Showing posts with label undergraduate dormitory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label undergraduate dormitory. Show all posts

Friday, January 30, 2009

Schofield Resigns from BC Task Force Following BRA Board Decision

Tim Schofield today submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority his resignation from the BRA's Boston College Task Force today following last night's approval of BC's Institutional Master Plan by the BRA Board.

His move followed the task force's reversal of its position on the 150-bed dormitory along Commonwealth Avenue proposed for BC's new Brighton Campus. Up through September 2008, the task force continued to be on record opposing all dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land, but recently changed course with the majority on the task force supporting the 150-bed dorm -- with conditions -- following a secret meeting held by the group.

The task force was left dangling at Thursday's public hearing when Mayor Thomas Menino's aide announced that he wanted the dorm proposal removed from the IMP; Councilor Mark Ciommo and State Representatives Kevin Honan and Michael Moran subsequently reversed course from the positions they held earlier in the month to oppose the dorm proposal as part of this IMP.

Schofield declined to talk about his decision beyond the reason given in his resignation letter that "running a business in these difficult economic times requires all of my time and attention." Other members of the task force noted that he was in the minority on the dorm issue and that he appeared quite frustrated with the internal dynamics on the task force.

During their secret, internal deliberations in the past week and a half leading up to last night's meeting, several members are revealing that there has been a great deal of infighting.

Schofield led several of the task force's public meetings during the public comment periods and, other task force members note, was instrumental in drafting the text of the task force letters and trying to build consensus within the advisory group. He has been on the task force since March 2007, although he stepped down for several months in 2007 while running unsuccessfully for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

BRA Board Approves Boston College Master Plan -- But Rejects Brighton Dorms (For Now)

After a three-and-a-half-hour hearing, the Boston Redevelopment Authority's Board today approved Boston College's 10-year Institutional Master Plan -- but without the 500-beds of undergraduate dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land (aka Brighton Campus).

The move came after Dan Roan, Allston-Brighton Coordinator from the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, notified the board that Mayor Thomas Menino was requesting that the 150-bed dormitory along Commonwealth Avenue be removed from the IMP. Instead, the 150-bed dorm and another 350-bed dorm further inside the Brighton Campus will be the subject of a future study in order to determine a suitable location for them.

More details to follow.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

"Broken Promises": Globe Op-Ed on BC's Institutional Master Plan

Two Brighton residents have an op-ed appearing in Thursday's edition of the Boston Globe which lists a series of reasons the Boston Redevelopment Authority should reject Boston College's Institutional Master Plan at the BRA Board's meeting on Thursday afternoon.

Ram Rao and Abigail Furey detail some of the broken promises from the university:
Among the most significant examples are its promises not to expand further into Brighton and not to build dormitories for undergraduates on the former archdiocese site. It also claimed it would not accept high-density housing for its students, but subsequently purchased, without notice to the city or the community, a 17-story high-rise about a half mile from campus for dormitory use.

When the college purchased the archdiocese property in 2004, the Globe reported that college officials "do not foresee using the land for core campus functions."

Yet in 2007 BC made a hard turn and is now insisting on putting those "core campus functions" -- dormitories, athletic fields and stadiums, parking garage -- onto their new property. By shifting from low-impact, day-time use facilities -- like administrative buildings, classrooms, offices, laboratories -- to high-impact, night-time uses, BC chose a path of confrontation with the surrounding neighborhood.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

City Planner Floats a Trial Balloon on BC Master Plan: Just Give Them Pretty Much Everything

Boston's Chief City Planner, Kairos Shen, ventured out to Brighton for the first time to meet with neighborhood residents on the topic of Boston College's Institutional Master Plan.

The university and neighborhood are locked in a battle over a proposed undergraduate housing plan which would put dormitories with 500 students on the former St. John's Seminary land (BC's new "Brighton Campus") -- as well as convert the newly-purchased apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue into an undergraduate, off-campus dormitory. In a written letter, the BC Task Force, a Mayoral-appointed community group advising the BRA, called for revisions in BC's proposals to relocate the Brighton Dorms onto BC's main campus.

Shen proposed a possible solution to the master plan approval process -- which was akin to floating a trial balloon with neighborhood residents -- with the intention of breaking the logjam.

Shen was so smooth and polished, it took two hours for the residents to figure out that he was proposing basically to give BC every single thing they proposed in their master plan. Well, everything except for 350 of the 500 beds of housing on the Brighton Campus -- but those 350 might still end up exactly where BC wants them.

For the most part, residents didn't seem to like what they heard, with comments that became increasingly concerned as the meeting went on and they realized what was in Shen's proposal.

Shen promised to attend next week's meeting of the BC Task Force. I suspect he will hear an increasingly animated and negative crowd unless he shows up with a modified proposal that better addresses the Brighton Dorms and 2000 Comm Ave.


Shen's Trial Balloon: A Phased Master Plan

Shen said that his mandate from Mayor Thomas Menino was to "see if there are certain elements of this [master] plan that can be advanced."

He broke up the master plan into projects which were mostly non-confrontational and could potentially be approved in the first phase of the master plan (although with modest modifications). More controversial projects would be put off into a second (or subsequent) phase, which would like entail one or more IMP amendments being proposed during the 10-year time period.

He listed those projects that he thought could go forward: parking expansion of Beacon Street Garage (next to football stadium); Shea Field Dorms; More Hall Dorms; Recreation Center; Brighton Fields (baseball and softball stadiums and intramural field); approval of a dormitory at 2000 Comm Ave; and Brighton Fields Garage (which may need modification to "minimize impact on the landscape").

On the hot-button issue of the Brighton Dorms on the St. John's Seminary site, Shen said "we feel that needs to be taken off the table." The room broke into applause.

Not so fast.

The audience applause was short-lived when Shen then back-tracked to say that "we feel like the 150 [beds in the Comm Ave dorm] has the potential of being more approve-able... with the right kind [of design]... but the 350 [beds at the interior site] we don't believe" can be approved. The 150 bed dormitory, sited on a granite out-cropping on the southern side of the seminary land site, was only off-the-table for about ten seconds.

As the meeting wore on, it was increasingly clear that Shen was floating a series of different ideas on the two dorms (one 150 and the other 350 beds), trying to see which, if any, of the trial balloons would take flight:
  • "I believe this [scoping determination] needs to be expanded to deal with these last 350" beds, meaning that alternative siting would be considered.
  • The idea would be to test some of the ideas about dorm location and design using testable metrics on buildings constructing in the first phase of the plan. The results would indicate where the 350 beds would go.
  • Shen admitted that BC might well come back in several years and re-propose putting the 350 beds at the exact same site, anyway.
  • He hypothesized that conditions might change within a few years, much as they changed when 2000 Comm Ave hit the real estate market, to create a game-changer that could provide an alternate site.

Giving BC the Whole "Enchilada"

Shen's trial balloon gives BC everything they proposed in their IMP -- all the various dorms, conversion of 2000 Comm Ave, the recreation center, the athletics fields and stadiums -- everything except for 350 of the 500 dormitory beds on the Brighton Campus, although those beds could very well make their way back onto the exact same site. (BC's proposal was already, after all, to construct those 350 beds in years 8-10 of the IMP, so the dorms could even end up constructed at the same site on the same proposed timeline.)

