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

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]

I believe it would be legal since it really has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation or anything like that, and they are certainly allowed to discriminate against similar criteria, such as insufficient income.

But it wouldn't be very useful since of course one could always acquire the car after moving in. Not to mention the fact that it's a little difficult to actually completely prove that someone owns a car without a warrant or something.

No, I'm suggesting that it would be somewhat self selecting. If a similar apartment in a non-transit-served neighborhood is considerably cheaper, then it makes sense that a significant portion of potential renters are willing to pay more for the property precisely because it is close to the train, and if someone is already paying a premium to use the train, there is a greater likelihood that they will not choose to own a car. There is no guarantee, of course, just as there is no guarantee that $4.50 a gallon gasoline will cause fewer people to own cars (since owning the car doesn't force you to buy more gas) but in practice it does tend to have this effect. By the same token, making parking less available does not guarantee that all of the building's occupants will be non car owners, but it does make those who do own a car more likely to try to look somewhere else where parking their car will not be such a burden which should, in theory, make the apartments more available to non-car-owners who will have a bias toward living in a transit-accessible neighborhood.

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...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

And yet property values are universally higher near the subway stations, and universally lower near highways and parking lots!

I think the reality in Arlington was that a handful of vocal residents opposed the extension while the majority of Arlington residents were overwhelmingly in favor of it. The same appears to be the case in Medford today. I believe the project was eventually abandoned as much for budgetary reasons as for political opposition, if not more.

Re: Interesting...

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

This would be among the reasons I am hoping for a new Green Line stop a few hundred feet from me, yes ;).

Anyway, *I* like subways. But you said it was hard to imagine people being vocally opposed to them, so I wanted to point out it doesn't need to be imagined, because it's a fact, however puzzling a fact.

Re: Interesting...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should have said that the market seems to like them. :-)