Event Notices Photos & Videos Real Estate

Lovejoy Wharf Project Proposes to Eliminate Parking and Change From Rentals to Condos (Meeting Video)

Lovejoy Wharf, Converse Headquarters (160 N. Washington St.) is currently under construction. 131 Beverly Street will be re-built adjacent to the building shown under construction. The Strada Building is shown on right and the N. Washington St. Bridge on left. (NEWF Photo)

The Boston Redevelopment Authority hosted a meeting at City Hall on October 30, 2013 regarding proposed changes to the previously approved Lovejoy Wharf Project. Lovejoy Wharf is located along the N. Washington Street Bridge in the West End / Bulfinch Triangle between North Station and the North End.

The presented changes include:

(1) The separation of 131 Beverly Street and 160 North Washington Street to create two independent buildings. Previously, a 2-story pavilion connection was planned but is no longer necessary now that Converse has committed to fully occupy the N. Washington St. commercial property.

(2) The residential units in the 131 Beverly Street building (155 feet, 14 stories) are now anticipated to be for sale condominiums as apposed to previously approved rental units.

(3) The above-grade robotic controlled parking garage has been eliminated. Residents will be not be offered on-site parking.

The sneaker company, Converse, is relocating its headquarters to the 160 N. Washington Street building currently under construction at Lovejoy Wharf. Converse is currently headquartered in North Andover. A publicly accessible park including a harborwalk and ferry transportation is planned on the water side of the property that is now closed. Ground floor retail, restaurant and marina space are also part of the plan.

The public comment period ends Wednesday, November 6, 2013. Comments can be submitted to Casey.Hines.BRA@cityofboston.gov to the receipt of Casey Hines, Project Manager, Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Video Timeline:

  • 00:00 Presentation of project changes by Peter Spellios, representing developers The Beal Cos. and Related Cos.
  • 22:00 Public questions and comments

See previous posts regarding Lovejoy Wharf.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

11 Replies to “Lovejoy Wharf Project Proposes to Eliminate Parking and Change From Rentals to Condos (Meeting Video)

  1. What do u mean no parking spots and no rental apts and no low income apts shut this thing down now and fast am I the only one that see this a problem

  2. I thought anyone who was to building anything of this size had to provide parking. What the
    hell is going on? Might this be another form of corruption & deceit going on in the City?
    Rules were made and were not suppose to be broken, if they can’t provide parking underground
    then let them look into barges that can supply parking for them, we can’t afford to lose any
    parking spaces in the No. End. NO PARKING SPACES, THERE SHOULD BE NO BUILDING.

  3. Car share programs like ZipCar are better suited for urban areas.

    If there is no parking at the building, that is an aspect of their project that they are going to have to deal with. People buying $1m condos are not going to park their luxury cars on the street. They are going to pay for garage spots — probably in the Garden garage. I really don’t see the issue here. The workers coming to the area are going to be forced to use public transportation (GASP) to North Station, which is a good thing for the City and the State.

    If you want to own a car in a congested downtown area, you have to be prepared to pay for a spot or deal with the headaches for street parking. Maybe the solution is to cap the number of resident parking permits to a closer ratio of available parking spots?

  4. Salem St. Guy,

    You have some very valid points. I don’t know if you own a car or not, but valid points.

    The bottom line is that there was NEVER suppose to be a project of this size unless
    they provided parking spaces, they are going back on their word is the entire point I am trying
    to bring out. The Strada did it, the Fairmont Battery Wharf did it, the other projects down
    No. Station did, what makes them any different?

    1. Hear, hear! Salem Street Guy, you are right on the money.

      I commend Lovejoy Wharf Developers and any other downtown projects that are bold enough to challenge Boston’s outdated urban planning regulations that require (in my opinion) an arbitrary and excessive amount of parking spaces. Why spend so much time fighting for parking, when it will never benefit the aesthetic look of the building, traffic congestion or even your own individual curbside parking shortage?

