Development at Cutter and Summer (next to Rosebud)

[hikermtnbiker.livejournal.com]

Are folks aware of the 4 story, mixed use development planned for the corner of Cutter and Summer next to the Rosebud? Many of the local residents only recently found out about it and are understandably upset.

The plan is to tear down the old gas station and the adjacent 2 family. The building will be 48 feet high (think One Davis) and will consist of 1st floor retail, 2nd floor office and  6 2-bedroom apartments on the 3rd and 4th floors. There will be an underground parking garage (as they will use the entire lot) that will exit onto Cutter. We are really appalled at the size of this building which will dwarf the adjacent  buildings on Summer / Cutter, not to mention the added traffic entering and exiting the garage. It is simply too big for this busy corner at the edge of a residential neighborhood.

The developer is asking for 2 special permits from the Zoning Board; one to provide 7 fewer parking spaces than is required by the zoning ordinance and the other to allow construction of a 6 unit dwelling. A group of local residents is urging the ZBA to deny the special permits with the hope that a suitably sized building that adheres to the parking regulations, and better suits the neighborhood, will be built.

If you are also concerned and wish to express your opinion and / or become more informed here is what you can do:

- Write or Fax the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask that they deny the special permits for 377 Summer St.
- Call or email Ward 6 Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz: Rebekah@rcn.com 617-718-0792
- Attend a neighborhood meeting hosted by Rebekah Gewirtz
          This Monday, June 1
          5:30 pm at Ciampa Manor 27 College Avenue
- Attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
           This Wednesday, June 3, 6pm at City Hall in the Alderman's Chambers

To view the plans for the development and to read the Planning Board report, go to the city web site and planning board page and view info for 377 Summer St.

Thanks

Comments

[nathanjw]

Yes. There should be a maximum they can create, and no minimum.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Thus increasing the burden on those people who already do own cars.

I see.

You do realise that the people using that facility will likely have cars, and your wish is that the developer further take from the commons' allotment of parking spaces?

I get that you are one of the "let's do away with all cars" people, but the cars are already here - making developers create off street parking, and having minimums required, ensures that ... you know what, it's like talking to a brick wall.

[turil.livejournal.com]

How about this, there are two sides of the city, one in which everyone gets to have a car, and park it free on the street, or sidewalk, or wherever they feel like parking it. And on the other side of the city, no cars are allowed in at all, except for the occasional emergency vehicle, and maybe delivery vehicles and moving vans, with special permits for temporary use. You get to pick which area of town you live in and visit and work and play and travel through.

I know which one you'd stick to. And which one I'd prefer, as well. To bad we don't have that choice, and have to settle for some unpleasant compromise...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

How about this, you actually deal with reality for a change?

[turil.livejournal.com]

Can't do anything but deal with reality. You just don't like the way I deal with it, which is also a reality. :-)

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

Can we steer away from the personal attacks here, please?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Excuse me? I was commenting on the posters suggestion that we establish two Somervilles, one for people with cars, and one for people without, and the attendant suggestion that those from the with cars section would not be allowed to go to the without section, which is a farcical and unrealistic suggestion, hence, asking that the poster deal with reality.

[nathanjw]

I think the developer should be allowed to put in parking if they want. And since, as you note, many people want parking, they have some incentive to do so. But it's a market incentive, not a requirement - they should be allowed to not include parking (as they may choose to not include second bathrooms, or granite countertops or other expensive items), which makes the building as a whole less expensive, and market it to the sort of people who like to live in the middle of a dense, bustling area.

(You do realize that the square as it is today could not be built with the parking requirements currently in effect?)

I recommend reading chapter 5 of The High Cost of Free Parking" on this subject.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I think the developer should be allowed to put in parking if they want. And since, as you note, many people want parking, they have some incentive to do so. But it's a market incentive, not a requirement - they should be allowed to not include parking

Actually, it's part of Somerville law, so, yes, it's a requirement.

You do realize that the square as it is today could not be built with the parking requirements currently in effect?

So, let's get rid of it all, as turil suggests - tear it all down, and have zero parking allowed.

The Square as it exists today, building wise, was not built when cars were as prevalent as they are now.

[ron_newman]

But that's exactly what makes the Square a desirable place today -- that it was built with people in mind rather than cars (or even horses). If you build with cars in mind first, you get Wellington Circle instead of Davis Square.

Future building here should add on to what works. Whether this proposal does so successfully is an open question.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but look at it this way: If they add, say, 20 new residents to the square, and 7 new parking spaces, the zoning regs say that this is not enough spaces for the number of new residents under the theory that at least 70 percent of those new residents WILL own cars and will leave them parked in the square, thus preventing non-residents with cars from patronizing local businesses. As a practical matter, though, this is not likely to happen in Davis Square because there really just aren't that many places to store cars overnight near that lot. Instead I'm (optimistically) betting a development like this one would be forced to attract non-car-owners to the square, which would be even better for businesses because residents would have to walk through the square to get to the train station.

And I am forced to agree with turil about the concept of a cap (rather than a minimum) on the number of parking spaces for a new development. I see no logical reason that the number of parking lots should be directly correlated to population density. If New York City followed this logic everywhere, fully half of Manhattan would be parking garages! Adding parking spaces invariably adds cars, and attracting a greater non-car-owning population to the square would be better for car owners and non-car-owners alike.

Additionally I might point out that a development *in* the square is precisely where an affluent non-car-owner is likely to want to live, and they will pay a premium for the privilege (I should know, I'm one of them).