There appeared to be a cognitive dissonance between Shen's trial balloon and his claim that "you're not being asked to eat the whole enchilada."

It's no wonder that Thomas Keady, Jr., Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs at BC, said at the end of the meeting that "we found this meeting positive and headed in the right direction."

Leland Webster, a supporter of BC's proposal to construct dorms on the Brighton Campus as part of a 100% housing solution, didn't take to Shen's solution. "[The] 150 [bed] plan includes the possibility that 350 [students] could be left [living] in the neighborhood," Webster said. "[In the] final anaysis, it's got to be 100%."

While I don't normally quote myself at such meetings, many people applauded in apparent agreement with my comments:
BC's master plan inherently has a domino effect between athletics facilities, the recreation center, and undergraduate housing. Furthermore, [the solution to 500 beds on the Brighton Campus] may require additional stories on the More Hall site... the Mods site... a [new] building on the other side of the Mods site that they are not proposing to develop... more stories on the Shea Field site... revisiting renovating (or replacing on-site) Edmonds Hall.

All of these are relatively inseparable. They are part of the solution to the 500 beds on the seminary land. So I don't see why you can separate them now and hope to come back to find a solution -- because you are structurally creating a situation where there is going to be no other location for those [500] beds...

[I have heard] a lot of people [say] about this idea of the 150-bed [dorm]... that it is a bad idea because it is a toe-hold and more [dorms] will follow [in the seminary] in the future. And that is one of the reasons that people have been so opposed to even the smallest [dormitory] on the site...

I think you are violating your own... city planning principles here by taking a piecemeal approach to what is fundamentally a master plan process to last for ten years. And I think that it's going to make everyone here come back a year from now, three years from now, five years from now, eight years from now, and fight the exact same battles again and again. I think that you should solve the [undergraduate] housing problem, and solve it now.
Maria Rodriguez expressed the same sentiment: "Does [this proposal] mean that we will have to mobilize again" in five years?

A resident asked if Shen could produce a written document that the neighborhood could study in order to evaluate, and Shen said he would create one.


A Fast-Track?

The trial balloon was not only Shen's way of trying to free the review process from the logjam, but also to fast-track city approval of it.

He let drop that they could conceivably go to the BRA Board on September 25th to ask for an October 16th public hearing and decision on the master plan.

Several comments were made that this sounded like a rushed process. From what I heard spoken Tuesday night there was no widespread acceptance of Shen's trial balloon, so his ambitious timetable appears unworkable.


Meeting With Everyone Except the Neighborhood... Until Tonight

Tuesday night's meeting took place only four days -- only two working days -- after the close of the public comment period on BC's revised IMP filing with the city. The BC Task Force's comment letter was likewise dated Friday.

Shen was asked several times if the city considered all the public comments, particularly the task force's letter, in arriving tonight's proposal he presented. At first Shen pointed out that "many of the elements in the [task force's] letter were what we were already considering."

"I'm a little troubled that [4 days later] we're being asked to consider compromise," said Daina Selvig. What follows now "must be a much more robust and open" process than the one that appears to have transpired.

"There has not been sufficient consideration" of the public comments and task force's letter, said Sandy Furman.

But Shen went on to describe all the people with whom he had been working behind the scenes. He had met not just city officials from various departments and repeatedly mentioned the Mayor, but Shen also appears to have met with every BC official from stem-to-stern -- including a meeting with the President of BC, Fr. William Leahy, S. J., that Mayor Thomas Menino also attended.

Yet this was Shen's first meeting with Brighton residents. And, he admitted, he had not met once with the task force.


City Planner in Peculiar Role as Deal-Making Politician

Shen is a highly-respected city planner who was recently glowingly profiled in the Boston Globe Magazine piece titled, "The Shaper of Things to Come":
In a world where developers, architects, community activists, and politicians almost never agree on details, Shen has managed to earn a reputation as an intelligent, thoughtful, creative visionary with a knack for crafting compromise where once dwelled only conflict, animosity, and great gnashing of teeth.
His considerable polish and smooth presentation was on vivid display Tuesday night. Said one attendee afterwards, "[Chen's] a lot better politician than a lot of the guys in the back [of the room] here."

If you thought that city planners were dry and boring, then Shen will change your view.

While he took questions Tuesday night, most of the time was devoted to his presentation of the trial balloon. Issues of planning principles were mentioned here and there, but the presentation really was a strong sales pitch from someone who could easily run for elected office.

Mayor Menino has previously and repeatedly expressed his opposition to all 500 beds in both dorms, so this dance proposing approval of the 150-bed dormitory was a political two-step. He sent one of his best salesmen to pitch the idea, but it's not an easy sell. But Shen did have everybody going there, if just for an hour or so. It will be harder to understand how the Mayor will explain his potential flip-flop on this controversial neighborhood issue.

What's the difference between two dorms and a 150-bed dorm plus maybe 350-bed dorm? Lipstick.


Next meeting of the BC Task Force: Tuesday, September 16th, at 6:30 pm at the Brighton Marine Health Center.


Image of Oneonta Gorge, Logjam by Squash713, of balloon by OpenThreads, of enchilada by hackett, and of steamroller by Tellstar_Logistics, all provided through a Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

BC Task Force Letter to BRA: Need for "Substantial Modifications" in BC Master Plan

The BC Task Force released their letter dated September 5, 2008 addressed to the Boston Redevelopment Authority on Boston College's revised Institutional Master Plan. You can find it at the AllstonBrighton2006 (AB2006) Google Group.

The Boston Globe's boston.com reports on the letter:
A community task force reviewing Boston College's proposed expansion is urging city officials to seek "substantial modifications" to the plan and require a 10-year moratorium on expansion into the Allston-Brighton neighborhood.

In a strongly worded 17-page letter received Monday, the Allston-Brighton advisory group cited a range of concerns about the $1 billion campaign's impact on the neighborhood. It voiced opposition to the university's plan to build dormitories for 500 undergraduates on its Brighton campus, the former headquarters of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

Instead, it urged the college to house those students on the college's main Chestnut Hill campus and called for a 10-year moratorium on expansion to "safeguard Allston-Brighton's residential character." The panel asked city officials to deny the college a permit to convert a high-rise apartment complex near its campus on Commonwealth Avenue into a dormitory unless it accepted the conditions.
The letter also calls for:
  • Not closing the current route of St. Thomas More Road regardless of whether or not a new spur road is constructed along the Evergreen Cemetery;
  • No athletic field lights on the multipurpose field;
  • No use of field lights for intramural use on the Brighton Campus (former St. John's Seminary land);
  • Strictly limit the use of those fields (i.e., limit the hours from the proposed master plan);
  • Not install artificial turf on those fields;
  • Decrease the number of spaces on the parking garage adjacent to it, siting the parking instead along both sides of Commonwealth Avenue;
  • Not use Foster Street for part of the shuttle bus route; and
  • Conservation easements to protect open space along Lake Street and the orchard (which BC refers to as "buffer" space) to protect against future development.

