Powder House Community School developer proposals

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

There was just an interesting article posted detailing proposals from 6 developers for what to do with the former Powder House Community School space.

The one that looks really cool is this one: "The proposal from Peter Lee and Michael McKee calls for the school building to remain intact and be renovated. Part of the building would be converted into classrooms, multipurpose space, and an art gallery, while the rest would be turned into 110 loft-style apartments. The plans also include a small amphitheater, a cafe, and park space. The proposal offers $4.2 million for the parcel." The offers are between $1.02 million and $7 million, and most of the other offers call for residential space and public park space. The full proposals are here. (Note: I am not affiliated with any of these groups, except maybe Tufts, but only as a grad student.)

Voting members of the advisory group are "Aldermen Bob Trane, Jack Connolly, and Dennis Sullivan; School Committee chairwoman Mary Jo Rossetti; PJ Ryan’s Pub owner Connor Brenan; city residents Sean Becker, Frances Fisher, Brian Harris, Jim Monagle, Mike Panis, Alex Pitkin, and Richard Shortt; members of the city's office of community development George Proakis, Stephen Houdlette, and Luisa Oliveira".

Comments

[ron_newman]

the rest [of the existing PHCS building] would be turned into 110 loft-style apartments.

That can't be right. The building is nowhere near big enough.

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

I was wondering about that too. All the other proposals suggest 30-40 apartments. Maybe it was a typo for 10?

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

Nope, just read the proposal. They propose 110 loft-style apartments on three floors.

[ron_newman]

What do they mean by 'loft-style' ? Do they propose to add on to the building?

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

No idea, I only skimmed the proposal and I don't know anything about the existing space.

[jicama]

"three floors" sure sounds like adding onto the building.

[jicama]

From reading more of the proposal, it sounds like they plan to convert the existing lower level to a parking garage (with an entrance where the Broadway door is now) and then extend the building upward to get back the floor area lost to parking.

[ron_newman]

My preference would be to lose the parking garage altogether, given the short walk to the Red LIne from here. Fill that space with something more useful.

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

If they're adding 110 apartments, that means potentially adding ~110 cars to that area. I wouldn't want all those cars trying to find street parking. Having the garage under the apartments seems much smarter than taking up more flat space with a lot.

[ron_newman]

A garage is definitely better urbanism than a surface lot, but I'd rather not have either. A garage will deaden the street level.

[jicama]

I don't think it will affect the street level significantly; since Broadway is sloped there, most of the lower level is already underground, and the only place where it could be accessible is at the current back door. The current main entrance at the Packard intersection would still be the main entrance, and the public spaces would all along the path between Packard/Broadway and Holland. The plan for the Broadway face seems to be for the current featureless wall to become apartment windows.

If they're adding apartments, they are required by zoning to add parking as well, and a below-grade lot seems like the right solution.