Re: [DSNC] Digest for davissquarenc@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 2 topics
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Alex Epstein
Jan 19, 2026, 6:23:50 PM (11 hours ago) Jan 19
to daviss...@googlegroups.com
When I moved to Somerville with my partner in 2008, I was frustrated by how few elevator buildings, proper apartment buildings, existed in Somerville. Eventually, we found a home in an isolated 7-story elevator building on Beacon Street. It was great. No roommates. No housemates. Affordable. Two elevators to bring up groceries and bikes.
For almost 8 years, I participated in Somerville public meetings about zoning and street projects (including for Somervision). At these meetings, I got a little tired of being heckled as a transient renter whose view didn't carry the same weight as the views of people who'd bought homes here mid-century. That unwelcoming, dismissive sentiment still irks me, and I am glad that I've heard it less and less in public meeting discourse over time.
Well, guess what, I got involved in city government, started a family, and stayed. We bought a house near Davis only because there were practically zero elevator buildings in the city with 3 bedroom apartments, and because as owners, we at least have the luxury of secure
bike and stroller parking outside. No so for most renters in houses like mine.
I strongly believe Somerville needs MORE elevator buildings and MORE housing choices instead of one-size fits all, so that the next generation can stay. Third-floor or higher walk-up apartments suck for families with small children, for people with a bike or stroller, and for anyone who sprains an ankle or has a disability.
I look forward to the Copper Mill building and anything else like it in Somerville. I think once it's finished and that part of Davis has 1,000 new customers for the businesses downstairs (including the Burren), many will wonder why there was so much arm wringing.
My two cents,
Alex
On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 12:40 PM <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- Somervision - 15 Updates
- Digest for daviss...@googlegroups.com - 10 updates in 2 topics - 10 Updates
Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>: Jan 13 10:49PM -0500
Meredith,
Thanks for sharing. I participated in Somervision at the time, as did many
others across the city. The contents of the Somervision report reflect the
best understanding of the community's intent and aspiration at the time it
was written. Also, for those who aren't familiar, this wasn't written by
NIMBY old-timers that want everything to stay the same with no newcomers;
the city did a great job of engaging as much of the community as possible
across MANY meetings, and was led by what I view (positively) as a
progressive and aggressive development team in City Hall.
Others may not agree with the recommendations, but it currently is the ONLY
document I know of that attempts to capture the intent of the community and
balance it with the realities of development, demographics and economics.
This seems like the starting point of any discussion of what is appropriate
for Davis Square, not a footnote.
A few excerpts from the Davis Square section:
- The ENHANCE portion of the document explicitly states that we should
build additional housing in these areas; it further states "... In this
context, public realm improvements and infill development to enhance the
neighborhood involve making *small tweaks* and filling in the gaps
to r*einforce
the existing character* of Davis Square as a Local Center."
- Page 88 shows some renderings of what Davis Square could look like
under these recommendations. This includes the CopperMill property - see
below.
I personally would like many more people to be able to enjoy the great
community that is Somerville and Davis Square. I'm a proponent of building
more housing and density but I'm not interested in turning Davis Square
into a copy of the Seaport or Assembly Row. Those are great and if people
want to live in that type of neighborhood, there are many to choose from.
I might even move there in a few years when I'm ready to downsize.
However, in addition to these dense, high-rise clusters, I think we can
also maintain and ENHANCE our smaller, human-scale squares that provide
another way to exist in Somerville. That's my completely biased read of
Somervision.
[image: image.png]
Michael
Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>: Jan 13 10:57PM -0500
David,
I'm not an architect either, but I did find his email patronizing.
Chris' questions were not presented in a way that solicited feedback.
Rather, it seems that the intent was to bludgeon John's sincere concerns
with a point-by-point rebuttal. Even if each of his points are rational
and objectively true, the approach didn't move me as there was no curiosity
or attempt to build common understanding. Perhaps this doesn't fit the
definition of patronizing, but I don't think that it was constructive.
Michael
<michael...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 09:56AM -0500
Colin,
I searched the DSNC message board and found the term NIMBY used 5 other times (below). The last 2 were fairly neutral, but the first three seem to align with Marcie Campbell’s comment that it is being used as a pejorative.
Not saying that this is excessive, just correcting the record. However, I will note that 2 uses were by a member of the DSNC board, which might be interpreted by some as bias.
Michael
-----------------
Nov 12: Zev Pogrebin stated: “... I think that this might help to prevent surprises later on, with NIMBY sentiments flaring up at the last minute because of aesthetic reasons or a perceived lack of public input ”
Jan 8: Zev Pogrebin stated: “...all American communities have NIMBY tendencies regardless of whether we are already dense or not…”
May 9th: Mieke Citroen stated: “Unfortunately, there have been a few very nasty, prejudiced, NIMBY, discriminatory posts about it on”
May 12th: Al Ball provided a comments on the etymology of the word NIMBY to point out that it is generally used as a retort to someone who disagrees with your position.
Oct 14th: Tom Galligani commented on the use of NIMBY and YIMBY “While terms like "YIMBY" and "NIMBY" are sometimes used dismissively, I value all perspectives…”
Michael
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Colin McMillen
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2026 12:31 AM
To: Marcie Campbell <marciec...@mac.com>; Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org>
Cc: Jayne Goethe <jayne...@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Merrick <ebm...@comcast.net>; Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>; Arundeep Singh <arunde...@gmail.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>; Callie Wiser <callie...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Copper Mill 40B Application Letter & meeting info
Just as a point of order, nobody has called anyone a NIMBY in this discussion. As fare as I can tell, the only use of the word NIMBY in all the (voluminous!) recent discussion on this list is a reference to the "anti-NIMBY provisions" of MGL Chapter 40B.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026, at 11:31 PM, 'Marcie Campbell' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council wrote:
I don’t think it’s an all or nothing situation.
