A proposal to replace the former Old Dorchester Post in Adams Village with a 5-story, 24-unit condo complex was widely panned by members of the public who submitted public comments to the Boston Planning Department in recent weeks. The sentiments echo the reception seen in two public meetings held recently and covered by The Reporter.
If approved, the building at 500 Gallivan Blvd. would rise right next to the landmark Eire Pub. A review of written statements offered to city planners shows that while a handful of people offered support for the project, the vast majority— 42 out of 49 — urged the city’s Planning Department to reject the current proposal.
Shawna Clancy, a direct abutter, dislikes the size, look, and feel of the building itself, calling it a “horrible eyesore.”
Timothy Hird-Devlin said: “This building is going to be the first thing anyone sees driving into Adams Village, and it looks like it was designed by a depressed corporate drone that’s never stepped foot into Dorchester… Have some pride.”
One of those who “encourages a speedy approval” is Tim Czerwienski, a Dorchester resident who formerly worked as a Boston city planner and, later, for the town of Milton.
“Families are struggling and young people cannot afford to make a start in our great city,” wrote Czerwienski. “Our housing, environmental, transportation, and economic development goals depend on projects like this one.”
But Thienan Dang,who opposes it, wrote: “It could create a ‘wall effect’ along Gallivan that ruins the feel, charm, and appeal of this small intersection of businesses and homes. We can’t set the precedent to turn Gallivan into what Dorchester Ave. tragically looks like now.”
John Stenson, the owner of the Eire Pub, does not oppose the re-use of the site, but “believes it should be redeveloped in a way that is both compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood as opposed to overpowering it in both mass and scale,” according to his representative, Theresa O’Neill.
“If the city and the developers work with the community, something beautiful and beneficial can be achieved,” O’Neill wrote, adding: “But approving a project that appears to be little more than a money grab for churn and burn developers who just want to maximize entitlements is not the way to do it.”
Chris Nastasia, who also wants the empty veterans’ post re-developed, appreciated the “thought and care that has gone into the articulation and setbacks of the façade” and calls the new commerical space “exciting.” But he also wants more parking included to include a minimum of one spots per unit.
“I would recommend using the precedent of the Greenhill Bakery site, which was approved for four floors as an acceptable context to equate this site to,” Nastasia wrote.
Nick Carter, the project manager for the Planning Department, told the Reporter on May 5 that the project is “still under review and staff are finalizing their comments which will be published to the project webpage and the project will be expected to respond to those comments.”
Editor’s note: An earlier statement attributed to Gail Ravgiala, of Dorchester, in an earlier version of this story was incorrect.
Ravgiala sent in this statement on behalf of the Ashmont AdamsNeighborhood Association: “As it exists today, the intersection of Adams Street and Gallivan Boulevard is dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians any time of day or night. Therefore, the Ashmont Adams Neighborhood Association considers it reckless to view the development of this site as a singular project.
“Little, if any, consideration has been given to the inevitable hazards of private vehicles and delivery trucks entering and exiting this property if the current traffic pattern is not dramatically altered. It goes beyond the scope of a developer’s plan and requires thoughtful examination and solutions from the public sector. Gallivan Boulevard is a state road and Adams Street is a city street and a coordinated effort between government entities is required.
“The association is sympathetic to the concerns of area residents and businesses as expressed during a public meeting on March 10 pertaining to size, density, parking, access, and construction. Many of the comments submitted to the BPDA pertain to these considerations and we urge you to give them thoughtful review. However, if this issue of public safety is not addressed any development should be deferred.”
Reporter editor Bill Forry and Nevaeh Berenato, a student journalist, contributed reporting to this article.
