Assembly Square Infill and Small Developments | Somerville

Arlington said:
Green roof? Is that what that was? Is that still part of the plan?

As I read the renders, they've re-massed into one big tower along the east/Orange line rather than the green being between a north and south tower
Click to expand...

Yes, it was and still is a green roof. They may have changed the orientation of the tower, but a green accessible roof courtyard is still planned...

From BLDUP:
including a 3rd floor courtyard with a pool & private patios and a rooftop outdoor terrace
Click to expand...

It was never a ground-level green area between buildings. The streetwall along Assembly Row (the street) is unbroken along Parcel 8.
 
In regards to Block 8. Somerville's Board of Alderman and developer are squaring off on the change in affordability housing requirements. FRIT made some veil threats that they might have to delay the project and revaluate the economics of the building if they do not get a waiver on recent changes to the affordable housing requirements.

Originally the PUD for the entire Assembly Row development required a 12.5% affordable housing threshold as per the old regulations. The city changed the limit to 20% last May. The developer is asking for a waiver because the agreement on the PUD predates the change in affordability housing requirements.

There was a heated hearing at Somerville's Planning Board on April 20. The decision got kicked down the road and vote on the waiver in May. 2 of the 5 voted for the waiver and 2 of the 5 votes against. The deciding vote has stated publically he was against the waiver and felt FRIT should play by the new 20% requirements rules. However, I do not think he wanted to be the one to blame if the project got delayed.

Personally, I think the city is being shortsighted on this fight. The community benefit package was negotiated and agreed upon and now the city wants to unilaterally demand more. Also, increasing the rental market supply by 500 apartments will do a lot to help affordability plus generate a lot of new real estate taxes, which the city already set aside to pay for the high school construction bonds. The main argument the city is making is that the developer requested the PUD changed when IKEA dropped out of Assembly Row, so now they can change it too.
 
Is there any height limit that would make a compromise that resulting in them getting more height in exchange for all the net new apts being affordable until you hit 20%
 
Jouhou said:
There is an actual soccer field depicted on the opposite side of the tracks from block 8.
Click to expand...

Build a stadium, with some of the stands over the orange line tracks. New England Revolution you have a new home.

They could use it for local events and concerts when it's not being used for the MLS.
 
choo said:
Is there any height limit that would make a compromise that resulting in them getting more height in exchange for all the net new apts being affordable until you hit 20%
Click to expand...

I believe they are maxed out on how many housing units they can build in the entire development based on the PUD. Otherwise the affordable housing requirement ordinance in Somerville allows for bonus "units" in developments that include affordable housing. Basically increases the allowed density for a lot. So increasing the units in block 8 would steal from a later block.
 
boston85 said:
Personally, I think the city is being shortsighted on this fight. The community benefit package was negotiated and agreed upon and now the city wants to unilaterally demand more. Also, increasing the rental market supply by 500 apartments will do a lot to help affordability plus generate a lot of new real estate taxes, which the city already set aside to pay for the high school construction bonds. The main argument the city is making is that the developer requested the PUD changed when IKEA dropped out of Assembly Row, so now they can change it too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. The city is definitely being shortsighted and unfair here. You can't go demand 7.5% more after luring a developer in with a promise of 12.5%. That's scuzzy of Somerville.
 
FK4 said:
Thanks for the info. The city is definitely being shortsighted and unfair here. You can't go demand 7.5% more after luring a developer in with a promise of 12.5%. That's scuzzy of Somerville.
Click to expand...

Cambridge recently went through a very similar situation with NorthPoint (11.5% was agreed on, but the city recently increased citywide requirements to 20%), although ultimately
state law makes it clear that the zoning enacted or advertised at the time of special permit issuance or amendment is what applies
Click to expand...
(City Solicitor Nancy Glowa, per Cambridge Day).

Different cities can take different approaches to state law, but I would guess Assembly Row will be grandfathered in with their original agreement, just as was concluded between Cambridge and NorthPoint.
 
I don't think I've seen these pictures before... They were taken in the last month - posted on http://callahan-inc.com/project/assembly-row-block-6/

block_6_April_1.jpg

block_6_April_2.jpg

block_6_April_3.jpg

block_6_April_4.jpg
 
aaaaaa said:
They have not suggested reducing parking - currently ~500 spots on this block - to reduce costs so crying poor is a bit much. They should build 20% affordable housing as is now the law, and it is important for the city showing future developers that this is non-negotiable.
Click to expand...

Did this make sense when you typed it?

They have a signed agreement (the PUD). This means the city agreed to this as part of getting the developer to come in, in good faith, and build within the agreed upon zoning for the entire project covered under the PUD.

This development has brought millions of dollars already into the City of Somerville, hundreds of new housing units, hundreds (probably thousands) of new jobs including a massive anchor tenant in Partners Healthcare, a new mass transit stop on the orange line, and really helped kickstart new economic development in a City during a pretty tough time (remember the climate back when this thing broke ground.)

Now the city wants to renege on the agreed upon deal that brought this golden goose into their city. The PUD has been amended a number of times over the years (some give and some take based on the time frame), but now the city wants to forgo that process, and just say "thou shalt". F that. I hope the state slaps them down just like they did for Northpoint mentioned above. Make future additional parcels not covered under the original PUD meet the new standards, because they are now law, but those laws cannot be retroactively applied to previously zoned parcels under the PUD process.

