Hey, there! Log in / Register

BRA approves another apartment tower for the South Boston waterfront

Waterside Place building approved for South Boston waterfront

Architect's rendering.

The BRA yesterday approved John Drew's plans for a 23-story addition to his Waterside Place project on Congress Street, at World Trade Center Avenue.

The $157-million building will include 307 apartments - 62 of them tiny "innovation units" aimed at people with a bit less money and a lot less stuff than the average waterfront resident. The building will also have 15 affordable apartment renting for between $1,065 and about $1,600 per month. That's fewer than called for by the city's affordable-housing requirements; Drew is making up the difference by giving $5.7 million to the BRA for affordable units elsewhere.

Waterside Place Phase 1B details (24M PDF).

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

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

Comments

That's fewer than called for by the city's affordable-housing requirements; Drew is making up the difference by giving $5.7 million to the BRA for affordable units elsewhere.

Boston–the city that openly admits most of its housing is unaffordable.

Do these affordable units ever get built "elsewhere?" Aside from the hero putting up that 100% affordable building across from the Garden, I never hear about anyone else going over the required units either. How does this work? Is there data? For once, I'm not trolling the BRA, and really just want to know.

62 of them tiny "innovation units" aimed at people with a bit less money and a lot less stuff than the average waterfront resident.

Or you could just build like 30 normal people units that are affordable. These are stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

We keep reading about developers paying the BRA in lieu of including more affordable units, but I've never read about the BRA building anything with this money. What happens with it?

up
Voting closed 0

funding for BLM, muslims and union thugs.

up
Voting closed 0

Are the "units elsewhere" constructed simultaneously with the building they're displaced from? Or does this displacement of affordable units cause a delay in their construction?

Would love to find data on this.

up
Voting closed 0

article from December of last year.

TL;DR:

  • Developers set 13 percent of their units at below-market rents, or pay $200,000 apiece for the same number of units into a city housing fund
  • That $200k number has been in place since '06. Marty is actually trying to do something good for the city and raise the amount. Read the article for the details.

Nothing on how it actually works from there though.

The fact I found most interesting (read: alarming) is that in 15 years, that 13% or $200k rule has only resulted in "about" 3600 units. That's 240 affordable units, give or take, per year over 15 years. For perspective, this building alone has 307 units (none affordable). With all of the tricks developers and the BRA use to re-zone, redevelop, etc., we also don't even know how many of those affordable units from 10-15 years ago even exist today.

up
Voting closed 0

Sounds like we should just drop the program all together and encourage actual affordable housing not government sponsored affordable housing.

Wouldn't that be nice?

up
Voting closed 0

altruistic endeavor?

up
Voting closed 0

Thats not how any of this works.

up
Voting closed 0

One Greenway - an example of a great project which also shows that we need to change the city's streets. Building more housing downtown (good!) means more people walking / biking / LIVING downtown. We shouldn't have wide streets (like Kneeland) knifing through neighborhoods and making it unsafe for people to live, work and play. It isn't just about getting people in/out of the city anymore, which was the case when they were designed.

up
Voting closed 0

No kids allowed for people with a little less money.

up
Voting closed 0

$150,000.

up
Voting closed 0

You are getting a 150,000 dollar home, you're just getting over charged

up
Voting closed 0

It is worth what someone will pay.

up
Voting closed 0

somewhere.

up
Voting closed 0

Hideous. Oh wait, I'm sorry... these megaplexes are making Boston more affordable according to the anti-NIMBY crowd... except that they are not. Wise up, people! You've been had.

up
Voting closed 0

Hah!

I lived in "innovation units" in the 70s . They were called studio apartments. Some had a fancy "alcoves" . The buildings are still there. I am guessing some of the apartments still exist. They cost me roughly 25% of my income at the time. Around $100 per month, more or less.

Innovative? Hardly.

up
Voting closed 0

get that American Seafood Exchange Project finalized. What a big loss for the City of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0