Copper Mill Development | Elm Street and Grove Street | Davis Square

[stick n move]

People care before its built, then after it blends into the background noise and ppl dont even notice anymore. Like ppl have noted with the 20 story tower in central sq.

Someone said the ppl in davis probably wouldnt care about 7 story buildings. Again, they would before theyre built, just like they do everywhere else across the city. Then after theyre built ppl would forget they even exist. Theyll give hell right up to that point though.

In the chestnut hill redevelopment thread I pointed out how theres all kinds of brutalist towers around there that nobody even pays attention to and most ppl prob dont even know exist. That doesnt stop them from flipping their shit when a new proposal comes.

The ppl also saying theres plenty more spots aound davis to develop… yes. We should have all of the above imo. Denser around the station is good imo so if anywhere thats where a residential tower should go, but yes we should also redevelop the other lots around davis. It doesnt need to be either or. If the tower is dead though then I hope they build something else there whether 7 stories or whatever, having all of these 1 story retail buildings all over the city around transit is ridiculous. The retail should stay but it should be in the ground floor of something mixed use.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It's sad to see Davis Square being calcified into a cute suburban square, a wannabe Arlington Center in which any trace of urban development or density is cast off and relegated to the great unwashed gritty eastern part of Somerville. When I was a kid in the 1950s and 60s, Davis Square was a working class powerhouse with three full-fledged department stores (Gorin's, Grants and Park Snow) plus a large Woolworths and an awesome movie theater. We would walk there all the time from our North Cambridge neighborhood to shop for our school clothes as well as watch the latest movies in the Saturday matinee. What I'm saying is Davis Square used to be a vibrant urban shopping and entertainment hub, but now it seems to aspire only to be a motley collection of cutesy small shops, lamely aping a small suburban town square. The NIMBYs in the area need to get a grip and realize it is 2026, that Davis Square is located on the Red Line in a freaking large urban city, and stop acting like a bunch of country bumpkins and suburban wannabees.

 

[shmessy]

Six 7-story buildings would be more impactful than one 26-story…

.....and would use up alot more land. Six 26-story buildings would be more impactful too. Of course.

.

 

[Equilibria]

Funny how we're just taking Copper Mill at his word:

Wilson also noted that Flynn and Copper Mill hadn’t filed formal paperwork with the city for the tower. The firm had once been hoping to pursue the project by making use of Massachusetts’ 40B program that can fast-track projects with affordable housing, although the firm’s application with the state has been paused for some time.

Separately, neighbors also viewed with some alarm the news that Flynn was facing a lawsuit filed this year over a business deal in Cape Cod, where the previous owners of a hotel he had bought accused him of missing millions of dollars in payments. Flynn has denied wrongdoing.

My man's like Lyle Lanley if he couldn't convince the residents of Springfield. No different than Korff (of Riverside and Kenmore Hotel fame - remember that one?).

 

[BronsonShore]

Look, to the extent that anyone is merely making this a "height vs. no height" argument, you're missing the point. Yes, it's true that there are some (very loud) people who are afraid of development of any kind and will use height as a boogey man. But I don't think that's what happened here.

People don't want to see the parts of a neighborhood that already work changed. And make no mistake: this part of Davis Square absolutely works as it is. It is already home to thriving retail and street life -- it is very much what we should hope to make more of our city look like.

To that end, juxtaposing this tower against the one in Central Square that someone brought up is instructive. This is what the Central Square tower replaced:

A couple of dead, souless suburban buildings that added absolutely nothing to the street and were on the edge of the square.

This tower in Davis is completely different. It is right in the heart of the square and it is already a thriving urban space. Good urbanity =/= height in and of itself. If it did, everyone would sing the praises of the West End while bemoaning the North End. Good urbanity is about walkability, a variety of uses, and density. It's about creating spaces where people and ideas congregate. That's what we already have here, and when you have an urban space that already works, you don't mess with it.

I was against this tower, too. Not because I thought it was too tall -- by all means, go ahead build this on one of the existing parking lots nearby (and, while you're at it, add 3-4 floors of residential on top of the existing buildings on this site). I was against it because this part of Davis already works as an urban space and doesn't need to be bulldozed to build Seaport II, complete with the inevitable swath of corporate chains that would ultimately be the only places able to afford rent in the new retail spaces..