This is a purely greedy move by the City who keeps wanting to put on it's big boy pants, and think its got that Boston clout. Nope. Just because we're now at the tip of a great building cycle, you don't have the power to now extort a developer who helped carry you on the upswing of that building boom, just to then ride them down it on the backside.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
This is a purely greedy move by the City who keeps wanting to put on it's big boy pants, and think its got that Boston clout. Nope. Just because we're now at the tip of a great building cycle, you don't have the power to now extort a developer who helped carry you on the upswing of that building boom, just to then ride them down it on the backside.
Click to expand...

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
 
Well said


SeamusMcFly said:
Did this make sense when you typed it?

They have a signed agreement (the PUD). This means the city agreed to this as part of getting the developer to come in, in good faith, and build within the agreed upon zoning for the entire project covered under the PUD.

This development has brought millions of dollars already into the City of Somerville, hundreds of new housing units, hundreds (probably thousands) of new jobs including a massive anchor tenant in Partners Healthcare, a new mass transit stop on the orange line, and really helped kickstart new economic development in a City during a pretty tough time (remember the climate back when this thing broke ground.)

Now the city wants to renege on the agreed upon deal that brought this golden goose into their city. The PUD has been amended a number of times over the years (some give and some take based on the time frame), but now the city wants to forgo that process, and just say "thou shalt". F that. I hope the state slaps them down just like they did for Northpoint mentioned above. Make future additional parcels not covered under the original PUD meet the new standards, because they are now law, but those laws cannot be retroactively applied to previously zoned parcels under the PUD process.

This is a purely greedy move by the City who keeps wanting to put on it's big boy pants, and think its got that Boston clout. Nope. Just because we're now at the tip of a great building cycle, you don't have the power to now extort a developer who helped carry you on the upswing of that building boom, just to then ride them down it on the backside.
Click to expand...
 
aaaaaa said:
Greedy move by the city to provide more affordable housing to poor people?

FRIT is requesting a variance, i.e., something not included in the initial deal, as they have many times since the original PUD was signed. The city is saying to FRIT: if you want the variance then you need to follow the new law.

Edited to add:

The PUD was amended in 2008 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2010 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2014 to the benefit of FRIT.

So, it's cool for the developer to demand change while treating to delay or cancel the project - that's not extortion - but when the city responds to a request for another variance in order to get more affordable housing in Somerville that's extortion? Perhaps FRIT will win if they take it to court, but the city should do everything they can to push them to meet the new law and build 20% affordable housing because the city has bent over backward to help FRIT up to this point.
Click to expand...

THAT was well said ^^^
 
aaaaaa said:
Greedy move by the city to provide more affordable housing to poor people?

FRIT is requesting a variance, i.e., something not included in the initial deal, as they have many times since the original PUD was signed. The city is saying to FRIT: if you want the variance then you need to follow the new law.

Edited to add:

The PUD was amended in 2008 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2010 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2014 to the benefit of FRIT.

So, it's cool for the developer to demand change while treating to delay or cancel the project - that's not extortion - but when the city responds to a request for another variance in order to get more affordable housing in Somerville that's extortion? Perhaps FRIT will win if they take it to court, but the city should do everything they can to push them to meet the new law and build 20% affordable housing because the city has bent over backward to help FRIT up to this point.
Click to expand...

What variance is the developer requesting? (Real question because I don't see it on the previous page where this discussion started.) All I saw was they wanted to be exempt from new changes that Somerville wants to impose.

Are they adding more units, or was 500 always the plan for parcel 8? If they are looking to add more above and beyond original approval, any units above and beyond should be subject to new City requirements. (ie. if they are increasing total units by 100, then 20 of those units should be affordable). Not 20% of the aggregate.

Sorry if I missed the developer being a dick somewhere, but I only see the City as the bad guy so far until I see evidence in this case otherwise.

http://somerville.wickedlocal.com/article/20150312/news/150318848
(This article reinforces my opinion.)

You may say the amendments were all to the benefit of FRIT, however the entire development is still to the benefit of Somerville.
 
aaaaaa said:
Greedy move by the city to provide more affordable housing to poor people?

FRIT is requesting a variance, i.e., something not included in the initial deal, as they have many times since the original PUD was signed. The city is saying to FRIT: if you want the variance then you need to follow the new law.

Edited to add:

The PUD was amended in 2008 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2010 to the benefit of FRIT.

The PUD was amended in 2014 to the benefit of FRIT.

So, it's cool for the developer to demand change while treating to delay or cancel the project - that's not extortion - but when the city responds to a request for another variance in order to get more affordable housing in Somerville that's extortion? Perhaps FRIT will win if they take it to court, but the city should do everything they can to push them to meet the new law and build 20% affordable housing because the city has bent over backward to help FRIT up to this point.
Click to expand...

The current variance they are requesting with regards to block 8 has to do with delaying signage approval because they do not know what type of signage that will be required by the future and yet to be determined tenants.

The changes to the PUD in those years were mainly minor and did not change the overall intent of the PUD. The one major change was the 2014 change which was to bring in Partners and replace the box store that was to be IKEA. And they were all requested, and approved by the city not demanded. The city is unilaterally making this change.

Delaying this project could end up costing the city $1.5M to $2.5M in real estate taxes per year. Quick look at real estate bills for apartment building in Somerville shows that rate is about $3K to $5K per year per market rate apartment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top