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

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...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

A lot of people say this is supposed to prevent "storage" of cars on the streets, although someone has yet to explain to me how this is any worse than parking for 47.9 hours.

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...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Looking at the budget for 2008, it seems that at best, the parking permit fees give the city about 1/2 of what it costs to maintain the part of the roads that are allotted to parking (cost of the parking areas seem to be about $1,000,000 (a very rough estimate on my part), with permit fees being about $400,000 (the actual revenue). If you include the money the city makes in parking fines, however, then parking does pay for itself (by a wide margin, actually, it looks like maybe a 5 to 1 ratio!). But then you have to add in the aggravation that tickets cause to society, raising the ire of motorists who are about to get out onto the roads to drive their deadly machines. So, really, you can go where you want with the numbers (how to lie with statistics!), but to me, when I consider where I want to live, work, play, visit, I tend to think of places that have fewer cars and more fun stuff, like stores, gardens, parks, and just general commerce. But that's just a personal preference.

Re: Interesting...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I think it's pretty widely agreed (at least by economists and urban planners) that cars as a whole cost us at least a little more than they earn us (given their carbon footprint, the dangers to pedestrians--especially small children--and drivers, and the costs of maintaining all the roads, driveways, parking spaces, etc), but in order to really make that claim you have to show that by removing a space from the road, you gain something else. For example, if we made every road in Somerville narrower by removing the space for parking a car, and then resold that space to residents in the form of additional property, would the added property tax, plus the premium people *might* pay for living or doing business in a parking-free area, minus the costs of things like parking enforcement officers and the revenue from tickets, more than cover the cost of maintaining the space?

I would argue that it has the potential to do so, but only in areas that are well served by alternative forms of transportation, such as mass transit and bike paths or lanes. To give an extreme example, how much business do you think a highway rest-stop would do if there were nowhere legal to park a car within a thousand feet of the rest area itself?

But in areas that *are* served by public transit, I think every effort should be made to encourage residents to use that instead.

I think a special distinction needs to be drawn, however, between what's going on here, and the situation with the parking meters and the Somerville Theater. I think everyone can agree that even with zero parking spaces provided, a developer would be able to sell out a six unit condo in the middle of Davis Square and still cover the cost of building the building, and they could do it without selling to a single car owning family. Housing is expensive enough in and around Davis that finding 6 families that do not need to own two cars should not be a challenge. But the theater needs to be able to appeal to hundreds, if not thousands of patrons, many of whom are not nearly as drawn by the quality of the neighborhood as a resident might be. Besides that, it wasn't the increase in cost or reduction of the quantity of the number of spaces that was being principally objected to, it was the drastic policy change that would have made it nearly impossible for *any* car owner to *ever* see a movie at the Somerville Theater without having to leave in the middle to feed a meter or move their car.

Re: Interesting...

[magid.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that the developer filters possible buyers by whether they own a car (or cars), rather than just by their ability to afford the price? I suspect that having an external criteria like that is not legal (like choosing for/against unmarried couples, or a certain race, etc.).

Re: Interesting...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Cars are like the perfect NIMBY device in that the ideal neighborhood is one that has no parking lots, cars, or even streets, but where parking is plentiful and always right in front of the place you're trying to go. People want to be able to drive everywhere, but almost every single development associated with cars (roads, garages, parking lots, gas stations, etc.) are things people would rather not have in their back yard.

It's hard to imagine anyone complaining so vocally about being near a bike rack or a subway station.

Re: Interesting...

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

IIRC, the last round of Red Line extension was supposed to go past Alewife, but people in Arlington complained vocally about being near a subway station. And right now part of the politics around the Green Line extension is people in Medford complaining vocally about being near a subway station.

Doesn't make any sense to me, except when people are talking about not wanting to live near a terminus (which can bring a ton of traffic -- does anyone really want to live next to the Alewife T? Apparently not). I personally very much hope they get around to the Green Line, because I would love to live that close to a subway stop. But there are lots of people who are, apparently, not me.

