Assembly Square Infill and Small Developments | Somerville

Lrfox said:
The thing is, even if you just drive around on Google Maps, it's clear that the place has everything on his wish list: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.395...4!1s4LkMVleV9aooU2mqabOymA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Click to expand...
I don't think the placement of these new kiosks is a huge deal but I do find it a bit strange that they built an arch in to the partners building, presumably to continue the line of sight along the main street, then plonked these kiosks right in front of it. Might have made more sense to build a pedestrian square into block 8 and put kiosks there. Wouldn't maximize profits tho!
 
I wish the so-called liberal mayor would do more to stop this kind of thing.
 
It's not an exception, although the "journalists" write it that way.
It's the City trying to get the golden goose to lay a dozen more eggs.
The development is permitted to build 1100 units, with 12.5% being affordable. That is what they were trying to build.
After permitting the above development, the city changed their affordable housing requirements.
Then they retroactively want an already permitted development to live up to the new rules. They basically tried to extort the additional affordable units by smearing the developer. Using the rich "national" developer can afford it ploy.
The national developer took a risk on your City during the worst economic downturn of our lifetimes, and now because it's working out for them and you (the City), you think you can get more, and they should just give it out of the goodness of their hearts.

No. F you City! And, now you actually end up with less affordable housing in the development. Way to screw yourselves.
 
Hubman said:
Making exceptions to the affordable housing regulations.
Click to expand...

It's not nearly that simple, as has been discussed here previously at length. The finally agreed upon affordable housing rate was lower than the currently required rate but higher than the required rate from the time the original agreement was signed.

Both sides have legitimate points, and there are tons of details and complicating circumstances in play. I applaud the City of Somerville and FRIT for coming to a compromise.

If you look at this debate and think that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, then you might be an ideologue.

What I don't like about the agreement is that some of the "new" affordable housing will only be created by buying out existing market rate housing (through the "100 Homes" program). That's simply a redistribution of existing housing, not a creation of new housing. The increase in affordable housing will be offset by the decrease in existing market rate housing.
 
JumboBuc said:
If you look at this debate and think that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, then you might be an ideologue.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case, the city of Somerville is playing the role of the fellah in the black helmet. (wish I knew how to embed this video... EDIT looks like it embedded automatically! EDIT again sound doesn't seem to work!!!! Watch on youtube!) "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." That's a horrible precedent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd8hy032uLc
 
One side is a private developer building an exciting new neighborhood. One that increases the tax base for the city significantly.

The other side is a government agency trying to change regulations and force the developer to sell a percentage of luxury units at below market rate prices, or pay an extortion payment to the city in order to get the units built.

Forcing companies to add affordable housing to new developments increases the cost of new build apartments for the majority of people who rent at market rate.
 
The area is only going to keep growing thanks to the success of assembly row, the orange line stop, and a massive job center like partners. The big box stores and associated massive parking lots will be gone sooner than later. They will all get filled with new mid/high rise developments including many new residential units. Those will all be required to meet the new 20% percent requirements.

Be happy with that. Be happy an investor like FRIT helped to make that your real future. Stop trying to squeeze more out of then than is agreed to, and continue to reap the benefits. You have your cake, you get to eat it too. Stop demanding the ice cream to go with it.
 
See the case in Cambridge and what happened when the courts got involved.
 
tysmith95 said:
The other side is a government agency trying to change regulations and force the developer to sell a percentage of luxury units at below market rate prices, or pay an extortion payment to the city in order to get the units built.
Click to expand...

These kind of indirect taxes do have some distorting effects on the housing market. While in many communities, at least until they cracked down on the profit margins limits, 40B subsidized housing requirements were used to ram through oversized developments in communities not zoned or planned for that type of development to the great benefit of some large developers.

While I think the general idea of trying to create subsidized housing in new developments has many laudable goals and benefits, I wonder if just going back to straightforward broad based taxes to fund public goals like subsidized housing would be a lot more straightforward and easier for the public to understand than the effects of putting the burden on newcomer housing.

Right now renters of these developments are paying a de facto tax to subsidize some percentage of their neighbors, but since it was financed by the developer it just gets passed through into rents and condo prices.
 
tangent said:
Right now renters of these developments are paying a de facto tax to subsidize some percentage of their neighbors, but since it was financed by the developer it just gets passed through into rents and condo prices.
Click to expand...

It's not quite that straightforward. I'd argue that renters and purchasers of condos everywhere in the area bear the cost of the affordable housing subsidy, not just renters/owners in this project. And FRIT bears a significant portion (most) of the cost through lower profits.

I had a whole long explanation for this typed out, but it was needlessly complicated. Basically, changes to producer cost affect the quantity producers are willing and able to supply, and supply interacts with demand to determine market price. When units are traded freely, all consumers face market price. So if the market price for an Assembly Row condo is $800k, it will be $800k no matter how much FRIT payed to build it.

If affordable housing requirements cause developers to not build units they would otherwise then all consumers of housing pay the cost of this restrained supply, not just tenants/owners in units built by those specific developers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top