Assembly Square Infill and Small Developments | Somerville

Winning awards is not the same thing as succeeding, though...
 
I have a feeling Assembly Square is gonna be a huge success!
 
atlantaden said:
I have a feeling Assembly Square is gonna be a huge success!
Click to expand...

I do too. It will take time and further build-out for this place to mature into a fully functional neighborhood, but the space is there and no doubt the demand as well. As long as nothing happens to reduce residential density in the next phase, this place will be a TOD home run.
 
I really like the design of this place so far, but I have the feeling that Assembly Square will be a glorified outlet mall. Nice design, no soul. I'll spend my money elsewhere.
 
I have high hopes for it but hope is not a strategy.

This country is littered with failed developments that promised all sorts of wonderful things. Remember that the whole idea of the shopping mall was developed in the 50s by an Austrian architect who wanted to create brand new urban town centers. He envisioned the mall as the seed. So much for that.

I'm also a skeptic of self congratulatory awards.
 
I know what chumbolly is saying. I am a huge Assembly Square supporter, but I feel like when one developer builds a whole neighborhood at once, it can feel a little "created" and "antiseptic". Like a disney-fied version of a neighborhood. Especially when it's filled with lots of national retailers. Part of what makes many of our urban neighborhoods so interesting and desirable is the the local stores and mix of older and newer buildings. The developer is definitely doing a nice job with the building type mix (although obvious the age thing can't really be controlled), but the big question I have is how to make it feel less like living in an outlet mall?
 
chumbolly said:
I really like the design of this place so far, but I have the feeling that Assembly Square will be a glorified outlet mall. Nice design, no soul. I'll spend my money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

My hope is that the destination shopping stunt is just a temporary step in launching the neighborhood. If the next phase brings a small grocery, a pharmacy, and a lot more housing, then the strong pull of destination shopping won't be as important because the place will become more (not fully) self sufficient. We'll see some outlets stay indefinitely, but others will turn over to services (barbershop/salon, Kinkos, etc) once enough people live and work there to demand those services.

If that next phase brings the grocery and pharmacy, the place can start transforming away from autocentricity as well. I would dare say the first residents of AS will almost all have car for weekend errands even if they commute via OL. I'm not saying the next batch of residents will all be car-free, but a significant portion can/will be and less parking will be required for them. When you have real residents buzzing along real streets this will start to feel like a "real" place.
 
There's already a Super Stop and Shop more or less there. It just needs a better pedestrian connection (current iteration sucks).
 
cden4 said:
I know what chumbolly is saying. I am a huge Assembly Square supporter, but I feel like when one developer builds a whole neighborhood at once, it can feel a little "created" and "antiseptic". Like a disney-fied version of a neighborhood. Especially when it's filled with lots of national retailers. Part of what makes many of our urban neighborhoods so interesting and desirable is the the local stores and mix of older and newer buildings. The developer is definitely doing a nice job with the building type mix (although obvious the age thing can't really be controlled), but the big question I have is how to make it feel less like living in an outlet mall?
Click to expand...

You seem worried that its residents won't really be happy because they won't be happy in exactly the way you'd be happy.

Every well-defined neighborhood is going to have some element which its denizens prefer but which non-residents do not prefer. Some authentically like new+brands+Disney(or Lego). They will choose this and their friends will visit.

Southie, North End, Eastie, Newberry Street, Havard Sq, Newton Center--they're all a different "land" and they all have "theme park" elements, and if you're cynical you can look at any of them and find them "fake", and yet enough like to live there and enough like to visit.

And put together a portfolio of "theme" neighborhoods and you get a fairly authentic city.

And with structured parking, a T stop, and the Partner's Health offices, there'll be plenty of massing that will allow a full-spectrum of "real" life to take hold there.
 
Jacobs would say that a neighborhood built all at once from scratch is already-dead (except in much more poetic terms). There's no substitute for a mix of building ages.

I really want Assembly Row to work, but I can't help thinking that it's going to turn into Santana Row.
 
What I want to know is what people mean by "work." If people live there, work there, shop there, entertain there, commute there, etc., then it "works." It might not be the neighborhood that you want, but it would be a functioning, successful space. If some people choose not to spend time there because Disneyfied developments aren't their scene, then that's fine. But it doesn't mean it's not "working."
 
Matthew said:
Jacobs would say that a neighborhood built all at once from scratch is already-dead (except in much more poetic terms). There's no substitute for a mix of building ages.

I really want Assembly Row to work, but I can't help thinking that it's going to turn into Santana Row.
Click to expand...

This is nothing like Santana Row. After browsing Santana Row's website (and sister websites for the rental buildings), I can see Santana Row's "problem" is that the buildings are not actually mixed use. The residential buildings are all residences. The retail buildings are all retail (and very short)... etc. It also doesn't help that the residences are designed as these secluded oases with swimming pools and expansive outdoor patios. The street grid is weak and the development is spread out too much.

