Northeastern eyes dorms

[kz1000ps]

Well, assuming that physical expansion is a given (which it inevitably is), WHERE else do they go? Please propose a proposition in place of this problematic property...

[TC]

shockingboston, What would you and/or the community rather see built on the site?

[castevens]

I think that site is closer to our center campus than the Coventry/Davenport dorms of which you speak that are on the Roxbury side of the tracks.

[shockingboston]

Originally Posted by TC

shockingboston, What would you and/or the community rather see built on the site?

If I had ?say? I would recommend housing (not condos), some retail, a jazz/blues restaurant and a facility to accommodate the local youth (something like a Boys and Girls Club, YMCA or a youth center).

I believe the site is big enough to create separation for the different possible user types for the site (i.e. adults attending the jazz/blue club are not standing in line that crosses in front of the youth center).

NU is limited by its location; NU should seek expansion opportunities on Huntington Ave, Park St., or maybe finally complete the proposal for the air rights over the T tracks.

NU is definitely a growing university, but it can?t just expand anywhere they want because they can afford it.

[atlantaden]

NU is definitely a growing university, but it can?t just expand anywhere they want because they can afford it.


From everything I've read on this forum and in the Boston Globe, every time NU proposes building a new dorm anywhere near it's campus, the neighborhood goes through the roof!! Just because someone can afford to build doesn't mean they're gonna build it, especially in Boston. The recent fiasco of the Suffolk dorm is a good example. Columbus Center is another example of a developer having to jump through hoops for years and years in order to build and yet, they haven't begun construction yet.

[xec]

Originally Posted by shockingboston

If I had ?say? I would recommend housing (not condos), some retail, a jazz/blues restaurant and a facility to accommodate the local youth (something like a Boys and Girls Club, YMCA or a youth center).

I believe the site is big enough to create separation for the different possible user types for the site (i.e. adults attending the jazz/blue club are not standing in line that crosses in front of the youth center).

NU is limited by its location; NU should seek expansion opportunities on Huntington Ave, Park St., or maybe finally complete the proposal for the air rights over the T tracks.

NU is definitely a growing university, but it can?t just expand anywhere they want because they can afford it.

I don't see why you begrudge Northeastern building on land they own, or why the development you mentioned has to be on this particular parcel, or why the parcel is so vital to the community. It's not like Roxbury is hurting for space. Here's an aerial of the South End just up Columbus from Ruggles station.



Compare that to the scene a few blocks from Ruggles along Melnea Cass Blvd.



And here's the scene deeper into Roxbury.





Maybe it would be more useful if Chuck stopped scoring easy points by grandstanding against Northeastern and earned some real points by working for housing grants, incentives, permits and whatever else it would take to get some of these lots developed with all the things you mentioned. The amount of land Northeastern is building on is next to nothing compared to all the unused land in Roxbury.

[cityrecord]

Originally Posted by xec

And here's the scene deeper into Roxbury.

That is First Church in Roxbury's churchyard in the center of the picture above, so I doubt development will happen there any time soon, although an addition was added to the rear of the church for the UU Urban Ministry. In addition, the land to the right of the church is being developed as we speak. You can see the new construction. The other empty lot along Roxbury Street backs onto a sheer rock face or a large retaining wall (I'm having trouble picturing it despite having driven past it yesterday) and is unsuitable for development. A couple of the other large spaces have institutional owners and were never residential--the Dillaway Thomas house, which is part of the Roxbury Heritage State Park is across the street from the church on the top of the picture and there is a convent or other RC church building there as well, if I'm not mistaken.

As to the other pictures, I think the top one shows why Roxbury residents might not want a dorm there. We shouldn't forget that there are three proposals for the site and the other two may have more community support. At least one of them does, and I know that for a fact. A better question to ask might be which of the three proposals does Chuck Turner and people in the community support, instead of railing against people in Roxbury for having a negative opinion of one of the plans.

Oddly enough, my wife's family lived in that area when she was born in 1968 and my father-in-law helped do some of the master planning of the new developments. He declined to have a street named after himself.

[Roxxma]

[quote="xec"]


You got a birdseye of my house in this photo.

