Union Square Somerville Infill and Small Developments

[Scipio]

Lots of cycling improvements to like in that presentation.

A two-way Prospect and Webster and a two-way straight shot through the square on Somerville Ave will fix some big connectivity annoyances.

There's also what appears to be a new bike path proposed along the Union Square branch of the Green Line Extension? This is different from the Community Path along the Medford branch of the GLX and this graphic is the first I've heard of it.

 

[George_Apley]

New cafe "Juliet" opening in the former Sherman Cafe space
http://boston.eater.com/2015/5/18/8619137/juliet-somerville-josh-lewin-katrina-jazayeri

The space is well into renovations. Saw them moving planters around this afternoon. Looks like it will be a great space.

 

[Equilibria]

In case anyone missed the Somerville by Design meeting on May 13, the presentation slides have been posted online:

http://www.somervillebydesign.com/w...ion-Square-Plan-Open-House-1-Presentation.pdf

http://www.somervillebydesign.com/w...en-House-1-Public-Realm-Plans-20150513-sm.pdf

And also, survey: https://somervillebydesign.typeform.com/to/PbX55h

I understand why architects use massing drawings, but in this case all they serve to do is emphasize how out-of-scale these footprints are with the rest of the neighborhood. You'd think that with a clean slate - this is essentially urban renewal - they could get some smaller lot sizes in there.

Their hearts are in the right place, and they'll apply the same sensibility as at Assembly to visually break up facades. It will look fine. A massive, massive change, though. Union Square will go from fully suburban to urban in appearance over 5 years.

 

[whighlander]

I understand why architects use massing drawings, but in this case all they serve to do is emphasize how out-of-scale these footprints are with the rest of the neighborhood. You'd think that with a clean slate - this is essentially urban renewal - they could get some smaller lot sizes in there.

Their hearts are in the right place, and they'll apply the same sensibility as at Assembly to visually break up facades. It will look fine. A massive, massive change, though. Union Square will go from fully suburban to urban in appearance over 5 years.

Equilib -- Whahaaa? -- only someone fresh arrived from Mumbai would mistake Union Square for suburban

 

[Equilibria]

Equilib -- Whahaaa? -- only someone fresh arrived from Mumbai would mistake Union Square for suburban

I can't see much difference between the urban form in Union Square and Newton Center, honestly. I'll grant you that residents think of themselves as living more in the thick of things, and I know you're using Lexington as your frame of reference...

 

[whighlander]

I can't see much difference between the urban form in Union Square and Newton Center, honestly. I'll grant you that residents think of themselves as living more in the thick of things, and I know you're using Lexington as your frame of reference...

Equilib -- Newton is a City of nearly 90,000 in a fairly small area -- I think that is urban by comparison to say Weston or Wellesly which are obviously suburban

from Wiki Newton versus Somerville and Wellesley

Somerville -- no one would credibly argue that Somerville is not urban

As of the 2010 census, there were 75,754 people, 33,720 households, and 14,673 families residing in the city. The population density was 18,404.8 people per square mile (7,278.4/km²). There were 32,105 housing units at an average density of 7,909.1 per square mile (3,051.0/km²).

Newton -- some parts are suburban other parts are definitively urban

As of the census[20] of 2010, there were 85,146 people, 32,648 households, and 20,499 families residing in the city. The population density was 4,643.6 people per square mile (1,793.2/km²). There were 32,112 housing units at an average density of 1,778.8 per square mile (686.9/km²).

Wellesley -- quintessential Boston inner western suburb

As of the census of 2000, there were 26,613 people, 8,594 households, and 6,540 families residing in the town. The population density was 2,614.1 people per square mile (1,009.4/km²). There were 8,861 housing units at an average density of 870.4 per square mile (336.1/km²).

 

[bigeman312]

I would not call either Newton or Somerville, on the whole, urban.

