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...

[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.