Re: [DSNC] Digest for davissquarenc@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 3 topics
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Alex Epstein
Jan 11, 2026, 4:33:24 PM (9 days ago) Jan 11
to daviss...@googlegroups.com
I am for significantly greater heights + densities than we have now in Davis and near all the T stops. Cambridge is finally coming around to this in Porter to build high rise homes for more people to live near the T instead of in the burbs and to have more built in customers for local businesses instead of a suburban car-oriented shopping center. Let’s push for community benefits in proportion to the scale. I don’t have eyes in the top of my head and don’t care if a building is 50 feet tall or 250 feet tall; tourists gawk up at skyscrapers, locals in a real city don’t. I notice what’s at street level, like if there’s an inviting plaza or public space (instead of the footprint of a low rise building block) and a thriving street of businesses with the foot traffic to support them.
My two cents,
Alex
Windsor Rd
Sent from a mobile device, never while driving.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 12:40 <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 11:02AM -0500
Hi Christopher,
I think that occupancy is only one variable here (though if we’re focusing
on occupancy, I think we need to distinguish between standing and seated
occupancy. I believe the Burren Backroom is 100 seated; 150 standing. The
number for Toad, below, must be 70 standing - it is a tiny room).
Other important variables that determine the kind of music that can happen
are: size of stage, sound system, and green room access. Toad has a tiny
stage (can fit 3, maybe 4 musicians) where the bands have to do their own
sound. I’m less familiar with McCarthy’s upstairs, but know that stage is
also very small compared to the Burren Backroom’s, which fits my band of 6
(including drums) with a professional sound person and a formal soundcheck
before each show. The Backroom also has two green rooms which are needed
for bands to prepare to perform. Toad does not have any.
I’d encourage everyone to go to a show in the Burren Backroom and then
visit Toad to better understand - you can see the differences for yourself
quite clearly when you visit.
Best,
Rachel
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 4:20 AM Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
Jim Gallagher <jimgsom...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 03:15PM -0500
When I purchased my 2 family house in Somerville 32 years ago Somerville
was affordable and I could walk to Johnny D's. There was no Burren and
Mike's was the only current restaurant that was there then. The Somerville
Theater was a dump that hosted an occasional concert. Eventually the
Somerville Theater got nicer and some good restarants opened. I was there
on the day the Burren opened and have been there hundreds of times since.
When Johnny D's closed they took up some (not all) of the Davis music
scene. Almost everything has changed in the square and mostly for the
better.
And I think the Cooper Mill building will be another change for the better.
Others on this thread have made the case "for" very well. Somerville is no
longer affordable and this will help, sooner rather than later. And the
disruption will be much shorter than any other way of adding 100+ homes. A
perfect location to access the T and not add to traffic. I don't understand
the human-scale criticisms but I do know that my daily walks in Davis will
be better and safer. And more customers for our local businesses.
I will miss the Burren while it's closed and look forward to it's new and
improved reopening. I can cope with the construction impacts to get a
better Davis Square and Somerville. I think we have someone who wants to
help us and I think we should let him. One way or another I plan to stick
around.
Jim G
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026, 1:14 PM Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Kevin McIntosh <kevinmc...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 03:55PM -0500
Dear Erik et al,
The good news is: We are *not *"stuck with the tower." Given Somerville's
previously stated GLAM status (see Meredith's email), we are likely
eligible for Safe Harbor designation. We must convince our city council to
act quickly and decisively if Davis Square's destiny is to be in our hands,
subject to our own thoughtful, balanced, well-conceived development plan,
and not Copper Mill's, with its profit-margin imperatives and sudden 40B
filing.
Forcing out-of-scale development in Somerville with a 40B is an abuse of
the statute, which was surely intended to make the Newtons and Miltons do
their fair share vis a vis the housing needs of Greater Boston. The densest
city in Massachusetts needn't shoulder this burden, allowing a developer to
serve his own needs and damaging forever the character of a beloved square.
And beyond Davis, Somerville rolling over for a hostile 40B would set the
worst sort of precedent, putting a giant For Sale sign in the middle of our
city, declaring open season for the most unprincipled development, local
zoning laws be damned.
Neighbors, there is still time to keep Davis Square development *our*
choice and *our* plan, but the clock is ticking, and we must act together,
with determination and urgency.
Yours,
Kevin
Jayne Goethe <jayne...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 05:36PM -0500
As millennial Somervillians who have been impacted by high rents in the
area in the recent past and who desire to remain as car-independent as
possible, we and everyone else in our friend group wholeheartedly support
this development and the promise of reactivating Davis with
transit-oriented development. A cursory review of historical photos of
Davis and Union squares show greater density than what is now present.
Objections to the scale of this proposed development can be fixed! By
approving greater scales in this transit-rich environment across the
board! Currently Davis and Union are UNDER-SCALED compared to their past
urban fabrics. Let's bring back true density with height where it once was
the norm. Newton and Milton are further afield suburbs, but we're on both
green and red lines and biking distance from Boston, so yes, it is
incumbent upon us to welcome new neighbors.