UPDATE: The final Globe story is here.

Image of fabulous lettering by Caro Wallis provided through a Creative Commons license.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

500 Residents Petition BRA and Mayor on BC Master Plan

A petition with 438 signatures regarding Boston College's Institutional Master Plan was hand-delivered to Mayor Thomas Menino's office and sent to the Boston Redevelopment Authority last week; several additional sheets of signatures were delivered later, upping the signature count to roughly 500. Several other petitions were also circulating in the neighborhood -- including one organized by condo owners at a Commonwealth Avenue apartment building, and apparently another one (which I haven't seen) from the Jewish Orthodox community -- supporting many of the same points.

The petitions were submitted as part of the public comment period that closed last Friday on the revised IMP that BC filed with the BRA in June 2008. The number of signatures expressing opposition to key elements of BC's master plan will likely raise eyebrows in Brighton -- and in City Hall, too.

The main petition read:
"I support Boston College housing 100% of its students. I do not agree with BC's proposed plan to house students on the Brighton Campus and in a 575 bed off-campus dormitory at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue.

I support low impact athletic use on the lower Brighton Campus. I oppose the construction of a 1500 seat stadium on the Brighton Campus due to its impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise and additional traffic.

I oppose the reconfiguration of the traffic patterns as proposed by Boston College without further study by an independent traffic consultant as requested by residents and Task Force members."
I have seen many other public comment letters sent separately which make many or all of the same points, suggesting that the number of Brighton residents supporting these positions is significantly higher than the roughly 500 on these petitions.

Inspecting the petition, I see that most signers are abutters or living within a few blocks of Boston College-owned property in Brighton, particularly the Brighton Campus (former St. John's Seminary land). Examples from some streets mostly having large numbers of off-campus student apartments:
  • 17 residents of Kirkwood Road;
  • 31 residents of Radnor Road;
  • 12 residents of Lane Park;
  • 14 residents of Lake Street; and
  • four residents of Glenmont Road.
By comparison, during the previous round of public comments in February 2008 on BC's IMP Notification Form, 454 people or organizations wrote or signed petitions in opposition of the Brighton Dorms:
  • Six elected officials;
  • The BRA's BC Task Force;
  • Seven organizations and civic groups;
  • 61 individual comment letters; and
  • 379 signatures to petitions.
There were 186 people or organizations who wrote or signed petitions in February 2008 asking for BC to house all of its undergraduates on their main campus, so the new petitions substantially increases the number on this issue.

Comparing both sets of petitions (February vs. September 2008) shows that there is a substantial number of signers on only one or the other, indicating that the total number of Brighton residents who have signed their name to these positions on undergraduate housing is significantly higher than 500.

It takes little analysis to figure out that a significant fraction of the people in owner-occupied residential property in Brighton have signed onto these petitions. Voting trends usually find higher turnout among such long-term residents than the so-called "transient" population, so I wouldn't be surprised if a number of elected officials in City Hall are taking careful note of these numbers.


Image of The Interactive Museum of News by afagen provided through a Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Playing the Prison Card at BC

Residents, local elected officials, and Mayor Thomas Menino have all argued for increased undergraduate housing on BC's main campus, while BC has argued for locating new dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land -- and converting their recently-purchased apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue into a dorm -- based on the argument that any increased housing would make the main campus too dense.

Now BC's director of public affairs, Jack Dunn, increased his rhetoric again by saying Tuesday night that the housing on part of their Chestnut Hill campus is so dense that to find denser housing "you would have to go to a prison."

Dunn's prison remark was met by a series of moans -- "aaaawwwwwwww" -- from the crowd. They weren't buying it at all.

Dunn's prison argument against housing density, as it turns out, rests on analysis of a gerrymandered map of BC's Chestnut Hill campus. A fairer comparison without using a gerrymandered map shows that BU has a substantially higher housing density on their campus than BC has on their Chestnut Hill campus.


Gerrymandering at BC

Dunn's argument relies on a peculiarly-drawn map of BC's Chestnut Hill campus -- a feat of gerrymandering that would make former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran proud. [See red dotted lines in figure at right from BC's presentation to the June 14, 2008 meeting of the BC Task Force.]

By drawing the lines in such a way, Dunn makes the argument that BC's proposed housing plan places 4700 students in 40 acres comprising part of their "lower" Chestnut Hill campus.

In fact, by drawing the lines this way, Dunn and other BC officials have actually mixed up the boundary between lower and middle campus in their diagram -- including some parts of the middle campus (those that have dorms) while excluding some parts of the lower campus (those that don't have dorms).

The 6/14/08 presentation commits the misrepresentation to writing by referring to the map above as part of "lower campus area studies," when in reality the area enclosed by red -- and the statistics drawn from it -- includes buildings from the middle campus. In particular, the dorms Gabelli, Ignacio, Rubenstein, and Voute Halls, and 66 Comm Ave, are all identified as middle campus dorms in their DPIR (Table 6-1), yet are strangely included in the "lower campus area studies" diagram.

Draw the lines differently, say, to reflect better the underlying geography and you would get a different answer in terms of student beds per acre.

One thing is for sure: gerrymander the area studied and you'll always get the answer you want.


Comparing Housing Density at BC to BU

In making his case for a campus prison, Dunn was, in effect, implying that Boston University ought to be renamed Boston Prison University, because its undergraduate housing density is substantially higher than BC.

Just compare the housing density in BC's entire main campus at Chestnut Hill to BU's entire campus in the Kenmore neighborhood. No gerrymandering required.

BC currently houses 6455 students (DPIR Table 6-1) in their 118-acre Chestnut Hill campus (DPIR page 1-5), corresponding to 54.7 beds of housing per acre. BU currently houses 10,617 students on their 133-acre campus, corresponding to 79.8 beds of housing per acre -- 46% more dense than BC's campus.

These numbers will not surprise anyone who has seen the tall dormitories that BU has built in order to house their students: BU has a higher housing density than BC. Just stating the obvious.

And I don't think anybody would call BU a prison.


Spokesman Bats 0-For-2

Spokesman Dunn continued to try to make his density argument against new, main campus dormitories by pointing out the usage of all the other facilities there. "It's other functions in that part of campus" that contribute to the density issues, such as the Rec Plex (or its proposed successor, the Recreation Center). He estimates around 8000 students use the student center daily, and around 4000 students per day use the Rec Plex.

The problem is: by adding more students into the calculation, the addition of 500 beds of undergraduate housing to the lower campus becomes even more diluted, weakening his argument.

Adding 500 beds of housing to 4700 is around a 10% increase in the number. But adding 500 beds to 4700 beds plus 8000 students using the student center plus 4000 students using the Rec Center, and the increase is number of people is only 3%. (Yes, his argument does suffer from substantial double- or triple-counting, since many of the same students live on-site, use the student center, and then use the Rec Plex all in the same day.)

By adding all the extra users of the student center and Rec Plex, those 500 more student beds appear to have a more minimal impact. Probably not the conclusion he was shooting for.

A little piece of advice: stick to the housing argument sans Rec Center.


UPDATE: The Allston-Brighton TAB reports that Dunn is backpedaling on his prison comment:
Following the meeting, a college spokesman had to repeatedly defend words he thought may have offended the community...

