Thursday, June 19, 2008

Editorials on BC's Revised Housing Proposal

The Boston Globe's editorial page is pushing for Boston College to build denser housing on the Mods site as part of their revised institutional master plan -- and as a potential compromise with the neighborhood:
There should be room to resolve such issues within the 10-year construction schedule of dorms, new academic buildings, and recreation facilities — as long as BC remains flexible. One such opportunity is on the northeast section of the lower campus, where BC wants to replace 22 dreary modular housing units with a 175-student dorm and a swath of greenspace. Enlarging the dorm and moving up the schedule for its construction could postpone the need to build dorms on the contested former archdiocese site. Such compromises would also smooth the permitting process with the city.
The Boston Herald's editorial board, however, thinks BC's plan is fine just the way it is, quoting Eva Webster from the Boston Globe's news story to support their argument.

The Allston-Brighton TAB editorial sides with the Globe, arguing that BC should consider taller dorms on its main campus to minimize housing near residential areas, but is more positive about BC's purchase of 2000 Commonwealth Avenue.

Earlier: Boston Globe editorial in December 2007 that BC has not made a "convincing case" for the Brighton Dorms on the former St. John's Seminary land; adding a few stories to proposed dormitories on their main campus and "maximizing the use of land now occupied by outmoded modular housing units" were suggested.

Mayor Thomas Menino told the Globe's editorial board in January that he wants to see the dorms built south of Commonwealth Avenue. (The Brighton Dorms would be north of Comm Ave.)


10 year said...

And also to mention, and to make clear, is that B.C. is proposing to preserve several units of what B.C. themselves classify as "temporary" modular housing during this upcoming 10 year plan. Do you know how many units they plan to keep Mike? So the mods B.C. plans to keep would obstruct the "swath of green space" B.C. is trying to open up. What is B.C.'s argument for keeping these mods, instead of removing them and reconfiguring the housing to achieve the green space they are looking for? Why does B.C. have to sprawl new housing across Shea Field, instead of building their 1500 seat baseball stadium there? B.C. says it's an issue of density of residents, but even if they didn't increase the density of residents in their current plan on their main campus, they could certainly reconfigure plans to accomodate more green space without the need for any new highrise dorm. And the 790 beds at Edmonds that no one in the Brighton community objects to needs to be rehabbed or rebuilt in place.

LammsDunph said...

Looking at the bigger picture, I applaud Boston College for reaching it's goal to have 100% of its students living in University-owned housing. My family lives very close to students from Boston University and the Art Institute of Boston, and can only wish that those institutions of higher education would house their students in University-sponsored housing. Instead, we must rely on the overstretched Boston Police Department to monitor these students. Brighton residents who live close to campus can rest assured that BC's Office of Residential Life will watch its students very closely, and take steps to ensure that they act as good neighbors.

Anonymous said...

I also applaud BC for taking the action to house their students on campus, BUT putting more dorms on the former St. John's land even though it is classified as "on campus" does not fix the problem. It is a loop-hole for BC to appear as being "a good neighbor".

And as far as BC's Residential Life admin is concerned there no evidence to ensure they will watch the students very closely because up to this point they have done a terrible job with keeping rowdy students under control. In BC's defense this also applies to all the local college and universities.