My question has been, why does a community have to bend to a developer’s balance sheet? They had an approval for a development and because the market changed, they are forcing this new plan to meet their balance sheet. When they talk about revitalizing a “blighted neighborhood,” they aren’t taking responsibility for their part in the blight. Both Asana and Cooper Mill are equally responsible for the challenges of Davis Square, as are the closing of a shelter in Cambridge, the budget challenges on a national level and the movement from Mass and Cass along the Red Line.
The empty storefronts and the flyered windows of the Copper Mill storefronts are an eyesore that contribute to the blighted vibe. Copper Mill might have my sympathy if they actually made an attempt to maintain the empty storefronts in the same manner as Asana, but they don’t and so I’m not convinced they have the neighborhood’s best interest at heart. How are they going to be as property managers for a 26 story tower? They don’t have my confidence. And the application to the state foments my concern.
The DSNC posts on this topic are overwhelming and trend towards shutting down anyone who questions a 26 story tower as NIMBYs. I have hesitated to participate for this reason.
In one post, someone asked for Somerville administration to support Davis Square in determining the best way to develop that center section in a way that supports density and existing residents. It is completely reasonable to ask Somerville leadership to gather constituents to come up with a plan that supports everyone. Yet Davis Square lacks city leadership or concern. The creation of the dinner groups is the first effort I’ve seen that is a step in the direction of considering the entire community, generating civil discourse and consideration and it is entirely generated by residents.
The proposal of a 26 story tower in an area zoned for 4-6 stories requires city administration, elected officials and residents to come together and yet we are all arguing in a Google group. It’s frustrating and not productive.
We all agree there is a need for more housing. We just need open and nonjudgemental conversations to generate compromise that ultimately supports more housing while simultaneously maintaining the culture of the square.
It’s not an unreasonable ask. But to get there, we need civic leadership, open minds from all sides and reasonable conversation.
It’s possible, it just requires compromise and creativity.
Best,
Marcie
On Jan 16, 2026, at 9:30 PM, Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org <mailto:jeff@somervilleyimby.org> > wrote:
Unfortunately, it is an “all or nothing” approach, because there’s no one else proposing a meaningful redevelopment of Davis Square.
It’d be different if we had multiple proposals for this stretch, but we don’t.
Jayne Goethe, I’m grateful for your perspective 🙇🏻♂️
Everyone: I challenge you to describe how else the stretch of parcels on Elm Street should be used, with the awareness that the current building is end-of-life.
If it’s not to be redeveloped, how do we propose to pay for it?
--
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
🌐 somervilleyimby.org <http://somervilleyimby.org/>
🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org <https://bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org>
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY <https://better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY>
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
📱 704.516.4628
On Jan 16, 2026 at 4:34 PM -0500, Elizabeth Merrick <ebm...@comcast.net <mailto:ebm333@comcast.net> >, wrote:
Just a general comment: I feel that sometimes this discussion takes on an all-or-nothing aspect. As if it's a 26 story tower or Somerville is just stuck with no significant new affordable housing. Personally speaking, I do not oppose new development in Davis Square. I oppose this particular project as currently proposed. There's a lot in between and I don't see why this developer's business decisions, supposed profit requirements and questionable strategy should jam us into a false choice.
I also feel this is a momentous issue for the neighborhood and the city, and deserves a full and inclusive process to reach any conclusions. City officials should ensure that this happens.
Elizabeth Merrick
Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
_____
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> > on behalf of Jayne Goethe <jayne...@gmail.com <mailto:jaynegoethe@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 3:49:56 PM
To: Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org <mailto:jeff@somervilleyimby.org> >
Cc: Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com <mailto:rachelrosenberg3@gmail.com> >; Arundeep Singh <arunde...@gmail.com <mailto:arundeepsingh@gmail.com> >; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> >; Callie Wiser <callie...@gmail.com <mailto:callie.wiser@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Copper Mill 40B Application Letter & meeting info
As the national situation continues to deteriorate, all I can think about is--how do we build as much housing as possible as rapidly as possible to give as many people as possible an opportunity to live in a vibrant, safe, progressive community? I moved to Massachusetts from a "red state" in large part because I saw it as a place that embodied my values of inclusion and progress. The call for Somerville's "self-determination" sure is an interesting take in this context, as I interpret it as exclusionary to what I think a lot of people on the pro-housing side see as a giant opportunity to welcome new neighbors into our community. I'm speaking up for those who would love to live here but can't right now due to the housing crunch. The opportunity to live and work where you want to?--that's real self-determination. Jeff Byrne's point about the 40B proposal exceeding the required 20% affordable units is a good one--wow! This is such a positive outcome--especially since the Burren music culture can be maintained at McCarthy's and Toad during construction. How can we bring more of these opportunities to Somerville? Full disclosure: I am an architect, however I do not work in the commercial residential sphere and have no relationship to this proposed project. From my position as a design professional, however, I can assure those concerned about scale or shadows that these issues are easily remedied through solid design choices and should not be an impediment to adding this unit count over a train station in our city.