“You’d have to go to a prison to find that kind of density,” said Dunn. Dunn later told the TAB that he was worried the statement came out wrong and might be misconstrued. “The point I was making, 4,700 students within the 40 acres is equivalent to the density of a prison. It was meant to be a comparative point, and not meant to offend anyone.”

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Oh, And One More Thing... Send a Check for $424k -- Er, Make That $660k

While Mayor Thomas Menino spent a couple of days last week in various interviews with reporters stating his opposition to key elements of Boston College's undergraduate housing proposals in their revised institutional master plan, he forgot to mention one thing: BC's proposed conversion of the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue into an undergraduate dormitory would remove more than $400,000 from the city's tax rolls, because BC is a tax-exempt institution.

Today Mayor Menino continued his feud with the BC administration by insisting that BC should increase their Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) by the $424,000 that will be removed from the tax rolls, according to the Boston Globe:
Today, Menino, through his spokeswoman, took aim at the college. "He believes BC should make that up somehow," said Menino press secretary Dorothy Joyce. "They don't do as much as their counterparts, and he'd like to see them do more."
Missing from the story is that the building is currently heavily under-assessed relative to similar, nearby comparable apartments; the city should be pushing for $660,000 in increased PILOT, not $424,000.

Mayor Menino's comments Tuesday echo earlier comments by District 9 Councilor Mark Ciommo, who called into question the wisdom of BC removing the property from the tax rolls.


Under-Assessed Property: Taxes Ought To Be $660,000 Not $424,00

Missing from the story is that the apartment building appears to be significantly under-assessed relative to a comparable apartment building in the immediate neighborhood.

The apartments at 2000 Comm Ave are typically split between 1-bedroom/3-room units with 700 square feet assessed around $165,000 (e.g., #806), and 2-BR/4-room units with 1000 sf assessed at around $240,000 (e.g., #805).

Comparable apartments at 1933 Comm Ave across the street are 1-BR/4-room units with 660 sf assessed at nearly $280,000 (e.g., #408), and 2-BR/5-room units with 1150 sf assessed at $350,000 (e.g., #403).

At $36 million, the total assessed value for the 188-unit apartment building at 2000 Comm Ave is therefore under-assessed; a more accurate assessment would be around 56% higher, or $56 million. The current property taxes for the entire building ought not to be $424,000 per year, but instead 56% higher, or $660,000 per year.

Note that 2000 Comm Ave is also a more modern building than 1933 Comm Ave and offers a range of additional, luxury amenities -- including the swimming pool in the photograph, spectacular views of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, and others features you can see at Archstone's website. So, if anything, 2000 Comm Ave should be assessed even higher than the comparables.

When Mayor Menino is pushing for BC to increase their PILOT to account for the property tax payments on 2000 Comm Ave, the city should use $660,000/year as the baseline for negotiations -- not $424,000/year.

Why would the apartments at 2000 Comm Ave be so heavily under-assessed? I can only speculate that the developers of the building managed to get a "sweetheart" deal with the city to assess the property so low -- but, admittedly, I have no evidence whatsoever of any such agreement. It's a good question to ask the city's Assessing Department.


Is Raising PILOTs an Implicit Acceptance of the Conversion to a Dormitory?

One other problem with Mayor Menino's statement on Tuesday is that, as long as BC continues to operate the building as open market rentals, they already have to continue to pay property taxes since the property is not an "institutional use." Only if and when it switches to institutional use -- such as if it is converted into a dorm -- does the loss of property tax revenue come into play and the modified PILOT is a way to address it.

By raising the PILOT issue now, it sounds like Mayor Menino is implicitly accepting that BC will convert the building into a dorm. Doesn't the city have a say about the conversion? Doesn't BC need approval of that conversion both through the Article 80 review process (requiring approval of both the BRA Board and the Zoning Board) and through a city-issued dormitory license? If so, then the city could easily erect hurdles for BC by blocking their move through either the Article 80 review or the required dorm license.

University PILOT vary widely in their amount. Harvard University pays Cambridge, Watertown, and Boston a combined $5.1 million, while BC pays Newton and Boston a combined $315,000. Better uniformity in the PILOT would make sense, particularly since BC has demonstrated that they are not in dire straits -- having paid $173.4 million for the St. John's Seminary land in 2004-7 and $67 million for 2000 Comm Ave last month.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Mayor Menino Opposes BC's Tactics, Including Alumni Letter

The Boston Herald quotes Dot Joyce, spokeswoman for Mayor Thomas Menino, as saying that “The mayor is opposed to [Boston College's] tactics" in pushing for their revised institutional master plan.

In particular, Joyce expressed Mayor Menino's dislike for a letter that William Leahy, S. J., President of Boston College, sent to alumni last week asking them to contact city and elected officials in Boston to express support for the revised IMP:
This Institutional Master Plan is critical to our future, and I hope that all members of the Boston College community will take the time to review it and then assist in the approval process. In particular, I ask that those of you who are residents of Boston express your support to elected officials, especially district city councilors and the BRA.
The Herald article follows up on yesterday's story in the Banker & Tradesman in which Mayor Menino said that BC is engaged in "double speak" when describing how they propose to provide university-controlled housing for 100% of their undergraduate students. Mayor Menino objected -- pointing out that "2000 Comm Avenue is not on their campus. I’d rather see them live up to their commitment to house all of the students on campus.”

The Herald article contains a point that is confusing -- if not outright mixed up:
Joyce said the mayor’s “double-speaking” remark was only a reference to BC’s alumni letter, which didn’t mention that 2000 Commonwealth Ave. is off-campus.
The Herald correctly reports that the alumni letter did not specifically mention 2000 Comm Ave, but the Banker & Tradesman direct quotation from Mayor Menino clearly puts it in the context of 2000 Comm Ave, since he mentions it by name. I'm not sure if the Herald got it wrong, or if Joyce did.

The Herald reporter also appears to have asked some tough questions, pushing Joyce to try to get the Mayor's firm position, for or against, both BC's purchase and conversion of 2000 Comm Ave and their IMP in general. Joyce didn't bite:
Joyce stopped short of saying Menino outright opposes BC’s master plan, especially its purchase of 2000 Commonwealth Ave. - about one-third of a mile from BC’s main campus and where the college hopes one day to house hundreds of students.

BC Closes on 2000 Comm Ave for $67 Million

The Suffolk County Registry of Deeds Monday recorded the purchase by Boston College of the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue for $67 million.



BC has previously announced that they want to turn it into an off-campus, university-controlled undergraduate dormitory housing 560 students. Mayor Thomas Menino made a statement on Monday saying that he considered the building to be off-campus, and that he would "rather see them live up to their commitment to house all of the students on campus.”

Monday, June 30, 2008

Mayor Menino Calls BC's Purchase of 2000 Comm Ave "Double Speak"

Mayor Thomas Menino has called BC's purchase of the 17-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue "double speak" because their plan to house 100% of their undergraduates does so by purchasing an off-campus building rather than building an on-campus dormitory.