Build the project already! #YIMBY
[image: image.png]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 3:56 PM Kevin McIntosh <kevinmc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
John Wilde <johnh...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 05:19PM -0500
Thank you Kevin, Elizabeth, Michael and the others who are stating a case for sensibly scaled development that can improve and respect the character of Davis Square.
As I was at the Republic Gym this morning and staring out the window envisioning where a 25-story tower could very possibly be looming over the neighborhood, the reality of what this would mean really hit home even more.
This is an insane proposal. This height is completely preposterous in Davis.
I for one will continue to voice my objections. Any developer that would seriously propose this should not be trusted.
I often work with developers and was the OPM on the relatively recently completed friendly 40B Artemis project in Arlington. The developers on this were genuinely interested in making a positive contribution to the community and respecting the people who live there. I have been involved with many other housing projects including many 40B projects, I can't think of one proposal that was so disrespectful to the character of the existing context.
Somerville is filled with untapped opportunities for housing such as around Gilman Square, Union and the Inner Belt. Indeed, there are already many housing buildings going up now such as those along the bike path. So progress is being made. The character of Davis does not need to be destroyed when the whole city should be considered as a whole.
This will be shouted down by the tower-happy-maximize-housing-immediately-consequences-be-damned folks who dominate this group but I really don't care, and this group's position I find very dangerous.
John Wilde
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2026, at 3:56 PM, Kevin McIntosh <kevinmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Erik et al,
The good news is: We are not "stuck with the tower." Given Somerville's previously stated GLAM status (see Meredith's email), we are likely eligible for Safe Harbor designation. We must convince our city council to act quickly and decisively if Davis Square's destiny is to be in our hands, subject to our own thoughtful, balanced, well-conceived development plan, and not Copper Mill's, with its profit-margin imperatives and sudden 40B filing.
Forcing out-of-scale development in Somerville with a 40B is an abuse of the statute, which was surely intended to make the Newtons and Miltons do their fair share vis a vis the housing needs of Greater Boston. The densest city in Massachusetts needn't shoulder this burden, allowing a developer to serve his own needs and damaging forever the character of a beloved square. And beyond Davis, Somerville rolling over for a hostile 40B would set the worst sort of precedent, putting a giant For Sale sign in the middle of our city, declaring open season for the most unprincipled development, local zoning laws be damned.
Neighbors, there is still time to keep Davis Square development our choice and our plan, but the clock is ticking, and we must act together, with determination and urgency.
Yours,
Kevin
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 10:01 AM Erik Nygren <nyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since it sounds like with the 40B process we may be stuck with a tower, we may need to figure out how to engage with the developer and the city to make the best of it.
My top practical concerns not already talked about a bunch here are:
1) What this means for supporting vehicular traffic and temporary. Even if there's no parking and residents aren't able to get access to parking permits (will they?) so can't own cars, what does this mean for moving trucks on September 1st, food delivery, Uber/Lyft, delivery trucks for the businesses, trash pickup, etc? What does this also mean for any future options for making Elm St be a pedestrian street during parts of the day? It will be critical to make sure this doesn't make the already bad double-parking situation worse in the square in a way that impacts pedestrian safety even more.
2) What this means for school capacity. While this is mostly studios, I'm sure that some portion of the 500 units will have people with kids needing space in our schools. The elementary and middle schools within walking distance of Davis Sq are tight on capacity even with the Brown School open. The city doesn't have money for bussing, and driving isn't an option here if there's no parking. This means that we need to make sure that as we build up we build school capacity within walking distance of where developments are happening, and there are other developments also coming online soon (eg, 299 Broadway which will have 288 units) that will put pressure on school capacity.
Best, Erik
On Friday, January 9, 2026 at 9:47:09 PM UTC-5 Susanna Coit wrote:
I'd like to encourage people to also share these thoughts about this Copper Mill's 40b with Mayor Wilson's office. As he said in his video message, "my support depends on your support." It is important for him to hear from people!
On Friday, January 9, 2026 at 2:28:57 PM UTC-5 Brendan Ritter wrote:
I was very shocked to hear this information given the radio silence surrounding the project.
I'm somewhat torn. While I do want housing, it's clear a large number of our neighbors take exception to the height. The similar projects in union and central occurred on streets that were far wider than elm.
However, far more than the specifics of the building, I object to the manner in which the developer has pursued its community outreach.
For months we were given radio silence, and now we know why. They were always going to ram it straight through over our heads at the state level. It seems like it was a done deal by July.
So is that it? Since it's a 40b submission, even if we were able to gain nonprofit status and official recognition by the city, it wouldn't matter? (At least officially?)
Brendan
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026, 14:13 'ebm...@comcast.net' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Zev,
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. In answer to your question, I object to the size and height of the building rather than the number of new residents. (But of course, these are interrelated to a large extent. There's no way to fit 502 new apartments on that space without building a tower, I'd imagine.)