-Jayne
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 3:21 PM Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org <mailto:jeff@somervilleyimby.org> > wrote:
It’s useful to be mindful that The Burren won’t be “knocked down”, as it has secured a long-term lease with Copper Mill, and will have a home in the new building.
As has been reported, the owners of The Burren have legally-binding agreements with Copper Mill, and are in support of this project.
Bear in mind also that, were a project to be put forward under Somerville’s zoning, it would have 20% subsidized housing instead of this proposal’s 25%. It also would not be profit-limited like this 40B proposal is.
I’d much rather see 25% of a larger building be subsidized homes than 20% of a smaller one, or no change at all, especially since we’ll get a new home for The Burren out of the deal, plus plenty of other amenities like bigger sidewalks & so on.
--
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
🌐 somervilleyimby.org <http://somervilleyimby.org/>
🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org <https://bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org>
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY <https://better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY>
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
📱 704.516.4628
On Jan 16, 2026 at 10:23 AM -0500, Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com <mailto:rachelrosenberg3@gmail.com> >, wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to respond to “I think the key question is this: Should Davis Square remain 1–3 storey buildings, or should it be rebuilt to satisfy today’s needs?”
I think that most people here agree that Davis Square could benefit from some development to satisfy today’s needs. I think that most agree Somerville needs more affordable housing. Many, if not all, agree that culture and community are also a crucial need.
I think the key question is really, then, how do we ensure that new developments serve and respect community needs, that they create the kind of Davis Square we want to have in the future.
Andrew Flynn’s proposal, in my opinion, does the opposite. Remember that he disappeared from his promised community engagement for almost a year after he received pushback and then he startled us with his filing of a 40B petition during Christmas week in the midst of a mayoral transition. In this shady move, he is seeking to have the state override Somerville’s own processes for self determination, a process that we would have more of a voice in. That’s because Andrew Flynn’s goal is to make millions from the 80% non-affordable units in this 26 story tower. He’s using affordable housing as a strategy to get his way.
We are not saying no to development, to improvement, to progress, to housing. We want all of those things. But turning Davis Square into Assembly Row is not the answer.
The Burren is a one-of-a-kind institution - it’s been an anchor of Davis Square for 30 years now! Does capitulating to Andrew Flynn and letting him knock down the Burren serve this community? Does displacing the culture and music that make David Square attractive in the first place serve our community? Does depriving Somerville artists of their livelihood, as the Burren is one of the few employers of local musicians left, serve our community?
We can have thoughtful development that isn’t shoved down our throats, create new housing, and preserve community and culture all at the same time. We deserve it. We should demand it.
Best,
Rachel
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 6:49 PM Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org <mailto:jeff@somervilleyimby.org> > wrote:
Hi Callie, et al,
I think this is worth focusing on: “…address the need for housing AND the community’s desire to maintain the unique feel of Davis Square?”
I think the key question is this:
Should Davis Square remain 1–3 storey buildings, or should it be rebuilt to satisfy today’s needs?
--
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
🌐 somervilleyimby.org <http://somervilleyimby.org/>
🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org <https://bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org>
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY <https://better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY>
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
📱 704.516.4628
On Jan 15, 2026 at 12:07 PM -0500, Callie Wiser <callie...@gmail.com <mailto:callie.wiser@gmail.com> >, wrote:
Thanks for this Arun,
I’ve been drafting an email in my head for a few days because I can’t figure out how we are so in the weeds when there are still really big questions looming that require mayoral leadership.
To me, leadership is building the public-private-community partnerships to address the needs of the city and neighborhood.
I’m still a bit stunned that instead of leading a process that would have brought developers and community members together to build on past work to come up with solutions for the whole square, developers for this one building were required to meet a few times with community members and expected to somehow produce at the end of that some magical agreement to inform the city position? Yikes.
Here is my high-level question raised by the news of the 40b filing: If a single developer has the ability to appeal to the state to override zoning on a parcel of land, does a local government not have a similar ability to override individual land/building owners to open up a larger area to development?
Or in terms specific to the Copper Mill development, does the city not have any leverage to look at the entire triangle bound by Highland/Elm/Grove to ask how that entire area could be developed to address the need for housing AND the community’s desire to maintain the unique feel of Davis Square?
Callie
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> > on behalf of Arundeep Singh <arunde...@gmail.com <mailto:arundeepsingh@gmail.com> >
Date: Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 11:29 AM
To: Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Copper Mill 40BRachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>: Jan 16 10:22AM -0500
Hi,
I’d like to respond to “I think the key question is this: Should Davis
Square remain 1–3 storey buildings, or should it be rebuilt to satisfy
today’s needs?”
I think that most people here agree that Davis Square could benefit from
some development to satisfy today’s needs. I think that most agree
Somerville needs more affordable housing. Many, if not all, agree that
culture and community are also a crucial need.
I think the key question is really, then, how do we ensure that new
developments serve and respect community needs, that they create the kind
of Davis Square we want to have in the future.
Andrew Flynn’s proposal, in my opinion, does the opposite. Remember that he
disappeared from his promised community engagement for almost a year after
he received pushback and then he startled us with his filing of a 40B
petition during Christmas week in the midst of a mayoral transition. In
this shady move, he is seeking to have the state override Somerville’s own
processes for self determination, a process that we would have more of a
voice in. That’s because Andrew Flynn’s goal is to make millions from the
80% non-affordable units in this 26 story tower. He’s using affordable
housing as a strategy to get his way.
We are not saying no to development, to improvement, to progress, to
housing. We want all of those things. But turning Davis Square into
Assembly Row is not the answer.
