- Local every day in
Parcel U Deal Short of Affordable Housing Goal
A developer has planned 120 housing units at the 2.82-acre property purchased from the MBTA in Forest Hills, but the amount of affordable housing units of the proposal falls short of the goal set forth by the community.
"Parcel U" off Washington Street at Ukraine Way between Walk Hill Street.
Photos (1)
Photos
Though a deal is pending between a developer and the MBTA for 120 housing units at Parcel U, an MBTA-owned Forest Hills plot, that deal falls short of a the community’s affordable housing goal for the parcel originally set in 2008.
Only 31 of the 120 units planned by Urbanica will be designated affordable, according to the Boston Redevelopment Authority documents. This accounts for 26 percent affordable housing. The community goal was set at 50 percent, according to the the BRA's Forest Hills Improvement Initiative in 2008.
BRA Senior architect John Dalzell said guidelines of this nature are a reflection of what the community wanted to see happen with a development, and that proposals do not need to meet these goals.
“You can imagine there were people who wanted to see more [affordable housing] and people who wanted to see less,” he said in an interview. “We wanted to reflect what we thought was closest to what most people thought.”
The Jamaica Plain Gazette reported Jan. 4 that, according to the proposal accepted by the MBTA, eight of the 64 units for sale and 25 of the 56 units for rent will be designated “affordable,” which represent percentages of 12.5 and 46 individually, but account for 26 percent in total.
Dalzell said the proposal is only a starting point, and that the community will have ample time to weigh in on the development, adding that depleting resources across the country have made it difficult to build affordable units since the original discussions were had five years ago.
“It’s natural to have some discrepancies,” he said. “Part of the process is to leave some real flexibility.”
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Ken Pope
8:27 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
The affordable housing quotas were set during the Forest Hill's Initiative meetings which were quite divided. There were many 'interest' groups present who did not live in the area. ALSO, at that time at least 2 members of the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council had direct ties to groups such as the JPNDC, and they never acknowledged a conflict of interest. As an abutting neighbor to parcel U I'm fully in favor of a 26% affordable housing amount.
NickE
9:14 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Well said. Agree 100%
frankly mr.shankly
12:53 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
agreed.
Although - maybe they can get urbanica to move a little bit, but I think 26% affordable is better than no project. 50% is a lot to ask without some government funding.
NickE
9:13 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Here we go again. A private company is willing to spend a TON of their own money to build a nice development on what is currently a lousy vacant lot, and they're going to get held up/sued because they'll lose their shirts if they try to do what the "community" supposedly wants. I live a half a mile away from this lot. If they put in 31 affordable units (that's 25%, well above the legally mandated 13%) that is more than enough, and they should be allowed to build. But they won't. Because the JPNC will once again sue to intentionally depress the neighborhood.
Makes me sick.
Rich P
10:01 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Nick you've said it well. Of course the media loves to portray developers who create new homes for people from vacant lots as the bad guys - regardless of how much good they do. Why this article is not praising the developer for DOUBLING the state's 13%, but rather it's under the J P wish list of 50% is a prime example of the media fishing for a controversy when there should be none. Why the media cannot ever report good news is beyond me. Any educated community planner knows that approx 15% affordable is the ideal number for a development to succeed. Anything more than that puts the development at risk of economv failure. So to go beyond 15% shows the developer is really making a huge effort to look beyond profit and be a positive force for good change in an economically depressed location. 26% is a wonderful addition and the developer should be given an award - that would be news worth reporting. [ for the record I have no idea who the developer even is ]
Nick Nelson
12:02 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Half market and half affordable seems reasonable and balanced to me. And it honors the community planning process and will offer opportunities for all types of people to live there.
OMCIII
3:07 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Once again the problem is not anything other than the JPNC. It is time for the neighborhood to push back and elect a slate of candidates that will do what is best for JP while preserving what it is that brought us here.
Maura
6:32 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
I like the 26% number (even though I would rather this "lousy vacant lot" remain vacant.) Nick Nelson, I disagree that half market and half afforable allows all types of people to live in a location. What it does is allow two extremes of people (income wise) to live there. What is consistently missing from the affordable housing discussion is the concept of economic diversity (ie across a spectrum) rather than economic polarities.