      North End Landlord, with the upmost respect, after we’ve come such a long way cleaning up the Charles River and Boston harbor, is floating car on barges really the direction we want to go? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me… Let’s look to more progressive solutions such as charging yearly renewal fees for Resident Permits and increasing parking fines in order to curb the number of cars legally and illegally parked on our streets while raising additional dollars that can be spent on improving our roads and public transportation.

      In short, the City as well as developers should be more concerned with planning, regulations and funding for transportation infrastructure that will benefit the entire region/economy, then parking that will only satisfy a small percentage of the 10,000 or so residents of the North End.

      1. Great points Sean. Everyday I see scores of illegally parked cars in N End without resident stickers. Seems if parking was really enforced this would alleviate some of the parking concerns we residents have. As I’ve read, part of the concept of this new development is to have car-free living, which solidifies your statement about the outdated urban planning regulations. With such outdated regulations and outdated mentalities, we will always remain just the whiny little brother to cities like NYC. Your progressive ideas are great.

        Furthermore, parking garages have to be the biggest eyesores ever constructed.

        PS – we have two cars in our household in N End.

      2. Sean, your right about increasing parking fines for illegal parking, but “legal parking” as well? and residents should not have to pay for resident stickers to park in their own neighborhood & as for the additional dollars that can be spent on public transportation & road repairs we are already taxed to death. The gas tax is supposed to fund road repairs & the MBTA is millions in debt due to poor management.

  5. Am I misinterpreting the article? All parking originally proposed for the project is being eliminated? Where will they park?? Is this going to be Boston’s first bicycle only building for the one per cent -ers?? Maybe a robotic bike garage ??
    As I recall North End zoning (I could be mistaken) 0.5 parking spots per new unit was required?

    1. The Lovejoy Wharf project is not in the North End. It is in the West end. I don’t know what the West End zoning regs are. I think the misconception by the city and the developers is that people who live near a transportation hub will forgo cars for public transportation, bikes, and car sharing like zip car. The reality is that young people ( and older people) moving into the city and renting expensive apartments or buying condos want to keep their cars and have a place to park it. I do not own a car now but I would be really concerned about people in those condos wanting to park in the North End Garage between Hull and Prince St. That will drive the monthly rents up even higher and perhaps force North End residents out of the garage and back in to the crazy game of trying to find street parking. (the reason I gave up my car and joined zipcar)

  6. Joyce, you are so right, but I don’t think anyone is getting this. When I mentioned barges to park
    cars, I meant something that was state of the art to look at, not floating cars in the harbor.
    I happen to own a car and park my car in a garage, so I don’t have to move it for street cleaning.
    If the Love Joy does not provide parking, you can bet your life that rates are going up in No. End
    garages because these people have to depend on No. End garages because the West End may not be able to provide enough parking for their residents at the Love Joy.
    I think a Marina is a great idea & will look beautiful, is it a necessity? NO, is parking your car a
    necessity, YES, especially if you are using it to go back & forth to work, and one does not want
    to rely on our transit system. Sean & Salem St. Guy have valid points, but the No. End, as far as
    I am concerned, has made enough sacrifices along the way, and we really do not need anymore.
    I am fully aware of Zip Car, I really do not know the particulars, but as a car owner, I want instant
    access. I do NOT like public transportation, and we have one of the best systems in the country,
    and I do not want to go on a computer or make a phone call, if there is an emergency to have a
    car at my disposal. I also want to ad, if these people who are planning to live at the Love Joy and
    probably will be spending $1,000,000 & up for a condo, they should be getting a parking space.
    We all have our opinions, and I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but this is just the tip of
    the iceberg, there are going to be a lot more disappointments along the way in the name of so-called
    Progress, and the BRA obviously does not care about No. End Residents and the effects of any
    of their projects on us. The name of the game is called MONEY, and that is the bottom line.

Comments are closed.