The Burren is a one-of-a-kind institution - it’s been an anchor of Davis
Square for 30 years now! Does capitulating to Andrew Flynn and letting him
knock down the Burren serve this community? Does displacing the culture
and music that make David Square attractive in the first place serve our
community? Does depriving Somerville artists of their livelihood, as the
Burren is one of the few employers of local musicians left, serve our
community?
We can have thoughtful development that isn’t shoved down our throats,
create new housing, and preserve community and culture all at the same
time. We deserve it. We should demand it.
Best,
Rachel
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 6:49 PM Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org>
wrote:
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: Jan 15 02:22PM -0800
Callie, eminent domain is a power the city has and there have been cases
where cities and states have used it to take private property and hand it
over to another private entity for development (cities have basically
entirely exited the public housing game). However, eminent domain prices
are hugely expensive (see:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/10/23/court_says_somerville_owes_almost_30m_more_for_land_seized_for_future_public_safety_building/),
take incredibly long times due to court cases, and there's a very strong
chance it would get rejected anyway. So to answer your question: yes, in
theory, what you've suggested is possible but in reality no.
More importantly, though: Copper Mill is attempting to build 500 housing
units on a single parcel. Rejecting them due to height and demanding a
6-story limit would mean that they would only be able to build 100 units,
meaning we would be leaving 400 households unable to move into our city (or
more likely: displacing 400 of our neighbors because the incomes of the
people opting to move in are high enough to outbid current residents).
Building a comparable 500 housing units in Davis Square at 6-stories would
require we tear down 5x the amount of area, essentially the entirety of
both sides of Elm from College to Grove, just to get the same amount of
housing. That is both incredibly improbable (meaning we are, again,
condemning our neighbors to displacement), and far more disruptive.
On Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 12:07:08 PM UTC-5 Callie Wiser wrote:
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: Jan 14 08:50AM -0800
This feels rude and uncalled for: Chris was simply providing information,
and to a whole community seeking information about a potential construction
- not just you. Also, he was not discussing opinions about liking or
disliking a new apartment building, he was providing objective analysis
about the result of the construction.
For what it's worth, I think he's right: there is only a single residential
building near the proposed housing construction that would be affected by
shadows, and a single park that already has significant tree cover.
Everything else in that area is commercial, so unless someone is really
concerned that the Goodwill across the street will have less sunlight, I'd
be curious to hear what the shadow issue is in concrete terms with affected
buildings.
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 9:34:24 PM UTC-5 John Wilde wrote:
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 02:36PM -0500
The Somervision process is a useful planning document, but it is also a
decade and a half old at this point!
Regarding Somervision and housing, it looks like the city is going to fall
10% ish short of its goal of 6000 homes over 20 years, though that can
easily swing a lot one way or the other based on a few big projects. A
semi-contemporaneous study <https://www.mapc.org/learn/projections/> of
housing needs by MAPC suggested that the 6000 home target should have been
50% higher (acknowledged in the Somervision 10 year update
<https://www.somervision2040.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/The-Path-Since-2010-WEB-4.pdf>,
page 11). Plus, the consensus of pretty much every current study or
planning document is that the whole Boston metro area needs to set much
more ambitious housing production goals.
I also don't think building one tower in Davis will turn it into Seaport.
Again, people's perception is subjective, but the Mass/Main project in
Central Square seems pretty analogous to what's being proposed here, and I
don't think it has really changed the feel of that neighborhood - I'd
honestly argue it has "Enhanced" it.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 1:51 PM Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ebm...@comcast.net <ebm...@comcast.net>: Jan 17 09:14PM
I don't believe for a moment that if this particular 26-story tower is built here that it would remain the only such skyscraper in Davis Square. There would be no rationale for turning down other such proposals. That's how our neighborhood commercial center turns into a mini-Kendall or Seaport, which I oppose. I'm for development that's appropriately scaled to the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Merrick
________________________________
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2026 2:36 PM
To: Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>
Cc: Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>; Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>; maryno...@comcast.net <maryno...@comcast.net>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Re: Somervision
The Somervision process is a useful planning document, but it is also a decade and a half old at this point!
Regarding Somervision and housing, it looks like the city is going to fall 10% ish short of its goal of 6000 homes over 20 years, though that can easily swing a lot one way or the other based on a few big projects. A semi-contemporaneous study<https://www.mapc.org/learn/projections/> of housing needs by MAPC suggested that the 6000 home target should have been 50% higher (acknowledged in the Somervision 10 year update<https://www.somervision2040.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/The-Path-Since-2010-WEB-4.pdf>, page 11). Plus, the consensus of pretty much every current study or planning document is that the whole Boston metro area needs to set much more ambitious housing production goals.
I also don't think building one tower in Davis will turn it into Seaport. Again, people's perception is subjective, but the Mass/Main project in Central Square seems pretty analogous to what's being proposed here, and I don't think it has really changed the feel of that neighborhood - I'd honestly argue it has "Enhanced" it.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 1:51 PM Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com<mailto:michael.a.chiu@gmail.com>> wrote:
Meredith,
Thanks for sharing. I participated in Somervision at the time, as did many others across the city. The contents of the Somervision report reflect the best understanding of the community's intent and aspiration at the time it was written. Also, for those who aren't familiar, this wasn't written by NIMBY old-timers that want everything to stay the same with no newcomers; the city did a great job of engaging as much of the community as possible across MANY meetings, and was led by what I view (positively) as a progressive and aggressive development team in City Hall.
