by Alain Jehlen in Development and Zoning, Neighborhoods and Squares - Posted on December 4, 2008 at 11:37 am
[I'm posting this for Union Square Neighbors. -- Alain Jehlen]
Union Square Neighbors (USN) is a group of area residents who are concerned with the future of Union Square. We believe that careful planning and a cohesive community vision are critical to the future of the square. We have been working over the past two years to ensure that development builds upon the scale and character of Union Square and surrounding neighborhoods (we invite you to join us at unionquareneighbors(at)gmail.org).
Our priority is to get the right balance between a vital, livable Square and creating new business and housing. We want to manage growth so it doesn’t overwhelm the people and the businesses that are here now.
The City of Somerville has been working on a proposal to change the zoning in Union Square over the past two years. Two proposals have been allowed to expire by the Board of Alderman. This past spring, the City convened a focus group including representatives from various city agencies, and businesses and city staff along with two representatives from our group. While the makeup of this group was weighted heavily against the neighborhood representation on most issues, our participation brought about some changes in the City’s proposal. There are, however, still significant differences that are critical to the future livability of the Union Square area.
The Green Line will be good for Union Square. It’s long overdue. And it doesn’t have to bring cataclysmic change. At Porter Square and Davis Square, once the T was in place, it started drawing people and activity to it; old businesses kept on going and some renovated, new businesses went in, and new buildings went up—gradually.
But the city’s rezoning plan for Union Square provides inappropriately heightened incentives, that would push developers to build too big and too fast. It would bump up density and height enormously. This graphic shows some height comparisons (scale is approximate):
The city’s plan has recently reduced its proposed maximum height at the public safety site to 70 feet, but still allows 85-foot height limit along Prospect Street in the Square, but with “green” construction could go up to 100 feet—taller than Prospect Hill. Most experts estimate green (LEED Silver) construction would cost about 2 percent extra. If the density bonus allows 15 percent more density, any developer would do it, so the effective height limit would be 100 feet. The elevation above sea level of the Prospect Hill park grass area is 90 feet, and the average elevation of Union Square is 10 feet above sea level. Therefore, the top of such buildings would be at 110 above grade – 20 feet taller than the 90 foot above grade of the Prospect Hill park grass area on Monroe! Even the 85 foot “basic” height would produce a building 95 feet above grade, 5 feet taller than Prospect Hill, These numbers do not include the 15 feet extra height allowed for mechanical equipment.
We propose an as-of-right limit of 55 feet, with 70 feet allowed by Special Permit in the Public Safety site AND along Prospect Street, so new buildings won’t be out of scale with the street, the rest of the square, and tower over people on the street and the two and three-story buildings in the neighborhood. At the taller height, there would be a LEED silver requirement (LEED is the national standard for making buildings energy conserving, resource efficient and healthy for occupants) for extra zoning flexibility, as well as a 10,000 square foot limit on the floor plate (the square feet per floor) of portions of the building above 55 feet, so that as the building gets taller, it does not form a wall across the sky.
The best way to look at density is through the “floor area ratio” or FAR—the floor area compared to the size of the lot. A 1,000 square-foot lot zoned for a 2.0 FAR can have 2,000 square feet of floor.
The current zoning is 2.0. The city’s proposal calls for a 3.5 FAR in the public safety site and up Prospect Street, (and up to 4.0 if LEED Silver). These represent increases of 50 to 100 percent in the development values. They are also proposing 4.5 FAR in Boynton Yards (5.5 if LEED silver) — doubling or tripling the property development values. That will push people to build big. If your property is worth twice or three times what it was worth last week, that’s a gold rush.
We can look to Porter Square and Davis Square as models. Porter has a height limit of 55 feet, and Davis has 50 feet limit, both with an FAR of 2.0. With the Red Line now in place for about 20 years in those squares, the development of successful, popular mixed use areas has proceeded steadily, avoiding the economic crashing that might have occurred if overzealous zoning had been rushed into place. The 55’-70’ height limit we propose in and near Union Square is the height of buildings that you find in most of the well-loved sections of great cities.
