![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
elements.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareAs I posted back here, there was a meeting about the future of the Powder House School today at the TAB building. Despite the short notice and early evening time, it was well attended (maybe 45 people?). ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ron_newman was also there, as were Aldermen Trane, Gewirtz and Connolly, and for most of the meeting Mayor Curtatone. We also learned that the 5:30 time was chosen because they'd though the city budget hearings would still be underway tonight, but because the budget was finalized late last night the officials were able to stay at the meeting and in fact the meeting was able to go an extra half hour or so.
The bulk of the presentation was by a consultant from Concord Square Planning & Development, Inc., which the city has hired to review & report on the options for redevelopment on the site, including revenue & cost impact projections.
The school was built in 1973, stopped being used in 2004. Because it's been out of use for 5 years, its code violations are no longer grandfathered in, so any new use would need to bring the building up to code, requiring extensive renovation. There are approx. 100,000 usable square feet in the building, and the footprint of the building (including its inner courtyard which is entirely enclosed) is about 58% of the lot. The other part is the paved ball court and the ill-repaired former parking lot that used to be where schoolkids had recess. The parcel in question is just those parts, still owned by the city.
The city sold the other side of the property (the part that faces out to Holland St.) to Tufts in 1987 and it became the Tufts Administration Building (TAB). The sale price was around $2 million from Tufts. That building was extensively renovated by Tufts. The city leases back a portion at a below-market rent, including parking spaces in the parking lot part of the TAB property. Some residents view this deal as short-sighted, because over the years since the sale the cumulative cost of leasing back space in the building has likely outstripped the financial benefit of the original sale. The consultant thinks the TAB sale was a good deal overall. Had the city taken out a bond to renovate the building itself it would also have had to service that debt and directly handle building operating costs.
The current PHSl building is 40 feet high ("3 1/2 stories"). Any new use would be recommended not to exceed or significantly exceed that height. They'd achieve 3 1/2 stories by having 3 stories facing the street and 4 stories in the back of any new building. Any new use would also be designed to face onto the neighborhood better (the current street-facing wall is pretty urelievedly brutalist).
The consultants reviewed three main options:
* Renovate and re-use for city offices and/or community space
* Sell to a private developer to renovate the existing building for an office
* Sell to a private developer to be demolished for new construction, either office or residential.
They didn't look into options like a hotel, though a hotel might be feasible for the location, because the city's focus is putting a hotel closer to Davis. A resident raised that since this parcel is closer to Tufts and not far from Davis it might actually be better for a hotel than Davis proper. Both of the sell to a developer options include the option to seek out some community use to be set aside as part of the deal with the developer.
Both a prior study and additional work by the Concord Square consultants looked at renovating the building for city use. The Powder House school is a large portion of what the consultant called a surplus of city-owned office space. A resident disputes this because the city also leases space from the TAB and from the Boys & Girls Club. The consultant says we'd save $132,000 by not leasing space from TAB, but didn't have figures for the B&G Club.
The current updated estimate for the cost of renovating the existing building to allow it to be used for anything is $15,600,000. Then there is the additional cost of an architect, etc., plus parking structure which would be needed for offices etc., which would raise the cost to $22,774,000. Ron and others raise questions over the need for a 4-story parking garage to accommodate 200 cars, given the building's proximity to Davis and several bus lines.
According to the consultant, given the $22+ million cost to renovate, if the city took out bonds to do a renovation it would annually cost the city $1.5 million, even after what we'd save by not leasing the TAB. When questioned about the B&G Club savings he revises the estimate to 1-1.5 million. The annual operating costs (included in that larger figure) would be $400,000. It's unclear for how long the city would be doing debt service to the bonds, which is the bulk of that annual cost.
In terms of a sale to private developers, they estimate the city could make more money off a sale intended for office use than for residential. In the residential portion of the presentation, they make the claim that market rate rent for a 1-bed in the area, new, is $1900. SInce I live in a (not new, but renovated and nice) 2.5 bed near the school that's less, I and others question this figure. A local property owner questions why her 1/10 of an acre lot is valued - just the land - at $300,000 when the consultants seem to be valuing the PHS land parcel itself as much less. The consultants project a maximum sale price of the 2 acre parcel at around $2 million.
If the city were to allow a 5-story building, the sale price to a developer could be higher and the property tax base would be higher, but the neighborhood impact would be greater.