Others may not agree with the recommendations, but it currently is the ONLY document I know of that attempts to capture the intent of the community and balance it with the realities of development, demographics and economics. This seems like the starting point of any discussion of what is appropriate for Davis Square, not a footnote.
A few excerpts from the Davis Square section:
* The ENHANCE portion of the document explicitly states that we should build additional housing in these areas; it further states "... In this context, public realm improvements and infill development to enhance the neighborhood involve making small tweaks and filling in the gaps to reinforce the existing character of Davis Square as a Local Center."
* Page 88 shows some renderings of what Davis Square could look like under these recommendations. This includes the CopperMill property - see below.
I personally would like many more people to be able to enjoy the great community that is Somerville and Davis Square. I'm a proponent of building more housing and density but I'm not interested in turning Davis Square into a copy of the Seaport or Assembly Row. Those are great and if people want to live in that type of neighborhood, there are many to choose from. I might even move there in a few years when I'm ready to downsize. However, in addition to these dense, high-rise clusters, I think we can also maintain and ENHANCE our smaller, human-scale squares that provide another way to exist in Somerville. That's my completely biased read of Somervision.
[image.png]
Michael
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 9:45 PM Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com<mailto:artport@rcn.com>> wrote:
Hi Chris, Mary, and everyone,
SomerVision 2040 set out (see map on p. 11) to:
Conserve
our great residential neighborhoods
Enhance
our funky squares and commercial corridors [this includes Davis Square]
Transform
opportunity areas on the eastern and southern edges of Somerville
Somervision 2030 provides more information on what "Enhance" means, and the 2019 draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan gives more details (on pp. 19-20; text below). At the time, buildings of 3 to 6 stories (nothing like 26 stories!) were being considered for Davis Square, a LOCAL CENTER. "Local Centers have an upper limit to development or else they Transform into a larger, more built up place type known as URBAN CENTERS" (such as those evolving in Assembly Square and the eastern side of Union Square at the time). "Davis Square is not yet a fully built out Local Center. Multiple low rise buildings and underutilized parking lots provide an opportunity for a more productive use of the available space."
Best regards,
Meredith
2019 draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan (https://drive.google.com/open?id=10k7kLv9L1OJHYy3wRVwNt6ZnZt7w6GDV)
pp. 19-20
WHAT DOES ENHANCE MEAN?
Nearly all of Somerville’s squares and main streets are mapped as areas to enhance. SomerVision sets a goal of 4,500 additional jobs and 900 new dwelling units cumulatively for all of the areas to enhance. The majority of these places are frequently thought of as ‘built out’ by residents but each of these neighborhoods is still able to contribute toward progressing the SomerVision numbers and values. Place types are a way to categorize squares and neighborhoods to bring common language to all participants in the planning process.
Smaller squares like Teele, Ball, and Gilman function as NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS which have less of an impact economically and are usually close to their full development potential. Some opportunities exists for small improvements, but the possibilities for infill development are limited. Local businesses and low- to mid-rise mixed- use buildings are the hallmark of Neighborhood Centers.
Somerville’s mid-sized squares like Davis, Porter, and Sullivan are LOCAL CENTERS. They have more impact economically, draw visitors from a larger geography and usually have more capacity for infill development. Local Centers are home to small businesses, restaurants, and personal service uses, but their buildings are usually in the mid-rise range - three to six stories. Upper stories are typically residential unless the circumstances exist to attract larger employers to the area.
The presence of public transportation has a large impact on what’s possible for a Local Center. If frequent transit or even access to regional highways exists, commercial office buildings are more likely. Employers add valuable daytime foot traffic that makes for a more robust local economy and a more visible public life throughout the day, further reinforcing the Local Center.
Local Centers have an upper limit to development or else they transform into a larger, more built up place type known as URBAN CENTERS. Somerville has an Urban Center evolving in Assembly Square. The eastern side of Union Square is also planned to be transformed into an Urban Center over the next 20 years. In some ways, planning for these transformational redevelopment areas is easier than planning for the sensitive infill necessary to enhance, rather than transform, existing Local and Neighborhood Centers.
The hierarchy of place types is used by the Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development (OSPCD) to inform planning decisions. The physical characteristics and development parameters that differentiate each place type can even help identify where the city’s squares are in their evolution and guide future growth. OSPCD uses place types to plan for the enhance and transform areas identified in SomerVision.
DAVIS SQUARE: LOCAL CENTER
Within this classification of place types, Davis Square is most like a Local Center. The center of the neighborhood sits at the intersection of four major streets: Holland, Elm, Highland, and College - which connect it to other nearby Local and Urban Centers. Davis exceeds the expectations of Local Centers with multiple transit modes including the Red Line subway, cross-town buses, and even local feeder buses that bring passengers from the edge of the neighborhood to its subway station. The surrounding area has a moderate residential density with everything from multi-unit houses and multiplexes to rowhouses and apartment buildings. The core of Davis is home to neighborhood serving retail and a multitude of restaurants that attract customers from across the region. Since the opening of the Red Line, a number of commercial buildings have been built that provide employment opportunities beyond the service sector.
In the planning process, we engaged residents on what Davis Square is today and what it should be in the future. The majority of participants agreed with staff that Davis Square is currently a Local Center and would like to see an enhanced Local Center in the future.
