78°Partly Cloudy
  • Ben L

    It’s great seeing Park Morton being developed. Having been in the current buildings, it’s dangerous, decrepit and inhumane. The new proposal seems a well-thought out design similar to the successful 2M development. It’ll be a great to remove the old complex, provide the housing promised over a decade ago by the New Communities Initiative and produce more mixed-income housing in a city that needs it. Can’t be approved soon enough!

  • Keefer

    I am happy that some progress is being made at getting this going, but I am less than thrilled about the use of Bruce Monroe Park site. I fully understand that it was always the city’s intention to develop this land and have no problem with it being developed, particularly if they are going to leave an area as an improved park, but rolling this land into the Park Morton redevelopment seems like a shady transfer of city land to a politically favored developer in Dantes Partners. This land should have gone out to RFP, instead it is just getting lumped into one of the Mayor’s pet project and will help pad the bottom line for her developer friend

    • Slim Shady


      If they want to put replacement units on Bruce Monroe they should bid it out to every developer with replacement units as a requirement for each bid. It should not just be gifted to someone who bid on something else. Bruce Monroe was never a part of the bid (or re-bid) for Park Morton.

  • jcm

    It sure would be nice if they’d share their actual proposal with us. This has all of the earmarks of a predetermined giveaway to a developer. They claim they’re going to have 200 units of family-sized housing, plus basketball courts, tennis courts, a playground, and a community garden on the Bruce Monroe parcel? I don’t believe it.

    • textdoc

      At the meeting the other week, they claimed they couldn’t share the actual proposal because it had proprietary information in it (or something to that effect).

  • EricDC

    The real issue here is privatizing a public assets that anyone can access, enjoy use, to one that is for private use (resiidental units).

    Then at meetings, The Mayor and Councilwomen Nadeau paint those against deposing of a public park as anti-poor.

    When does the “build first” idea trump the right for a community to advocate for keeping a park that benefits thousands of people?

  • Anonymous

    At this point I don’t care where they rebuild so as long as they get this damn thing moving after 8 years of empty promises and deteriorating housing!

  • Anon

    Does anybody know how many units at the Bruce Morton site are going to be public and how many are going to be market rate?

    • Eugene

      I’m hoping the split is market rate and affordable rather than market rate and public.

      • Anon

        Park-Morton is public rather than affordable, so those units must be replaced as affordable units either at Park Morton or at another site.

    • textdoc

      At the previous meeting, they said it was going to be one-third “public,” one-third “affordable,” and one-third market rate.

  • Barry

    The city is just trying to spend the least amount of money they can to live up to the bare minimum of their commitments. Instead they should poney up to actually improving the community. Don’t destroy the park. Utilise the abandoned properties on Georgia Avenue. Study what development would work at each location, don’t just shove in the new of units you need at sites you own because it’s cheap and you can. The city is not doing this for Park Morton residents or their neighbors. They are just trying get this done cheap and quick, which always works out well


Subscribe to our mailing list