Jamaica Plain Infill and Small Developments

[stick n move]

Construction Update: 10 Stonley Road​

“10 Stonley Road in Jamaica Plain is taking shape with framing nearly complete for the affordable housing development. The project will offer 45 affordable income-restricted homeownership units, including 5 artist live-work studios…”

https://www.bldup.com/posts/construction-update-10-stonley-road

 

[Dimitri71]

100% boomer pastoralist NIMBYism turning the area next to green st station into ahistorically low density homes + vacant lots. And the historical density was far too low for heavy rail subway proximate areas.

I'm confused by the "boomer pastoralist NIMBYism" comment. First, those lots aren't vacant. From what I can tell as someone who lives close by, and walks Amory St all the time, most are part of the heavy industry that permeates the area, and has been there for ages. They are used. There are no NIMBYs saying "don't destroy our beautiful lots". They are a total eyesore and the only thing I, and the people I know say is "wow, I wish these businesses would sell, so the area could be developed." As this thread shows, there is housing being built all over JP, specifically the park side. The only complaints I ever hear is that beautiful old, multi unit homes are being leveled to cram in as many "luxury" housing units as possible. And the main issue we have with this is that they are literally dynamiting hillsides and clearing out swaths of trees - which takes ages and is loud as hell. I won't deny that we love our green space ( I personally overpaid for my home, but I wanted as much green as possible, and it's worth it to me), but JP has been pretty open to tons of housing for lower income people, the elderly, the unhoused, and those in recovery. Now, if your complaint is that there should be taller edifices being built with highers amounts of housing, I would say that is a zoning issue, not NIMBYism, and I would agree.

 

[curcuas]

I'm confused by the "boomer pastoralist NIMBYism" comment. First, those lots aren't vacant. From what I can tell as someone who lives close by, and walks Amory St all the time, most are part of the heavy industry that permeates the area, and has been there for ages. They are used. There are no NIMBYs saying "don't destroy our beautiful lots". They are a total eyesore and the only thing I, and the people I know say is "wow, I wish these businesses would sell, so the area could be developed." As this thread shows, there is housing being built all over JP, specifically the park side. The only complaints I ever hear is that beautiful old, multi unit homes are being leveled to cram in as many "luxury" housing units as possible. And the main issue we have with this is that they are literally dynamiting hillsides and clearing out swaths of trees - which takes ages and is loud as hell. I won't deny that we love our green space ( I personally overpaid for my home, but I wanted as much green as possible, and it's worth it to me), but JP has been pretty open to tons of housing for lower income people, the elderly, the unhoused, and those in recovery. Now, if your complaint is that there should be taller edifices being built with highers amounts of housing, I would say that is a zoning issue, not NIMBYism, and I would agree.

These lots are still vacant because of Boomer pastoralist NIMBYs

 

[Dimitri71]

These lots are still vacant because of Boomer pastoralist NIMBYs
View attachment 50433

Cool picture...look at all that pastoralism Those are all parking lots for the adjacent businesses, except for the small one next to Evergreen. Is it underutilized space...yes. Again, they are not vacant. I think you need to reflect on what you're arguing.

 

[curcuas]

Cool picture...look at all that pastoralism Those are all parking lots for the adjacent businesses, except for the small one next to Evergreen. Is it underutilized space...yes. Again, they are not vacant. I think you need to reflect on what you're arguing.

There is a long story about the neighbors preventing those lots from being built on and opposing any and all feasible development proposals. But snark is more fun.

 

[Dimitri71]

There is a long story about the neighbors preventing those lots from being built on and opposing any and all feasible development proposals. But snark is more fun.

Why don't you share some of this info instead of making absurd comments about NIMBY pastoralist (Pastoral? Look at the pic you posted - what's pastoral about this?) and "vacant" lots. With that said, I'm done with this back and forth. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[SuffolkHeights11]

I'm confused by the "boomer pastoralist NIMBYism" comment. First, those lots aren't vacant. From what I can tell as someone who lives close by, and walks Amory St all the time, most are part of the heavy industry that permeates the area, and has been there for ages. They are used. There are no NIMBYs saying "don't destroy our beautiful lots". They are a total eyesore and the only thing I, and the people I know say is "wow, I wish these businesses would sell, so the area could be developed." As this thread shows, there is housing being built all over JP, specifically the park side. The only complaints I ever hear is that beautiful old, multi unit homes are being leveled to cram in as many "luxury" housing units as possible. And the main issue we have with this is that they are literally dynamiting hillsides and clearing out swaths of trees - which takes ages and is loud as hell. I won't deny that we love our green space ( I personally overpaid for my home, but I wanted as much green as possible, and it's worth it to me), but JP has been pretty open to tons of housing for lower income people, the elderly, the unhoused, and those in recovery. Now, if your complaint is that there should be taller edifices being built with highers amounts of housing, I would say that is a zoning issue, not NIMBYism, and I would agree.