As someone who has spent nearly his entire life living in either Newton or Somerville, and finds the perception of urban/suburban interesting, I have thought about this. First, I'll say that the distinction is completely subjective:

• Many people from rural areas (I have friends from back-woods Pennsylvania and Vermont who would have this view, rightfully so) would view Ashby as suburban and Wellesley as a "city."
• Many people who grew up around the 495 area would consider Acton, Wayland, and Stowe to be suburban, but Arlington to be urban.
• Others (those who grew up in Manhattan, for example) would consider Cambridge, Brookline, and Allston to be suburban, and would only consider Downtown/North End/Back Bay area to truly be urban. If you spent most of your life in Manhattan, Brooklyn would be the "suburbs."

There are even people who say, "If it's not Boston, then it's suburban," thus calling Central Square/Harvard Square suburban. I disagree wholeheartedly with this.

For me:

• Somerville - Dense-Suburban Residential with Dense-Suburban Commercial Squares and some Urban pockets.
• Newton - A mix of Suburban and Dense-Suburban Residential with Suburban and Dense-Suburban Commercial Villages.

• Urban - Mixed-use (residential/retail/commercial), attached or mid-rise blocks, with good pedestrian and transit accommodations:
  • Somerville - there are very few pockets of this. Assembly Square will be Somerville's largest urban pocket. Maybe some parts of Davis and Union are urban, but that's debatable.
  • Newton - too suburban.
  • Picture Harvard Square
• Dense-Suburban Residential - the vast majority of buildings, and even blocks, are single use residential. Most of the residential is multi-family (think triple-deckers and duplexes), but there may be some single family homes on small lots (1/4 acre or less):
  • Somerville - the residential areas of Somerville (outside of the squares) are dense-suburban residential.
  • Newton - some of the older, denser residential parts of Newton, such as The Lake/Nonantum (outside of the village center), Newton Corner (between the village center and the Watertown line), West Newton (the flat part north of Washington Street).
• Dense-Suburban Commercial - The dense, but mostly single-use commercial districts that often have good pedestrian and/or transit accommodations, and are often surrounded by Dense-Suburban Residential areas:
  • Somerville - many of the squares, such as Magoun, Teele, and Ball are dense-suburban commercial squares. Davis and Union are a mix of dense-suburban and urban.
  • Newton - only the major, denser village centers qualify (Newton Centre, Newtonville, Newton Highlands, etc.)
• Suburban Residential - mostly single family homes on 1/4 acre to 1/2 acre lots, with a couple duplexes and larger lot (single acre) single-family sprinkled in:
  • Somerville - too dense.
  • Newton - most of the residential areas in Newton, especially the newer/wealtheir areas fit this description.
• Suburban Commercial - Suburban, single-use commercial districts that are often isolated, pedestrian-friendly zones, and are often surrounded by Suburban Residential areas:
  • Somerville - too dense
  • Newton - many of the smaller villages, more suburban villages, such as Auburndale or Waban.
• Sparse-Suburban - mostly single family homes on half acre lots (or larger):
  • Somerville - too dense.
  • Newton - too dense.
  • Picture Lexington

 

[kjdonovan]

If you spent most of your life in Manhattan, Brooklyn would be the "suburbs."

Agreed. If Somerville is not considered urban living then there are, geographically speaking, very few urban spaces in the United States. Besides the greater NYC area, there are very few places that meet Somerville's level of density 3 miles outside the metro's primary CBD.

 

[bigeman312]

Agreed. If Somerville is not considered urban living then there are, geographically speaking, very few urban spaces in the United States. Besides the greater NYC area, there are very few places that meet Somerville's level of density 3 miles outside the metro's primary CBD.

You may not agree with me. I would consider Somerville more "dense-suburban" than urban. It's part of what I love about living in Somerville! You have a nice blend of urban (the T, walk-ability, bike-ability) and suburban (quiet tree-lined streets, backyards, etc)

 

[CSTH]

Guys, we've bumped into this Urban-Suburban semantics issue before...

Seems to that (at least for the purposes of an architecture and urban design discussion) 'municipality' is the wrong unit of analysis, and its also very helpful to treat 'dense settlement' and 'urban character' as separate and independent characteristics.

e.g. Downtown lexington, actually, fits your description of urban. Monroe Hill does not. And there's a farm in town too - rural?

