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: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Even with permits, parking in this area is hardly assured, and none of the streets directly in front of the building have permit parking. It is possible that all 6 residents of this building decide to take their chances with the on-street parking, but they would do so at their peril.

The thing is, I think adding more residences to the square is good for everyone. It drives up property tax income add adds more potential customers for the local businesses. Building taller buildings is essential to achieving the sort of density required to allow Davis Square to continue to be the kind of walkable neighborhood that I think it should be. Unless there is some risk that people are going to start moving out of the square in large numbers because resident parking becomes too scarce, I see little reason to make any special effort to accommodate car owning residents there at all--it only serves to make people less likely to try to use public transit. And I don't think these new residents will be competing much with business owners because it isn't really practical for residents to use metered spaces as a place to keep their cars.

Replacing a 2 story building with a giant 4 story one is going to completely eliminate sun from some of the neighbor's yards.

I think this kind of comes with the territory of living within a central business district...

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I don't care as much about the incoming new tenants, but those folks already living in the surrounding area on streets with permit parking available. I know that having 12 more cars competing for spaces in my neighborhood is something I'd want to see, so why should these people?

I guess we disagree on the merits of increasing residences. I know that I do not want to live in some ultra-dense city where I can't walk around the block without tripping on my neighbors. Its why I moved here. I know that I will definitely move if I see Somerville become another Allston, and I doubt I'd be the only homeowner. As density increases, I think so too will the numbers of absentee landlords.

As for your argument about it being the peril of living in a business district, there hasn't been a 4 story building there for what, 80 years (if ever)? I think its fairly reasonable for people to move somewhere expecting it not to change that drastically.

I supported One Davis Square when it went in. Perfect use and size for the location. I opposed completely the Willow/Morrison monstrosity; it dwarfs the neighbors, and makes the area look awful. This proposal I also oppose, but would hope that he go forward with maybe something smaller (just a 2 story commercial/retail would be fine IMO).

I just want to see fewer apartment buildings, and more homes with yards (like the one he wants to demolish!)

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

As density increases, I think so too will the numbers of absentee landlords.

Absentee landlords are a symptom of low property values, not population density. There are poor rural neighborhoods and rich urban neighborhoods (see also: anywhere around Central Park in New York City). Indeed there are many parts of Brookline with higher density than my neighborhood (Teele Square) and if the facades of the builds are any indication, there are definitely more absentee landlords around here than around there. Density really has nothing to do with it.

Houses with yards are a privilege, and it's a good thing so many people are willing to live without them because we'd pretty much have to develop every square foot of land in the state in order to accommodate all of them. And of course a substantial portion of the population would live 50+ miles from work.

Suddenly that yard doesn't seem worth the money after all when oil is back up at $100+ a barrel.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I remember the Somerville of 20 years ago, and there were definitely more absentee landlords, and more rental property in and around Davis Square. Property values have risen, and I think a large part of the draw to the area is the ability to live in a home, with a yard. It why I bought my home. Start removing those, and all the people who bought here are going to move.

Houses with yards are indeed wonderful, and a big reason I live here. If I didn't want a yard, I'd live closer to Boston. Somerville is the nice balance between urban living and private space. Sorry if you feel differently, but I don't want that to change.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Ron will probably have to correct me on the details but my understanding is that the decrease in density went hand in hand with the fall of property values that resulted in all of those absentee landlords. Part of what saved it was the opening of the Davis Square T station in 1984 and the formation of a neighborhood association that sought to borrow money to revitalize the business district (which had, at the time, fallen into significant disrepair). Since that time I believe density has increased dramatically. Indeed, density and property values are somewhat intrinsically linked. In the absence of subsidized housing, rent control, or regulations preventing the building of bigger buildings, they will *always* go up together.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[ron_newman]

I think most of the decrease in density is the result of fewer people living in the same houses and apartments. Smaller family sizes have a lot to do with it. Somerville has never had any significant large-scale housing demolition, except for where I-93 was cut through it.

Somerville has, however, suffered from having taller commercial buildings demolished and replaced with one-story buildings and parking lots. Not so much here in Davis, but definitely in Union Square, for example.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

How exactly does the situation arise where someone finds it worth their while (and cost effective) to buy a large building (with, presumably, a lot of rentable space) and tear it down in favor of something with a small amount of rentable space? Were the tall buildings condemned or something?