We used to actually evaluate and discuss the built environment on this board. Now all we do is count the floors. It's boring as hell.

 

[stick n move]

We used to actually evaluate and discuss the built environment on this board. Now all we do is count the floors. It's boring as hell.

This is not true at all. Theres literally like 2 ppl who do that.

 

[BronsonShore]

This is not true at all. Theres literally like 2 ppl who do that.

You're right, and yet it somehow comes to dominate every single conversation.

 

[sean99090900]

I don't see any reason why high demand areas shouldn't get more density. People like Davis, let more people live there!

I think this is why the traditional NIMBY argument that X building should go into an abandoned brownfield parcel instead of a desirable neighborhood fails. By definition that brownfield parcel does not have a track record for desirability, and more than that actively has a record of being a lower value location (i.e. why it's empty in the first place lol). That whole seaport mentality, clearly works sometimes, but pushes investment to the places where financing and revenues will be the most difficult

 

[curcuas]

Right, sometimes you need to kickstart the development of valuable brownfield land (eg the Seaport, or where there's old industrial sites near transit) but that should be the exception not the rule.

 

[Ruairi]

Look, to the extent that anyone is merely making this a "height vs. no height" argument, you're missing the point. Yes, it's true that there are some (very loud) people who are afraid of development of any kind and will use height as a boogey man. But I don't think that's what happened here.

People don't want to see the parts of a neighborhood that already work changed. And make no mistake: this part of Davis Square absolutely works as it is. It is already home to thriving retail and street life -- it is very much what we should hope to make more of our city look like.

To that end, juxtaposing this tower against the one in Central Square that someone brought up is instructive. This is what the Central Square tower replaced:

View attachment 75360

A couple of dead, souless suburban buildings that added absolutely nothing to the street and were on the edge of the square.

This tower in Davis is completely different. It is right in the heart of the square and it is already a thriving urban space. Good urbanity =/= height in and of itself. If it did, everyone would sing the praises of the West End while bemoaning the North End. Good urbanity is about walkability, a variety of uses, and density. It's about creating spaces where people and ideas congregate. That's what we already have here, and when you have an urban space that already works, you don't mess with it.

I was against this tower, too. Not because I thought it was too tall -- by all means, go ahead build this on one of the existing parking lots nearby (and, while you're at it, add 3-4 floors of residential on top of the existing buildings on this site). I was against it because this part of Davis already works as an urban space and doesn't need to be bulldozed to build Seaport II, complete with the inevitable swath of corporate chains that would ultimately be the only places able to afford rent in the new retail spaces..

We used to actually evaluate and discuss the built environment on this board. Now all we do is count the floors. It's boring as hell.

yeah, this is what I was trying to get at.
I loved watching the bacon building go up in Union
It was built on an old radiator scrap yard and other wasteland.

 

[Ruairi]

Right, sometimes you need to kickstart the development of valuable brownfield land (eg the Seaport, or where there's old industrial sites near transit) but that should be the exception not the rule.

I would have thought developing brownfield/dated industrial land beside transit should be the priority.

 

[Lrfox]

Look, to the extent that anyone is merely making this a "height vs. no height" argument, you're missing the point. Yes, it's true that there are some (very loud) people who are afraid of development of any kind and will use height as a boogey man. But I don't think that's what happened here.

People don't want to see the parts of a neighborhood that already work changed. And make no mistake: this part of Davis Square absolutely works as it is. It is already home to thriving retail and street life -- it is very much what we should hope to make more of our city look like.

To that end, juxtaposing this tower against the one in Central Square that someone brought up is instructive. This is what the Central Square tower replaced:

View attachment 75360

A couple of dead, souless suburban buildings that added absolutely nothing to the street and were on the edge of the square.

This tower in Davis is completely different. It is right in the heart of the square and it is already a thriving urban space. Good urbanity =/= height in and of itself. If it did, everyone would sing the praises of the West End while bemoaning the North End. Good urbanity is about walkability, a variety of uses, and density. It's about creating spaces where people and ideas congregate. That's what we already have here, and when you have an urban space that already works, you don't mess with it.