Davis Square is not yet a fully built out Local Center. Multiple low rise buildings and underutilized parking lots provide an opportunity for a more productive use of the available space. Understanding Davis Square as a Local Center helps to facilitate conversations about the type of place that it already is and the type of place it strives to become as it continues to evolve. In this context, public realm improvements and infill development to enhance the neighborhood involve making small tweaks and filling in the gaps to reinforce the existing character of Davis Square as a Local Center.
________________________________
From: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com>>
To: maryno...@comcast.net<mailto:marynorcross@comcast.net>, "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 6:58:37 PM
Subject: [DSNC] Re: Somervision
On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 11:04 -0500, maryno...@comcast.net<mailto:marynorcross@comcast.net> wrote:
The original Somervision Plan put the large buildings on the perimeter of the city. What happened to that idea.
I skimmed through Somervision 2040, and I don't see anything about building height. Assembly and Boynton Yards and Inner Belt are designated as "Transform", and Davis Square is designated as "Enhance", but it's unclear what that means.
The outreach for Somervision was conducted pre-pandemic. One of the recommendations is that areas around transit stations should be zone commercial-only. In more recent years it has become clear that this is a very bad idea, as people work from home more now, and housing prices and rents have experienced massive increases due to a supply shortage.
Also, the zoning for Davis was for 6 story buildings. Why did CM think they could erect a 25 story building?
That's not true; as of last year, only one building (27 College Ave) was zoned for six stories. The rest of the square was zoned for at most four. It's pretty clear we need to revisit building heights and change the zoning in the square.
-B.
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/6d9114fec74b84581dccdeb2f5acaf5e459e9610.camel%40alum.mit.edu<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/6d9114fec74b84581dccdeb2f5acaf5e459e9610.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1585826493.17125486.1768358713038.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1585826493.17125486.1768358713038.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPdvw%3DQGQRyHPRagk%2BwR3RBJ%3D5rzXCH_GOp_GwS6RVR8fQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPdvw%3DQGQRyHPRagk%2BwR3RBJ%3D5rzXCH_GOp_GwS6RVR8fQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com<mailto:davissquarenc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSymBxZk5Ve8mub4-%2BkwZ1aKqK0H5ysBXO7m7%3DRG5TmwoQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSymBxZk5Ve8mub4-%2BkwZ1aKqK0H5ysBXO7m7%3DRG5TmwoQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 05:42PM -0500
You could be right! However, I think we'd both agree neither Central nor
Union squares have turned into mini-Kendalls or Seaports.
To go a bit deeper, though, what do in Kendall or Seaport do you not want
to bring here?
I completely agree with you, Davis isn't either of those neighborhoods, and
I would rather we not turn into one of them. In my opinion, the parts of
those two neighborhoods that I'd not like to bring to Davis is the
corporate-y office building / lab building feel. I see Davis as a
residential, entertainment, and "small local" shops kinda place, very
similar to Union and Central, and not like Kendall, Assembly, or Seaport.
To me, an apartment building fits well with that character, could help
sustain local businesses, and would generally enhance our neighborhood. We
could totally disagree, but I'd like to understand your perspective!
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 4:14 PM ebm...@comcast.net <ebm...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 01:32PM -0800
40B proposals do not alter the local zoning code, so this construction
could not be used as precedent for future construction. No one else would
have by-right construction at a similar height unless they also adhered to
40B (including the affordable housing requirements and 10% annual profit
cap on rental units). Even then, if it is true that Somerville meets GLAM
requirements, the approval of this project would not require the approval
of future 40B proposals.
Also, again, Central Square finished the 20-story Market Central
construction 5 years ago and they have not broken ground on any new
high-rise construction. I'm not sure at what timeline you're envisioning
all of Davis Square turning into high rises, but even if it were to somehow
happen (which would require a separate upzoning independent of approval of
this singular project), empirically such mass construction is unlikely to
happen.
Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 10:48AM -0500
Well, I guess if it is built, subsequent proposals wouldn't be able to use
the 40B process, since the units provided by Copper Mill would put us into
the first safe harbor provision.
So then they'd have to go through the normal city process and we would have
a much greater say in the character of those buildings.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 16:15 'ebm...@comcast.net' via Davis Square
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 10:56AM -0500
The safe harbor provisions are only triggered if the city rejects the
proposal.
Cambridge is well above the 10% threshold, but has cooperated with friendly
40b proposals. As many have pointed out, Somerville could probably fight
this based on the land area safe harbor condition. However, I don't think
Somerville has ever challenged a 40b proposal, mostly because they provide
a very favorable amount of much needed affordable housing.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2026, 10:48 AM Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 11:06AM -0500
I could probably research the answer to my question but I am lazy and maybe
someone knows and everyone can know the answer.
For the below market rate units, I assume the renters need to somehow
qualify to rent them. Are the renters re-evaluated every so often so they
would have to move if they no longer qualify?
Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 11:17AM -0500
That's a good question. Thanks for thinking of that.
--Mieke
Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 11:57AM -0500
OK, I kind of answered my own question. This page states there is an annual
recertification for rental but provides no details.
https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/programs/inclusionary-housing-program
Kathy Partridge <nois...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 03:41PM -0500
I'm somewhat torn about this project. I've lived here for 47 years, and
it's difficult for me to imagine a 26-story building in Davis Square! Of
greater concern than building height, however, is the fact that the project
seems geared towards attracting a transient population, not folks who want
to put down roots or spend more than a couple of years here. All of the
units are extremely small, and studios and one-bedrooms constitute 85% of
the total. This is what I feel will change the character of the
neighborhood most negatively.