[xec]

Originally Posted by cityrecord

That is First Church in Roxbury's churchyard in the center of the picture above, so I doubt development will happen there any time soon, although an addition was added to the rear of the church for the UU Urban Ministry. In addition, the land to the right of the church is being developed as we speak. You can see the new construction. The other empty lot along Roxbury Street backs onto a sheer rock face or a large retaining wall (I'm having trouble picturing it despite having driven past it yesterday) and is unsuitable for development. A couple of the other large spaces have institutional owners and were never residential--the Dillaway Thomas house, which is part of the Roxbury Heritage State Park is across the street from the church on the top of the picture and there is a convent or other RC church building there as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Cityrecord, those pics are meant to show the overall low density of development in Roxbury, not specific lots that could be built on. Not knowing the details of each unbuilt lot I can't post pics only of those available for development. I don't expect that every empty lot in Roxbury can be developed, but as the pics show there are so many that it's impossible none of them can be developed. They can't all be part of some historic property, or on a ledge, or otherwise encumbered so they can't be built on. The point is Roxbury is not squeezed for space, so it's not like the community is losing land that's desperately needed for housing.

As to the other pictures, I think the top one shows why Roxbury residents might not want a dorm there. We shouldn't forget that there are three proposals for the site and the other two may have more community support.

Those three proposals are for parcel 3 and NU's proposed dorms are on parcel 18. There's some confusion about this. My understanding is that one of the developer proposals for parcel 3 did include dorms, but that went over badly so NU came out with the current proposal to build dorms on 18 instead. None of the pics I posted show parcels 3 or 18. Here's a wider view that shows the lay of the land. The pic I posted is the area with the ?.

A better question to ask might be which of the three proposals does Chuck Turner and people in the community support, instead of railing against people in Roxbury for having a negative opinion of one of the plans.

Last I heard all three proposals for parcel 3 were likely to fall thru because none could get sufficient funding, so an even better question to ask is what are Turner and the community activists doing about the situation. The time and energy spent fighting NU over P18 could be better spent fighting for whichever P3 proposal catches their fancy.

Originally Posted by Roxxma

You got a birdseye of my house in this photo.

Neat. Bowesst and several other people have almost posted pics of my place here or on SSP, but everyone has just managed to miss it.

[castevens]

You *just* missed mine in the above picture

[kz1000ps]

^ Living in West Campus, eh?

[castevens]

Guilty

[jama]

I got WVH when it opened - i miss it. NU needs some more of that! Burnstein/Rubenstein should be bulldozed and a tower should be put there. Only complaints would be from the MFA cause the lot is surrounded by the wentworth field, west village (parker st) and huntington. But no one should care that much cause there are already 3 towers there 10+ stories. And punters could move to a basement locale under the dorms like conors - but people will all still go to conors cause its better.

[cityrecord]

Originally Posted by xec

Cityrecord, those pics are meant to show the overall low density of development in Roxbury, not specific lots that could be built on. Not knowing the details of each unbuilt lot I can't post pics only of those available for development. I don't expect that every empty lot in Roxbury can be developed, but as the pics show there are so many that it's impossible none of them can be developed.

Yeah, but don't you think it might be a little misleading to show pictures of Roxbury purporting to show low density if you don't know what the development status is? I mean, anyone who doesn't know Roxbury would look at the picture I analyzed and say, "Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!"

I apologize for my confusion on the parcels. I was remembering the initial proposal for the large lot across from the police station which had a dorm. I'm more optimistic than you about one (or more) of the projects on the large lot getting financing, after talking at Christmas to one of the principals involved in one of the proposals.

[sidewalks]

Where did you hear that the developers couldn't get funding? My understanding is that one firm was allied with the Magic Johnson's private equity fund. Those are pretty deep pockets.

[ablarc]

Originally Posted by cityrecord

I mean, anyone who doesn't know Roxbury would look at the picture I analyzed and say, "Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!"

Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!

What difference does it make that you can give reasons?



Axe murderers can give you reasons. George W. Bush has reasons.

Everything has a reason. And everything is what it is.

Look at all that undeveloped land.