Assembly Row has a tight grid and true mixed use buildings throughout. The residences are on top of the retail. This is key to being a neighborhood.
 
Hey if there are enough people who want to live in Assembly Square, as Disneyfied as it may be, that's perfectly fine with me! I'm just hoping there are enough people who genuinely want this!
 
These are my notes, from nearly 3 years ago, about visiting Santana Row,

I noticed references to Santana Row in the Assembly Row design guidelines. I happened to visit that place this past summer, so I have some impressions about it.

The first thing you noticed about Santana Row upon arriving are the vast acres devoted to free single and multi-level parking structures. You will, of course, be arriving by car -- because like most everything in San Jose, it is in the middle of severe suburban sprawl.

Despite the existence of an extremely large amount of free parking, Santana Row itself is built on a fairly wide road: at least 4 lanes, sometimes 6, on an estimated 70 foot right-of-way. As a result, there are large numbers of cars cruising up and down the street, ostensibly looking for street parking, though possibly just sightseeing.

Although the stores were not to my taste, there were a good number of people walking around there. In fact, the area had largely the same appeal as a typical shopping mall, except without a roof. In case it did rain, there was also an indoor shopping mall immediately adjacent to the area, on the other side of a large road at one end of the development.

In terms of creating a destination in the largely pedestrian-challenged South Bay area, Santana Row does appear to have been a success. If the goal was creating an actual neighborhood, it would be a complete failure. People drive their cars to walk around there, possibly shop, possibly eat, and then go home. The amenities are oriented towards the needs of a shopping mall, not a place where people regularly live and work in diverse settings. And it is not Transit-Oriented Development.

I do not know to what extent Santana Row may have influenced the design of Assembly Square. I am hoping, for the sake of the city, that it was minimal.
Click to expand...
 
underground said:
There's already a Super Stop and Shop more or less there. It just needs a better pedestrian connection (current iteration sucks).
Click to expand...

Excellent point. The SS&S is "so close, and yet so far". Too close, in that it'll discourage an "on-site" supermarket, and yet not an attractive walk with a bag or two of groceries.

Livening up the walk in *all directions* will help, and using a car only for grocery shopping is also fairly common in most neighborhoods with mostly-car-free living.
 
Matthew said:
These are my notes, from nearly 3 years ago, about visiting Santana Row,
Click to expand...

Thanks, the key difference I see is that Assembly Row has the Orange Line.

Incidentally, have we heard anything from the MBTA about re-routing the buses:

90 -Wellington-(ASSEMBLY)-Sullivan-Davis Sq (Wkday 40 min headway, Wknd 1:10)
92 - DTX-State-Haymarket-Charlestown-Sullivan-(ASSEMBLY) 15 minute headways, but only extended to Assembly *non-rush*
95 - West Medford-(Mystic Ave)-Sullivan 20 minute rush hour headways, but stays on Mystic.

Is there any word that the new Assembly Station will get a tie-in to any of these? Seems like anyone using it for Sullivan connection would be happy to have a stop at Assembly.
 
cden4 said:
Hey if there are enough people who want to live in Assembly Square, as Disneyfied as it may be, that's perfectly fine with me! I'm just hoping there are enough people who genuinely want this!
Click to expand...

People live in Downtown Disney. There is a market. Also even though there are only four buildings (mostly) done, it already feels incredibly urban standing in the middle of that intersection. As long as the rest of the development is as good, it will be fine no matter what the tenants.

As for the corporate retailers, yeah it can feel sterile. However, I can say living next to charlesview, its preferable to having the storefronts sit vacant for over a year because of unrealistic demands as to what types of tenants can fill the space. I also ate at burger dive when I was there, knocks the socks off of shake shack, which I was really disappointed with when I went.

Also, it's not ideal from an urbanistic standpoint, but they could put a grocer into the old circuit city.
 
The density of the city and proximity with the T mean this can continue to evolve. It's been talked about before, but I see no reason why every surface lot cant be built on with more commercial and residential as the market grows. Hell you can even increase parking, replacing 1 surface lot with 3 floors underground and 20 floors of housing on top of some stores. Obviously, with the T, hopefully you don't even need that much.
 
davem said:
Also, it's not ideal from an urbanistic standpoint, but they could put a grocer into the old circuit city.
Click to expand...

Grocery stores like to space themselves farther apart than that (too close to Stop and Shop) so as to mark a territory where they are "the" grocery store.

Especially with the closure of the Meadow Glen Stop and Shop, I'd think that the market niche which might attract a grocer is on the north or west side of Assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top