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

[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.