275 Beacon Street (Star Market Lot) | Somerville

1

12345

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
589
Reaction score
449
www.cambridgeday.com

Old Star Market on Beacon Street isn't closing, though first pitch at renewal is met with jeers - Cambridge Day

Cambridge and Somerville have each seen Star Markets painfully shut down, but the chain’s Beacon Street store near Porter Square isn’t going anywhere – except maybe up one story, part of a proposed mixed-use project that drew some strong reactions Wednesday.
www.cambridgeday.com www.cambridgeday.com

In addition to the grocery store, live-work spaces and around 15,000 square feet of “curated” ground-floor retail, WS Development suggested putting a mix of 241 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments on the site, 193 of which would be market-rate and 48 affordable – meeting the city’s 20 percent requirement.
Click to expand...
 
Images from article:

102419i-275-Beacon-St-paseo.png

102419i-275-Beacon-St-Petsi-Pies.png


I've contacted WS Development re: how to support this project (as you can see by the article, we have our work cut out for us), I'll update for those who want to get involved.
 
The thing is... the neighbors have a point. That's an absurd massing model for that location. It would be the most massive building for miles. Nothing proposed for Union Square is that bulky.

I support the housing, but Khalsa might not be cut out for this.
 
Agreed. Given that most buildings in this area are about 3 stories tall, 7 is a bit much. If anything, I would say that 4 stories should probably be the max at this particular location. It's isolated and not around a transit hub or anything like that either, where pushing the height might be more sensible.
 
Equilibria said:
The thing is... the neighbors have a point. That's an absurd massing model for that location. It would be the most massive building for miles. Nothing proposed for Union Square is that bulky.

I support the housing, but Khalsa might not be cut out for this.
Click to expand...

"Miles" is an overstatement. Union Sq has buildings in this realm being proposed, though you're right that the massing is different from US2. Kendall is only a mile and half away. That said, I agree that the massing is the problem. It the building were redesigned with the same sq footage but a different massive I'd be completely on board. That would likely require more height though, which would both increase costs AND opposition... so it won't happen.

This is likely a red herring anyway. They'll come back with something smaller that will seem like a massive concession because they opened with such a big ask. This type of project is absolutely needed in *every* neighborhood. I've proposed a similar thought-experiment in Design a Better Boston for the Union Square Market Basket.
 
cden4 said:
Agreed. Given that most buildings in this area are about 3 stories tall, 7 is a bit much. If anything, I would say that 4 stories should probably be the max at this particular location. It's isolated and not around a transit hub or anything like that either, where pushing the height might be more sensible.
Click to expand...
it's a 10 minute walk to porter but yea, it's way too big.
 
cden4 said:
Agreed. Given that most buildings in this area are about 3 stories tall, 7 is a bit much. If anything, I would say that 4 stories should probably be the max at this particular location. It's isolated and not around a transit hub or anything like that either, where pushing the height might be more sensible.
Click to expand...

From the article:
...perhaps the more deflating answer to critics was the existence of a six-story apartment building at 278 Beacon St., directly across from the Star Market...
Click to expand...

So there's already a six-story building nearby. (sniped and thanks @JumboBuc)

Maybe I'm just dumb.. why does the height and massing have to be in line with extant buildings? That seems to me an internalization of NIMBY arguments. What should matter is proximity to transit and day-to-day needs, and given the 10 minute walk to Porter / construction on top of a grocery story, we have that here.
 
It's mainly an aesthetic thing, I think. Changes in height between buildings tend to look better when they step up rather than having a 2-3 story building directly next to a 7 story building.

I also think the massing is a problem. The scale of the details in the new building feels off. Everything feels a bit too big. Would be find in Kendall surrounded by similarly scaled buildings, but Beacon St has lots of smaller fine-grained buildings. It needs to fit in with that.
 
etik said:
Maybe I'm just dumb.. why does the height and massing have to be in line with extant buildings? That seems to me an internalization of NIMBY arguments. What should matter is proximity to transit and day-to-day needs, and given the 10 minute walk to Porter / construction on top of a grocery story, we have that here.
Click to expand...