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[ron_newman]

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. These things mostly happened in decades before I moved here. Some guesses:

- fires
- buildings reduced in height to reduce property taxes, if upper floors were not being rented
- old buildings became obsolete for their original uses (e.g. warehouses, factories, closed movie theatres)

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Besides, we are not talking about someone replacing a park or something in the middle of a residential neighborhood. They're doing this right in the heart of the Square within a 5 minute walk to the train station, and they're replacing what is now a splotch of concrete and a gray cinderblock garage.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

They're looking to merge 2 lots into one, replacing an eyesore concrete blotch AND a nice small house with a yard with a giant concrete blotch. I'd rather see the house stay and a nice 2 story retail/commercial space go in where the concrete blotch go in, than the house knocked down, and a huge concrete blotch twice as tall as any surrounding building.

The Willow/Morrison development is an example of how awful this can look. It replaced an absolute eyesore (the garage), with one if not worse, than at least as bad. stand across the street from Morrison to see just how out of place that thing is relative to the neighborhood.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I don't think a building has to be ugly just because it is large. Allowing people to build eyesores in the square is something I think we can all agree we don't want, and we should definitely make an effort to prevent it.

That said I think the developer could have done a lot worse than the current design, although it would be nice to see someone at least *try* to recreate the historic brownstone feel you see on the rest of the old buildings in the area (e.g. intricate corner work and handmade trim, rather than the plain steel, brick, and concrete you seem to see everywhere around here).

Honestly now that I'm looking at the drawings again, I'd actually be a lot more concerned about what kind of business is going to occupy the commercial space than how tall the building is. I'm fearing yet another convenience store.

As for the height itself being an eyesore, keep in mind there is another building almost directly across Summer/Elm Street that's even taller. And besides, they *are* under the 50 foot height restriction for the neighborhood.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

They are now, but this developer has a history. He's looking to max the lot, max the height, and asking to get exempted from the requirements for providing private parking (and thus moving the load onto the city streets). If he built it 1 story shorter, or had less of a footprint, he'd be able to comply with the regs.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of the Citizen's building either; it just looks so out of place, although they do at least provide their own parking.

Maybe I'm just bitter about that Morrison development, but I'd like to see us strive for less dense development, not more, when it comes to residences.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I'm still not quite sure which resident spaces you think this is going to use up. It's not like there's much of *any* kind of long-term parking in vicinity of that lot.

And I definitely have to disagree about aiming for less dense development. From an environmental and economic perspective, houses are fundamentally unsustainable. As soon as the economy recovers, oil will be right back up to $4.50 per gallon (or higher) and when that happens a *lot* more people are going to want to live within a ten minute walk from a train station. That's just not something you can achieve in *any* city where everyone is living in one or two family houses. I'm not saying the less transit-friendly parts of the city will become abandoned overnight, but it will definitely get even easier to find non-car-owners willing to move in to a building like this one.

As an added point, we definitely need a way to build low-car-usage living spaces near to train stations as a way to encourage people to live near the train and own fewer cars. If every dwelling is automatically required to have at least enough on-site parking to accommodate at least two cars per household, not only will that make the goal of attracting those kinds of residents a lot less achievable, but even if they did manage to get such residents to move in anyway, it would result in a ton of wasted space devoted to unused parking facilities.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I guess you're unfamiliar with how parking works in Somerville. Anyone with a residential permit can park anywhere in the city. So the people who will bear the load of this devlopment will most likey be those in the neighborhood on the street near the bank (Summer Street I think?), Highland Ave, Elm St. towards Porter, and all the side streets along the way. Providing enough parking for the residents of the building will give these folks something that will essentially keep them off the city streets.

We clearly are in disagreement about dense development. I have no desire to live in a dense city. That's why I don't live in Boston. When oil goes back up to $4.50 a gallon (or more hopefully), then people will need to make a decision about where they want to live, and what their utility is. I chose to live in a city with tons of small houses, and I choose to work to keep my city that way. There are plenty of other options for people who want to live crammed together; and I hope Somerville never becomes that.

