The other highland development

[Brendan Ritter]

Hey guys, wanted to repeat the very sparse info I have on the development *next* to the one presented tonight.

I recently noticed that they have this banner on the property

This property is a smaller rectangle between 373 and 393 highland and it used to have an auto mechanic on it. 

I previously attended a meeting on this property before covid, at which point I believe there was planned to be built four stories with commercial on the ground floor. There was underground parking with the access onto highland. (However this info is the best I remember and could be out of date)

[Frank Mals]

Thanks Brendan.  That's a good clarification.  

[Brendan Ritter]

Some more information can be found here:
https://www.verani.com/ma-real-estate/somerville/371-highland-ave-mls-73436531
and
https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/planning-board/reports-and-decisions/pz-21-041

The official address is 371 Highland Ave, and it's being sold (?) by Verani Realty. So maybe they're looking to sell to a developer.
I confirmed some of the details I vaguely remembered:

• 4 stories,
  
• 1st story commercial
• Underground parking (13 parking spaces)
  
• The last public meeting was back in 2021
  
• The development proposal includes two (2) studio apartments, twelve (12) one bedroom units, five (5) one-bedroom plus study units and three (3) two-bedroom units  
• Here's an image of what its expected to look like:
  
  
  
  Its unclear to me what part of the process its in. maybe someone more familiar with such things can chime in.
  
  Brendan
  

--
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.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/317b9087-f6d2-41de-a61e-58e5f18c1d28n%40googlegroups.com.

[rona twofisch.com]

It went on the market in June and was not sold. Another agent put it on the market again at the same price in September.

 

 

From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Brendan Ritter
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 6:55 PM
To: Frank Mals <malsb...@gmail.com>
Cc: Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Re: The other highland development

 

Some more information can be found here:
https://www.verani.com/ma-real-estate/somerville/371-highland-ave-mls-73436531
and
https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/planning-board/reports-and-decisions/pz-21-041

The official address is 371 Highland Ave, and it's being sold (?) by Verani Realty. So maybe they're looking to sell to a developer.
I confirmed some of the details I vaguely remembered:

• 4 stories,
• 1st story commercial
• Underground parking (13 parking spaces)
• The last public meeting was back in 2021
• The development proposal includes two (2) studio apartments, twelve (12) one bedroom units, five (5) one-bedroom plus study units and three (3) two-bedroom units  

• Here's an image of what its expected to look like:
  
  

• 

• 
  
  Its unclear to me what part of the process its in. maybe someone more familiar with such things can chime in.
  
  Brendan

 

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:35 PM Frank Mals <malsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Brendan.  That's a good clarification.  

On Monday, October 27, 2025 at 7:44:58 PM UTC-4 Brendan Ritter wrote:

Hey guys, wanted to repeat the very sparse info I have on the development *next* to the one presented tonight.

 

I recently noticed that they have this banner on the property

 

 

This property is a smaller rectangle between 373 and 393 highland and it used to have an auto mechanic on it. 

 

I previously attended a meeting on this property before covid, at which point I believe there was planned to be built four stories with commercial on the ground floor. There was underground parking with the access onto highland. (However this info is the best I remember and could be out of date)

 

 

--
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.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/317b9087-f6d2-41de-a61e-58e5f18c1d28n%40googlegroups.com.

--
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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEiq%3DFJbH0QkXWiYiB3u95UjEH0Kcns1JovqW1%3Dq%3DBH6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[mem...@gmail.com]

did I hear wrong? I thought the developers at the meeting last night said they offered to purchase it but they're not willing to pay the asking price. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/MW4PR15MB4331E9D594F9B33C74C03DD0BCFDA%40MW4PR15MB4331.namprd15.prod.outlook.com.

[Christopher Beland]

On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 20:51 -0400, mem...@gmail.com wrote:
> did I hear wrong? I thought the developers at the meeting last night
> said they offered to purchase it but they're not willing to pay the
> asking price.

That's what I heard as well. Perhaps the 371 Highland redevelopment
would get unstuck if it were rezoned MR6 and thus becomes more
profitable? It doesn't make much sense to me to have six-story MR6 out
at Whipple Street, and then everything between there and the Red Line
be max four-story MR4. That what it is now, except the Republic Gym,
which is max four-story CC4 (no housing allowed on the upper floors)
and the Grove Street parking lot, which is CIV.

-B.

[Carol]

These look tiny and not very family friendly.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/MW4PR15MB4331E9D594F9B33C74C03DD0BCFDA%40MW4PR15MB4331.namprd15.prod.outlook.com

.

[David Booth]

On 10/28/25 21:09, 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square Neighborhood
Council wrote:
> . . . It doesn't make much sense to me to have six-story MR6 out

> at Whipple Street, and then everything between there and the Red Line
> be max four-story MR4.

Agreed, it's basically developer-led spot-zoning, which in my view is
not the right way to do things. That whole area, so close to the Red
Line stop, should allow more height and greater density.

David Booth

[Aaron Weber]

The failure to have a comprehensive plan that specifies our actual city goals goes back years and years — recall that most of Davis Square's current 4-story limit was not chosen because 4 stories is a good height for the square, but because councilors believed the limit could be used as leverage to get concessions in exchange for permission to build to  more sensible heights. That's a poor way of doing business for both builders and the city, because it creates delay, high costs, and subjective permitting processes that are ripe for dispute, conflict, and even graft. 

Also, we should remember that the choice of Commercial Core (residential uses prohibited) instead of Midrise (residential uses allowed by special permit) was intended to discourage housing production. The city had not yet conducted its latest fiscal analysis, which shows that while commercial uses are more profitable for the city, residential uses are still a positive for the bottom line.  

But "what should we have done in 2015-2019" isn't really the question here, and this history is only useful as context. Let's ask ourselves this: Given that we don't have a sensible master plan for the neighborhood or for this parcel, what would make sense on this parcel now?

I don't really regard this as "developer-led spot zoning." We have a clear process for property owners to request map changes and variances, and that process exists for very good reasons. One of them is to address cases like this, where the map as it is drawn doesn't suit the economic facts, the business at hand, or the needs of the city as a whole.