So, might it be helpful to distinguish density from character? For example, the Seaport is getting a hell of a lot denser, but is it getting urban?

I know how I'd answer that question, and I'll defend the to the death the claim that "Mass Ave. in downtown Lexington is more urban than Seaport Boulevard".

But to get back to the topic....is the issue that Union Square is definitely going to get a whole hell of a lot denser, and there's an opportunity to make it much more urban at the same time, but there's also a risk that if this gets fucked up we'll end up with a more dense / less urban fiasco (wait ... did I hear somebody say 'urban renewal'?...)

 

[Arlington]

You may not agree with me. I would consider Somerville more "dense-suburban" than urban. It's part of what I love about living in Somerville! You have a nice blend of urban (the T, walk-ability, bike-ability) and suburban (quiet tree-lined streets, backyards, etc)

I don't agree with you, and agreement is important because we're looking for a common language here.

Trees, backyards, and (relative) quiet can't be the test. The brownstones of Manhattan have that, and we know they're urban.

*side yards* are probably the better test of urban/suburban (if you have them wider than a dual carriageway, you're a suburb. Or if you lack a side yard because your on a wedge-parcel on a cul-de-sac, you're a suburb,too). Somerville doesn't have side yards, for the most part.

That side yard heuristic goes with the density definition is the one that can be most-easily settled on, and by current standards, every census block of Somerville is urban, while Newton would be a patchwork.

Or try starting backwards with the concept that places have been "urbanized"--which Somerville clearly has.

Or try "tracts developed in the street car era"...I'd call that urban, vs "non-grid roads requiring driving to most daily tasks" ...I'd call that suburban.

And then I'd rule that most places subject to urban renewal (West End, City of Lowell @ Transportation Center) are still "urban" despite their car centric overlay.

 

[bigeman312]

I don't agree with you, and agreement is important because we're looking for a common language here.

Trees, backyards, and (relative) quiet can't be the test. The brownstones of Manhattan have that, and we know they're urban.

*side yards* are probably the better test of urban/suburban (if you have them wider than a dual carriageway, you're a suburb. Or if you lack a side yard because your on a wedge-parcel on a cul-de-sac, you're a suburb,too). Somerville doesn't have side yards, for the most part.

That side yard heuristic goes with the density definition is the one that can be most-easily settled on, and by current standards, every census block of Somerville is urban, while Newton would be a patchwork.

Or try starting backwards with the concept that places have been "urbanized"--which Somerville clearly has.

Or try "tracts developed in the street car era"...I'd call that urban, vs "non-grid roads requiring driving to most daily tasks" ...I'd call that suburban.

And then I'd rule that most places subject to urban renewal (West End, City of Lowell @ Transportation Center) are still "urban" despite their car centric overlay.

Untrue. Check out my post (#191). I defined what urban means to me:

Mixed-use (residential/retail/commercial), attached or mid-rise blocks, with good pedestrian and transit accommodations

. Not all urban neighborhoods are the same, so it need not fill all requirements, just most (or come close filling all) for me to consider it an urban neighborhood. Most of Somerville does not fit-the-bill for me (but there are urban pockets).

• Mixed-use - fail, mostly. Commercial districts are filled with single story tax-payers, while residential blocks are usually entirely residential.
• attached or mid-rise blocks - fail, mostly. The squares have attached commerial/retail buildings. But, the vast majority of Somerville are detached 1- 2- and 3-story homes.
• Good pedestrian accommodations - pass.
• Good transit accommodations - mixed bag (I have high standards), but mostly pass.

I will say, it can be clumsy to label "Somerville," so that is why I have been staying away from absolute language. Assembly Square will definitely be urban once completed. Parts of Davis and Union are debatably urban.

But, the vast majority of Somerville is made up of detached, single-use, 1- 2- and 3-family homes with driveways, yards, and are generally what I would consider dense-suburban. I know a lot of people on here think of the word suburban as a curse, but Somerville is exactly what a suburb should be! A dense, suburban community with some urban amenities.