Mayor Menino's statement today implies that he rejects BC's careful word parsing which sought to equate "100% university-controlled housing" with "100% on-campus housing."


Focus on Terminology

Today's statement was the first time Mayor Menino has spoken on the topic since the story was broken six weeks ago by GlobeSt.com that BC was pursuing purchasing the apartment building for $67 million. He told Banker & Tradesman:
“BC is double speaking here,” Menino said. “They’ve said they’re going to have beds for all of their undergraduates on campus, but 2000 Comm. Ave. is not on their campus. I’d rather see them live up to their commitment to house all of the students on campus.”
Mayor Menino has aggressively pushed for a number of years for the city's colleges and universities to house increasing numbers of their undergraduates. Prior to BC's announcement that they wanted to purchase 2000 Comm Ave, it was unclear whether he meant "on-campus housing" or "off-campus, university-controlled housing."

The statement quoted by Banker & Tradesman makes it clear that Mayor Menino wants universities to build new housing rather than purchasing and converting existing housing stock in order to address his city-wide plan for additional student housing.

BC officials have been quite careful in their use of the term "university-controlled" or "university housing," rather than "on-campus" housing. Jack Dunn, Director of Public Affairs at BC, used the term "university housing" with the Boston Globe. Thomas Keady, Jr., Vice President of Governmental and Community Affairs at BC, was quoted in the Allston-Brighton TAB as calling it "Boston College housing"; elsewhere in the TAB's article they correctly called it "university-controlled dorms." The Boston Herald heard the talking points clearly in story two on the topic, while in their first story they mistakenly thought BC was actually proposing to build 1280 new beds. (The correct answer is 720 new beds and 560 converted beds added by buying 2000 Comm Ave. The Boston Globe made the same mistake.) WBZ's two reporters were both mixed up by incorrectly using the term "on-campus" for the dormitories, as did the Boston Bulletin.

Mayor Menino has seen through the carefully-parsed wording coming out of BC. Today's statement reflects that he thinks the appropriate term is "on-campus housing" -- and that BC's plan doesn't achieve it.


Implications of Today's Statement

The Boston Globe's editorial board wrote recently that BC should actively pursue options more agreeable with the neighborhood in order to "smooth the permitting process with the city." That Mayor Menino has problems with BC's plan for using 2000 Comm Ave as an undergraduate dormitory indicates that the potential threat of denying various occupancy and/or construction permits has just increased in its probability. It was Mayor Menino's indication to the BRA on the permitting issue that killed Suffolk University's proposed dormitory on Beacon Hill in December 2006:
Suffolk needed city permits for the 22-story building, but at Menino's request, Maloney yesterday told Suffolk University vice president John A. Nucci the city's support would not be forthcoming -- which means it is all but dead.
Mayor Menino previously announced his opposition to BC's proposal to build several dormitories totalling 500 beds of housing on the former St. John's Seminary land purchased from the Archdiocese of Boston in 2004-7. BC refers to that housing as the "Brighton Dorms." He is now on record opposing two key elements of BC's proposed undergraduate housing plan.

The Brighton neighborhood and BC are currently locked in an argument over the location of undergraduate housing as part of BC's proposed 10-year institutional master plan. The most recent public meeting on the topic, held by the Boston Redevelopment Authority's BC Task Force, was a raucous affair in which the proceedings were interrupted often by protesters both over BC's planned purchase of 2000 Comm Ave and BC's desire to build the Brighton Dorms.

BC's Dunn appears not to like having a public discussion of BC's proposal to buy 2000 Comm Ave and convert it into a dormitory. Dunn told the Banker & Tradesman that he welcomes having the discussion "in private with the Mayor." The Boston Bulletin reported that the audience laughed at Dunn's comments at the June 14th public meeting.

Another public meeting on the topic is scheduled for tonight, which is an opportunity for neighborhood residents to discuss the issues of the university's expansion amongst themselves.


Residents and Non-Residents Write About About BC's Plan

The Boston Globe last week published several letters-to-the-editor on the topic. Neighborhood resident Lisa Lieberman in which she spoke of BC's plan to purchase 2000 Comm Ave:
It is disingenuous of Boston College to suggest that it is getting students out of our neighborhood when in fact it is just shuffling students from one place to another within our community.
Joseph Zadella of Cambridge sees it differently, suggesting that the 33-student building at the corner of Greycliff Road and Commonwealth Avenue has already eliminated any buffer between campus and student dormitories.

Framingham resident Craig Carlson thinks that all the disagreement is caused by "paid community activists and residents," though he didn't seem to have figured out who had all this money to pay them. While I haven't requested pay stubs from BC, my understanding is that BC officials like Keady and Dunn are the ones getting paid in this process -- not the neighborhood residents. I wonder if Carlson would mind if his letter were rewritten to state that all the disagreement is caused by "paid BC officials and employees"?

Brighton residents: is your check in the mail? Quick, look!


Image of Mayor Menino by Dan4th provided through a Creative Commons license.

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.

Also:
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.)

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Animated and Angry Crowd Confronts Boston College's Revised Master Plan

"No dorms on Brighton Campus! Change this plan, please!" [Referring to proposed dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land purchased by Boston College in 2004-7.]

"You're taking your problem and making it our problem!" "It's not on-campus!" [Referring to BC's purchase of the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, which they intend to turn into an off-campus undergraduate dormitory.]

"That's blackmail!" [Referring to attempts by Jack Dunn, BC's Director of Public Affairs, to withhold more popular elements of their master plan unless the entire plan would be approved by the city and neighborhood.]

"Build them higher!" [Referring to five-story dormitories proposed to replace the two-story Mods dormitories on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill.]

These were repeated shouts from the audience that time and again interrupted Boston College's presentation of their revised institutional master plan Monday night at the Yawkey Center on BC's campus.

Neighborhood meetings can often be total yawners, where residents argue for hours over the smallest details of setbacks, zoning variances, brick color, and window design.

Not so on Monday night. The meeting was nothing short of a raucous affair. The air was theatrically punctuated by rapid-fire flashbulbs from two news photographers.

Thirteen months ago, Thomas Keady, Jr., Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs at BC, said at one such meeting that he didn't enjoy getting his "head kicked in." There was little question: Monday night was more than just another head-bashing.

BC officials, Boston Redevelopment Authority project managers, and BC Task Force members struggled to keep order in a room crowded with 200-250 people who kept shouting out their anger, frustration, exasperation, and profound disagreement with the undergraduate housing proposals that BC presented as their response to the Scoping Determination on their 10-year IMP issued in February by the BRA.

The university passed a significant milestone Monday by embracing the concept of providing university-owned housing for 100% of their undergraduate students.

University officials insisted that the neighborhood's price for this achievement would be accepting conversion of an off-campus apartment building into a dormitory and construction of new dormitories for the former St. John's Seminary land. Many neighborhood residents disagreed strongly with both premises, insisting that the solution lies in constructing more and/or taller dormitories on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill.


BC Proposes 100% Undergraduate Housing -- But Some Will Be Off-Campus in the Neighborhood

Keady explained to the audience that there were two major changes to their undergraduate housing proposal.

