Hey, there! Log in / Register

Plans unwrapped for apartments with river views in Brighton

Rendering of proposed 1500 Soldiers Field Rd.

Birds and bikes: Rendering by Höweler and Yoon Architecture.

Developer Steven Ballas of West Roxbury has filed plans with the BPDA for a 106-unit apartment building off the ramp from Soldiers Field Road towards Brighton.

The new apartments at 1500 Soldiers Field Rd. would replace an "obsolete" 1960s commercial building and would, the filing says, solidify "a gateway concept to the Charles River on Soldiers Field Road, transitioning away from the current 1960’s strip-style, one-story sprawl which is outdated and not in conformance with modern day planning standards for the City of Boston."

Ballas says the building would have 38 studios, 51 1-bedroom units, and 17 2-bedroom units. Some 14 of the apartments will be rented as affordable. The building would have 60 parking spaces in an underground garage.

The building's "saw-tooth design" will give 75% of the units a view of the Charles River as well as allow for creation of two publicly accessible greenspaces.

Ballas hopes to begin construction by the end of this year, with occupancy by mid-2022.

1550 Soldiers Field Rd. project notification form (68.4M PDF).

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

Another tough day for Councilor Liz Breadon and her anti-development and anti-single-individuals stance. Keep her in your thoughts.

up
Voting closed 26

The city has approved thousands of units designed for singles and couples. Most of the neighborhood's existing, family housing is now occupied by adults in roommate situations. More family-oriented units are needed, in Allston-Brighton and across the city.

up
Voting closed 12

Most of the neighborhood's existing, family housing is now occupied by adults in roommate situations.

Yes, that's the point. Get those adults in roommate situations out of that "family housing" and into buildings like this. MAPC just put out a study with this exact recommendation. The supply of "family housing" already exists at sufficient levels but vacancy level is low because those roommates you describe have nowhere else to go. The existing facts on the ground may be inconvenient to a political message of being "pro-family housing" but that's actually what is happening here.

up
Voting closed 30

The rents are $2000 and up for these new units, and that's just for studios. You can get a room in a house for $1000 plus utilities. Most families cannot afford to spend $3000 a month for an apartment.

up
Voting closed 12

And those units are not vacant. Because demand exists for them. Don't build them and watch rents skyrocket even more. Housing is the only area of the economy where people think magic happens. You curtail the production of bananas, prices skyrocket. Same with gasoline. On and on. Everyone understands that. But housing? Suddenly it's all magic and hocus pocus.

up
Voting closed 15

Your whole point is that "magically" the existing family housing will become available, even if the new apartments are too expensive for the adults in roommate situations to move there. It is not and will not happen. Which is why we need to include affordable, family-oriented housing in these new developments. It's an issue all over the city.

up
Voting closed 14

Looks like a prison.

up
Voting closed 25

Nothing special

up
Voting closed 15

it may not be the best design but it really doesn't especially looking at the texture in the materials it looks decent.

up
Voting closed 12

This building looks fine. In fact they should probably mass produce it across Boston's urban prairie

up
Voting closed 15

Build it, some nice design finally!

up
Voting closed 9

an absolute horror and embarrassment. looks like Mussolini dreamed up a mausoleum.

obligatory slavish submission: thank god though, we needs these housings like a baby needs milks.

up
Voting closed 13

communism meant we'd get boring buildings that all looked the same? Turns out capitalism gives you the same thing, whod have thought

up
Voting closed 23

creates more traffic, congestion and parking problems on public ways.

up
Voting closed 11

A building having less parking is good for traffic because it discourages having the 1+ car per residence that parking assumes. Less parking encourages transit use.

up
Voting closed 32

Take your car to Texas or Florida if you want suburban strode hell passing for "city living".

up
Voting closed 13

It's not a "gateway concept" to anything. It's an apartment building next to a highway.

And the Soldiers Field Road off-ramp is a bad place to ride a Blue Bike. I hope those rendered people get home safe.

I'm all for non-car-oriented development. But I'm not sure how the 46 units without a parking space will manage. It's not the most pedestrian friendly-area. I don't see plans to add the missing crosswalks where the off-ramp meets Birmingham Parkway. Most errands can't be accomplished on foot, and this development isn't adding any retail. And the 86 and 64 buses aren't the most frequent.

That said, the more important issue is adding housing is a good thing.

up
Voting closed 11

Last August, the City issued building permits to construct nearly 250 residences at 1550 Soldiers Field Road and 21 Soldiers Field Place. These projects will create the impetus (and likely the funds through community benefits agreements) to add the missing crossings.

1550, etc: http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/1550-soldiers-f...

up
Voting closed 13

Ok, a new crosswalk is a start. But it's not the only thing you need to make a pedestrian-friendly residential area.

up
Voting closed 17

is available here: http://www.bostonplans.org/document-center?program=94

The long-term visions are pretty good in that they call for actually closing underutilized ramps, adding protected cycletracks and pedestrian crossings, and reclaiming green space. But I'm not sure if these plans really took into account the number of residents that would be living in the area, which would really mean that the streets should be much more traffic-calmed and slimmed down to facilitate a more pedestrian-friendly environment and easier access to transit (70 bus, Boston Landing).

up
Voting closed 15

Thanks for posting that.

But even though the intersection with the missing crosswalks (the eastbound offramp/Birmingham Pkwy next to the residential proposal) had no suggested improvements.

And I'm not a fan of throwing cycle tracks at the problem and declaring it a success. It's still an area where you need a car, unless they decide to make it easier to walk in all directions, and rezone it to encourage local retail.

My residential neighborhood is very walkable and bikeable, and it has zero cycle tracks. I hope it stays that way.

up
Voting closed 12

Having lived in the area without a car, it would be really nice to have cycletracks here. There are grocery stores within biking distance (Star, Trader Joe's) and over the bridge in Watertown is a Target. It's a little far from reliable rail transit, but doable via buses. Better access to the Charles River paths would make commuting to most downtown or Cambridge jobs pretty great most days.

I agree that "cycletracks everywhere" doesn't solve problems alone and that land use/zoning change is the necessary tool to facilitate car-free or car-light living.

up
Voting closed 8

The Walsh admin is adept at producing these promo pieces. This one is a fantasy, the state controls the roadways, not the city. The 1550 SF Road project is the definition of non-transit oriented, an invitation to people working to the west to move in, dirve to work and jog along the Charles on the weekends. No SERIUS public transit is nearby, as in at least every 15 minutes, Monday to Friday.

up
Voting closed 12

#crapitechture ....but hey, at this point who gives a fuck?

up
Voting closed 12

There's nothing like my accommodation unit.

up
Voting closed 12