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

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

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I'd rather live in a society where different neighborhoods have different choices of living available. Then, the market can decide what is worth what utility. You want density where you will never need a car, and greenspace is shared? Move to Boston, Brighton, JP or Cambridge. You want a little private greenspace, a little less density, and little more distance from the bustle of downtown, move to Somerville, Medford or Arlington. You want a lot more space, inconvenient to downtown, then move out to Reading, Waltham, etc.

I hate cities like Chicago or New York, where it just feels like one massive urban sprawl. I'm drawn to Boston because of the uniqueness of each of the cities, a good deal of which are within striking distance of downtown Boston. I wish we had better transportation infrastructure, but I don't want to see all our cities become homogenized full build outs with parks every full blocks. That's not my ideal living situation.

I'm drawn to Somerville because of the type of city it is today, not the kind it could become if every lot held 6 housing units and no private greenspace instead of two. I don't want to become that; there are plenty of cities that are that.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[m00n.livejournal.com]

But we're not talking about turning Somerville into Boston or New York. We're talking about building high density buildings in a very specific area around the business district. If someone were proposing a large residential development miles from the nearest train station or square I'd feel very different about it. The way I see it, building taller buildings in the heart of the squares allows the rest of Somerville to maintain a lower density.

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

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

I don't see how this development takes away any green space -- what it does is not add any public space, something, as I said above, is something I think large-scale developers should be obliged to do.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[dent42.livejournal.com]

The house its tearing down presumable has a little yard in the front, as well as the back. I am really energized when I walk to the T in the morning past all the lots, seeing all the little gardens people have planted in their yards. That's being replaced by a parking ramp.

If he was replacing just the garage, I wouldn't object nearly as much, but this design will definitely remove some of the greenery you can see when walking on Cutter...

Judging from the sattelite and google street view pics, a simple littel garden it going away, but also, it appears we will have one less tree if this goes through; this house seems to have one in its backyard.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

I'm talking about space that the public can actually use.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[dent42.livejournal.com]

True, but I find seeing green things as I walk down the street, even when its on private property, much more pleasant than some brick facade that fills the block. Somerville does need more public greenspace, but that's a different issue than hating the loss of private greenspace.

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: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Boston even has part of a working farm (Allandale) within city limits.

Would those be the city limits it gained from Suffolk-cating all the surrounding towns during the water wars in eastern mass?

You're not seriously trying to compare Somerville with annexation happy Boston, in terms of available land, are you?

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[ron_newman]

Not at all. I'm just trying to explain the primary cause of Somerville's 'most dense city in MA' designation -- the lack of large open spaces such as are found in Boston, Cambridge, and Medford.

(And by the way, West Roxbury and the rest of those towns decided to join Boston by majority vote in a referendum. Brookline's voters defeated the proposition, which is why they still remain separate today.)

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

As someone said earlier in this discussion:

Boston has tons more greenspace than Somerville.

Yes, it does - because Boston was able to annex all the surrounding towns.
Comparing Boston to Somerville in terms of greenspace is an apples and oranges comparison.

Re: Fewer cars on the street, not fewer cars

[ron_newman]

I don't understand your argument. All I am doing is trying to explain how Somerville ended up at #1 in the statistical category of "population density" (i.e. population divided by area).