. Price is one thing but the need to also have a car is the other. They are not affordable, and sometimes... just sometimes... the bus or train cannot get you there.
Of course the "pat answer" is to tell people to move closer to work, or get a job along the T. Who's decision is that?
This isn't just an issue of parking spaces but one of social engineering by force.
I have lived in Boston for 30
I have lived in Boston for 30 years and I have never had onsite parking at any place I lived. I have had some kind of car the entire time. It is luxury, not a necessity. If the price comes down the vacancies will fill. It is kind of a disgrace since there are people with section 8 certificates in hand that can't find a place. I know one family that is in shelter and waiting for a building to be constructed.