As a final point, the idea that just because a residence doesn't provide parking will translate into only people without cars moving there is ludicrous. I give you the city of Boston, where there are more cars with permits than there are legal residential parking spots (or there used to be). Each time we increase the population of this city without also requiring parking, we're stepping closer to that existence. Unless and until the city can actually guarantee that a new residence will not bring another car into the city, I will always advocate that the city fight tooth and nail that any newe residence MUST provide offstreet, private parking. If a developer wants to raise the population of this city by 12 people, then I think its not unreasonable to take action to encourage those residents NOT to park on our public city streets. If you can't do that, you're building too densely for this city, and should go somewhere else.

This developer is not trying to build this dense too encourage less use of cars and to bring in carless people; he's trying to make as much money as possible on the backs of people already living here. And I think he needs to Stop devaluing my property and my city's quality of life to pad his own bank account.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Again though, the availability of non-metered parking spaces in the close vicinity of that building is virtually nil. Almost everything in that area is either metered or no parking is allowed at all.

When oil goes back up to $4.50 a gallon (or more hopefully), then people will need to make a decision about where they want to live, and what their utility is.

My point in bringing this up was that this and any other building in the planning stages right now are likely to still be around (indeed, probably not even complete yet) when we reach this particular impasse. Better to start planning for it now.

As a final point, the idea that just because a residence doesn't provide parking will translate into only people without cars moving there is ludicrous.

70 percent of New Yorkers do not own cars. If you ask the average New Yorker why they do not own a car, they will tell you it is because there is nowhere to park. Almost every time I've heard someone explain to me why they'd prefer to take the train into Boston instead of driving, they cite the difficulty of parking there, and virtually nothing else. To me this says that limiting the availability of parking is basically the *only* way we have right now to discourage people from using or owning cars. Since all residents are entitled to parking permits no matter what, I'm not sure what more you could do to guarantee that someone would not own a car than to put the development close to the train and give it only a very small number of spaces.

I also think it makes for very poor urban planning to decide the optimal density on the basis of how much off-street parking can be provided. This encourages people to build driveways and parking garages instead of yards and gardens. It also serves to make living without a car a lot more expensive because there are not enough housing units within walking distance of the train to meet the demand. The fact that it is nearly twice as expensive to rent the same apartment in Somerville near the train as not near the train should be reason enough to want to build more densely around the train stations. If you want to live in a neighborhood with yards and single family houses, don't live in the middle of Davis Square (instead, live like 3 blocks away where we aren't talking about changing anything).

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

Again though, the availability of non-metered parking spaces in the close vicinity of that building is virtually nil.

That depends entirely on your definition of close. There are definitely many non-metered spaces within a two block walk, which I would consider in the vicinity.

In regards to gas at $4.50 a gallon, I think you are seriously underestimating how attached people are to cars. Hell, I bet you gas could hit $12 a gallon, and car ownership wouldn't change much. You think that in 10-15 years fewer people will own cars, and will demand more cramped housing closer to public transit. I think that in 10-15 years there will be cars that either get much better mileage, or run on different fuel technology. I doubt you and I can agree on that.

Unless and until there is some significant improvements to the public transit system around here, going car free in Somerville is not going to be a reality for much of Somerville, even if the density is increased. Hell, even at $15 a gallon, and with transit improvements, I will continue to own a car that I use as little as possible. I'm not ever going to take public transit to drag two 120cf tanks of air and full scuba gear up to Rockport (unless someone develops anti-gravity tech!)

70 percent of New Yorkers do not own cars.

If you want to live in New York, don't live in Somerville. Seaiously, there's a reason I don't live in New York. Also one I don't live in downtown Boston, or even in Cambridge. I *LIKE* the single house plots with a little bit of green that I pass on my way to work. I see moving towards the model of New York as a giant step back for this city, and a degradation in my quality of life. I don't want someone else's perfect city forced on me when I live in what I already consider the perfect city.

I'm not sure what more you could do to guarantee that someone would not own a car

This I think is the fundamental disconnect. You're trying to get fewer people to own cars. I couldn't care less about that. I want fewer cars parked on our streets. The parking requirements for new developments help achieve this goal. Maybe in 15-20 years you *MIGHT* end up with fewer car owners in the area, but its not guaranteed, and I don't want to suffer the "short-term" increase in the number of cars parked on our public streets.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with yards and single family houses, don't live in the middle of Davis Square

If you want to build in the city of Somerville, you have to provide off stree parking for your development. Granting exemptions to these requirements makes it more likely that others will be granted in the future. I remember in the review process for the Willow development, the developer actually pointed to some of the huge buildings along the bike path as an argument that this building should be granted greenspace, parking and low income exemptions. The more of these that go up, the easier it is for someone else to keep chipping away.