Cheers,

Aaron Weber

Disclosure: I live in Prospect Hill, outside the DSNC catchment area.I am a board member of the Union Square Neighborhood Council and a steering committee member for Somerville YIMBY. I'm writing this on my own behalf, not speaking for either organization. 

--
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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/87e65558-093f-4ea2-8a08-ba4c4a2ca04d%40dbooth.org.

[Frank Mals]

Who are the councilors you are referring to? 

[Zev Pogrebin]

Hello,

I believe that councilor Davis has stated in some meetings that the 4-story limit was intended to be used as a 'starting point' whereby more height could be leveraged based on the project merits. Councillor Davis is on this Google Group, so I don't want to speak for him though.

I'm inclined to agree with David that more height should be allowed. I am glad that the developer is leading the process, though. If they weren't, nothing would be getting built. It doesn't seem like spot zoning to me, although I am interested in why the developer of 363 Highland didn't pursue 371 Highland in their petition (other than spite). It seems to me that it would be in the public interest to extend the MR6 zoning to 371 Highland Ave as well. It would encourage that property to be sold/developed, and it is currently highly underutilized. What do people think about including something about this in DSNC's letter in support of the zoning petition.

Best,
Zev

[PJ Santos]

No harm in mentioning the other property, but I wouldn't get my hopes up on them changing an additional parcel. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/7ba3388a-f5d3-4f4a-885c-1fd0f1c74754n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alex Dehnert]

> most of Davis Square's current 4-story limit was not chosen because 4
> stories is a good height for the square, but because councilors believed
> the limit could be used as leverage to get concessions in exchange for
> permission to build to  more sensible heights. That's a poor way of
> doing business for both builders and the city, because it creates delay,
> high costs, and subjective permitting processes that are ripe for
> dispute, conflict, and even graft. 

I've vaguely wondered if the frequency of special permits, variances, and
zoning changes were somehow downstream of Prop 2.5 or other state
legislation meaning that "okay, we'll give you an upzoning in exchange for
a CBA where you operate a community center" *is* legal, but "you can
normally build up to four stories here, but if you pay extra property
taxes for a decade you can do fifteen" isn't. (I suppose affordable
housing requirements are a thing we can clearly include, even if money for
various other community benefits may not be.) Naively it feels like
predictable zoning with more city money might be preferable to many CBA
benefits.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/7ba3388a-f5d3-4f4a-885c-1fd0f1c74754n%40googlegroups.com.
>
>

[PJ Santos]

New construction is actually exempt from prop 2.5!

My understanding is the preference for CBAs is that there are a bunch of things the city isn't allowed to ask for in exchange for a zoning change (such as a project labor agreement, I think). Developers can sign a contract with a third party without any restrictions, so that gives a workaround to getting certain community benefits. A lawyer friend told me he doubts this arrangement would survive a lawsuit, but both the city and the developer are happy with the outcome so nobody sues. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/alpine.DEB.2.21.2510291727490.27706%40novgorod.mit.edu.

[John Wilde]

At the risk of offering a nuanced view, the width of streets or public spaces should be carefully considered in deciding the “appropriateness” of height. 

This historically was a subject of design theory to determine ideal proportion - for example during Renaissance and Baroque European city planning.

I believe the planners of the current zoning map did take scale into consideration, and the designated heights are intentional. Appropriate height is of course subjective, (some prefer Manhattan over Florence), and the difference between a 45’ building and a 65’ building may not seem important, but some believe it really is.

The resulting impact from a building, whether it be 3,4,5 or 6 stories (hopefully not higher in Davis) on its particular street or public space from a design point of view should be carefully considered, i.e. how does it positively define the street or public space and fit into existing fabric, and how does it not negatively block natural light and accelerate wind.

John 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2025, at 4:35 PM, PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:



No harm in mentioning the other property, but I wouldn't get my hopes up on them changing an additional parcel. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzdTNTP5kp%3DTYPWo4k12iFkhRVNfESudiaXGgWsMJfziA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Booth]

On 10/29/25 15:52, Zev Pogrebin wrote:
> . . . It seems to me that it would be in the public interest to extend

> the MR6 zoning to 371 Highland Ave as well. It would encourage that
> property to be sold/developed, and it is currently highly underutilized.
> What do people think about including something about this in DSNC's
> letter in support of the zoning petition.

That sounds like a good idea to me. But it will require another vote
from DSNC members, because the vote taken already did not include that.

Thanks,
David Booth

[Christopher Beland]

On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 01:58 +0000, Carol Rego wrote:

These look tiny and not very family friendly.

Your comment got me thinking deeply and digging up data; unit size comes up a lot in local discussions of residential development.

I want families with multiple children to be able to live in Somerville, and I think the mix of studios and 1- and 2-bedrooms in this proposed building is compatible with that goal. Bigger apartments (3 or more bedrooms) don't fit very well into large buildings because every bedroom requires a window, unlike a kitchen or bathroom. We have smaller buildings going up with larger units where there is more exterior wall per apartment. The 4-story building next to Redbones, for example, is all 3-bedroom units. I'm not sure I'd call these units "tiny", especially for single people, but having smaller units seems beneficial when there's a housing shortage and space is at a premium. A lot of people will choose not to or not be able to pay for expensive nice-to-haves like a spare bedroom or spacious square footage, especially when just starting out in life.

Because renting one bedroom in a 3-bedroom apartment is about half the price of a typical studio (and less than half for a 1-bedroom), a lot of single people and couples have roommates and occupy larger apartments than they would otherwise prefer. Even with lower incomes, 3-6 employed people can often out-bid a family where 1-2 parents are working and their kids are an additional cost burden. Somerville has streets full of single-family homes, duplexes, and triple-deckers that have 2- to 4-bedroom living spaces. Building lots of studios and 1-bedroom apartments in bigger buildings would tend to de-crowd those smaller buildings and make more room for families that want to pay for a home office or multiple child bedrooms. (Not all families can afford that, or need that if they only have one child at the moment.)