A deal with a developer may be possible to include community space in the plans, but it would likely cost the city. The consultants recommend allowing developers mixed use, and setting incentives for community space.
The attendees - including the aldermen - were pretty vocal. It was clear nearly everyone in the neighborhood wants to see some part of of the property remain community space but are not sure how best to manage it. Mayor Curtatone says he wants any community center the city builds to be more central and so does not want this parcel to be a community center. Alderman Gewirtz wants to know what about hybrid uses, such as a sale to a developer with a chunk of the property kept aside for the city to use for community space. Alderman Trane wants a community center on this parcel, period.
Several of us want to know why, if the parcel is going to be rezoned, it can't be sold to build houses instead of being sold to build a mega apartment building that would require a parking garage and provide less property tax revenue per square foot.
Lee Auspitz from the Davis Square Task Force says that the examination of all this doesn't take into account the impact to the city's revenue from changes in property tax because of whatever changes there are in the neighborhood. A park might cost the city money but then drive up property taxes in the area and so raise more revenue; the opposite for a less-desirable development like offices. Private residential housing in a highly attractive neighborhood may raise more in property tax than commercial property. Why doesn't the city have any figures on these situations?
Many of the community members express concern at the parcel going out of city hands never to be re-purchasable. Rachel Heller (former alderman candidate) suggests looking into a long-term lease to allow new development but keep the option for the city to regain control at a later time.
Mayor Curtatone says that "we aren't going to spend $15 million for a community center" and if we do, it's going to be more central to the city as a whole. The sale of this property would be money to go directly to cutting down debt service, which would then allow the city to invest in new infrastructure like police & fire buildings, new library. He isn't sure there ever will be a public use for the parcel. Neighbors object that there isn't much public space in Ward 7 at all, and this is pretty much the last that hasn't been developed.
I should note that I'm biased; I definitely want to see long-term and public needs considered more than the immediate revenue issue. I'd like to see the city keep some of the property, even if a chunk is sold. Even if a city part of the property can't be developed immediately, or even if it just is an open paved ball court park for the near future, IMHO it's better than giving it up for good. I'll be writing a post about my thoughts for the property separately, but I'm sure my perspective colored my notes.
Several of us in the community are considering starting an informal group to further discuss what we as neighbors want from the redevelopment of the site. If you're interested, drop me a comment here and I'll be sure to let you know what's up.
The city representative running the meeting promised to post the consultants' powerpoint and data to answer several questions from both constituents and Aldermen Trane and Gewirtz, so I'll add that link to this post as soon as it's available and I can track it down. For that reason I'm not adding all the exact figures and stuff to the already long notes section of this post.
ron_newman was also there, as were Aldermen Trane, Gewirtz and Connolly, and for most of the meeting Mayor Curtatone. We also learned that the 5:30 time was chosen because they'd though the city budget hearings would still be underway tonight, but because the budget was finalized late last night the officials were able to stay at the meeting and in fact the meeting was able to go an extra half hour or so. The bulk of the presentation was by a consultant from Concord Square Planning & Development, Inc., which the city has hired to review & report on the options for redevelopment on the site, including revenue & cost impact projections.
The school was built in 1973, stopped being used in 2004. Because it's been out of use for 5 years, its code violations are no longer grandfathered in, so any new use would need to bring the building up to code, requiring extensive renovation. There are approx. 100,000 usable square feet in the building, and the footprint of the building (including its inner courtyard which is entirely enclosed) is about 58% of the lot. The other part is the paved ball court and the ill-repaired former parking lot that used to be where schoolkids had recess. The parcel in question is just those parts, still owned by the city.
The city sold the other side of the property (the part that faces out to Holland St.) to Tufts in 1987 and it became the Tufts Administration Building (TAB). The sale price was around $2 million from Tufts. That building was extensively renovated by Tufts. The city leases back a portion at a below-market rent, including parking spaces in the parking lot part of the TAB property. Some residents view this deal as short-sighted, because over the years since the sale the cumulative cost of leasing back space in the building has likely outstripped the financial benefit of the original sale. The consultant thinks the TAB sale was a good deal overall. Had the city taken out a bond to renovate the building itself it would also have had to service that debt and directly handle building operating costs.
