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

[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.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Dude, cars already exist, and already use Davis - witness the concerns over the Theatre and parking meters.

Cars in the Square are a fact of life, unless you get the city to do what NYC did and block off roads to create pedestrian malls.

Under the current laws, the City recognizes reality, and attempt to require new development to lessen part of the impact to the common scarce resource (parking spaces) by requiring something like this to have 24 spots.

Given this developer's apparent shoddy record, I say screw him.

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).

People come to the square because of what they get there, not how it was designed (which is actually changed from how it used to be, with a freight line running right through it).

I go to the square because of diesel, the VFW, and the restaurants, and i love the fact that I can get there and park there to do so, when I'm coming from other places.

[ron_newman]

Yet if Davis Square had exactly those things, but it looked and felt like Sullivan Square or Wellington Circle, I don't think people would find it desirable to visit or live in.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

and the number of cars in the square is never going to change how the square is shaped or laid out, and requiring UNDERGROUND parking spots to comply with current SZO isn't going to make the place look any different (although, yes, i agree it's going to cause a pedestrian problem on the sidewalk at the garage entrance.

You're acting like requiring the developer to stay within current law is going to magically change DS into Wellington or sullivan.

It isn't.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Actually I think the concern is that the current requirement is a blanket regulation for all of Somerville that makes a lot more sense in areas not well served by public transportation. Requiring a development of the proposed size to have the full 24 parking spaces would almost certainly impact the design in a way that would be bad for the neighborhood, since it would either have to 1) be taller, 2) dig a much deeper hole in the ground, or 3) build a parking lot (does anyone really want another parking lot?).

It would also make it a much more desirable place to live for people who already own cars (since spaces would be virtually guaranteed for all residents). It's hard to see how Davis would benefit from this, especially considering it's not like there's any place in the square for a car owning resident to leave their car for any significant length of time right now, so with the exception of the few residents that do get one of the 7 spaces (assuming they are all reserved for residents, which they may not be), everyone else will basically *have* to be carless.

[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.