First, he confirmed that approximately three weeks ago BC entered into a purchase and sale agreement to buy the 17-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue. While Keady claimed the purchase was "one of the worst-kept secrets in Allston-Brighton," many residents of nearby buildings spoke -- or shouted -- that they knew nothing about it until the last few days. "I haven't heard anything about it," said a resident of nearby 1988 Comm Ave.

The obvious reason why they hadn't heard about the purchase? The story broke a month ago online, but was not picked up by the mainstream media -- in part because BC officials refused to speak about the topic at two neighborhood meetings earlier this month.

Second, BC was now presenting a plan that would house 100% of their undergraduates in university-controlled housing -- some of which would be that new building at 2000 Comm Ave. "It's not on-campus!" came the audience replies.

It was this second point that was met with repeated, yet measured, praise from many in the task force and audience.

"The fact that this is now BC's goal is a huge achievement, because it has been the neighborhood's goal for about 15 years," said task force member Paul Berkeley.

"I applaud the 100%" target for undergraduate housing, said task force member Kevin Carragee. He gave his biggest praise to the residents, however, who kept pushing for the goal. "I want to thank the people who have been at these meetings for 15 years," he said.

Radnor Road resident Bruce Kline summarized the meeting at the end, saying that, aside from the addition of 2000 Commonwealth to their plan as a new undergraduate dormitory, the plan "is basically the same" as before.

Kline appeared accurate in his observations. In this revised plan, BC only added 110 additional beds to their main campus -- while many in the neighborhood wanted them to add between 500 (to move all the beds in the Brighton Dorms to the main campus) to 1450 (to house all their undergraduates in on-campus, rather than in off-campus, university-controlled housing).

The BRA required BC to explore two alternate studies for housing 500 additional undergraduates on their main campus, which would eliminate the need for dormitories on the former seminary land. BC's presentation offered no fundamental impediments uncovered by either study, yet rejected both in favor of a plan that was only slightly changed from the IMPNF -- and kept the Brighton Dorms in nearly the same configuration and size as before.

"I'm a little perplexed about the consideration of options," said task force member Tim Schofield. "It did sound like [the other two options] were feasible."


2000 Comm Ave: BC Official Tries Unsuccessfully to Play One Neighborhood Against Another

A significant number of residents in buildings near to 2000 Comm Ave attended Monday's meeting and expressed their displeasure with BC's pending purchase of the property.

"It's going to lower the quality of life in the neighborhood," said Lamya Shahabuddin, a board member of the building at 1933 Comm Ave. "When we bought those condos, we didn't sign up to live on campus."

Even BC Professor of Mathematics Mark Reeder, also a board member at 1933 Comm Ave, expressed his opposition to the purchase. "BC is trying to transfer their problem [to be] Brighton's problem," he said, in apparent reference to the difficulties in controlling student behavior.

One of BC's explanations for the basis of their housing plan was to create more open space on their main campus by moving some uses, such as student dormitories, further away onto the Brighton Campus -- or now at 2000 Comm Ave. "Not enough wild grass [for students] to play in?" said Reeder. "That's BC's problem, not Brighton's problem."

Keady had suggested earlier in the evening that converting the building to undergraduate dormitories was something that the neighbors of the Radnor Road, Lane Park, and Kirkwood Road area were supporting.

Lane Park resident Sandy Furman only partially backed him up. Furman said that, if faced with competing options of students in houses versus students in 2000 Comm Ave, he would choose the latter. "But it doesn't have to be that way," he said, indicating that BC had other options available, such as taller buildings on their main campus.

Shelby Marshall, Furman's Lane Park neighbor, indicated that the apartment building is already 40% occupied by BC students, which Nick Fondas, another Lane Park resident, speculated might otherwise tip over to 75-80% student-occupied within a few years. "I would rather it be a supervised than unsupervised dorm," said Marshall.

Other residents wanted nothing of Keady's attempts to pit the Radnor Road/Lane Park neighbors against those on Commonwealth Avenue. "I resent that BC would play the Radnor Road neighbors against 2000 Comm Ave," said Kirkwood Road resident Lisa Lieberman to audience applause.


"We Are Now in a Question Of How"

Task force member Kevin Carragee said these words to describe how the debate between the neighborhood, BRA, and BC was no longer focused on whether or not BC should house 100% of their undergraduate students. The discussion has now switched to where those dormitories should be located -- i.e., "how" to achieve the agreed-upon goal of full housing.

In short: location, location, location.


Repeated Neighborhood Proposals for a Tall Dormitory on Mods Site

Carragee continued with his proposed solution: "Why not go high on the Mods site?" He referred to the location of the two-story Mods dormitories, constructed as temporary housing in the 1970s -- yet eleven of those buildings would still be standing in 2019 in BC's proposed plan.

In the strangest recurring theme of the evening, Keady didn't answer Carragee's question. When asked if he was going to answer it, Keady simply replied, "No."

Shouts from the crowd requested him to answer, but more silence followed. Later questions by the audience repeatedly brought up the same question, demanding an answer -- any answer at all -- but still drew no response from Keady.

Jack Dunn, BC's Director of Public Affairs, eventually stood up out of his front-row seat, grabbed a microphone, and answered the question. "The issue for us is an issue of density," he said. "Our conclusion was that 4700 students in 40 acres [on the main campus] was the limit."

Dunn remained standing next to the podium. Every time the same question resurfaced, he repeated the same answer, and Keady stood by watching. Dunn's stock answer began to be met by laughter from the crowd.

Falkland Street resident Donal Carroll offered a comeback, noting that BC has paid its consultants probably hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of dollars to draw up the designs for the master plan. "If you're unable to house 12 extra individuals per acre on a 40-acre site," he said, then BC probably needs to find some different consultants, you know, to get their money's worth. Laughter ensued, drowning out Carroll's words.

One resident went to the projected map on the screen and demonstrated how small a footprint the 17-story building at 2000 Comm Ave would form if an exact, duplicate copy were constructed on the Mods site.

A version of his visual is displayed here to the right. The 2000 Comm Ave apartment building footprint is the small, gray, L-shaped building above and to the right of the proposed, new recreation center (building #19).

The implication is clear: very little green space on their main campus would be sacrificed to put 560 beds of undergraduate housing in such a building. BC could still have their wide-open main campus.


Are BC Officials Themselves Exhibiting NIMBY-ism?

In watching the meeting unfold, I couldn't help but think: if BC would agree to build such a dormitory at the Mods site on their main campus instead of the Brighton Dorms, they might very well be able to convert heavy neighborhood opposition against their housing proposals into broader support.

But, for some reason, at least one BC official on Monday night was persistently refusing to consider the option of constructing such a building on their own campus.

Several months ago, BC's Dunn resorted to name-calling by labelling neighborhood opponents of the Brighton Dorms as holding a position that amounts to "NIMBY-ism" (Not In My Back Yard).

Have the tables now turned?

When BC decided to pursue purchasing 2000 Comm Ave, they probably viewed it as a tactical victory that would curry favor from the city and quiet down neighborhood opposition to their plans in the near term.

Once BC showed their hand by expressing interest in purchasing 2000 Comm Ave -- with the intention to convert it into an undergraduate dormitory -- they stumbled into what I can only see to be a vast, strategic blunder on their part.