I was against this tower, too. Not because I thought it was too tall -- by all means, go ahead build this on one of the existing parking lots nearby (and, while you're at it, add 3-4 floors of residential on top of the existing buildings on this site). I was against it because this part of Davis already works as an urban space and doesn't need to be bulldozed to build Seaport II, complete with the inevitable swath of corporate chains that would ultimately be the only places able to afford rent in the new retail spaces..

We used to actually evaluate and discuss the built environment on this board. Now all we do is count the floors. It's boring as hell.

This. This is not part of Davis that needs help becoming a better urban environment. It's very good already. By all means, slap a 20 story mixed use tower at the old Rite Aid site and 2 more on the surface lots along Day St. Build a ~40 unit residential on the parking lot behind Dragon Pizza. All of the added foot traffic will provide a nice boost to Davis. But, physically, nothing needs to be done to the built environment fronting that stretch of Elm.

 

[stick n move]

Since the towers dead they should build a 6 story building on the parking lot in back behind the existing storefronts. You can just keep the wasteful 1 story single use buildings where theyre at, they dont take up that much space anyways, and put the building behind them on the parking lot. Those storefronts would act basically like a retail podium. The building would be set pretty far back from elm street so from the street youd probably barely see it.

Also if you put ground floor retail in the new building youd actually be adding more street wall to davis sq/grove street that didnt exist before and it would complete the triangle. Itd be a win/win, the existing stores stay where theyre at, you get 5 new stories of residential, plus extend the retail street wall in davis.

The 1 caveat is youd probably need to propose it at 7 stories originally then the nimbys can get it knocked down to 6 for.. reasons, and then everyones sort of happy.

 

[Charlie_mta]

From some of the posts on here, I get that Davis Square is generally a nice place to hang out in its current state of small-ish buildings and shops with a small town laid-back feel. But a long term plan for Davis Square is needed which addresses its eventual, and probably inevitable, development into a high density transportation hub. It is historically a very active center of the West Somerville/North Cambridge community, it is on the Red Line, and it also has a major multi-use path running through its center from Boston to Bedford. Given all that, a few high rise residential buildings would not be out of place. It would be great if Somerville would issue a plan, with public input, for Davis Square mapping out in detail its desirable future uses and development density.

 

[Longfellow]

The word from in somerville is that a plan for davis was supposed to be issued, and then it was delayed because the mayor had trouble filling open positions in the planning department (shocking since he is requiring 5 days in office...) so it's recently been restarted. Of course I am highly suspicious of planning as a whole especially since I don't think the reality of how development works and individual parcels work fits into a centrally planned "all buildings will be 2 stories tall and have 100% affordable housing and 50% green space" thing the """neighbors""" will ask for.

 

[Blackbird]

.....and would use up alot more land.

We should be using up land. I think a page or two earlier in this thread, a poster showed a map with all the surface parking lots around Davis. We should focus on filling those first (maybe with one becoming a garage to offset loss of spaces) before we start knocking down nice storefronts like Dragon Pizza.

Heck there’s a perfectly good example right across the street from this spot: why not throw a 5-over-1 onto the lot between the liquor store and the playground? Or how about the down the street where Highland meets Grove?

Six 26-story buildings would be more impactful too. Of course.

Touché.

Loathe as I am to make an argument around “neighborhood character”, but Somerville is the already the densest city in the commonwealth, and it has been building a lot of apartments over the last decade with more in the works. It doesn’t feel fair that the onus of new housing development should be on the place that’s already doing the most.

We should really be trying to get more duplexes and triple-deckers in Lexington and Winchester before we ask Somerville to load up with 26-story towers.

From some of the posts on here, I get that Davis Square is generally a nice place to hang out in its current state of small-ish buildings and shops with a small town laid-back feel. But a long term plan for Davis Square is needed which addresses its eventual, and probably inevitable, development into a high density transportation hub. It is historically a very active center of the West Somerville/North Cambridge community, it is on the Red Line, and it also has a major multi-use path running through its center from Boston to Bedford. Given all that, a few high rise residential buildings would not be out of place. It would be great if Somerville would issue a plan, with public input, for Davis Square mapping out in detail its desirable future uses and development density.