The current PHSl building is 40 feet high ("3 1/2 stories"). Any new use would be recommended not to exceed or significantly exceed that height. They'd achieve 3 1/2 stories by having 3 stories facing the street and 4 stories in the back of any new building. Any new use would also be designed to face onto the neighborhood better (the current street-facing wall is pretty urelievedly brutalist).
The consultants reviewed three main options:
* Renovate and re-use for city offices and/or community space
* Sell to a private developer to renovate the existing building for an office
* Sell to a private developer to be demolished for new construction, either office or residential.
They didn't look into options like a hotel, though a hotel might be feasible for the location, because the city's focus is putting a hotel closer to Davis. A resident raised that since this parcel is closer to Tufts and not far from Davis it might actually be better for a hotel than Davis proper. Both of the sell to a developer options include the option to seek out some community use to be set aside as part of the deal with the developer.
Both a prior study and additional work by the Concord Square consultants looked at renovating the building for city use. The Powder House school is a large portion of what the consultant called a surplus of city-owned office space. A resident disputes this because the city also leases space from the TAB and from the Boys & Girls Club. The consultant says we'd save $132,000 by not leasing space from TAB, but didn't have figures for the B&G Club.
The current updated estimate for the cost of renovating the existing building to allow it to be used for anything is $15,600,000. Then there is the additional cost of an architect, etc., plus parking structure which would be needed for offices etc., which would raise the cost to $22,774,000. Ron and others raise questions over the need for a 4-story parking garage to accommodate 200 cars, given the building's proximity to Davis and several bus lines.
According to the consultant, given the $22+ million cost to renovate, if the city took out bonds to do a renovation it would annually cost the city $1.5 million, even after what we'd save by not leasing the TAB. When questioned about the B&G Club savings he revises the estimate to 1-1.5 million. The annual operating costs (included in that larger figure) would be $400,000. It's unclear for how long the city would be doing debt service to the bonds, which is the bulk of that annual cost.
In terms of a sale to private developers, they estimate the city could make more money off a sale intended for office use than for residential. In the residential portion of the presentation, they make the claim that market rate rent for a 1-bed in the area, new, is $1900. SInce I live in a (not new, but renovated and nice) 2.5 bed near the school that's less, I and others question this figure. A local property owner questions why her 1/10 of an acre lot is valued - just the land - at $300,000 when the consultants seem to be valuing the PHS land parcel itself as much less. The consultants project a maximum sale price of the 2 acre parcel at around $2 million.
If the city were to allow a 5-story building, the sale price to a developer could be higher and the property tax base would be higher, but the neighborhood impact would be greater.
A deal with a developer may be possible to include community space in the plans, but it would likely cost the city. The consultants recommend allowing developers mixed use, and setting incentives for community space.
The attendees - including the aldermen - were pretty vocal. It was clear nearly everyone in the neighborhood wants to see some part of of the property remain community space but are not sure how best to manage it. Mayor Curtatone says he wants any community center the city builds to be more central and so does not want this parcel to be a community center. Alderman Gewirtz wants to know what about hybrid uses, such as a sale to a developer with a chunk of the property kept aside for the city to use for community space. Alderman Trane wants a community center on this parcel, period.
Several of us want to know why, if the parcel is going to be rezoned, it can't be sold to build houses instead of being sold to build a mega apartment building that would require a parking garage and provide less property tax revenue per square foot.
Lee Auspitz from the Davis Square Task Force says that the examination of all this doesn't take into account the impact to the city's revenue from changes in property tax because of whatever changes there are in the neighborhood. A park might cost the city money but then drive up property taxes in the area and so raise more revenue; the opposite for a less-desirable development like offices. Private residential housing in a highly attractive neighborhood may raise more in property tax than commercial property. Why doesn't the city have any figures on these situations?
Many of the community members express concern at the parcel going out of city hands never to be re-purchasable. Rachel Heller (former alderman candidate) suggests looking into a long-term lease to allow new development but keep the option for the city to regain control at a later time.
Mayor Curtatone says that "we aren't going to spend $15 million for a community center" and if we do, it's going to be more central to the city as a whole. The sale of this property would be money to go directly to cutting down debt service, which would then allow the city to invest in new infrastructure like police & fire buildings, new library. He isn't sure there ever will be a public use for the parcel. Neighbors object that there isn't much public space in Ward 7 at all, and this is pretty much the last that hasn't been developed.