[jodi.livejournal.com]

i fully agree with what m00n has said here.

as a non-car owner i would like to see more development (more amenities within an easy stroll from home) but would definitely want any residential development to cater to mass-transit using residents who would foster a neighborhood of similar minded people.

i want the parking that's here already to stay accessible for visitors to the square to help support the businesses that we davis residents enjoy right at home and not be burdened by residents, yes, but i don't think that tying density to new residences will ever ensure that that remains the case. a differnt approach would likely have better results.

somerville residents tend to be very vocal about how badly they absolutely need to own a car. i want to be very vocal about how much i do not need to own a car. there is a subway, and more than enough buses running through the heart of this neighborhood, commuter rail within a mile, as well as the walking path, ample sidewalks and a gazillion zipcars scattered within walking distance. owning a car in this neighborhood is ill-advised at best and if i NEEDED a car to get to work? i would move.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Exactly. While it is true that some of the neighborhoods in Somerville are not well served by public transit, and accommodations need to be made for people to store the cars they will use to get there, Davis Square is not one of those neighborhood.

Interesting...

[turil.livejournal.com]

I agree that Davis doesn't need to encourage people to bring more cars, by adding even more parking spaces.

But I also think that all "permanent" parking should be privately owned, not publicly subsidized (i.e. no long term street parking). So I kind of think that landowners should be able to put as much space for cars as they like on their own property.

And... I think that if there are any requirements for parking, it should be for bike/scooter/motorcycle parking!

Re: Interesting...

[ron_newman]

The zoning code does in fact require some bicycle parking for developments of this size. For bicycle parking requirements go to the zoning code, scroll left column down to PART III ZONING ORDINANCE, then Section 9.15 Bicycle Access and Parking.


(by the way, I was at the Armory last night, and they need a lot more bike racks than what they've installed so far. People ended up locking bikes to the railings next to the air-conditioning units.)

Re: Interesting...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

But I also think that all "permanent" parking should be privately owned, not publicly subsidized.

Funny, everyone with permits is paying for parking (although, yes, it's ridiculously low).

i.e. no long term street parking

There isn't any such thing in Somerville - 48 hour rule.

Re: Interesting...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

There isn't any such thing in Somerville - 48 hour rule.

I would take "long term street parking" to mean anything residents thought they could suitably use as a substitute for a driveway. 48 hour rules do not generally prevent people from doing this. Indeed they encourage people to use their cars more because they are obligated to move them at least once every two days.

Re: Interesting...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I don't consider 48 hours long term parking.

48 hour rules do not generally prevent people from doing this. Indeed they encourage people to use their cars more because they are obligated to move them at least once every two days.

Thus creating wasted environmental impact on the city - if I don't need my car for four days, why should I be forced by the city to start it up, pollute the air, and move it one vehicle length or more?

Re: Interesting...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Publicly subsidized doesn't mean "free". It means that the public pays for some of the costs involved (wider streets, maintenance, etc.) Overall, the space we allocate to car parking is a net loss for the city, given that most of the people parking here live here, rather than are visiting from out of town to buy stuff, and people would live here whether or not there was street parking.

To me 48 hours is a long time to leave a large private object in a public space. And are you saying that people don't park their cars on the street most of the time? (Sure, they move them around, but they are still parked on the street, rather than in a privately owned space.)

Re: Interesting...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Overall, the space we allocate to car parking is a net loss for the city

Do you have any statistics for this claim?

given that most of the people parking here live here, rather than are visiting from out of town to buy stuff

Funny, I thought paying property tax, or paying rent, and thereby helping to pay property tax, based on income one makes from outside somerville (as somerville sure doesn't have enough jobs to support all of its residents) put money into the city rather directly, instead of the hoped for trickle out from paying retailers, who in turn pay property taxes.

Re: Interesting...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

You do realize that the zoning laws require them to provide off street privately owned parking for the vehicles, thus lessening the burden on public streets. If the developer got their way, the burden on the public would be increased, 12 people moved in, bringing 8 new cars to the area, and increasing the on-street congestion.

Not to mention further increasing the density of the city; I am sick of developers tearing down 2 family homes with (albeit small) yards, and replacing them with tall, lot filling monstrosities. I like living in Somerville because of the smaller, less dense development. I don't want to become another Brighton.

The goal is to have fewer cars in Davis, right?

[turil.livejournal.com]

And if there are fewer parking spaces there will naturally be fewer cars. It's not rocket science. If there are a limited number of spaces, there will be a limited number of cars. Add more spaces, you'll get more cars.

Or do you want more cars?

As for the idea that Somerville is "less dense", that's pretty funny. Given that it's actually one of the most densely populated cities in New England. Perhaps what you like about Somerville is the style of housing?

Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I could care less about fewer cars, but I do not want to increase the density of available housing, nor the density of cars on the street. I'm a realist, and know that a certain percentage of people own cars. If you build apartments and don't provide offstreet parking, then you will increase the number of cars on the street looking for parking. Capping the max spaces a building can provide is going to make things worse, not better. You decrease cars on the road by providing convenient and useful alternatives, which would require a significant investment in infrastructure upgrades.

And yes, though Somerville is more dense, Somerville FEELS less dense, mostly because of the way most of the houses are built (and the relatively high percentage of residential zoning). If I wanted to live in a city full of 4 story rowhouses with little to no greenspace, I'd move to Boston. I don't, so I choose to live here. And when I see developments that move towards that hell, I speak up and speak to my elected officials.

If this landlord wanted a 1 or two story building that was purely commercial, I'm on board. A 4 story building increasing the population of Somerville and density of parking in the area is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of this city.

Re: Interesting...

[sparkgrrl658.livejournal.com]

i don't think you've spent much time in brighton, just fyi...maybe you mean allston? which is another magical place, which davis could never be, i hope :x

Re: Interesting...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

Good point; I always have the two blocked together courtesy of all teh Allston-Brighton speak you always hear. Regardless, I don't want Somerville to be either! :)