By that logic, there should be highrises first in Porter and Harvard as both are bigger transportation hubs than Davis.

 

[Charlie_mta]

By that logic, there should be highrises first in Porter and Harvard as both are bigger transportation hubs than Davis.

Agree, but there should be highrises in each of these three transportation hubs.

 

[Equilibria]

Agree, but there should be highrises in each of these three transportation hubs.

That's essentially the urban renewal mindset: this neighborhood isn't serving the purpose the planners think it could, so let's get rid of everything that makes it special and build something more aligned with our worldview. Density and housing can be achieved just as easily with triple-deckers on a grid, brownstone townhouses, or attractive six-story apartment buildings as it can with towers in a park, as this group well knows.

FWIW, I now live in a 20-story building next to a transit hub in a different metro area - Cambridge is both more urban and more pleasant (and more prosperous), which is why it costs way more to live there.

 

[Longfellow]

Yeah but what if it was considered better for society and for Somerville to have more people in it? We are dense already, yes (and most of that is because a low % of land dedicated to institutions, airports, parks, commercial, etc. as compared to Boston and Cambridge) but it should not be considered weird or bad to argue that it should be denser. Density doesn't directly relate to making a place "worse".

let's get rid of everything that makes it special

I don't think you mean this, lol? In what world does single story commercial buildings with sky high rent make a place special? In theory it is the people and the places and the form that makes a place special. And it is inarguable that the actual core of Davis is suburban, which is something that has been rightly pointed out as part of this process, and people seem to be in denial about. In 20 years your Burren (which you don't visit btw) will be a Bank of America the way things are going. Will you be happy then? Will you have "saved" it?

Cambridge is both more urban and more pleasant (and more prosperous), which is why it costs way more to live there.

If there is sky-high demand to live somewhere, are we obligated to respond to that demand in any way, or should the response be to hit the pause button permanently? What do you think happens when we do that? Real people live here. I live here. It's not Disney World out there where we walk around the square and marvel at the shitty buildings and lick ice cream comes and feel happier for it.

It's not urban renewal to simply allow development, especially redevelopment of decrepit suburban properties such as these. Urban renewal is/was a serious, broad-scoped, and terrible thing where a central planning process was used to dedensify and ruin urban areas. Applying that concept to the idea of healing the wounds in the urban fabric with new people and businesses is totally uncool on the face of it. It disrespects what happened to all those people / the way the suffered and the lessons we learned from it. How is a single tower "aligned with a worldview"? I am really curious to hear what your answer is on this. Is it vibes? Is it aesthetics? You live in such a tower, but you're "not like those people" who live in ones in Cambridge, I assume? What political stance does the tower project onto you? Demolishing a neighborhood and putting in six lane roads and towers in a park did represent a (racist) point of view. If this tower already was there, would you be on this forum complaining about it? No, you wouldn't even know it was there, lol.

 

[sean99090900]

That's essentially the urban renewal mindset: this neighborhood isn't serving the purpose the planners think it could, so let's get rid of everything that makes it special and build something more aligned with our worldview. Density and housing can be achieved just as easily with triple-deckers on a grid, brownstone townhouses, or attractive six-story apartment buildings as it can with towers in a park, as this group well knows.

FWIW, I now live in a 20-story building next to a transit hub in a different metro area - Cambridge is both more urban and more pleasant (and more prosperous), which is why it costs way more to live there.

For what it's worth, I actually think that characterization is exactly backwards in the sense that urban renewal as it was practiced in the 20th century grew out of utopian social planners that prioritized their aesthetic biases over that of the people living in those urban spaces. Market forces and economic viability for a large project means that society at large (not the limited set of existing tenants) believes that this would be a better use of land than what exists there presently. Prioritizing the form of a historic neighborhood even when that form is no longer fit for purpose given demand is to me an equally illegitimate imposition of aesthetic values.