[Ron Newman]

That churchyard is the former Roxbury town common; you don't think it deserves preservation?

[xec]

Originally Posted by cityrecord

Yeah, but don't you think it might be a little misleading to show pictures of Roxbury purporting to show low density if you don't know what the development status is?

It's not misleading at all. The pictures aren't purporting to show low density, they show low density. Which is unrelated to development status. Whether land can or can't be further developed doesn't alter its existing density of development.

Originally Posted by cityrecord

I mean, anyone who doesn't know Roxbury would look at the picture I analyzed and say, "Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!"

Well, here I could ask if it isn't a little misleading to analyze that particular picture. It's obviously a unique situation, but using it as the basis of a rebuttal implies similar conditions are common throughout Roxbury. Ironically, the analysis actually supports my position since you say that next to the church there was an empty lot that is currently being developed. See? Even next to a historic church there was room for new construction! :wink:

The implication that it's misleading to suggest that empty lots can be developed without knowing the particulars of the land in question places an unfair burden of proof on me, since I'd have to know the details of every parcel of land in Roxbury before I could make some general observations about the neighborhood. I obviously can't do that and must base the observations on visual evidence and reasonable assumptions. And it's no more misleading to suggest that many lots can probably be developed than to suggest the opposite without having the same knowledge on the status of every parcel. The burden of proof can go both ways.

At this point I'll bow out of the discussion, but I'd like to suggest that you spend some time on Virtual Earth looking at aerial and bird's eye views of Roxbury. I think you'll eventually come to the conclusion that exclaiming "Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!" is much more reasonable than exclaiming "Wow, there's so little land left to build on!". Unless ablarc's succint argument already led you to that exclamation.

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

That churchyard is the former Roxbury town common; you don't think it deserves preservation?

Yes, I do, but I don't see the relevance. Unless you're saying that every other unbuilt lot in Roxbury was also part of the town common and also deserves preservation.

Originally Posted by sidewalks

Where did you hear that the developers couldn't get funding? My understanding is that one firm was allied with the Magic Johnson's private equity fund. Those are pretty deep pockets.

OK, more confusion. I thought MJ was involved with the Albany Fellows project. There was a thread about it on the old site. As for P3, I don't recall the details of the funding problem but it had something to do with it being insufficient to cover the cost of leasing the land.

[cityrecord]

Originally Posted by ablarc

Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!

What difference does it make that you can give reasons?

Because the constant refrain I read here is something along the lines of "Why doesn't Chuck Turner focus on developing all of that undeveloped land." I simply pointed out that the undeveloped land in one of the pictures is in fact either (a) virtually unbuildable or (b) already occupied by a historic use which precludes development. In other words, posting pictures without knowing the development status and telling Chuck Turner to focus on the those parcels instead of the Northeastern dorm is a specious argument.

Finally, just because there isn't a building on a parcel doesn't mean it is "undeveloped". You're looking at industrial yards, people's lawns, parks, community gardens--any number of uses--in those pictures. I'm not sure how you can claim that land is undeveloped. You can claim it is what it is, but I suppose you're the one who will tell me what the meaning of "is" is.

[cityrecord]

Originally Posted by xec

At this point I'll bow out of the discussion, but I'd like to suggest that you spend some time on Virtual Earth looking at aerial and bird's eye views of Roxbury. I think you'll eventually come to the conclusion that exclaiming "Wow, look at all that undeveloped land!" is much more reasonable than exclaiming "Wow, there's so little land left to build on!". Unless ablarc's succint argument already led you to that exclamation.

And I'd suggest you spend some time looking at the zoning maps, current development proposals and driving around Roxbury rather than sitting at a desk looking at Virtual Earth. I'd also suggest that you not put words in my mouth like "Wow, there's so little land left to build on!" which wasn't my point. My point is that your use of at least one of the pictures (and there are similar problems in the other pictures, only not as extreme as the example I used) is intellectually dishonest and the equivalent of showing a picture of Boston Common and claiming that Boston has plenty of room for downtown development.

As to your claims of low density in Roxbury, density can be measured any number of ways and furthermore you're claiming low density relative to what exactly? The North End of Boston? Weston?