I think it's a balance, and it's not like this neighborhood is 2.5 DU/acre. It's an urban community that has lots of walk/bike/transit commuters already. This render just looks comically out of place.
 
That's fine if you're explicit about the aesthetics of massing being one of your primary concerns, so long as you'll allow me to put it on the very bottom of mine. To me, getting houses where people want to live is most important, and there's a tall bar to clear if you want to deny those to people (I'm not accusing you of doing that here, I understand massing can be moved around and still allow a similar amount of homes, it's just that argument is too easily co-opted).

But saying that the building needs to be contextualized to its neighborhood 2-3 story buildings ultimately confers an aesthetic judgment on those 2-3 story buildings, making the implicit acknowledgement that small buildings with a few people are preferred over and above the apartments many more live in. It slips too easily into a classist aesthetic which ultimately limits affordability.
 
etik said:
But saying that the building needs to be contextualized to its neighborhood 2-3 story buildings ultimately confers an aesthetic judgment on those 2-3 story buildings, making the implicit acknowledgement that small buildings with a few people are preferred over and above the apartments many more live in. It slips too easily into a classist aesthetic which ultimately limits affordability.
Click to expand...
Agree. Any class issues aside, just because the current scale has been around a long time does not mean that it is (or should be) the forever scale. It has served its purpose but the Somerville of yesterday is increasingly not meeting the needs of the Somerville of today. Maybe take off a floor but this is how you increase housing meaningfully.
 
Brad Plaid said:
Agree. Any class issues aside, just because the current scale has been around a long time does not mean that it is (or should be) the forever scale. It has served its purpose but the Somerville of yesterday is increasingly not meeting the needs of the Somerville of today. Maybe take off a floor but this is how you increase housing meaningfully.
Click to expand...

I'm all for increased housing on the site, but what if they had proposed 1,000 feet here? Would that have been an appropriate rejection of a "forever scale"?

The proposal is more than twice as tall as most (urban, multifamily) buildings around it and is many, many times wider. There is evolution of scale, and then there is mocking of it. This brainstormed proposal mocks the community it's in.

Again, my issue is not units, my issue is massing. Give me 10 stories, if it's at the back of the site in a slender pair of buildings with a several separate buildings of 3-6 stories fronting the street and the neighboring structures. This is comical, lazy, absurd massing. It's as absurd as if WS had proposed filling Seaport Square with half-acre lots and cul-de-sacs.

By all means, let's support this project, but it needs a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
The thing is... the neighbors have a point. That's an absurd massing model for that location. It would be the most massive building for miles. Nothing proposed for Union Square is that bulky.

I support the housing, but Khalsa might not be cut out for this.
Click to expand...
Eh. I disagree. Porter Square is a major hub and the developments in recent years have been way too small for a major node of roads, T, and commuter rail. While I sometimes can find sympathy for neighbors on out-of-scale projects, this is not the case here... the fact that Porter is surrounded by 2-3 story buildings is a problem, and I think something massive is totally appropriate for this location. Sadly, I also agree with the statement that it will get winnowed down to a much smaller proposal. But if we can't build 7 stories here (on a giant parking lot atop a commuter rail and subway station) I think the region is totally fucked.
 
FK4 said:
But if we can't build 7 stories here (on a giant parking lot atop a commuter rail and subway station) I think the region is totally fucked.
Click to expand...

This in a nutshell, and it's the same story everywhere in Boston/Cambridge, and the Metro area as well.
 
i had a momentary rush of excitement when i (mis)read the subject of this thread, thinking that FINALLY something was being done with the former star market on broadway in winter hill...
 
chrisbrat said:
i had a momentary rush of excitement when i (mis)read the subject of this thread, thinking that FINALLY something was being done with the former star market on broadway in winter hill...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was trying to think of a neighborhood this corresponds to, but it's not really Porter. The Beacon St corridor of Somerville doesn't really have a name AFAIK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top