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: 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.