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: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[ron_newman]

Somerville used to have more population than it does now, and Davis Square used to have taller buildings -- take a look at the old photos on the Red Line platform some time. Ditto for Union Square, though I'd have to look a little harder for that photo.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[dent42.livejournal.com]

What's the point? I have never lived in the Somerville of that time period (what, 1920s?) I have, however, lived in Somerville for 20 years, and that's the city I both currently live in, and wish to continue to live in.

The population may have been more dense, but the infrastructure and society was completely different. Perhaps we can go further back, to a time when the city was almost entirely farmland? Or we can all live in our apartments with our significant others and 6-10 children (plus parents)?

I happen to like the time and place I live in, and I don't want to see us grow more dense, and find ways to cram more apartments into the existing space. I love this city because I can have a yard while still being within walking distance to the T. I love that I can keep a car for the 2 or 3 times a month I choose to take my daughter to see her grandparents, or run to the grocery store for the week. These sorts of developments destroy that, and usually for the betterment of some developer from Lexington or Concord.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[m00n.livejournal.com]

The population may have been more dense, but the infrastructure and society was completely different

Yes that's true, in that there were more trains and street cars back then, and there are more private cars now.

And your statement about the relationship between tall buildings and having a yard belies the truth about urban sprawl: If everyone chooses to live in single family houses with yards instead of apartment buildings, it decreases the total amount of green-space available for everyone.

Or to put it a little more simplistically: This is a 6 unit building on a lot that would otherwise accommodate a single 2 or 3 unit building with a yard. By building a high density building in a high density location next to a train station, like Davis Square, not only do we avoid having to build 2 or 3 houses in a suburban neighborhood (thus increasing the yard space available to people who choose to live there anyway), but there is a far greater likelihood that the people who live in said 6 unit building will not choose to own a car (because, unlike the suburban household, they will at least have the option of using the train).

Or to put it yet a third way: The reason Somerville has fewer people living in it now than it did before is because those people went to live in the suburbs instead. This is not something that can be allowed to continue on its current course for reasons of environment, fuel cost, and land conservation. Thus, as the population grows, new housing has to be built somewhere, and I'd much rather have it here in Davis Square than in a forest I currently enjoy camping in somewhere in rural New Hampshire.

Besides, population density is *hardly* the biggest difference between life in Boston and life in Somerville.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

Boston has tons more greenspace than Somerville. Cambridge, too, and every other town in the area.

I believe reason Somerville's population density is higher despite not much high-density housing is because of lack of zero-population greenspace.

Speaking in general, I support mixed-use development, but I think the City ought to take a harder line in terms of requiring developers to contribute to the community as well in terms of public courtyards, atria, or the like, instead of the bigger and bigger footprints with nothing to offer.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[dent42.livejournal.com]

Developments like this are only going to make the situation worse, taking away greenspace while increasing density (not to mention the parking situation). Mixed use development is definitely something that can and does work (I have hopes for the Assembly area!), but I would hope that the city would also push for buildings that fit in with the characteristic of their neighborhood.

I feel like this building will completely dominate that corner; nothing else on the same block will approach its height, and it will tower over the Rosebud. That makes me massively sad.

This guy in particular has a really bad history, so I'm not inclined to give him any leeway, and I would hope the city wouldn't either.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[ron_newman]

Indeed. Besides large city parks, Somerville also has no golf courses, large garden cemeteries, or ponds. Boston and Cambridge both have all of these things. Boston even has part of a working farm (Allandale) within city limits.

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! :)

Re: Interesting...

[sparkgrrl658.livejournal.com]

haha, yeah, just mentioned it as someone who has lived in both (as well as boston, cambridge, and quincy) i can say there is a HUGE difference in that, you couldn't pay me to move back to allston, heh. though i still prefer the other side of the river :)