On affordable housing, we would support more than the city’s proposed 12 1/2 percent minimum, but not as an excuse to build ever more height and density. We were, in fact, an early supporter of increasing the affordable housing percentage with the USN rezoning petition two years ago, proposing a balance of artist housing that would make a higher percentage of affordable housing open to anyone. The same goes for “green” development incentives: We were early advocates, and we’re in still in favor of requiring LEED, but not at the expense of inappropriate increases in height and density.
We want an environment where people don’t feel packed in. We can have good density and still have moderate-sized buildings, with windows close enough to the street that residents will naturally watch the street for safety, scaled so there is open space where people can sit and relax, courtyards where children can play outside in the view of their parents, open sky and sunlight along the streets, encouraging people to walk – to shop, to travel, to socialize.
We know Somerville needs more tax revenue, but the city’s plan seems to say Union Square is now going to be the epicenter of development for the whole city. We feel it can be part of the picture, but not the only tax generator. We want to preserve the neighborhood and historic qualities of Union Square, and build on those rather than throw them all to the side.
Stuart Dash, Kristin Zecchi, Reebee Garofalo, Betsy O’Neill Larkin, Janine Fay, Vickie Choitz for Union Square Neighbors
Mr. Dash,
This is a good example why people who grew up in Somerville resent some (not all) newcomers. Since the end of rent control in 1996, many people who had lived in rent controll apartments came here. They were not low income people. Paying cheap rent for years gave the means to buy a home here.
They drove up the price of housing and, with it, the property taxes that long time home owners of modest means must pay. They jacked up the rents in their rental units to pay for the mortgages on their inflated housing prices. Not a few long time residents have been forced out.
The taller the office buildings are in Union Square, the more taxes they produce, and the more tax relief for homeowners.
Many (but not all) of the members of your group have come here since 1996. You think that you can define for your neighbors what good design is. You don’t want the views from your own houses blocked. You want want Unions Square to fit your own “aesthetics.” The current Union Square plan is already a compromise to your complaining, but you don’t want to compromise.
Aren’t you the Cambridge city planner who worked on North Point? Would you please explain why it is not hypocritical for you to plan buildings there that are much taller than in the Union Square plan, but to reject them in your own neighborhood where they can benefit working people?
The Fool makes some excellent points. Somerville has a structural fiscal deficit because decades of good-ole-boy government have resulted in a formerly industrial city whose land use is now dominated by housing. Well-connected developers got zoning approvals to convert all of the old factory buildings to aparments, cram multiple new units onto small lots, and carve up larger homes into condos.
Housing pays a tax rate that is two-thirds that of commercial uses, but housing creates twice the costs in city services. So we have a city on welfare. State aid makes up more than a third of Somerville’s budget. Somerville’s per capita state aid is third in the Commonwealth, after Chelsea and Lawrence. When state aid gets cut back, as it did in 2001-2002, the city has to lay off hundreds of workers. Boston and Cambridge have two jobs for every resident; Somerville has two residents for every job.
Transit nodes, such as the Green Line in Union Square, are exactly where you want to build vertically. Especially in the city that is the densest in New England. Imposing height limits because some people who feel entitled don’t want their views blocked is a bad idea. Planners have to weigh the desires of the few who have nice views and don’t want them blocked, against those of homeowners who need tax relief and workers who need living-wage jobs.
I agree with Bill Shelton and Fool on the Hill.
Did you know that Cambridge has about 20% more people than Somerville but their annual budget is almost 250% larger than Somerville’s? That discrepency has relatively little to do with Harvard, Central or Porter Squares and very much to do with the numerous 100 foot plus buildings in KENDALL Square.
We will not close the tax gap with Cambridge any time soon, but in order to progress as a city we need to narrow it a bit. If we want:
* to improve our schools, parks and libraries (my top 3 priorities)
* better pedestrian and bicycle access on public ways (probably my 4th priority)
* to make our sidewalks and public buildings more accessible to the disAbled,
we need a combination of smart management and adequate funding.
With the combination of the aforementioned budget discrepancy with our neighbor city and the general state of the economy and the Commonwealth’s budget, adequate funding is definitely a question mark.