 

[kjdonovan]

But to get back to the topic....is the issue that Union Square is definitely going to get a whole hell of a lot denser, and there's an opportunity to make it much more urban at the same time, but there's also a risk that if this gets fucked up we'll end up with a more dense / less urban fiasco (wait ... did I hear somebody say 'urban renewal'?...)

Sure it could be awful in execution, but it would be awful in spite of best intentions—and I do mean best. Jeff Speck's vision of vibrant, livable streets is what Somerville is pursuing. They brought Jeff in to work up the initial concepts for most of the city's "wishlist" locations, and his ethos has been taken to heart. Density is not the goal. It's vitality. Somerville's current administration wants Union Square to be an 20-hours-a-day nexus of activity. That means more commercial development for people to work there and more alternatives to car mobility so people can get in and out safely, cheaply, and quickly.

If you agree with Jeff Speck, then you'll like how Union Square's development is being pursued.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city

 

[bigeman312]

An interesting question: is Union Square currently urban? Will it be urban after these developments are complete? I am going to say no and yes. Currently, there are too many single-use, single-story taxpayers, and way more car-accommodation than transit-accommodation. After this is implemented (if implemented correctly), there will be a lot more density, mixed-use, transit, and pedestrian accommodations.

 

[Matthew]

• Mixed-use - fail, mostly. Commercial districts are filled with single story tax-payers, while residential blocks are usually entirely residential.
• attached or mid-rise blocks - fail, mostly. The squares have attached commercial/retail buildings. But, the vast majority of Somerville are detached 1- 2- and 3-story homes.

Most of Boston fails on these accounts too. Blame turn-of-the-twentieth-century streetcar-suburban development.

 

[davem]

I think it really has to do with what the residents* are doing. Are you walking to work/transportation? Groceries? Can you take care of the majority of your life needs within the boundaries of your neighborhood, or do you need to travel outside on a frequent basis? This is what defines urbanity; metropolitanism. The way residents* live is really the defining factor in what is and is not urban, IMO.


*residents can also be workers. For instance, the financial district is very urban despite not being residential. When you are there, all your life needs are being taken care of well, within close proximity.

 

[George_Apley]

I think it really has to do with what the residents* are doing. Are you walking to work/transportation? Groceries? Can you take care of the majority of your life needs within the boundaries of your neighborhood, or do you need to travel outside on a frequent basis? This is what defines urbanity; metropolitanism. The way residents* live is really the defining factor in what is and is not urban, IMO.


*residents can also be workers. For instance, the financial district is very urban despite not being residential. When you are there, all your life needs are being taken care of well, within close proximity.

This. "Urban" is not a concept simply to be defined by buildings' heights or whether they are contiguous vs detached. There's a demonstrative (and highly subjective) "sense" of an urban place, that's created by the people who live and work there. Hence why I consider most of the classic "New England" town centers to be rather urban; what bigeman refers to as "Dense Suburban Commercial". "Urban" is always a relative term, but if it's hamstrung into narrow definitions that only makes Manhattan-style environments "urban" [Yes, that's a strawman for rhetorical effect...], then it's a fairly useless definition.

As far as Union Square goes; in my opinion, it has that "urban sense" Dave mentioned. All of the "squares" do - just as the town centers do, they developed the same way after all. Just because Harvard has more buildings over four stories than Union doesn't mean that both aren't "urban".

I do agree that most of the sea of 3-deckers in the immediate metro-ring around Boston's core are classically "suburban". And I do think there is a sliding scale of urbanity. I guess that my main disagreements with bigeman are (1) the lack of qualitative assessment; and (2) the terminology used on for his ratings.

The problem is that "suburban" is too large of a category to capture post-war sprawl living. By the late-19th/early-20th century definition of suburban, the street-car suburbs were indeed Cambridge, Somerville, Roxbury, Newton, Brookline, etc. The more-or-less "immediate" ring of municipalities around the core city. But post-war suburban sprawl is farther out is a different sort of animal - and "suburban" came to represent a more auto-centric, auto-required sort of living. That's why there's so much disagreement about the term. It represents multiple types of communities that all occupy different places on the sliding scale of urbanity.