And if there were a magical way to make a huge tower invisible other than obscuring the view right in front by setting it back a bit, that would be great. But as you point out, that's obviously not possible and I feel that a tower looming over the heart of Davis is not consistent with the appeal and streetscape that has made Davis special.
In addition to being oversized and of a height that changes the whole feel of Davis as a neighborhood center, new towers like this add a monolithic aspect, much different than multiple shorter buildings.
As someone else pointed out, the tower at Union Square is not quite in the heart of the square, as this would be in Davis. Also, I'm totally not impressed with the towering new building mentioned in Central Square.
One more thought: In the long run, maintaining human-scale interest, charm (if I can apply that loosely), variety, uniqueness, and some older building styles has led many neighborhoods around the country and world to be desirable. It's easy to put up modern large towers. But it's impossible to recreate what drew many people to the place to begin with.
I am just hoping there is some way to develop this property without caving in 100% to the wish list of yet another developer. They always seem to say they can't build smaller or better, or else they won't make enough profit.
Elizabeth Merrick
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Zev Pogrebin <zpogre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 11:20 AM
To: Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Copper Mill 40B Application Letter & meeting info
Hi Elizabeth and all,
I just want to add to the conversation and say my personal opinion that a large tower would improve, not detract from the human scale of Davis Square.
One question of mine is whether people primarily object to the density of people or to the physical dimensions of the building? For those who are opposed to the building for its 'scale', can you chime in whether it is the physical size of the towers or the number of people that you primarily object to? For example, if the tower component of the building were invisible, would you support the project?
Regarding the density, I think that by adding a very high density of people within the square and additional retail space would result in much more vibrancy in the area. The 500 people in the square will almost exclusively not be drivers, so Davis will likely be their first stop and destination when they go to restaurants, buy stuff, visit parks or libraries, or just take a walk. I think that the extra foot traffic would make the square feel safer and create more connections.
In terms of the physical shape of the building, the 3 story pedestal will line up with the other buildings on that side of elm street, and create a street wall with a much more village like feel. The tower itself would be somewhat set back and have a relatively small impact on Elm Street. Of course, if you are elsewhere in the neighborhood, you will definitely see the tower. I don't really understand how this is bad, but that is my personal taste, I just don't view tall buildings as eyesores.
The shape and size of the retail units seems to preserve the small business-oriented feel, and the pedestrian arcade area seems really cool. Because the building is going to be making almost all their money from residential income, I think that there will be more flexibility to lease the retail units with small businesses. Putting a bank in will not be financially advantageous to the property owner because it could negatively impact the market rents.
In all the cities I have visited, I have found very nice neighborhoods filled with similar types of housing stock (single family up through something like a triple decker), which are next to very large towers. Many people bring up European cities like Paris when talking about how they oppose towers like this, but when I went to Parisian suburbs, I found several areas with high rise residential towers nestled in suburban residential neighborhoods, producing vibrant squares. Similarly, I was recently in Tokyo, where I spent time in amazing residential areas near Oshiage/Kyojima, filled with 2-3 story buildings but bounded on one side by Tokyo Skytree, one of the tallest structures in the world, and another side by a residential development with 20-50 story buildings. Even in our region, I would argue that the towers in Central and Union have had a positive impact on their surroundings (I rarely hear people who are seriously upset about the height of Market Central or the bacon building). What these neighborhoods all have in common is that the tower's population shops at businesses, walks around the area, and contributes to the neighborhood's community in general. The towers provide a good way to house these new residents without interrupting the local character in the main residential area. The alternative to house 502 units "in-scale" in our neighborhood would require gentrifying a large portion of local housing stock and replacing it with soulless 3-6 story condos (and such a solution would likely have far fewer affordable units).
All these are my personal opinions, and don't reflect my position as a board member, or the board's position as a whole. Please let me know your thoughts.
Respectfully ,
Zev
On Friday, January 9, 2026 at 10:32:53 AM UTC-5 ebm...@comcast.net wrote:
Does anybody else have a problem with a huge development featuring large tower that will dwarf everything else and change the human scale, neighborhood character of the square? Does anybody else think that multiple smaller developments integrated into our existing neighborhoods would be a better way to go? Why does an in-demand city like Somerville have to cater to big developers? I find it implausible that we have to grab this or else we cannot solve our affordable housing issues.
Elizabeth Merrick
Get Outlook for Android
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David <dtata...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 10:14:16 AM
To: Ron Newman <rne...@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Zachary Yaro <zmy...@gmail.com>; Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>; dsnc-bo...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-bo...@googlegroups.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Copper Mill 40B Application Letter & meeting info
Over 100 new affordable housing units, no new cars added to the roads, new retail space, and the Burren is secure. These all sound like very positive developments. It's nice that we have a look at the financials now. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side with lower height plans, so we can assess the claim that smaller buildings don't pencil out.
Best,
David Tatarakis
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:05 AM 'Ron Newman' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
My entire objection to this project has been to the temporary closure of the Burren and the risk of it not reopening. If the owner of the Burren does not object to the project, I don't either.