If such a tall building is a perfectly acceptable dormitory for their students off-campus, then they have implicitly accepted the proposition that it is an equally acceptable model for a dormitory on-campus. But BC officials are racked by inconsistency. They want the tall dormitory in the neighborhood, but they don't want an equally tall dormitory on their own campus.

Is the rejection of a tall dormitory on the main campus an act of NIMBY-ism on the part of BC officials?


The Silent Type

While Keady's silence on the issue of a tall dormitory was noticeable, somebody else's silence probably escaped the notice of most Brighton residents.

Patrick Keating, BC's Executive Vice President, who is in charge of long-range planning for the university, attended Monday's meeting of the BC Task Force. It is the first time I have ever seen him in attendance at a meeting of the task force.

I have long wondered how the neighborhood opposition to key elements in BC's undergraduate housing plan filters through the usual attendees from Governmental and Community Affairs (and Public Affairs) to the top university officials in charge of making decisions on the long-range plan, i.e., Executive VP Keating and Fr. William Leahy, S. J., President of BC. Do the intermediaries down-play residents' opposition? Do the absent executives not believe in the neighborhood opposition because they don't hear it first-hand?

Even though Keating was completely silent throughout the meeting, there was no filtering of the neighborhood's positions on the issues. Keating heard every shouted word himself.

Leahy, however, did not. He issued a press release instead, saying that the plan is:
“a manifestation of BC’s desire to be a good neighbor by taking students out of the neighborhood and providing increased stability for local residence [sic], while also addressing Boston College’s most pressing needs.”

Mainstream Media Pick Up the Story

The Boston Globe has a brief story up about BC's revised plan; a longer story is here. Monday's meeting occurred after their deadline, so it is not mentioned. WBZ radio has an audio story on the revised proposal which quotes Dunn but fails to pursue any alternative viewpoints. Boston Herald reporters have now been seen in Brighton for the first time covering the BC student housing story; they appear to have later deadlines than the Globe.


UPDATE: Allston-Brighton TAB makes reference to the mayhem. The Herald had a second story the following day which focused on the meeting. (The first article focused on BC's press release.) Expect a story from the Boston Bulletin later this week.

UPDATE: Here's the Bulletin story.


Image of shouting woman from ronsho provided through a Creative Commons license.

Monday, June 16, 2008

BC Task Force Meeting 6/16 to Consider Undergraduate Housing -- Note Change of Venue

BC Task Force Meeting
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 6:30-8:30 pm
Location: Yawkey Center, Murray Conference Room on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill
NOTE: This is NOT the usual venue

Agenda: BC Revised Institutional Master Plan -- Undergraduate Housing

PARKING: Visitors should park at the Beacon Street parking garage [E3 on map at right]. Entrance to the parking garage is off Beacon Street, west of St. Thomas More Road.

After parking, exit the garage north towards Yawkey Center. The Murray Conference Room is on the fourth floor of the Yawkey Center.


Will the Revised IMP Accomodate Neighbors' Concerns?

In the public comment period after BC's initial filing of their IMP notification form, hundreds of Brighton residents either wrote letters or signed onto petitions focusing on two main positions related to BC's undergraduate housing:
  1. BC should provide on-campus for 100% of the undergraduate students; and
  2. None of those dormitory beds should be on the former St. John's Seminary land (Brighton Campus).
In order to accomplish this, many letters, including a petition circulated here at the Brighton Centered Blog, noted that there is sufficient space on BC's main campus in Chestnut Hill in order to locate the housing.

Will BC accomodate either of those two neighborhood goals? Likely not.


University-Controlled Housing vs. On-Campus Housing.
Word leaked out last month that BC had secretly won the bidding to purchase the 16-story, 188-unit apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton. BC later confirmed their interest in the building, and that it would be considered for undergraduate housing. Estimates vary, but the building could likely hold 500-600 undergraduate students with two per bedroom.

All signs indicate that BC will present a plan on Monday evening that will house 100% of their undergraduate students, but that will not house all of them on-campus. Instead, 500-600 would be housed in what is off-campus, university-controlled housing at 2000 Comm Ave. No one would claim that 2000 Comm Ave is located on BC's campus, would they?

There are trade-offs associated with using 2000 Comm Ave as part of the housing package. The neighborhood has pushed for many years for BC to house their undergraduates, and hence, symbolically, BC will have crossed a major philosophical threshold by agreeing to the goal now for the first time. At previous meetings, BC officials have said that they will absolutely, never house 100% of their students; Monday night, they will likely backtrack on that position.

Using 2000 Comm Ave as a dormitory, however, means that 188 units of housing stock in Brighton will now be permanently unavailable to city residents. For a city whose leadership prides itself on increasing housing stock, converting the apartment building into a dormitory goes backwards. When city leaders regularly tout the numbers for the increase in housing units in Brighton, will they also subtract these 188 units from the balance sheet? Unlikely. Calls for the city's universities to house their students always assumed that the universities would build new housing, not convert existing housing. On top of that, buying this building is, by definition, institutional expansion further into a residential neighborhood.


Brighton Dorms Will Remain.
The visuals for the Fine Arts District presentation at the June 4th meeting of the BC Task Force were cropped versions from their master plan map -- but not cropped closely enough. In the corner of the visuals the Brighton Dorms could still be seen, indicating that they will continue to push for these dormitories that are enraging many in the neighborhood. These dorms housed 500 students in the previous version of the IMPNF; will they still?


Additional Housing on the Main Campus?
While the neighborhood pointed out that many hundreds of additional beds could be constructed on the main campus -- particularly by not razing 790-bed Edmonds Hall, adding stories to other planned dormitories, and making the replacement to the Mods housing more dense (rather than less so) -- indications are that, at most, only 100-200 additional beds would be added to the main campus compared to their December 2007 IMPNF.

BC has 7330 beds of undergraduate housing, and 8681 full-time students requiring housing. (9081 students in the 2007-8 school year, minus 400 students BC has identified who study abroad or are commuters living at home with parents.) The difference is 1351 required beds to accomplish 100% housing.

Since (1) the IMPNF added a net of 610 additional beds, (2) the Brighton Dorms appears still to be in their plans, and (3) 550 more beds are provided by 2000 Comm Ave, the result is that, at most, BC will likely be proposing only to add 100-200 beds to their previous proposal for their main campus. Such an outcome will not be a significant response to neighborhood input which looked for many hundreds more beds to be built on the main campus.


Abandoning the Argument Against Tall Dorms.
By purchasing a 16-story apartment building to be occupied as an undergraduate dormitory, BC is implicitly accepting the premise that there is absolutely no problem with housing undergraduate students in tall dormitories.

Such a position is an about-face from previous claims that their students behave unacceptably poorly in such tall dormitory buildings. Little or no reason now remains why the university cannot build a signature dormitory on their main campus following the model of their newly-purchased, off-campus building. Alternatively, they could add a couple of stories to their already-planned buildings.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

BC Board of Trustees Friday to Consider Purchase of 2000 Comm Ave

At Wednesday night's meeting of the BC Task Force, Thomas Keady, Jr., Boston College's Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs, spoke about news reports over BC's desire to purchase the 16-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in order to turn it into an undergraduate student dormitory.