I'm not arguing to change the regs here either, just to enforce the existing ones. No development should, in my opinion, be granted any exemptions to setback, low income, parking, greenspace, or any other restrictions, especially when they're being plopped next to existing housing.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

If you want to live in New York, don't live in Somerville.

Way to take my point completely out of context. I didn't say I wanted Somerville to be like New York. I was just pointing out that it is logical to conclude that making parking less available DOES result in fewer car owners. Would you dispute that?

You're trying to get fewer people to own cars. I couldn't care less about that.

Fewer car owners = fewer cars parked on the street, less traffic, less noise, fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

But that's not really what we're talking about here.

We need to agree on the terms of our discussion: I am not talking about changing the zoning laws for the entire city, I am talking about making the Davis Square business district itself a destination for non-car-owning home buyers and renters since it is one of the few places in Somerville with good public transit access. I agree that individual developers should not be granted exceptions. Instead I think the parking requirement for developments located in the square should be abolished entirely. If someone wants to put a residential building in the middle of Davis Square designed to cater entirely to non-car-owners they should be encouraged to do that they should not be required to cut into the amount of available housing (thus increasing cost for everyone) in order to accommodate car owners.

Although you may not agree, there is definitely consensus among city planners, economists, and environmentalists that a city with a larger number of people and a smaller number of cars tends to be more prosperous, safe, efficient, and healthy than one with fewer people and more cars. This doesn't mean that we have to populate the entire city with 50 story skyscrapers, but it does mean that where public transit is available, car usage should be minimized.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

We need to agree on the terms of our discussion: I am not talking about changing the zoning laws for the entire city, I am talking about making the Davis Square business district itself a destination for non-car-owning home buyers

Fine, but rather than achieve that goal through exemptions, I'd rather see the zoning changed for the district in order to not give fuel to the next developer outside the district using the exemption as an excuse to push for their own. While they're at it, if they truly care about this, they should revoke the right of residents of these buildings to get a Somerville parking permit. That would achieve your goal without putting a burden on existing residents of the surrounding area.

You seem to think that by adding all this housing close to the T only people with cars would move there. Its certainly possible. I think that if this happens, people with cars will just park a little further from their homes, flooding the neighborhoods around the district with extra cars.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

rather than achieve that goal through exemptions, I'd rather see the zoning changed for the district

Agreed. I don't think there's anything about this new development that makes them exempt from the rules other than the fact that they are developing within the Davis Square business district.

they should revoke the right of residents of these buildings to get a Somerville parking permit

I think this would be a great idea, but only if there are already provisions in the parking office for making exceptions based on address. I suspect that right now all you have to do is prove you live in Somerville, what neighborhood you live in, and that you own a car.

You seem to think that by adding all this housing close to the T only people with cars would move there.

On the contrary. I think a greater percentage of non-car-owners will try to live here than in other less transit accessible developments across the city. Almost anywhere else in Somerville that these units could be built would require full car accommodations because 100 percent of the tenants would need to own cars in order to use the space. This would certainly result in more cars in Somerville and more development overall, even if all of the development was slightly shorter.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[ron_newman]

I just want to see fewer apartment buildings

Without apartment buildings (like the one I live in, built in 1929), I bet a lot of DSLJ folks wouldn't be living here. (BTW, Rebekah Gewirtz lives in another apartment building whose age and density is similar to mine.)

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

So, because there are a few apartment buildings, you think the correct direction for Somerville to go is more high density apartment buildings. I for one, as a homeowner, and longtime resident (and with family roots in this city that go back to the 30s) do not want to see my property devalued by flooding the market with dense, unattractive buildings. I don't want to live in Allston, and will do what I can to keep my home from becoming it.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[ron_newman]

Do apartment buildings have to be unattractive, though? I don't think 18 Day St or 38 Day St or 36 College Ave are unattractive, nor do they devalue the surrounding houses.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

I think they're jarring, yes. Look at poor 34 Day St., at least its lucky enough to be south of 38. The Day Street buildings at least have greenspace built into them, and aren't completely maxing out their lot footprints. 36 College I don't like much at all.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

nor do they devalue the surrounding houses.

If that went in next door to my house, replacing the 2.5 story 2 family, it would most certainly devalue it...