I should note that I'm biased; I definitely want to see long-term and public needs considered more than the immediate revenue issue. I'd like to see the city keep some of the property, even if a chunk is sold. Even if a city part of the property can't be developed immediately, or even if it just is an open paved ball court park for the near future, IMHO it's better than giving it up for good. I'll be writing a post about my thoughts for the property separately, but I'm sure my perspective colored my notes.
Several of us in the community are considering starting an informal group to further discuss what we as neighbors want from the redevelopment of the site. If you're interested, drop me a comment here and I'll be sure to let you know what's up.
The city representative running the meeting promised to post the consultants' powerpoint and data to answer several questions from both constituents and Aldermen Trane and Gewirtz, so I'll add that link to this post as soon as it's available and I can track it down. For that reason I'm not adding all the exact figures and stuff to the already long notes section of this post.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 03:46 am (UTC)That was Lee Auspitz, who occasionally posts here as
no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 04:28 am (UTC)Here's the map I found, dated 1933-1950. (It is page 211 of Volume 2.) There was no building at all on this site before the school -- the map shows it as the "Shaw Playground" behind the Western Junior High School (now the TAB building).
no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 06:03 am (UTC)Thank you
Date: 2009-07-01 08:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:44 am (UTC)Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-01 05:06 pm (UTC)First of all the Mayor is right. This location is way too far off from rest of Somerville, especially the 'poorer' Somervillians, who are probably in most need of a community center. Do you really expect an Ecuadorian grandma hauling ass all the way from East Somerville to play bingo on Tuesday nights almost on the border with Arlington?
Second, why the heck do we need another community center? We have the Armory and another number private establishments that cater to our needs. Heck - you wanna take Nia lessons - go to the Armory. Wanna play a fun game - go to Orleans for Trivia Night or Highland Kitchen for spelling bee. Wanna see a movie - go to Somerville Theater. Wanna have a small meeting - go to a bar/restaurant - for a price of a beer they'll be more than happy to have you there. Wanna have a big public meeting - we have VNA, Tufts, or many other spaces that have been utilized for that. Seriously do we need put the City in another 22 million in debt so we can have a location to play bingo?
I think selling the property would be the proper way to go rather than having another glorified money drain which typically community center are. I do think that one of the best options for this space however would be to sell this property to a developer that would be willing to build a hotel - that's what the city really needs - no debt, inflow of cash, jobs, and long term sustainable income of tax monies.
Re: Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-01 05:09 pm (UTC)Re: Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-01 07:25 pm (UTC)Re: Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-02 12:13 am (UTC)Re: Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-02 07:09 pm (UTC)Re: Davis Square - the center of universe
Date: 2009-07-02 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 02:25 am (UTC)I don't want to see the city sell off property cheaply and shortsightedly. On the other hand, this building really should be demolished and replaced with something more attractive, whether that replacement is private or city-owned. It's hard for me to imagine a cost-effective way to make the existing structure attractive.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 12:56 pm (UTC)I'm curious if anyone at the meeting brought up the agreement made with Mayor Curtatone when the building was closed as a school? The School Committee agreed to the closure of the school only after the Mayor stated that it would not be used for anything other than a re-location/consolidation of city offices, such as the Recreation Department. Further, the Mayor agreed that regardless of what city agencies were housed there, that the gym would remain open and available to the public. He is now reneging on every promise he made at the time and is probably hoping that noone remembers his promises. As far as location goes for a community center. The school was used for many years for youth sports, such as basketball. It was chosen specifically because you can get to it from every bus line in the city. So although it seems out of the way, it is actually one of the most accessible locations in the city, especially via public transportation.
Someone above suggested that a community center wasn't needed because of all of the events already around the city. However, most of the events cited were not for families/children/elderly. Somerville has no community center (the one mentioned at Mystic Ave. is not a community center, it is primarily for the use of those who live at the Mystic Ave Projects, and I don't believe it has any facilities, such as a gym, or a small stage, which the PHCS building does have). We do have several elderly centers. Youth programs spend enormous amounts of money to use the facilities, like gyms, at our schools. It's time we had a space that was truly for the residents of this city.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 01:33 pm (UTC)Build offices
Date: 2009-07-02 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-06 07:02 pm (UTC)