Zoning and NIMBYism cannot be separated as issues. To develop these vacant lots, the underlying zoning either needs to be changed (see PLAN: JP/ROX failing due to NIMBYism) or the developer needs a variance (see JP abutter lawsuits due to NIMBYism).

 

[curcuas]

Zoning and NIMBYism cannot be separated as issues. To develop these vacant lots, the underlying zoning either needs to be changed (see PLAN: JP/ROX failing due to NIMBYism) or the developer needs a variance (see JP abutter lawsuits due to NIMBYism).

Exactly.

 

[FK4]

I think there's a bit of both here. There are quite definitely NIMBY's in JP. I tussled with them during one noteworthy community meeting about a zoning variance near my old apartment, where I looked at the room of a handful of mostly aging hippies who had bought in JP in the 70s and still thought themselves the heart and soul of JP, and told them my wife and I as fairly highly paid young professionals cant even buy in JP and that thwarting development was hypocritical, since all of them owned their homes and bought in at the right time and were imposing their value system on others and thereby preventing equitable access. One woman (who lived in one of the best houses in JP, huge lot, huge yard), after the meeting, started screaming at me at the door with plenty of "how dare you's". So not all of JP is open-armed for more density, and the antagonists are often liberal hypocrites.

That being said, there is plenty of development and forward-thinking activism there, and there are certainly multiple large developments that have gone up around Green St, despite the efforts of some. The Robeson Street development doesn't look that bad to me. It's a sideways triple decker on a lot that had a SFH. Maybe it could be denser? But for a residential side street, getting more than that one a single lot is a reach, anywhere. And just flinging out words like "near Green St" does ignore certain specifics about certain streets. Robeson is quieter than, say Washington. I think if this building were taller with the same number of housing units and square footage, there wouldn't be a peep on here about it.

It would probably be for the best (on a utilitarian basis) to just bulldoze most of JP and all the other neighborhoods, and build up twice as densely. That would obviously also be horrible. Preserving how amazing places like JP are without turning them into a museum for rich people is a real challenge. But, as a neighborhood that had a particularly strong hand in defeating the highways, and has a massive number of community gardens and an overall very good amount of trees and greenery, I would be careful about getting overly cynical about "pastoralism"... green is also good.

 

[Plen-T-Pak]

Yes, otherwise liberal minded folks can get quite conservative when it comes to their neighborhood, and it can get nasty. I always try to imagine what it would be like to settle down when demand was low decades ago, feeling like I've stumbled onto my own slice of paradise, to contending with a very different scenario today where demand couldn't be higher.

 

[Kinopio]

If you want to call out NIMBY's Jamaica Plain is the wrong place to do it. The Pine Street Inn is constructing a 200 unit building that will be transitional housing for homeless people. The only person who objected to it was a landlord who doesn't even live in JP. Put a building like that pretty much anywhere else and people would throw a fit.

 

[FK4]

If you want to call out NIMBY's Jamaica Plain is the wrong place to do it. The Pine Street Inn is constructing a 200 unit building that will be transitional housing for homeless people. The only person who objected to it was a landlord who doesn't even live in JP. Put a building like that pretty much anywhere else and people would throw a fit.

This isn't really accurate. JP certainly is generally more progressive, than other neighborhoods, but it's far from immune (and the bar set by Boston generally isn't saying much anyway). In addition, NIMBYism is not necessarily homogeneous across "Jamaica Plain". The neighborhood by the police station is a far cry from Sumner Hill, or any of the territory between Lamartine and Centre, let alone the actual "plain" between Centre and J-Way. And community meetings will and do reflect that.

 

[curcuas]

JP residents continually block projects around Green St station (and by Jackson Sq and Stony Brook), anything that would pencil on Centre St to replace single story taxpayers, and dense infill throughout. Occasional exceptions notwithstanding. Look at PLAN JP Rox: the requirements the "community" demanded were so onerous that what is going up now is permitted specifically as exceptions to PLAN JP Rox except for the 100% affordable buildings. The existence of one 100% affordable building does not disprove the overall NIMBYism of the neighborhood --- and the continuous lack of new infill and the short buildings + parking lots next to the train are indicative of how planning + development has happened htere.