Just to give you specific numbers and also illustrate why it's hard to find financially feasible housing of any size...according to Zillow the average monthly rents in Somerville tend to peak in late spring/early summer. In May 2025, they were:

• $2,450 - Studio
• $2,700 - 1-bedroom
• $3,500 - 2-bedroom
• $3,900 - 3-bedroom
• $6,820 - 4+ bedrooms

Right now in October, the number of rental units listed as available:

• 45 - Studio
• 209 - 1-bedroom
• 387 - 2-bedroom
• 408 - 3-bedroom
• 430 - 4+ bedrooms

I've heard from developers that 3-bedroom apartments and larger are slower to rent; I couldn't find any quantitative data on that, but that would be an indication that the market is imbalanced in favor of larger apartments. The above stats and high rents across the board seem to indicate a shortage of studio and 1-bedroom apartments compared to 2+ bedrooms. Given Somerville is a popular housing destination for graduate students and recent college graduates and other younger people doing funky things, it's logical we would have higher than average demand for smaller units, and need to build a lot of them. But the high prices indicate we need to build a lot of everything.

In general, I think it's the job of developers to figure out what size of units are most in demand based on the cost of manufacture vs. market rents, and letting them do that tends to result in a balanced supply. I read the book "Streetcar Suburbs" recently, and that's what happened in Boston when mass transit first became available after the invention of the street railway, before zoning laws. The urban area de-crowded and expanded progressively outward, with richer people getting single-family homes on infill streets and poorer people getting one apartment in a triple decker on the same streets. This allowed developers to make the same amount of money for a given size lot while providing naturally affordable housing for everyone on the newly accessible land as people no longer had to walk to work.

Zillow data is from: https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/somerville-ma/

According to Boston Pads, Somerville's vacancy rate has been below 1% almost the entire time since the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating a major shortage. 5% would indicate a healthier market where renters have ample choices and pricing power. It looks like median time on the rental market for Somerville units was 14 days in July 2025 and the 6-month average is currently only 7 days!

Boston Pads data: https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/

-B.

[Mieke Citroen]

Thank you for that. Seeing some numbers like that is very helpful. 

--Mieke

--

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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu.

[Zev Pogrebin]

Hello Chris, all,

It's also very interesting to see these numbers. I'd point out that we should probably compare them to the demographics of Somerville, e.g. age, marital status, etc, to determine whether there is a shortage of housing stock. Qualitatively, I looked at some census data and found the following age demographics (ACS 2023):

0-9	6%
10-19	4%
20-29	33%
30-39	25%
40-49	10%
50-59	8%
60-69	8%
70-79	4%
80+	2%
Total	100.00%

I highlighted the 20-29 demographic, which is very large, and of which it can be assumed that a large portion may desire to live alone or with one partner. Those people are providing demand for the relatively small quantity of studio/1 bedroom apartments (according to Chris's email, that is around 17% of available listings). Combine that with the people in other age demographics who are seeking small apartments for a myriad of other reasons e.g. downsizing, living alone, aging in place, etc, and it leads me in the direction that small apartments are undersupplied in Somerville. However, this is a very qualitative and non-rigorous.

Best,

Zev

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brendan Ritter]

Wanted to add, I know of many people in this 20-29 demographic who have roommates in order to split the rent of a 3+ bedroom unit.

While yes, this does "take the unit away" from a possible family, it also makes the area still able to be lived in by those with lower incomes, in school, or who are just starting their careers.

So I'm not sure of the size <-> age correlation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Booth]

Other factors being equal, studio and one-bedroom apartments drive
housing costs up, because the cost per occupant decreases with more
bedrooms.

I would like to see more housing that is more *naturally* affordable --
especially near public transit centers. Forcing developers to sell a
few units at artificially low prices does not really solve the problem.
Every time I hear that a developer is setting aside 20% of units as
affordable, it means that 80% will be UNaffordable, which to my mind is
the opposite of what we need. We already have far too much UNaffordable
housing.

How can we make housing more naturally affordable? I'm thinking:
a. Make more quantity of it available, because increasing supply
lowers prices (Econ 101);
b. Make it less expensive to build, and less attractive to more
affluent buyers: fewer bathrooms and kitchens per occupant, smaller room
sizes, no parking, etc.
c. Increase density -- especially public transport centers -- to lower
land cost.

Developers of course need to make money, but if we can figure out
policies that would create more naturally affordable housing, I think it
would help a lot. What do others think?

Thanks,
David Booth
aka Sparkle's Dad

> * $2,450 - Studio
> * $2,700 - 1-bedroom
> * $3,500 - 2-bedroom
> * $3,900 - 3-bedroom
> * $6,820 - 4+ bedrooms

>
> Right now in October, the number of rental units listed as
> available:
>

> * 45 - Studio
> * 209 - 1-bedroom
> * 387 - 2-bedroom
> * 408 - 3-bedroom
> * 430 - 4+ bedrooms

>
> I've heard from developers that 3-bedroom apartments and
> larger are slower to rent; I couldn't find any quantitative
> data on that, but that would be an indication that the
> market is imbalanced in favor of larger apartments. The
> above stats and high rents across the board seem to indicate
> a shortage of studio and 1-bedroom apartments compared to 2+
> bedrooms. Given Somerville is a popular housing destination
> for graduate students and recent college graduates and other
> younger people doing funky things, it's logical we would
> have higher than average demand for smaller units, and need
> to build a lot of them. But the high prices indicate we need

> to build a lot of /everything/.

>
> In general, I think it's the job of developers to figure out
> what size of units are most in demand based on the cost of
> manufacture vs. market rents, and letting them do that tends
> to result in a balanced supply. I read the book "Streetcar
> Suburbs" recently, and that's what happened in Boston when
> mass transit first became available after the invention of
> the street railway, before zoning laws. The urban area
> de-crowded and expanded progressively outward, with richer
> people getting single-family homes on infill streets and
> poorer people getting one apartment in a triple decker on
> the same streets. This allowed developers to make the same
> amount of money for a given size lot while providing
> naturally affordable housing for everyone on the newly
> accessible land as people no longer had to walk to work.
>
> Zillow data is from:

> https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/somerville-ma/ <https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/somerville-ma/>

>
> According to Boston Pads, Somerville's vacancy rate has been
> below 1% almost the entire time since the COVID-19 pandemic,
> indicating a major shortage. 5% would indicate a healthier
> market where renters have ample choices and pricing power.
> It looks like median time on the rental market for
> Somerville units was 14 days in July 2025 and the 6-month
> average is currently only 7 days!
>
> Boston Pads data:

> https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/ <https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/>

>
> -B.
>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council ·

> https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org> ·
> https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC

> <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:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org

> <https://DavisSquareNC.org> · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC

> <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic
> in the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe>.

> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
> to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org

> <https://DavisSquareNC.org> · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC

> <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:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org

> <https://DavisSquareNC.org> · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC

> <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:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[PJ Santos]

On naturally affordable housing:

This is usually housing that's old, the same as used cars are cheaper than new cars. Unfortunately, unless you've got a time machine in your basement, the only way to make more old houses is to build new ones and wait.

Additionally, housing is sort of fungible. A lot of our affordable family housing is occupied by graduate students / young people who pack 6 at a time into a 3 bedroom apartment (source: personal experience). More small apartments tends to free up bigger ones for families.

Finally, a challenge with naturally affordable housing is that it's also affordable to the wealthy, who can buy them and renovate. That reminds me of the joke about two campers who encounter a bear in the woods, we don't need new housing to outrun the bear of high costs, we just need to outrun doing a gut renovation in order to protect our naturally affordable units. 

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.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/29191236-88af-45ed-9cec-5ae2e4f3b4a4%40dbooth.org.

[David Booth]

On 11/1/25 12:38, PJ Santos wrote:
> On naturally affordable housing:
> This is usually housing that's old, the same as used cars are cheaper
> than new cars. Unfortunately, unless you've got a time machine in your
> basement, the only way to make more old houses is to build new ones and
> wait.
>
> Additionally, housing is sort of fungible. A lot of our affordable
> family housing is occupied by graduate students / young people who pack
> 6 at a time into a 3 bedroom apartment (source: personal experience).
> More small apartments tends to free up bigger ones for families.
>
> Finally, a challenge with naturally affordable housing is that it's also
> affordable to the wealthy, who can buy them and renovate.

Great point. Although it might be possible to mitigate that last
problem by placing permanent restrictions on the units, like maximum
room sizes, maximum number of bathrooms, no in-unit laundry -- thanks to
Zev for that idea -- and no parking. I like Boston's idea of not
allowing street parking permits for residents of units that were
specifically designated as not having parking.

Thanks,
David Booth

> > <mailto:zpogre...@gmail.com <mailto:zpogre...@gmail.com>>>

> >     <mailto:mie...@gmail.com <mailto:mie...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >         Thank you for that. Seeing some numbers like that is very
> helpful.
> >         --Mieke
> >
> >         On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 21:53 'Christopher Beland' via Davis
> >         Square Neighborhood Council
> <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:daviss...@googlegroups.com>

> >         <mailto:daviss...@googlegroups.com

> https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/ <https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/> <https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/ <https://bostonpads.com/boston-rental-market/2025-somerville-apartment-rental-market-report/>>

> >
> >             -B.
> >
> >             --
> >             Davis Square Neighborhood Council ·
> > https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>
> <https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>> ·
> > https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>
> >             <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
> <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%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >             <mailto:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:davissquarenc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >             To view this discussion visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/a8b2d07b97ac7c937f4184dabfe506459ab13556.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

> >
> >         --
> >         Davis Square Neighborhood Council ·
> https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>

> >         <https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>> ·
> https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>

> >         <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
> <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>>
> >         ---
> >         You received this message because you are subscribed to a
> topic
> >         in the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council"
> group.
> >         To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe> <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe>>.

> >         To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send
> an email
> >         to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:davissquarenc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >         <mailto:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:davissquarenc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >         To view this discussion visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3gxjp7BrEWG5U7G%2BpdSstydeT0bmH4SNMk%3Dt5LJ9s7bbg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

> >
> >     --
> >     Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org
> <https://DavisSquareNC.org>

> >     <https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>> ·
> https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>
> >     <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
> <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%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >     <mailto:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:davissquarenc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> >     To view this discussion visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhP2fewi_DsxoNu4a04WjbzraW9FLtovs6xrjmJX-B1_8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

> >
> > --
> > Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org
> <https://DavisSquareNC.org>

> > <https://DavisSquareNC.org <https://DavisSquareNC.org>> ·
> https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC>
> > <https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC <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%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <mailto:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:davissquarenc%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> > To view this discussion visit
> >

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriEGp%3DjQeeCxF3vORwEcof24hpVp3wQ5Mk4t295CdS_grw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org

> <https://DavisSquareNC.org> · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
> <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%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/29191236-88af-45ed-9cec-5ae2e4f3b4a4%40dbooth.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/29191236-88af-45ed-9cec-5ae2e4f3b4a4%40dbooth.org>.

>
> --
> Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org
> <https://DavisSquareNC.org> · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
> <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:davissquaren...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSxa%2B4MQrX%3DS5qSNZi%3DnH4nxD52-j0YdV8BxwbYaV-qu8w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSxa%2B4MQrX%3DS5qSNZi%3DnH4nxD52-j0YdV8BxwbYaV-qu8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[PJ Santos]

Somerville actually already does that! New buildings within a 1/2 mile of a T stop are ineligible for street parking passes: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-787 

A related request that I'd like to see is preventing parking spots from being "bundled" with units. If you're forced to pay for a parking spot because it comes with your place to live, you'll likely buy or bring a car. If it is a separate purchase, that'll hopefully encourage more people to live without one. 

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.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/32c8637c-54be-41ec-86ad-d0dc90a4e529%40dbooth.org.

[Marilyn]

I love that folks are passionate about stuff. I also think we should let landlords rent any parking spaces in their buildings the way that works best for them. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzeQe-Oo6Kb%3DYH_nAaPBSch3U3y7pooVR-ptbR6-wvH_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Carol]

Not everyone can live without a car.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzeQe-Oo6Kb%3DYH_nAaPBSch3U3y7pooVR-ptbR6-wvH_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mieke Citroen]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2025, 13:27 'Carol'  wrote:

Not everyone can live without a car.

And your point?

Not everyone needs a car.

Not everyone can live without a car.

The sky is blue.