--
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/CAA%3Di0Zgiag71%2B2CqXxcE5Wevj6%2Bs1F1PO%2BAgmTef6ZqL8A01tQ%40mail.gmail.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/CAOBd5n5BLvOe4Z2C_ZhaSkH7wqkjn4F4Pz6rzpofRLwuAH%3Dqxw%40mail.gmail.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/668697c6-226a-4ee5-8a24-e0bd314f17a2n%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/SA1PR17MB4772B03533D66158788B62DCFF82A%40SA1PR17MB4772.namprd17.prod.outlook.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 visitDavid Booth <da...@dbooth.org>: Jan 10 06:16PM -0500
On 1/9/26 22:11, 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square Neighborhood
Council wrote:
> proposed in the 2010s. That is why Somerville is below the 10% city-wide
> affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's anti-NIMBY
> provisions.
Great point. If Somerville is not proactive enough about creating more
in-scale housing stock, we will be forced by Chapter 40B to accept
out-of-scale buildings.
Somerville *does* need to grow taller, because that is the only way we
can add housing without reducing green space -- but hopefully at a more
reasonable height scale.
As a rough starting point, I think a zoning change to allow by-right
construction of about 10-15 stories at major public transport centers
(such as Davis Square), and 5-6 story wood construction everywhere else
might be sensible.
David Booth
Frank Mals <malsb...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 04:34PM -0800
Chris Beland and David Booth:
It is flatly incorrect to state that "in a *binding legal sense,* the
community lost its right to require a smaller project by saying 'no' to
housing too many times" and "that is why Somerville is below the 10%
city-wide affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's
anti-NIMBY provisions". The city is below the 10% threshold, however that
is merely one of three Safe Harbor provisions in 40B, and the city has
established that we qualify for one of those provisions not once, but twice
in the last six years, most recently in 2023.
The provision that the city has established qualification for is *GLAM*. (General
Land Area Minimum) in which safe harbor is achieved if SHI-eligible housing
exists on sites comprising more than 1.5% of the total land area in the
city or town that is zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. T
In the 2020 during the Clarendon Hill process GLAM Safe Harbor assertion
was submitted by the city to DHCD on June 24, 2020. In the submission, the
City asserts that 3.8% of the General Land Area is dedicated to affordable
housing; *t**his exceeds the 1.5% minimum required to achieve safe harbor.*
On July 10, 2020, DHCD responded to the City's submission and noted that *the
Applicant did not challenge the City's safe harbor assertion.*
In February 2023 (
https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema-live/s3fs-public/2023-02/Decision299Broadway.pdf),
the calculation was that properties listed on the most recent SHI
(excluding group homes and those with unlisted addresses) accounted for
over 2.5% of the City's General Land Area.
In the 2023 decision, it doesn't appear that there was a Safe Harbor
assertion. The GLAM calculation was only used to establish that the
decision was "Consistent with Local Needs" under CMR 760 56.02. (The
calculation can also be used for that purpose, and that was also done in
the 2020 decision, along with the use of it for the Safe Harbor assertion).
It is incredibly important that we make assertions that reflect the full
scope of 40B Safe Harbor provisions.
Regards,
Frank
On Saturday, January 10, 2026 at 6:16:58 PM UTC-5 David Booth wrote:
Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>: Jan 10 11:01PM -0500
The comment below about a community preference for the location of the tallest buildings doesn't reflect sentiment for anything like a 25-story building. In the graphic, which is on p. 94 of the 2019 draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan ( [ https://drive.google.com/open?id=10k7kLv9L1OJHYy3wRVwNt6ZnZt7w6GDV | https://drive.google.com/open?id=10k7kLv9L1OJHYy3wRVwNt6ZnZt7w6GDV ] ), light color indicated "Existing Neighborhoods" and darker colors indicated "Mid-Rise Buildings including Commercial, Apartment, and General Buildings." "Height in the middle of the square on the ‘islands’ that include Middlesex Federal and Mike’s were better received throughout the community process than properties that directly abutted houses. In absense of a zoning map, this conveys the sentiments of the process where height is focused in the center of the square and decreases around the perimeter and streets leading into the Square."
Community members gave feedback in 2017, expressing preferences for 4-, 5-, or 6- story development, not 25 stories! (p. 88, DEVELOP IN CONTEXT - DETERMINING APPROPRIATE HEIGHT & MASSING) This site (233-239 Elm St) was considered suitable for all three heights, With a preference in the center block for 5-stories with an upper story step-back (p. 91).
The graphic on p. 68 may also be of interest, with a cluster of green dots saround the area of The Burren showing that it was an area that participants 'liked.'
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Beland wrote:
> Aggregated community input shows a preference for concentrating the tallest buildings in Davis Square on two blocks abutting the central intersection: the first block between Elm and Highland (which includes the Copper Mill site), and the first block between Highland and the MBTA busway. (See attached map from the pre-COVID draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.)