 

[bigeman312]

BussesAin'tTrains: you bring up an interesting point: urbanity as it relates to the built environment versus urbanity as it relates to the lifestyle of a community's inhabitants. I do believe the built environment shapes a communities lifestyle in many ways.

I was really only addressing the built environment, though. But, I will double-down on my assessment of Somerville. The vast majority of working Somerville residents commute outside of Somerville for work. That, to me, defines a suburban lifestyle. Many residents take a short transit trip downtown, or bike to Cambridge for work. This is what a suburb should be. I feel as if in the United States, dense-suburban neighborhoods/communities like Somerville are seen as urban due to our country-wide move towards sparse-suburban auto-centric development and degradation of the urban environment over the past century. In my opinion, well-built suburbs (I could call them bedroom communities, but that doesn't capture it and has an even worse, negative connotation) are those with density (rows of triple deckers), local amenities that people can walk to, and elements of urbanity.

The fact that most Somerville residents have the opportunity to walk to perform mant/most of their daily shopping/grocery/dining-out/socializing/etc needs (and many do walk) is an urban characteristic. So, Somerville clearly has elements of urbanity and suburbanity (should be word). Union Square, if this plan comes to fruition, will hold a larger day-time population with more commercial space, and mix residents/retail/commercial in much closer proximity than currently. This will enable residents to walk to work within their neighborhood, and create what I think will be both an urban neighborhood in the built environment as well as an urban neighborhood in the lifestyles of the residents. Something that, in my opinion, is not quite attained in Somerville at this moment, outside of a couple pockets.

Yes, I do have a very high threshold for what I consider "urban." But, I'm sticking to my guns on this one. If the built environment appeared the way many of us would like it to appear, and we didn't live in such an auto-centric country, much of Somerville would be model dense-suburban development. If you look to many other countries, their suburbs are much denser and can often support more transit and walk-ability. I shy away from calling blocks of single-use duplexes urban, because that implies that our suburban communities can only be auto-centric, sparsely populated wastelands.

Of course, we won't be in agreement on these definitions. Over time, as our built community has become increasingly more sparse, our definition of urban has changed. I maintain though, that urbanity is definied by a neighborhood has mixed-use and density (among other things I've mentioned). Porter Square is becoming urban (it was on the edge before) with it's current developments. Union Square looks like it's about to become urban (it's on the edge right now).

The words urban and suburban are too nebulous and poorly defined. I don't disagree with what other people have said their definitions are, I just don't hold them myself.

 

[Ruairi]

My two cents..
I live in Union. I walk to work in Central, I walk to Market Basket, bars, restaurants, pretty much everywhere really. I moved from central and I don't see much difference in terms of urban/suburban. I think I live in an urban area. Kind of like JP. I don't consider that suburban. If you can get by without a car, you're not in the suburbs.
On a different note, I think Union is beginning to resemble an old house that someone has started to rehab with out any clear plans for what's going to happen. They've smashed a few walls down but I still have to live there. I know the process is happening but the place is full of empty sites and stores, there seems to be a general air of discontent. I know that comes with change but they could push the square right to the edge if progress isn't speedy.

 

[Arlington]

there seems to be a general air of discontent. I know that comes with change but they could push the square right to the edge if progress isn't speedy.

This is a residents' vision problem, not a city's planning problem--and an opportunity for people with vision to buy in at a moment when the people without vision are despairing.

I bought my first condo in the 2000 bubble without a bidding war because it was still in demolition (partial-gut rehab of 2-flat into 2 condos). I could read plans and see how awesome it'd be when done, while all other buyers were freaked out at the sight of bare studs and piles of splintered lath and plaster crumbles. Their loss.

I honestly don't think there's anything that can be done for people who basically choose to close their imagination and dwell only on construction dust instead of what's being created.