And thinking aloud, might Copper Mill be looking to maximize profits
through frequent turnovers and subsequent rent increases?
Kathy Partridge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is a lot like jazz . . . It's best when you improvise."
--George Gershwin
Kathy Partridge
nois...@gmail.com
Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 03:50PM -0500
I hear your concern. You are not the first to bring this up; it has been
discussed many times on this list. There are pros and cons, but there is
also research people have listed about how creating small unit housing will
ripple out to bigger units becoming available for larger households. Many
spaces in town are split into smaller units (think 3 bedrooms in a typical
condo unit). If these people could move to a studio or 1 bedroom, the condo
becomes available to a family of 4.
Maybe someone else has the email thread at hand to point at.
Bottom line is that providing small new units will help free up bigger
existing units.
--Mieke
Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 04:21PM -0500
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Digest for daviss...@googlegroups.com - 10 updates
in 2 topics
To: Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>
I am a bit skeptical of three bedroom units becoming more available for
families because those living in roommate situations will prefer the
expensive small studio and one bedroom apartments. The first time I heard
this statement it was from Copper Mill. They said it casually and did not
back it up with evidence. Is there any evidence or is it too new to know
what will happen? It gets repeated a lot.
Speaking for my own preference, I would prefer to live with roommates in a
triple decker with a deck and yard over a small box in a tower. There is
such a long tradition of that living style I just don't see it going away.
But I know others have different preferences and honestly the older I get
the more surprised I am by stuff that happens!
David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>: Jan 17 04:50PM -0500
On 1/17/26 16:21, Marilyn wrote:
> heard this statement it was from Copper Mill. They said it casually and
> did not back it up with evidence. Is there any evidence or is it too new
> to know what will happen?
It isn't exactly framed that way, but this research by Pew documents and
explains the general principle, that even adding housing that is not
affordable helps keep other housing affordable. It is a kind of domino
effect:
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2025/07/31/new-housing-slows-rent-growth-most-for-older-more-affordable-units
Thanks,
David Booth
Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>: Jan 17 06:58PM -0500
On Sat, 2026-01-17 at 15:41 -0500, Kathy Partridge wrote:
> thinking aloud, might Copper Mill be looking to maximize profits through frequent turnovers and subsequent rent increases?
Speaking as a small landlord, frequent turnovers are not a good way to maximize profits. Having units empty while new tenants are found is a major money loser, though we use that time to do repairs.
The Copper Mill development would be an entirely new building, so every market-rate tenant that comes in will be pretty much by definition be paying the current market-clearing price. It would not be possible to then turn around and demand higher rents in a year unless the market-clearing price has gone up.
If the housing shortage gets worse and the market rate *does* go up, there's no need to get new tenants to maximize profits. We live in a triple-decker with our tenants, and so far everyone we've signed a lease with have been easy to get along with and respectful neighbors, as well as just being nice and friendly people. We don't want to roll the dice on new tenants, and we don't particularly want to upend the lives of our neighbors, so we don't raise the rent on people while they are living here.
A corporation that doesn't have a personal relationship with tenants, yeah, is probably going to maximize profits, as do many small landlords. Since tenants generally have one-year leases, every year there's an opportunity to reset rent at a higher rate if the market has gone up, without getting new tenants. But if they want to avoid losing money, the landlord has to be pretty darn confident they can fill the unit with someone else if the current occupants decide not to pay the higher rate.
The way to give tenants more power and prevent the market rate from going up is to allow more housing, even if that's operated by corporate profit-maximizing owners. If there are units that can accommodate new people that need to move into town, there won't be pricing-out of Copper Mill tenants. If Copper Mill tenants have the option to move to another similar building in Davis Square at a similar price, Copper Mill will have a hard time raising rents.
> the project seems geared towards attracting a transient population, not folks who want to put down roots or spend more than a couple of years here. All of the units are extremely small, and studios and one-bedrooms constitute 85% of the total. This is what I feel will change the character of the neighborhood most negatively.
A lot of people cannot afford anything bigger than a small rental studio as their first apartment, whether they intend to stay in the city for decades or not.
The first apartment my husband and I lived in on our own was a 300-something-square-foot studio. It was small, but at that point in life, we didn't have a lot of stuff and we were very happy there. It was a huge step up from living with housemates. As a warehouse worker and PhD student, we could not have afforded a giant $4000/month open concept apartment like Davis Square Lofts. After a few years, we were able to graduate to a 1-bedroom in the same city. Had there been fewer studios available, we probably would have had to settle for one in a crummier neighborhood.
Calling renters "transient" makes them sound like carpet baggers, but they are a vital part of our local economy and culture! I've personally run into shortages of workers that provide important local services, everything from nurses at Harvard Vanguard to give me allergy shots to masons to fix the foundation of my house. It would help our local quality of live if essential workers could live in a Davis Square studio and staff a local crew, even if it's only a few years. Maybe they will move up to a 1-bedroom in a few years and stay in our awesome neighborhood, but if they or their spouse gets a better job in a different city, we can recruit a replacement as long as there is available and financially feasible housing here.
Recent college graduates are a major part of our smart, nerdy, artsy local culture, and we lose a massive fraction of them every year to the housing shortage. We want the creators of the next Jim's Big Ego or xkcd to be able to get a starter apartment here, along with grads with high-tech or business expertise. We want people to be able to stay in contact with their college friends and professors who could help them found the next billion-dollar startup. Maybe they will move to Nashville or Hollywood or Silicon Valley once they hit it big, but maybe they won't.