Best regards,
Meredith ("Merit," he/him)
From: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Heidi Lewis" <hlws...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 11:35:16 PM
Subject: [DSNC] Comparison with Central and Union towers
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 12:37 -0500, Heidi Lewis wrote:
Also, when comparing this project to the Central Square project, isn’t it true that the Central Square tower(s) - and the Union Square tower - are on the outskirt of these squares and better positioned to not overwhelm the center with a massive tower?
Aggregated community input shows a preference for concentrating the tallest buildings in Davis Square on two blocks abutting the central intersection: the first block between Elm and Highland (which includes the Copper Mill site), and the first block between Highland and the MBTA busway. (See attached map from the pre-COVID draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.)
In Central, there are already two towers at the main intersection (and commercial and residential towers up Mass Ave toward Harvard and scattered on side streets). I'd actually say the 13-story tower at 675 Mass Ave is not the best. It's a big grey box that comes right up to the sidewalk with an inset entrance that doesn't do much to make it feel human-scale or provide a place to sit. The sheer drop makes a lot of street-level wind. (That is also a problem with the bacon building in Union, and I'm disappointed about that.) Market Central (which is halfway to MIT) I think is an improvement because it has at least a little offset at 6 stories, and the outdoor seating and covered pedestrian walkway are very nice. I'm excited about the Copper Mill proposal because it's designed better than any of these buildings. It's only 2 or 3 stories tall along Elm Street, de-crowds the sidewalk while providing outdoor seating, and also has an awesome covered outdoor retail walkway.
I think the thing that keeps towers from overwhelming the pedestrian experience is not which block they're located on, but setting back the tallest parts so people never find themselves staring directly up at them. But sheer walls can also still work sometimes. I was surprised to get cozy feeling in urban canyons in Manhattan and Providence where there's lots of pedestrian seating and trees. Perhaps because this recreates the human-evolution-friendly attributes of a natural canyon?
Unlike in Davis and Central, the Union Square rapid transit station is not located directly at the main intersection. The Union Square bacon building is a direct abutter to the new Green Line stop. Several parcels next to the T have already been upzoned for tall buildings, so the area around the Green Line will probably become a notable center of density for some period of time. Higher demand closer to the T makes taller buildings financially more feasible there, and it's also the obvious place to put no-parking buildings to optimize traffic. What happens in the main intersection will depend on the city-wide upzoning initiative. The parcels next to the T were a lot easier to redevelop in the short term, politically and physically, because they were mostly junk yards which were a poor use of high-value real estate.
-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 [ mailto:davissquarenc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com | davissquaren...@googlegroups.com ] .
To view this discussion visit [ https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/ac1b3e05cd192a4a8f623ea3d1b34424fc600211.camel%40alum.mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer | https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/ac1b3e05cd192a4a8f623ea3d1b34424fc600211.camel%40alum.mit.edu ] .
Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>: Jan 10 11:09PM -0500
The claim that the community said "no" to a 6-story building on this site that was proposed in the 2010s is misleading. The 2019 proposal came from developer Andrew Flynn representing Scape Davis Square, LLC (before his current Copper Mill). In 2018, the U.K. student-housing developer Scape Student Housing Ltd. was said to have planned to open 20,000 beds throughout the United States, with Scape USA headquarters in Boston. In the face of opposition in 2019, Scape Boylston, LLC scrapped a plan to build 500 dorm rooms in Boston's Fenway district. It appeared that the proposed Davis Square development would be primarily student housing too, and this was understandably unpopular. In 2021, Scape Davis Square, LLC proposed instead a four-story lab building for the site, and the Planning Board approved this in 2022. However, Scape never proceeded with development of that project, presumably because of the decline in demand for lab buildings.
The claim that the community lost its right of require a smaller project also appears to be incorrect. As others have noted, the MGL 40B 10% affordable housing threshold is only one of the criteria laid out in 760 CMR 56.03(3), and Somerville has submitted calculations in recent years showing that it is far in excess of the 1.5% General Land Area Minimum that would qualify it for Safe Harbor.
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 10:11 PM, Christopher Beland wrote:
> In a binding legal sense, the community lost its right to require a smaller project by saying "no" to housing too many times in recent years, including saying "no" to a 6-story building on this site that was proposed in the 2010s. That is why Somerville is below the 10% city-wide affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's anti-NIMBY provisions.
Best regards,
Meredith ("Merit," he/him)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>
To: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 6:16:55 PM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Financial analysis of 11-story tower alternative
On 1/9/26 22:11, 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square Neighborhood
Council wrote:
> proposed in the 2010s. That is why Somerville is below the 10% city-wide
> affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's anti-NIMBY
> provisions.
Great point. If Somerville is not proactive enough about creating more
in-scale housing stock, we will be forced by Chapter 40B to accept
out-of-scale buildings.
Somerville *does* need to grow taller, because that is the only way we
can add housing without reducing green space -- but hopefully at a more
reasonable height scale.
As a rough starting point, I think a zoning change to allow by-right
construction of about 10-15 stories at major public transport centers
(such as Davis Square), and 5-6 story wood construction everywhere else
might be sensible.
David Booth
--
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/b0b845f9-68ca-4241-b2f7-7ce2268ef9ce%40dbooth.org.
Elizabeth Merrick <ebm...@comcast.net>: Jan 11 11:07AM -0500
Meredith's description of the height range discussed back when community input was sought for Davis Square planning purposes really rang a bell for me. I participated in at least one of those sessions. My recollection was that the highest building height option in center of Davis was not even remotely close to a skyscraper!!!! Honestly I don't think that would have ever occurred to someone participating in that process. That previous community preference data should in no way be misunderstood as any endorsement of the 26 story tower now being proposed.
Elizabeth Merrick
Get Outlook for Android
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 11:02:03 PM
To: Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Heidi Lewis <hlws...@gmail.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Comparison with Central and Union towers
The comment below about a community preference for the location of the tallest buildings doesn't reflect sentiment for anything like a 25-story building. In the graphic, which is on p. 94 of the 2019 draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan (https://drive.google.com/open?id=10k7kLv9L1OJHYy3wRVwNt6ZnZt7w6GDV), light color indicated "Existing Neighborhoods" and darker colors indicated "Mid-Rise Buildings including Commercial, Apartment, and General Buildings." "Height in the middle of the square on the 'islands' that include Middlesex Federal and Mike's were better received throughout the community process than properties that directly abutted houses. In absense of a zoning map, this conveys the sentiments of the process where height is focused in the center of the square and decreases around the perimeter and streets leading into the Square."
Community members gave feedback in 2017, expressing preferences for 4-, 5-, or 6- story development, not 25 stories! (p. 88, DEVELOP IN CONTEXT - DETERMINING APPROPRIATE HEIGHT & MASSING) This site (233-239 Elm St) was considered suitable for all three heights, With a preference in the center block for 5-stories with an upper story step-back (p. 91).
The graphic on p. 68 may also be of interest, with a cluster of green dots saround the area of The Burren showing that it was an area that participants 'liked.'
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Beland wrote:
> Aggregated community input shows a preference for concentrating the tallest buildings in Davis Square on two blocks abutting the central intersection: the first block between Elm and Highland (which includes the Copper Mill site), and the first block between Highland and the MBTA busway. (See attached map from the pre-COVID draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.)
Best regards,
Meredith ("Merit," he/him)
From: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Heidi Lewis" <hlws...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 11:35:16 PM
Subject: [DSNC] Comparison with Central and Union towers
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 12:37 -0500, Heidi Lewis wrote:
Also, when comparing this project to the Central Square project, isn't it true that the Central Square tower(s) - and the Union Square tower - are on the outskirt of these squares and better positioned to not overwhelm the center with a massive tower?
Aggregated community input shows a preference for concentrating the tallest buildings in Davis Square on two blocks abutting the central intersection: the first block between Elm and Highland (which includes the Copper Mill site), and the first block between Highland and the MBTA busway. (See attached map from the pre-COVID draft Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.)
In Central, there are already two towers at the main intersection (and commercial and residential towers up Mass Ave toward Harvard and scattered on side streets). I'd actually say the 13-story tower at 675 Mass Ave is not the best. It's a big grey box that comes right up to the sidewalk with an inset entrance that doesn't do much to make it feel human-scale or provide a place to sit. The sheer drop makes a lot of street-level wind. (That is also a problem with the bacon building in Union, and I'm disappointed about that.) Market Central (which is halfway to MIT) I think is an improvement because it has at least a little offset at 6 stories, and the outdoor seating and covered pedestrian walkway are very nice. I'm excited about the Copper Mill proposal because it's designed better than any of these buildings. It's only 2 or 3 stories tall along Elm Street, de-crowds the sidewalk while providing outdoor seating, and also has an awesome covered outdoor retail walkway.
I think the thing that keeps towers from overwhelming the pedestrian experience is not which block they're located on, but setting back the tallest parts so people never find themselves staring directly up at them. But sheer walls can also still work sometimes. I was surprised to get cozy feeling in urban canyons in Manhattan and Providence where there's lots of pedestrian seating and trees. Perhaps because this recreates the human-evolution-friendly attributes of a natural canyon?
Unlike in Davis and Central, the Union Square rapid transit station is not located directly at the main intersection. The Union Square bacon building is a direct abutter to the new Green Line stop. Several parcels next to the T have already been upzoned for tall buildings, so the area around the Green Line will probably become a notable center of density for some period of time. Higher demand closer to the T makes taller buildings financially more feasible there, and it's also the obvious place to put no-parking buildings to optimize traffic. What happens in the main intersection will depend on the city-wide upzoning initiative. The parcels next to the T were a lot easier to redevelop in the short term, politically and physically, because they were mostly junk yards which were a poor use of high-value real estate.
-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/ac1b3e05cd192a4a8f623ea3d1b34424fc600211.camel%40alum.mit.edu.
--
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/1514347429.6584006.1768104116347.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.
David <dtata...@gmail.com>: Jan 11 08:11AM -0800
Considering nearly a decade and a global pandemic have passed since that
previous process, it would probably be worth revisiting. We live in a much
different world than we did then, and there are a lot of new people and
fresh perspectives in Somerville. I would be very interested to see where
sentiments are now.
Best,
David Tatarakis
On Sun, Jan 11, 2026, 8:08 AM 'Elizabeth Merrick ' via Davis Square
<hu...@comcast.net>: Jan 11 11:19AM -0500
Hello Meredith,
This is a fascinating discussion. I have no insight on the questions relating to 40B compliance, and whether issues relating to that might moot the entire Davis Square tower project.
As for the proposed project itself, as described, several writers have ably offered pros and cons. From the outset, I have leaned towards the pro side, feeling that as a transportation hub Davis Square lends itself well to significant participation in a badly needed effort to increase the regional housing supply. And, I believe a well-designed project, even if it introduces a new scale to the neighborhood, can be an asset to the community.
That said, I do have concerns, which I would hope the leaders of our group might raise in a meeting with Copper Mill.
First of all, who and what is Copper Mill? Their website remains a shockingly spare cipher, even a year after this question was raised directly to Copper Mill's CEO Andrew Flynn in a Davis Square community meeting.
https://coppermill.com/
I put together a list of questions a year ago that I circulated to the then mayor, Lance Davis, Jake Wilson, Jack Connolly, and Denise Provost, in the wake of a community meeting:
I. Finance and organization
1.) Andrew Flynn seems to be running a surprisingly small organization for one with such ambitious plans
a. In addition to the proposed Davis Square tower, Copper Mill seeks to build projects of similar scope in Dorchester and the North End [and I believe Brockton]
2.) Copper Mill itself is only a year old [now two years]—
a. What is Andrew Flynn’s track record with similar projects prior to Copper Mill?
b. Is there a single example of a project of similar scope that Andrew Flynn successfully completed?
3.) Where will Copper Mill find the staff to oversee multiple simultaneous complex projects?
4.) What does Copper Mill’s balance sheet look like?
a. Where do they get financing?
i. Who are POB Capital?
b. Do they have a letter(s) of credit?
i. For how much?
ii. What are the terms?
5.) One of the participants in the meeting raised a question of a bond to protect the city against a partially completed tower
a. That seems very pertinent (viz. the trio of abandoned towers in downtown LA)
b. Better would be in addition to have guarantees from stronger, more established partners
6.) Is Copper Mill a stalking horse for someone else to begin with?
a. Who, and if this is true, could they pocket a permit to build by right and put up something altogether different from the project as currently described?
II. Planning
1.) Meeting participants pointed out the need for Copper Mill to supply among other things
i. Detailed parking plan
1. I would note that, even if 25% of Somerville residents have no car, that doesn’t mean only households from this population will reside in the proposed tower—some will inevitably have cars.
a. How many?
b. We need a plan showing additional pressure on parking around the square.
ii. Detailed traffic plan
iii. Annualized shadow distribution over surrounding properties
III. Logistics of Construction
1.) Mr. Flynn stated that cranes for construction would be contained within the boundaries of the property
i. This must be stipulated in any construction permit.
2.) Where will construction material be staged for the project?
i. Steel girders
ii. Bags of cement
iii. Wall studs
iv. Plasterboard
v. Plate Glass
vi. Etc., etc.
3.) How will dust, dirt, debris, etc. be managed to minimize impact on the neighborhood?
4.) There will be a large number of work vehicles associated with construction; pickups, tradesmen’s vans, etc.
i. Where will they park?
ii. This needs careful attention, possibly involving a shuttle of some sort.
5.) What guarantees can Copper Mill offer for timely completion of the project?
(As a side-note, I don’t understand the interest in scaling the proposed project down to eleven stories from twenty-five. What does that achieve, apart from making the economics more difficult? Eleven stories is already out of scale with the neighborhood, if that is the concern.)
-Hume
-----Original Message-----
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Meredith Porter
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 11:10 PM
To: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Christopher Beland <bel...@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Financial analysis of 11-story tower alternative
The claim that the community said "no" to a 6-story building on this site that was proposed in the 2010s is misleading. The 2019 proposal came from developer Andrew Flynn representing Scape Davis Square, LLC (before his current Copper Mill). In 2018, the U.K. student-housing developer Scape Student Housing Ltd. was said to have planned to open 20,000 beds throughout the United States, with Scape USA headquarters in Boston. In the face of opposition in 2019, Scape Boylston, LLC scrapped a plan to build 500 dorm rooms in Boston's Fenway district. It appeared that the proposed Davis Square development would be primarily student housing too, and this was understandably unpopular. In 2021, Scape Davis Square, LLC proposed instead a four-story lab building for the site, and the Planning Board approved this in 2022. However, Scape never proceeded with development of that project, presumably because of the decline in demand for lab buildings.
The claim that the community lost its right of require a smaller project also appears to be incorrect. As others have noted, the MGL 40B 10% affordable housing threshold is only one of the criteria laid out in 760 CMR 56.03(3), and Somerville has submitted calculations in recent years showing that it is far in excess of the 1.5% General Land Area Minimum that would qualify it for Safe Harbor.
On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 10:11 PM, Christopher Beland wrote:
> In a binding legal sense, the community lost its right to require a smaller project by saying "no" to housing too many times in recent years, including saying "no" to a 6-story building on this site that was proposed in the 2010s. That is why Somerville is below the 10% city-wide affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's anti-NIMBY provisions.
Best regards,
Meredith ("Merit," he/him)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org> >
To: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:davissquarenc@googlegroups.com> >
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 6:16:55 PM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Financial analysis of 11-story tower alternative
On 1/9/26 22:11, 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council wrote:
> was proposed in the 2010s. That is why Somerville is below the 10%
> city-wide affordable housing threshold that triggers Chapter 40B's
> anti-NIMBY provisions.
Great point. If Somerville is not proactive enough about creating more in-scale housing stock, we will be forced by Chapter 40B to accept out-of-scale buildings.
Somerville *does* need to grow taller, because that is the only way we can add housing without reducing green space -- but hopefully at a more reasonable height scale.
As a rough starting point, I think a zoning change to allow by-right construction of about 10-15 stories at major public transport centers (such as Davis Square), and 5-6 story wood construction everywhere else might be sensible.
David Booth
--
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/b0b845f9-68ca-4241-b2f7-7ce2268ef9ce%40dbooth.org.
--
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/415761430.6590527.1768104596918.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.
David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>: Jan 11 12:06PM -0500
Frank and Meredith,
On 1/10/26 19:34, Frank Mals wrote:
> that is merely one of three Safe Harbor provisions in 40B, and the city
> has established that we qualify for one of those provisions not once,
> but twice in the last six years, most recently in 2023.
Thanks very much for the correction. But I am puzzled about the "Safe
Harbor provisions in 40B" that you cite, because I do not see the term
"Safe Harbor" mentioned anywhere in Chapter 40B:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22harbor%22+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fmalegislature.gov%2FLaws%2FGeneralLaws%2FPartI%2FTitleVII%2FChapter40B&num=10&sca_esv=78d783ca4d51d4ce&sxsrf=ANbL-n7BP8BHyiBDGNCNP_6Myy47MZ3G3w%3A1768146103417&ei=t8RjafiVGfugiLMPtObeEQ&ved=0ahUKEwi4zZ7D6YOSAxV7EGIAHTSzNwIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22h arbor%22+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fmalegislature.gov%2FLaws%2FGeneralLaws%2FPartI%2FTitleVII%2FChapter40B&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiUiJoYXJib3IiIHNpdGU6aHR0cHM6Ly9tYWxlZ2lzbGF0dXJlLmdvdi9MYXdzL0dlbmVyYWxMYXdzL1BhcnRJL1RpdGxlVklJL0NoYXB0ZXI0MEJI1w9QsgdYsQ1wAngAkAEAmAHjAaAB0QaqAQUyLjMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAHjgKyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwCACAA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#cobssid=s
I found this page describing 40B Safe Harbor, but I do not know how
accurate it is:
https://communityscale.io/what-is-40b-safe-harbor/
It would be nice to have an authoritative reference.
Am I correct to understand that, even though Somerville does NOT meet
the requirement for 10% affordable housing, the Safe Harbor loophole
that you cited means that the City would NOT be forced to accept the
currently proposed 26-story Copper Mill development under Chapter 40B?
If so, that means that some negotiation with the developer may still be
possible.
However, it does not change my opinion that Somerville urgently needs to
be more proactive in allowing and encouraging more housing development
with increased, but not totally out-of-scale, heights.
> SHI-eligible housing exists on sites comprising more than 1.5% of the
> total land areain the city or town that is zoned for residential,
> commercial, or industrial use. T
I assume that "SHI" stands for "Subsidized Housing Inventory":
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/subsidized-housing-inventory-shi
Thanks,
David Booth
Hala Jadallah <hnjad...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 01:49PM -0500
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 1:17 PM Davis Square Neighborhood Council <
Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@gmail.com>: Jan 10 01:21PM -0500
Hello all,
I am forwarding the following letter from Somerville's Planning,
Preservation and Zoning division, which was recently received by the DSNC
board.
Hello and Happy New Year Davis Square Neighborhood Council!
I am reaching out as the Community Outreach Coordinator for the City's
> Planning, Preservation and Zoning division to request the Council’s
> participation in a community survey regarding drafted updates to gable and
> shed dormer standards.
As you may know, we are conducting a 5-year Zoning Review to evaluate and
> you may use this link
> <https://voice.somervillema.gov/5-year-zoning-review/surveys/dormer-survey> to
> jump straight into the survey.
As leaders of our neighborhood, your insight is incredibly valuable. The
> reflect community priorities.
> We would also appreciate it if you could share these links
> with your channels to ensure we gather a diverse range of perspectives.
Thank you for your time and for everything you do to support our community!
--
Zev Pogrebin (he/him)
+1 (646) 326-1081
Secretary
Davis Square Neighborhood Council
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