--Mieke.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/653915764.3460910.1762108054205%40mail.yahoo.com.

[PJ Santos]

Approximately 1/4 of households don't have a car, including a bunch of people I know with kids.

Obviously, we shouldn't ban cars from the city, but it also seems silly to make car ownership mandatory. 

Personally, if my family could afford to live a little closer to the T we would have preferred to go without a car, but there weren't any options in our budget. 

People want all sorts of different lifestyles, and I think we should let them choose what's right for them! 

[Alex Epstein]

Hey PJ, 

Good point, and parking is also required to be unbundled (i.e., charged separately and optionally to tenants) in new commercial development and in residential buildings of 20+ units. https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/somerville-ma/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-802

I'm puzzled and can't remember why the City decided to exempt new buildings with under 20 units, though. As an owner-occupant landlord with a single rental unit, I still make a point to unbundle parking for our tenant so that we don't nudge them to bring cars with them to Somerville--and give them the chance to pay less for housing. 

Alex

[mem...@gmail.com]

PJ,

Carol can correct me if I've misunderstood, but I don't think her comment "Not everyone can live without a car." means that she thinks car ownership should be mandatory. I'm puzzled why you'd leap to that. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSyNkBP-%2BD46vJK4mwdU1Hr1i6W574O%2BZ4O-x6dOJqu-MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[mem...@gmail.com]

Reading the comments in this group, one might conclude that Carol is the only one in Somerville that consistently mentions that there are people who use cars as she consistently receives multiple responses to the contrary. Since PJ's data indicates that 75% of households have cars, I think it's beneficial for all of us to be reminded of this. Otherwise, the small number of people who share their opinions risk living in an echo chamber.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3iNX%3D6%2BmpS87psmWHR2VetobvPZCtJvaLjn_ULKizYmTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[PJ Santos]

Not suggesting that at all! My point is we should build places that do and do not allow for car ownership, and let people pick what they want. It's true that not everyone can live without a car, but not every building needs to be for everyone. 

In my own experience, it seems like there is a shortage of "no car" options available, and building more of them would be beneficial. 

[Carol]

Thank you 

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CABqVqBZ0rVMJdaBmnuhcftqLDkvKqJ6EiUxgh-4w0dPGAJmjzw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chiu]

I'm with Carol on this.

I take the train, walk or bike to work but still need a car for many other reasons.  I also expect to get to an age when cycling or walking won't work well for me and hope to remain in the city.   Until recently, my 90+ y/o mother lived with us and she struggled to pedal a bike while holding her walker... :-)

I know that nobody is suggesting that we get rid of cars and I am a huge supporter of a walkable city with bike lanes.  But I also worry about the potential echo-chamber and the likelihood that older residents (this probably includes me) may not spend as much time, or may not be as comfortable expressing their views online.  This may result in an under-representation of these perspectives and a failure of DSNC to achieve its goal of representing the entire Davis Square community.

Not complaining; I'm quite pleased by the progress and engagement to date, just pointing out that a bunch of people agreeing in an online discussion does not mean that there is actual agreement in the community.  I think most of us know this but a reminder never hurts!

Michael

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1564601227.3835244.1762196856386%40mail.yahoo.com.

[rona twofisch.com]

I agree with Mary Ellen and Carol about the echo chamber effect whenever we talk about allowing people to use their cars in Somerville. People who need cars need them! Making driving more expensive and inconvenient is not an equitable strategy.

1. People get accessible parking tags if they cannot walk 200 feet without assistance. Closing off Elm Street will make some people unable to access dentists, doctors, and PT services in the Square.
2. The people who work lower-paying jobs are often the people who need to drive to their work sites (think house cleaners, contractors, visiting nurses…)
3. There is a huge hole in our public transportation system. Both mayoral candidates say the support a local shuttle bus system. We should keep the new mayor on track to do that.
4. The number of cars registered in the city is not a good indicator of success in lowering the petrochemical pollution here. A better measure would be how much gasoline is being used; average miles per year could be figured out, if someone was motivated to poll resident drivers.
5. Idling cars pollute much more than moving cars. Road changes that cause traffic jams also cause spikes in air pollution. Making intentional traffic jams goes against the goal of fighting air pollution.

All that said, unbundling parking fee from rent is a good idea. Studies I looked at said unbundling attracted people who don’t drive and also people with one car (instead of two) per household.

The inner circle of Davis Square (and ½ mile from all T stops) can have apartments without parking, as long as street permits are not offered to residents there. The street permit ban is already baked into the City codes.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CABqVqBZ0rVMJdaBmnuhcftqLDkvKqJ6EiUxgh-4w0dPGAJmjzw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zev Pogrebin]

A few points to add:

1. Our road network only has so much capacity: adding substantial new residential parking will create new traffic jams and reduce access to parking at businesses. The first conversation that I had with Carol was about how hard it was to find parking at local businesses. Asking for more residential parking will only make that harder. Building a large amount of new parking capacity will create more traffic and lead to localized pollution, emissions, delays, etc. This is the original reason why the city was originally down-zoned and the indirect cause of the American housing crises. High vehicle ownership rates are not super compatible with density. If you drive to destinations in Somerville, it is against your interest to encourage excess residential parking production. You will soon be fighting with those drivers for road capacity in Davis and parking spaces elsewhere in the region. For Rona: each point that you brought up is a point against building new residential parking capacity in the square.
2. Building parking drastically increases building costs. Excavation of parking garages or construction of above ground garage space is very expensive and surface parking lots are a blight and impose a high land cost. That extra cost can only be recouped by one of the following: the developer can increase unit prices or the developer can reduce other construction costs by building more cheaply or imposing more height. In my opinion, I would rather a cheaper building get built. Those 
3. If more residential parking is produced in Davis, businesses will get less income from new residents. If I owned a car, I would likely patronize Davis Square less than those that don't own cars. If I drive to work, I would not pass shops on my way back from the T and may not have a spontaneous meal or shop. If I can compete with local businesses by driving to big-box stores, I will more likely do that more often.
4. When we say "some people need to drive," we are implicitly stating "not everyone needs to drive." I think people need to acknowledge that there is some degree of superficial, unnecessary car driving and ownership which only exists because car ownership and driving has been so subsidized. Residential parking is already oversupplied in Somerville, and it is so subsidized that it is practically free. Nearly every single street is full of permitted resident parking on both sides, and nearly every house has some degree of parking, which is usually rolled into the price of the residential unit. Reducing the amount of new-build residential parking will encourage more people to decide whether they actually need to own a car and reduce the implicit subsidy (one which we pay with higher residential prices, that the community provides for residential parking.

In my personal opinion, low quantities of residential parking (ideally less than 0.25 spaces per residential unit) are the only way to add more residents to Davis square without imposing negative externalities. Please let me know if I am "echo chambering." I would far rather be building more parking for people visiting businesses than residential spaces.

Best,

Zev

To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/davissquarenc/tNnXqlcwOIM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/MW4PR15MB4331EF6C9BACA00FE767E7ABBCC7A%40MW4PR15MB4331.namprd15.prod.outlook.com.

[rona twofisch.com]

In Somerville, about ¾ of households have cars. Many car owners also use mass transit, bicycle, and walking. If we are going to work as a coalition, DSNC needs to find the ground that we can all stand on. Frequently, the car-bicycle conversations devolve into “drivers should pay more” “bicyclist are the future, get used to it” or “bicyclist are agist and don’t care about disabled people”. All of that needs to get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

 

Counting local car registration numbers is the wrong data.

Manhattan has a very low number of registered cars (22%) but is affected by the outer borough car owners (45% citywide ownership rate) and even more so by the suburban car rates (Nassau county 81.9%, New Jersey 88.7%). No one thinks Manhattan does not have a traffic problem. Somerville is more like Brooklyn, so if we aim to lower car use, we are looking at around 50% of households. That might be reasonable, if mass transit were better.

 

The nudges that would help are:

1. Having mass transit shuttle buses to improve the access in town.
2. Making driving efficient so there are not idling cars in traffic-jam locations. This would be a significant improvement in air quality.

Rona

 

 

From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of PJ Santos
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 3:11 PM
To: Carol <crego...@aol.com>
Cc: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] More affordable housing [was: The other highland development (with rental market data)]

 

Approximately 1/4 of households don't have a car, including a bunch of people I know with kids.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSyNkBP-%2BD46vJK4mwdU1Hr1i6W574O%2BZ4O-x6dOJqu-MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zev Pogrebin]

Hello Paul,

Good question: as to why my main concern is minimizing residential parking specifically. 

We already have residents with cars in the neighborhood who need to drive and who want to access some businesses with their car and spend their money. While I am personally rather anti-car, I don't want to make life more difficult for those residents who already have homes and live here, or change their lifestyle. Building more residential parking only hurts those residents and leads them to be against new development (think about comments such as: "what about parking and traffic impacts"). In my opinion, building apartment buildings with limited or no parking is really the only way to sustainably densify a city.

On the other hand, I think we are "good" when it comes to residential parking. While there are some localized issues with parking access for residents, there generally seems to be more than enough open residential parking spaces throughout the city. In multiple places where I lived in Somerville, I had to pay the bundled cost of 'free' residential parking space despite not using it.

When we are building new housing, that housing could be there for >100 years. It will affect the community in the 4 negative ways that I mentioned in my previous comment for many generations. Over time, the new residents who move in with cars, alongside existing residents may be frustrated by the traffic and lack of commercial parking access in the city. This will create demand to expand roads, add more commercial parking, and re-kick off the destructive car-dependency loop that killed many American cities. If you think this is a fantasy, look at the mayors of Canadian cities like Toronto.

In contrast, building more housing without parking, will allow for greater density and vibrancy without significant negative impacts, and, in the far future, lead more people to live car-free or car-lite lives.

While I wouldn't be in favor of adding more commercial parking, I would far prefer it to making more residential parking for the reasons outlined above.

Best,

Zev

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:34 PM bubbaduzz <bubb...@aol.com> wrote:

Thanks Zev

I appreciate your viewpoints, but your points seem to argue against building parking, while at the end you finish with "I would far rather be building more parking for businesses". How/where would you achieve this?

Paul

Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CA%2Bq6qhO5noYaT%3DV1xQaOKPD3nA%2BigCp3MTMXhv1Vt4rQmGtsbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Christopher Beland]

I agree with lots that's been written...north-south shuttles in Somerville and unbundled parking and no-parking residential options and solutions that accommodate a lot of different modes and demographics.

Accessibility on Elm Street, both currently and if it were to be pedestrianized, is one of the major issues we're trying to research. Pretty much all pedestrianized streets allow some vehicles, certainly emergency vehicles, but often delivery vehicles in the morning. Pedestrianized streets I've seen in downtown Boston and Helsinki allow taxis; there's no reason we couldn't design some exceptions for Elm Street that fit community needs. For example, we could have a small number of accessible parking spots near key destinations, and allow paratransit vehicles and ride shares with mobility-impaired passengers to use the street whenever needed. That wouldn't generate enough traffic to cause vehicles to dominate over pedestrians, and they'd be forced to move slowly and relatively safely.

Illegal standing and parking in accessible spots is a major problem right now; we might actually be able to reduce that problem by banning cars that aren't using those spots from the street entirely. (And if they decide to park illegally, there'd be more room to do so without creating an accessibility barrier.) There are other design choices that might improve accessibility, such as putting accessible parking spots at the end of side streets that dead-end onto the pedestrianized Elm Street, or more strategic use of automated enforcement (either with the current street or a future redesign).

A completely different way to provide mobility for people who can't walk for more than 200 feet without assistance is the same way Walmart and Costco do it - free electric mobility scooters. One idea is to have people park at the edge of the pedestrian zone and transition to a courtesy mobility scooter if needed, allowing them to visit multiple stores (which would be a challenge now if they couldn't get a parking spot in front of each one). I'm curious to get feedback on if that would work well, and what the best design would be. Obviously another design challenge is finding a way to keep the needed number of general parking spots available for businesses within a short walking distance, but there are a number of options.

Electric mobility scooters can also actually be a car alternative at the city level. In Amsterdam, for instance, the protected bike lane network is ubiquitous, and people in electric mobility scooters use them to get everywhere. Somerville is building out its own bike network, and once that reaches enough places, it will also be possible to use a mobility scooter to live car-free or car-sometimes in Somerville with mobility challenges, and run errands without needing parking at the destination.

I agree in the medium term, idling and traffic jams cause pollution, and every mile driven in a gas car contributes a wee bit to climate change and local pollution. I think maybe 30-50 years from now we'll be electrified enough that automobile pollution will be negligible (except maybe tire particulates?), and the reasons to fix traffic jams will be wasted life-hours, economic productivity, and emergency vehicle access. So the long-term goal doesn't need to be zero cars, but instead I would think about where cars increase quality of life with convenience or accessibility or utility, or decrease quality of life when they take up too much space or are unsafe (if humans are still driving them) or are too expensive compared to lighter vehicles.

-B.

[Christopher Beland]

On Thu, 2025-10-30 at 19:52 -0400, David Booth wrote:

Other factors being equal, studio and one-bedroom apartments drive housing costs up, because the cost per occupant decreases with more bedrooms.

If the idea is to proportionally limit future construction of studios and one-bedrooms to bring per-person rent lower than it otherwise would be, I can see how that would happen in an extreme case, but in current market conditions it could make things worse by driving up (or not lowering) the price of a popular size. Even if successful on that specific goal, such an approach could also displace more people from Somerville and make more people unhappy about having to get roommates if they want to live here.

Imagine a city that had only 10 one-bedroom apartments and the rest was filled by enough 3-bedroom apartments to satisfy demand. The rent for 3-bedrooms should be close to the cost of land and construction and maintenance, but the rent for 1-bedrooms would be close to the 3-bedroom rent. Some people who only need one bedroom but don't want roommates would be able to afford to rent an entire 3-bedroom for themselves, leaving empty bedrooms - displacing people who could otherwise use that space if it had been built as smaller apartments. It also means some 3-bedroom renters overpay because they have to buy more than they need. People who don't want roommates but can't quite afford a 3-bedroom then bid up the rent on the very small number of 1-bedrooms, which is why there's little price difference. Some people might also not live in the city at all because they both can't afford a 3-bedroom and don't want roommates. A lot of people who don't want roommates would have to get them because they couldn't afford not to but have to live here. Because very few people would be paying the high 1-bedroom rent and so many are saving by splitting 3-bedroom rent 3-ways, the average rent per capita could actually be lower than a city with balanced housing stock, but a lot of people would be very unhappy, and space would not be used efficiently. Looking at the difference between cost and price, the very high profit margin for building the next 1-bedroom (if that were allowed) is a market signal that says the economy should be making more 1-bedrooms, and the low profit margin on 3-bedrooms says to stop making more of those.

Now imagine this city had developed without an artificial constraint on the number of 1-bedroom units. They cost more per resident to build (because of the kitchen and bathroom), and thus cost more per resident to rent if supply is allowed to match demand. But many people are willing to pay a higher per-resident cost not to have roommates. What would happen at free-market equilibrium is that everyone who values not having roommates more than the per-resident cost differential (plus a small profit margin) between a 1-bedroom vs. a room in a 3-bedroom would get a 1-bedroom, and that would roughly determine how many 1-bedroom units are built. Per-capita rent in the city overall would be higher, but there would be no empty bedrooms, and more people would be happier because the minimum cost of a no-roommate apartment would be a lot lower.

In real life, different housing units have different values (due to age and amenities and location) and housing supply is currently constrained below its equilibrium quantity by zoning and other forces, so profit margins are high. Still, not putting constraints on unit size means that developers will tend to build the most profitable unit sizes, and those should be, roughly speaking, the ones where the supply shortage is worst compared to demand. (As I mentioned before, different building shapes favor different unit sizes, and if supply isn't already too unbalanced, we should see all unit sizes being built every year.) For the part of the market where people have enough money to afford housing, that should give the most people what they actually want. That can happen at the same time that we (as you suggest) open up more supply and transit-oriented development and deal with cost drivers to lower average rents. The government will also always have to intervene in the market to a greater or lesser degree to make sure lower-income people can afford housing; people with vouchers can also be well-served by market-driven unit-size choices, because they shape demand just like other consumers. Government-built housing would need to be more carefully planned to balance unit sizes with resident needs.

I've also heard the argument that we should artificially constrain larger apartments to save space and fit more people in the city, and there's probably a whole different set of problems if we were to analyze that.

-B.

[Carol]

1 bedroom apartments are not family friendly and all the smaller apartments are driving out families. Where is the balance if we only build 1 bedroom and then we have a lot of young single people who may only be transient.

Carol

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

-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.

To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/fa0574b6a31919697fe7e9e81fe30d8447324fce.camel%40alum.mit.edu

.

[PJ Santos]

Young single people need a place to live too.

Per the data Chris posted, small apartments are the most undersupplied catagory. The fact that we don't build apartments for young single people doesn't keep them from moving here, they just live in family housing with roommates.

If you want more families to live here, smaller apartments make room for families in bigger ones. 

Freeing up our existing family sized apartments is probably better than building new ones, since the existing ones are older and cheaper 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1244435951.4135590.1762260086589%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Mieke Citroen]

One person says 1/4 households have cars, another says 3/4. We need to at least start with the same facts.

1. Where do you get these guesses, or can you cite sources?

2. How do we count? Car owners? Car users? Miles driven?

--Mieke 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/MW4PR15MB4331CF2C27243A7627D33606BCC7A%40MW4PR15MB4331.namprd15.prod.outlook.com.

[Mieke Citroen]

Are you seriously trying to discriminate against single people by not providing housing?  We deserve to live in Somerville too, just like families.

--Mother

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1244435951.4135590.1762260086589%40mail.yahoo.com.

[rona twofisch.com]

¼ do not have cars, ¾ do. If ¼ of residents had cars, it would be a victory for the environmental health of Somerville.

 

It is counted by how many cars are registered in Somerville, divided by the total number of dwelling units.  There is not a reasonable way to count miles driven, although there are some ways to estimate it. Example: do a survey of drivers and ask how many have the low milage discount on their insurance.

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

From: Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:26 AM
To: rona twofisch.com <ro...@twofisch.com>

[PJ Santos]

Hi Mieke,

The census tracks this, and I remember it being roughly 1/4 households don't have cars.

Unfortunately, I think because of the government shutdown, I can't confirm my memory. I believe some city planning documents also list similar numbers, slide 25 of this presentation has a helpful table. (https://ehq-production-us-california.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/9d70053928e15163464b40e3af5178670c9f939e/original/1636997240/a2feabfe15b4d86254f24216b3405aa2_Somerville_PublicMeeting1_Session2_Slides.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKIJHZMYNPA%2F20251104%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20251104T145231Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=35c3a567307c163eaabf1d79646d75d051e10cf65b6a1b3c67fe58cb69c8e1cb) 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3g9O5yak_Gt9ZQZcY6VDOCamJk5uW%2BXVH-5mHwHiZ-1QA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Maria Taranov]

I have a toddler so I'm all for supporting families. 

That said - I'm a bit far off from this, but in a couple decades my (now) toddler will probably want to live on her own, and it would be great if she at least had the option to do so near us. I'm sure many other families with teens are having similar thoughts. 

Also, as an anecdote, my family of 4 lived in a small 1BR apartment until I was nine! We didn't move into a 2BR condo until I was about to start middle school. I've talked to other young parents in Somerville and I've met at least a handful who continued to live in a 1BR until their first child was 1 or 2yo, due to affordability concerns. 

It is a very privileged assumption that families can consistently afford "appropriately" sized housing. And even if families eventually size up, they often start in smaller apartments to establish themselves in an area and save up for larger spaces.

Somerville needs housing of multiple varieties and I am very strongly in favor of building 1BR apartments. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3ihBO9ODogRqDoDT4tVf%2B3On4zSQoBL%3DwJcneRrCYgbKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mieke Citroen]

Sorry - autocorrect changed my name out from under me. 

-- Mieke

[Jeff Byrnes]

Appreciate folks pointing out that singles & couples need homes, too. I lived in a 1 BR in Fenway for 7 years while finding my footing as a young professional, and it was an amazing thing to have my own place.

If you look at what folks on the Affordable Housing waiting lists need, it’s overwhelmingly studios & 1 BR homes.

Then, as mentioned, look at how many 3+ bedroom homes are rented by roommate households.

When you put those together, there is a lot of unsatisfied demand for small homes.

We’d help a lot of folks out across incomes & household size by addressing that demand.

-- 
Jeff Byrnes
he/him

🌐 somervilleyimby.org

🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org

📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY

🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY

📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY

📱 704.516.4628

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAJcKn3h4LvPZzd1zQG6An0%3D4LyVG5KMtZSQbiXWr0B_xssqMhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brendan Ritter]

I believe strongly that we as an organization should not attempt to restrict the unit distribution of new developments. Presumably the developers understand the economics of this and I trust them to produce a building that gets an acceptable return on its investment (which is what's needed if we want more units added to the housing supply in a long term manner).
Many of the knock-on effects of unit distribution are solved by simply building more housing in general.
In other words, the problem isn't that development X only has studios. The problem is that development X is the only thing being built because the restrictions and process for development are so onerous. 

By defining through zoning and (perhaps CBAs) what's acceptable to the community, and consistently applying this criteria we can ensure that developers are satisfied with assuming the risk of building and that more housing is built for everyone. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3c200f1c-112a-48ee-81b6-352a7c91f143%40Spark.

[Kenda Mutongi]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/04/metro/davis-square-somerville-homeless/

__________

Kenda Mutongi

Ford International Professor of History

MIT History Faculty, E51-296d

77 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02139

 

From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 9:58 AM
To: Mieke Citroen <mie...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSyEMgP1vOe%3DzADZzK9epAEC73Ne3ECXPEz3%2Be0vzuuOXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Christopher Beland]

On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 09:25 -0500, Mieke Citroen wrote:
> One person says 1/4 households have cars, another says 3/4. We need
> to at least start with the same facts.
> 1. Where do you get these guesses, or can you cite sources?
> 2. How do we count? Car owners? Car users? Miles driven?

"3/4 have cars" may have been a typo or misread of "3/4 don't have
cars"? Back in May, I posted data on this from the US Census, and you
even commented on that thread saying you use a bicycle and a
motorcycle. To repeat, the Census estimated 23% of households (not
people) in Somerville did NOT have access to an automobile in 2023,
±4%. They had a breakdown by number of vehicles per household and over
time:

Somerville 2023:
Households 37,108 ±1,872
No vehicle 8,603 ±1,451 23%
1 vehicle 18,125 ±2,158 49%
2 vehicles 9,221 ±1,467 25%
3+ vehicles 1,159 ±478 3%

Somerville 2010:
Households 30,468 ±1,684
No vehicle 6,820 ±1,220 25%
1 vehicle 14,588 ±1.767 48%
2 vehicles 7,557 ±1385 25%
3+ vehicles 1,503 ±566 7%

https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=060XX00US2501762535&y=2010

(which is currently broken by a message about the government shutdown)

-B.

[Christopher Beland]

On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 12:41 +0000, Carol Rego wrote:

1 bedroom apartments are not family friendly and all the smaller
apartments are driving out families. Where is the balance if we only
build 1 bedroom and then we have a lot of young single people who may
only be transient.

As I get more data about where larger units are getting built, it seems small apartment buildings really do favor them, and allowing more of those might be the solution to keeping the city in balance. I just read that the new apartment building at 115 Thurston Street is adding larger units, built where there used to be a triple-decker and a parking lot. (The new building has no parking.) It will have 2 one-bedrooms, 3 two-bedrooms (up from 1), and 4 three-bedrooms (up from 2). That's in addition to the approved 3-unit building at 53 Chester we already knew about, which is all 3-bedrooms.

Somerville YIMBY will be probably in January be bringing a proposal to the city council to allow apartment buildings on all residential lots in Somerville. Currently in the NR zone (most of the city's residential streets), only up to 3 units are allowed per building. The proposed change would probably allow the construction of a large number of 3-bedroom apartments, both close to and farther from rapid transit.

BTW, it was interesting to hear the experiences of families living in small apartments; personally, I had to live in a studio for a while even after getting married.

-B.