Unlike previous centuries, workers in high-tech fields now tend to change jobs every few years. It's unreasonable to force them to commit to living in the same metro area for decades, both because it cuts them off from a huge number of job opportunities, and because it limits the possibility for enjoying life. As much as New England is home for me, it has been nice to live on the West Coast and in the Mountain West for a while, and at some point I hope to live within walking distance of a tropical beach. Just because I've only been in a given place for a few years hasn't kept me from caring about the community; I've always gotten involved in local politics and transportation and gone to community meetings. Many local problems are universal, and it's good to have neighbors with experience living in places that have solved any given problem better than we have so far.
Academics should be able to live in Davis Square for a few years while they are a visiting fellow or artist-in-residence or researching a book. High-tech workers should be able to live here for a few years so they can help invent a new drug at Moderna, get a reactor up and running at Commonwealth Fusion, design a self-driving car at a stealth startup in Central Square, or found a climate tech startup at Greentown Labs. Metering the talent stream by excluding people merely because they will then swap places with a different set of people working on the next set of projects means strangling our local economy. It also makes traffic congestion worse, as some of those people would move to the Boston area anyway, but live in suburbs from which they have to drive to work.
-B.
Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 07:56PM -0500
Thank you, Chris. I had been sitting on this for a while too.
Some people talk about small housing (studio or 1 bedroom apartments)
drawing in too many transients.
It seems like there's a big disconnect.
Between that perspective of the world and the housing market, and the
current needs of people.
The traditional perspective is based on this nuclear family idea; mother
father and 1-2 children. That that is the goal most people are working
towards.
Reality is that that is not a goal that many people, especially in newer
generations, are expecting or even working towards anymore. There are many
people who are choosing to live by themselves. To live in smaller spaces.
Maybe with 1 other person, partner or friend. Intentionally. And more and
more of us in the in-between generations and people not raised in
Somerville (I'm in my mid fifties, so neither an old crusty Somervillian
nor a college transient, and I've only lived here for 9 years) have tried
to make it work by settling for less optional solutions. And some of those
solutions cause good housing for families to be turned into less optional
sorta independent housing. (I'm extremely lucky in having found an
excellent alternative housing solution personally).
More and more often, people who buy big units, a condo or house, do not
intend to live there permanently either. How is a young professional who
"only" stays 2-4 years any different from a family living in a house for
only 4 years? Are they also only transient?
We are looking for a place to put down roots, to build a life, to live here
for a long time. I can never afford to own a condo in Somerville. Let alone
a big house. A 1 bedroom or a studio? Maybe.
We are not transients. Yes, we are changing the character of the square.
The world does not stand still. It changes. People change. Housing needs
change. We need to change with them.
The current needs of many people are likely very different than what you
assume them to be.
--Mieke
On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, 18:59 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: Jan 17 01:27PM -0800
40B proposals are actually profit-capped at 10% per year for rentals, so
this is actually an excellent way to *minimize* profiteering off housing
development (in addition to the greater than otherwise required 25%
Affordable Housing that this proposal includes). Rejecting this proposal
and allowing Copper Mill to go with a non-40B housing construction would
mean they would not be capped in the future.
On Saturday, January 17, 2026 at 3:41:45 PM UTC-5 Kathy Partridge wrote:
Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 10:46AM -0500
Hello Kathy.
I agree with you that the project is out of scale with the existing
neighborhood.
However I take offense to the description of renters as "transient" and
unconnected with the neighborhood.
I also very much take additional offense to the characterization of renters
as a negative influence on the neighborhood.
I am a renter myself, but i have been in davis now for ten years, much
longer than some owners. I would absolutely love to buy here, but simply
speaking 1.5 million or more for a place is just a little high.
Brendan
Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 11:32AM -0500
Thanks, David, but this study does not address my concern. People have
stated that creating more studio and one bedrooms will actually create more
family-friendly units. The new units will be rented by individuals
currently living with housemates who prefer to live alone. Existing larger
apartments will be freed up for families as these individuals move to the
newer units in the tower.
This may be true. It may also be something Copper Mill said because it
sounds good for their proposal and people are repeating it. I personally am
skeptical.
I am asking if there is evidence for the statement because I want to know.
Not because I am anti-tower or anti-housemates or pro-family or old or
NIMBY, etc. 😊
Kathy Partridge <nois...@gmail.com>: Jan 18 11:57AM -0500
Let me begin by saying that I don't consider "transient" to be a pejorative
term, so I'm sorry for having offended anyone. To me, it means
"impermanent" and simply describes the experience of many younger
people--myself included, way back when I lived in five different places in
five years--starting out anywhere. Brendan and Mieke, I would not describe
either of you as transient.
Nor do I consider renters to have a negative influence on the
neighborhood--when we had a two-family house, most of our tenants exactly
fit the description offered by Chris: academics, scientists, creative
people--a few were positively brilliant. None, however, was engaged in the
community--they were all far too busy, and no one really planned to stick
around for more than a few years. We've lost track of all but one, who is
now happily living in the suburbs. Chris, I hope you're right that frequent
turnover will help to revitalize the neighborhood.
I agree with Marilyn who is skeptical of the idea that creating smaller
units will create more family-friendly units. I think a healthy dose of
skepticism about all of Copper Mill's claims is necessary to ensure that
their proposed development will truly benefit the Davis Square community.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is a lot like jazz . . . It's best when you improvise."
--George Gershwin
Kathy Partridge
nois...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 10:46 AM Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages