BRA finds Lowe's inadequate - Guest St planning to commence

Good for the BRA on this one!

Lowe's Brighton - Preliminary Adequacy Determination


  1. You are right Harry, the BRA got this one correct, no sense in having development when we can have vacant buildings and urban blight in our own backyard. This is the beauty of the internet, anyone who can type can get a blog! I just wish having a clue was a prerequisite.

  2. Lowes should have never been given a 2nd chance to waste the community's time listening to the same crap that it rejected 2 years ago....Thanks So much for this Blog Harry, You do a much better job that the outdated Tab and the community appreciates it. Pay no attention to craptasker let him build his own Blog maybe Lowes will kick in some 2x4's..........

  3. I respect the BRA's decision although I disagree with it.
    Why would a study take 2 years?

  4. All those well-meaning neighbors who worked so hard to defeat Lowe's proposal will live to regret it (but they don't know it yet and don't want to consider it now).

    Instead of large stores, which definitely have some benefits, they will have New Balance-like developments all over there. Stop & Shop and Stockyard site will be lost for tall and dense structures -- just because they didn't want "lowly" Lowe's.

    They will be living in the shadows of downtown-like developments with no soul, and contending with downtown-like congestion,and wondering what on earth has happened to their neighborhood and community.

    As the saying goes, be careful what yo wish for 'cause you may get it.

  5. And Lowes has "soul" and wouldn't have left those of us who live nearby wondering what happened to our neighborhood? If any were to remain?
    I can still see one fitting nicely in the old Cleveland Circle Cinema site. You wouldn't regret it!
    Seriously, planning is needed for that area. Let's finally set some perimiters (not parameters) around the best allowed uses and go from there.

  6. Dave (SailOnset), I find all that mantra about "good planning" disingenuous -- because what neighborhood people mostly mean by that is that planning should protect them from uses that do not fit with their desire/vision for gentrification. Planning doesn't work that way.

    Lowe's is just not "elegant" enough for some of you guys. If it was Bloomingdales or Macy's, there wouldn't be nearly as much kvetching.

    In actuality good planning means that communities need to integrate a mixture of uses (it's unfair to expect that it's always somebody else's town/neighborhood that should make room for Lowe's-like development).

    Also, in this country, planning is not supposed to override property owners' right to use their land as they see it fit (within zoning) and the market makes possible for them.

    Put yourself in the shoes of the guy who owns that site -- having to pay property taxes for years while he cannot realize any income. You would scream bloody murder if the City did it to you.

    That area has always been industrial and blue collar in character, and the large size of the parcels, and the proximity of the Turnpike means that you'll never have a Coolidge Corner-like environment/development there. This is reality that realistically-thinking people accept, and don't waste their energy wishing for something that cannot be.

    The only choice you have over there is between large retail or high-rises. I would take large retail over high-rises (which are like an infectious disease -- once it gets a foothold, you can't stop it from spreading), even if I lived just around the corner.

    Your continuous references to Cleveland Circle make no sense and are mean-spirited. Cleveland Circle abuts historic state park and a City of Boston Landmark (Waterworks), not to mention multi-million dollar homes in Brookline whose owners would hire best lawyers to protect their property values.

    I would never call for Lowe's if it was proposed next to Artesani Park or any other green space or landmark in Allston-Brighton.

    My prediction: Cleveland Circle will never get anything like Lowe's; and you, unfortunately, will not be happy with, but will have to accept, what will eventually get built in the Guest Street corridor.

  7. So evawebster, your argument is basically for us all to suck it, since we already live in a ghetto and shouldn't hope for and don't deserve anything better? Nice.

  8. happy to be mad,
    You have to realize that unless you agree with Eva, your viewpoints or opinions are always either wrong, not in the best interests of the community, being NIMBY, or you will "live to regret it" even though there may be solid arguments behind your views.

    Even though we have a Home Depot roughly a mile away, even though there is evidence that there could be a significant negative impact with traffic congestion in the surrounding area, even though the majority of the positions at the proposed Lowes site are low paying jobs, any other proposal has "no soul".

    It was already shown that the study conducted by Lowes was considerably flawed, even misleading for their own self interests. There is already evidence, even without any store being opened yet, that Lowes does not care about the impact on the surrounding community.

    And this is a company with a "soul"...

  9. Eva,
    Please explain how you would never call for a Lowes if it were proposed next to a park or green space, yet New Balace has a proposal for a mixed use site with open area planning along with green space added?

    And please explain why it is mean (for the sake of debating) to propose putting a Lowes in Cleveland Circle, and how the multi-million dollar home owners would hire the "best" lawyers to "protect" their properties even though it is ok to propose a Lowes off the Market and Beacon street site that would have significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

  10. You will live to regret it (shakes fist)! You'll pay! You'll all pay! (twirls mustache)

  11. ab_resident AKA as Alex, After reading many of your posts how can you be critical of Eva?
    You have the same attitude.
    Putting a Lowe's in Cleveland Circle is a mute point. That area is not big enough.
    To compare the 2 locations does not make much sense.

  12. That's cute John calling me Alex, but I wouldn't expect much more from you.

    Go back again and read what I wrote. I'm never proposed putting a Lowes in Cleveland Circle. I was making the point that one cannot use reasons to validate not putting a Lowes in one place, and brush aside the reasons for another place.

    Keep up the good work JohnT.

  13. To ab_resident:

    With respect to your first comment, telling "happy to be mad" what you think about me -- in case you haven't noticed, this discussion is about Lowe's proposal and the future of that general area -- not about me.

    Why don't you stick to the issues instead of trying to disparage me personally for voicing my opinion just because it's different from yours? Do you really think that this helps your arguments, or is going to shut me up when I want to speak out?

    It's really pathetic that you exploit this blog to take ad hominem potshots at a fellow poster and A-B citizen -- especially when your target's name is in full view (and your mean-spirited allegations are so subjective and unverifiable that they are also impossible to refute).

    While I have courage to post under my own name, you are a coward resorting to slander and hiding behind anonymity. Needless to say, I don't think highly of someone who does that -- and that diminishes the value of everything else you're saying.

    If you want to have productive, intelligent, and at least a little bit enjoyable discussions on this blog (or local google groups), you need to learn to respect other participants. So far, you don't -- which is why I am not going to waste my time responding to the questions in your second posting. You're a creep.

  14. The Globe magazine had an article on posters last Sunday. The posters that made the most ridiculous statements did not want to be interviewed.
    The main reason was that they liked being anon. This way they could be somebody that they could not be if they had to identify themselves. Is this what we have here?
    John Thompson
    Market St

  15. Eva,
    First of all you may want to follow your own advice concerning disparaging anyone that has a different opinion than yours. Your original post goes on to make assumptions and has nothing to back it up other than anecdotal evidence. At first I thought I was laying it on a little thick, but I've grown wary every time someone disagrees with your views and is vilified, or is painted in this light that they do not know what is best for the community.

    Second, you may want to read these posts a little more carefully because I do not take "potshots" at fellow posters, or try to exploit any blogs. In case you haven't noticed 'JohnT' continually tries to claim that I am Alex (and we know who he is referring to).

    Lastly, don't try to attempt to paint this picture that I am unwilling to have a productive, intelligent, enjoyable discussion, or that I do not respect other participants. You are the one calling me a coward and creep.

    I mentioned some time ago that I choose to not post under my own name for personal reasons. In this day and age it is too easy for folks with bad intentions to track others down and create problems. It has nothing to do with the "value" of what anyone says. If you choose to post under your real name that is your choice, but don't try and tell me that it has any "value".

  16. I'll admit to having a pretty serious case of NIMBY, but isn't one supposed to be fond of one's neighborhood and want it improved? To say that "it's unfair to expect that it's always somebody else's town/neighborhood that should make room for Lowe's-like development" is to assume that the city must have more Lowes' to survive. I disagree. I find that my home improvement needs are more than met by Home Depot. And have you been to that area? What a mess! Traffic, honking, exhaust, angry old women crossing against the lights, flipping people off.

    I think evawebster, that we can discuss the matter without name-calling.

    I'm also not Alex. I don't know who Alex is, but I'm not her or him.