Keady said that the BC Board of Trustees would be meeting this Friday in order to consider the purchase, and that there would be no additional comment coming from BC until after that time.

Rumors swirling around Brighton during the last two weeks all keep repeating the same story about what really is going on behind the scenes: BC's purchase of the property is a "done deal." But nobody at BC is talking on-the-record...

Friday, May 30, 2008

Councilor Ciommo on BC's Bid to Purchase Apartment Building at 2000 Comm Ave

Boston College has confirmed that they are pursuing purchasing the 16-story apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton, according to a written statement by Jack Dunn and published reports at GlobeSt.com and the Allston-Brighton TAB. This follows news broken by GlobeSt.com last week that BC was secretively pursuing the property at a purchase price in the vicinity of $68 million.

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor Mark Ciommo has now expressed the problems with the purchase. "I think the neighborhood has been clear about not taking residential stock [off the tax rolls]," he said last week in an interview.

The purchase of 2000 Comm Ave is "not something we want to encourage," Councilor Ciommo continued.

Construction of the building in 1987 was opposed by then-District 9 City Councilor Brian McLaughlin -- but supported by then-District City Councilor Thomas Menino, now Mayor of Boston.

BC previously tried unsuccessfully to purchase the property in 1993 because of strong neighborhood opposition -- and opposition of Paul Barrett, then-Director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

"If [purchase of the building] wasn't in the best interests of the neighborhood then, why would it be now?" said Theresa Hynes of Brighton earlier this week.


Converting Tax-Paying Housing Into a Student Dormitory

Director of Public Affairs Jack Dunn emailed GlobeSt.com to confirm that the university is interested in turning the building into an undergraduate dormitory:
Boston College’s interest in 2000 Commonwealth Ave. reflects the university’s desire to improve the quality of life for our neighbors and our students, by housing as many undergraduates as possible in university controlled residence halls.
The 190 or so units are a mix of 1- and 2-bedroom apartments. Assuming two students per bedroom means that roughly 600 students could be housed in the building.

BC's purchase of this building, followed by conversion to undergraduate dormitory use, would take approximately $400,000 off of the city's tax roll. (190 or so units averaging a bit over $2000 per unit per year.) By comparison, BC currently only pays $215,000 per year in Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to Boston.

When asked if the potential removal of approximately $400,000 from the city's tax rolls is appropriate compared to the $215,000 in PILOT, Councilor Ciommo answered, "No."


BC Official Refuses to Meet With Neighborhood Civic Organization Over Issue

The Brighton Allston Improvement Association invited Thomas Keady, Jr., Boston College's Vice President for Governmental and Community Affairs, to meet with their group on Thursday, June 5th to discuss BC's possible purchase of the building.

Dick Marques, President of the BAIA, confirmed the invitation and that Keady declined the offer, saying that BC would instead only meet once the issue was more finalized.

Marques and Hynes interpreted Keady's refusal to attend the civic group's meeting as an attempt to meet with the neighborhood only after the deal was over and done with -- not in advance, when the neighborhood might provide input into whether or not the deal should happen in the first place.


Delays In Discussing Revised Institutional Master Plan With Residents

The BRA sent out a message two weeks ago canceling the May meeting of the BC Task Force, which caused head scratching amongst a number of neighborhood residents.

John Fitzgerald, project manager at the BRA overseeing BC's IMP filings with the city, wrote back to me:
It was rescheduled because BC has been working closely with the BRA, even as recently as last week where suggestions were made by the BRA on some options for BC. We just wanted to make sure that BC has had time to respond to our issues rather than holding a Task Force meeting where BC would not be ready to present anything concrete.
Adding two plus two together, I suspect that BC did not inform city officials about the purchase of 2000 Comm Ave until very recently, and that the city responded by asking BC to make modifications to the IMP by factoring in undergraduate housing at the new apartment building into their plans.

Councilor Ciommo confirmed that BC had been pursuing the purchase secretly, because he only found out about it by reading the story last week at the Brighton Centered Blog.


An obvious conclusion from all of this: there is now absolutely no need for a Brighton Dorm. By expressing their interest in 2000 Comm Ave as undergraduate student housing, BC is clearly stating that 16-story dormitories are an acceptable housing model for their undergraduates. The move to purchase 2000 Comm Ave directly contradicts repeated statements by Keady to the Brighton community that on-campus student behavior is poor in tall dormitory buildings.

BC can easily achieve 100% on-campus housing for their undergraduates by simply adding a few stories to dormitories already envisioned for their Main Campus, particularly at the current site of the Mods dorms. No need for any new dormitories on the former St. John's Seminary land -- or even purchasing 2000 Comm Ave -- to reach 100% on-campus housing.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

BC Reportedly Renews Bid to Buy 2000 Comm Ave Apartment Building for $68 Million

Boston College is reportedly once again secretly trying to purchase the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, according to a report in GlobeSt.com today, for a price in the neighborhood $68 million.

BC previously tried unsuccessfully to purchase the building in 1992-3. Paul Barrett, then-director of the BRA, was opposed to BC buying the property and turning the building into a dormitory (archive fee). That is pretty strong opposition coming from Barrett -- particularly since he not only graduated from BC in 1978, but also captained the BC hockey team (archive fee).

The current building was constructed in 1985 by developer Jerry Rappaport over neighborhood objections due to its 16-story height being out of character for the Comm Ave corridor and nearby Chestnut Hill Reservoir. Mayor Raymond Flynn vowed to help Brighton residents to block the construction project, but the City Council intervened (archive fee) -- under the pro-developer push of District Councilors James Kelley and Thomas Menino (archive fee) -- to grant the developer a building height exemption above the allowed 70 feet. Allston-Brighton District Councilor Brian McLaughlin was one of only three votes against the exemption; Councilor Charles Yancey was another.

Rappaport sold the property in 1997 (archive fee) to Smith Property Holdings (current address in Colorado) for $27.5 million.

Before the current building was constructed, four construction workers were killed in 1971 (archive fee) on the same site when the roof fell in and the building, 75% completed, collapsed.


Off-Campus Student Dormitory

In recent years, much of the building has been occupied by undergraduate students of Boston College, with one BC official mentioning an approximately 40% student occupancy rate. Online reports of the student behavior in the building are highly negative, such as, "If you like to party all night and don't plan on sleeping for your entire stay here then move on in. Otherwise, stay away."

Despite such stories, Father William Leahy, S. J., President of BC, has stated that he believes the students in tall, off-campus apartment buildings, like 2000 Comm Ave, "rarely encounter the same kind of problems" (archive fee) as found in 1- or 2-family houses occupied by students. His argument appears to be unsupported. Yet BC has repeatedly insisted that on-campus students actually behave worse in tall dormitory buildings, and therefore BC has pushed for dormitories not to exceed four stories.

If BC were to purchase 2000 Comm Ave -- thereby likely turning it into on-campus undergraduate housing -- would they chop off all the stories above the fourth floor to ensure that their students occupying the building would behave well? Or were their arguments all along simply a ruse?


Via UniversalHub.