I would be more than willing to pay higher property taxes if I could ensure my priorities would be among those addressed – but I have a feeling I would be in the minority. (If you disagree with that, by all means start a campaign for higher property taxes – I will sign on!). The other way to increase revenue is to increase the tax base. I suspect that is the objective with allowing taller buildings in the redevelopment of Union Square.
Point of Information: a 100 foot tall building will rise 100 feet “above grade”. “Above grade” has nothing to do with “above sea level”. Bottom line, it’s an 8 or 9 story building – I would have no problem with building even taller.
I’d much rather have Union Square resemble Davis or Porter than Kendall. The hearings that have been broadcast on TV have showed that there is still work to do on the height standards.
I’m also more and more concerned about the arts overlay. Why are we favoring artists and not, say, cops or teachers or auto mechanics? If Union Square is affordable, the artists will stay. Shouldn’t it be affordable for everyone?
I guess I’m a little late on this comment, but hey. I’m from Cambridge, so I’m slow.
Just a few facts here. Somerville has always been much more residential than Cambridge. Cambridge has had more residents, but many more packed into big apartment buildings and dorms. But the main point is, Cambridge always had a lot more industry than Somerville, just like now it has more office buildings, labs, etc. Harvard and Central Squares are denser than any Somerville square. Porter Square is more like Somerville. Most of the industry and development goes on in the eastern half of Cambridge because it’s so close to the center Boston.
Lots of Cambridge residents complain about over-development but the folks who run the city just keep on developing it. (Our City Manager style of government is very friendly to this process) They seldom see a development proposal that they don’t like. Every time, we hear how good it is for the taxes and construction jobs. But guess what—our middle-income working class people are going, going, gone. The tax base expands, sure, but high-income professionals keep coming in to be near the new developments which cater to them.
Maybe Somerville would like a few of our luxury high-rises and biotech labs. I wish we could figure out a way to roll some over to yall!
The main reason we keep having these taxes versus human-scale conflicts is that we rely on the property tax for so much of our city budgets. Why not get rid of the property tax and switch to a local income tax to support city services?
Bill Cunningham -
How is a 55 foot height limit going to keep “middle-income working class people” from “going going gone” out of Union Square?
100 foot tall buildings should not be considered out of scale for a city of Somerville’s population density. We need more commercial property growth and more green space – more low-rise development isn’t going to cut it (there is already way too much of that in Somerville). If the private capital is there, it’s past time for a little bit of vertical growth.
Steve, Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that by itself a height limit will “save Union Square for the working class.” My point was that development brings other changes along with increased property tax revenues. There’s always a trade-off. If residents want taller buildings for reasons other than getting more tax revenues for Somerville, that’s another matter.
I was mostly addressing Bill Shelton’s comment because I didn’t want readers to get the impression that Somerville used to have more jobs and Cambridge fewer jobs per resident. As far as blue-collar jobs, Cambridge used to have a lot more than Somerville and now has very few, while Somerville still has some. I worked in the Inner Belt industrial park for thirty years myself. I think it’s interesting that the City of Somerville is rezoning that area in hopes of replacing the industry and warehouses with “higher and better uses.” That’s my personal example of a development-for-taxes strategy where nobody seems to be thinking about the consequences in terms of middle-income working folks.
I’m all for building tall. Why not go 400 or 500 ft. It will be iconic for Union Square. Let’s get rid of this NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude. We don’t live in the 60’s anymore – let us not be afraid of development. I’m also all for the new Revolution Stadium in Somerville.
I doubt there would be demand for a 500 ft building in Union Square. There is only a handful of buildings in Boston taller than that.
I am reserving judgement on the human foosball stadium until I know more about what kind of out of town traffic it would add to Washington Street – and how it will be mitigated.
That said, I am disappointed that this group has chosen to republish their op-ed in the Somerville Journal without correcting obvious mistakes pointed out here or even attempting to defend their proposal.
This blogger has a thoughtful take on gentrification in general that reminded me of this proposal. To me, it smacks of residents trying to “pull up the ladder” at the same time they are demanding the taxpayers provide them with public transit to their backdoor. Bill Shelton is exactly right when he says: “Transit nodes are exactly where you want to build vertically”.