As Chelsea explores workforce housing options, residents voice strong opinions over the future of the Park Street lot.

Photo: The city-owned parcel on Park Street, next to the Purple Rose. Image: Google Streetview

With Chelsea’s housing costs on the rise, a new proposal to build workforce housing on Park Street has sparked heated debate—pitting cherished green space against the urgent need for affordable homes.

The escalating cost of housing in communities like Chelsea has made it increasingly difficult for many individuals to reside in the areas where they work.

In response, the Chelsea City Council and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) are considering developing city-owned land on Park Street, adjacent to the Purple Rose Theatre, for workforce or affordable housing. This proposal has sparked a lively debate among residents, as evidenced by a recent discussion on the “Chelsea Residents in the Know” Facebook page.

One resident expressed concern over the potential loss of a cherished community space, stating, “I can see first-hand from my front windows how the space is wonderfully enjoyed in the winter months for sledding.” They suggested that, with minimal investment, the area could be enhanced with benches and tables to serve as a quiet neighborhood park.

In contrast, another participant labeled this viewpoint as “the exact definition of NIMBY,” arguing that Chelsea has ample green spaces, including those around the hospital, middle school, cemetery, and Pierce Park. They contended that the Park Street lot is underutilized and could be more beneficially used for housing.

The discussion also touched on the broader issue of affordable housing availability in Chelsea. A commenter highlighted the scarcity of such housing, stating, “It cannot be said there is an abundance of affordable housing.” Another echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need to support the local workforce: “We need to think about how we support our workforce, especially with housing prices being what they are in Chelsea.”

However, concerns about the practicality of developing the Park Street site were raised. One resident questioned the feasibility of construction without underground parking, which could increase costs. They also mentioned potential exacerbation of existing parking issues and the loss of green space, making the location less desirable for residents.

The importance of preserving recreational spaces was another theme in the conversation. A participant reminisced about the Park Street area as the “unofficial ‘townie sledding hill'” and expressed a desire to maintain it for future generations. Another shared similar sentiments, recalling it as a favorite sledding spot during their childhood.

The debate also delved into the definition and implications of affordable housing. One commenter questioned, “What is going on with that abandoned building that is part of the Clock Tower complex? I have not seen any movement on that in a decade.” They suggested that revitalizing existing structures might be a more appropriate approach than developing new sites.

In a recent meeting, City Manager Marty Colburn discussed the potential of utilizing the Park Street property for workforce housing, emphasizing the need to address housing affordability for local workers. Mayor Jane Pacheco supported exploring the idea but raised questions about the development process, including necessary zoning changes.

As the city continues to grapple with housing affordability, the Park Street proposal remains a contentious issue. Residents are encouraged to participate in upcoming meetings and share their perspectives to help shape the future of their community.