food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville

[Rachel Rosenberg]

Hi all,

Some great conversations last night following the DSNC meeting, which inspired me to compile and share the following with the full group.  

Here's some food for thought that might help what feels like opposing "factions" in the DSNC understand each other better.  While I think the YIMBY perspective has been well represented on this email thread, I don't think the alternative perspective so many of us share (perhaps the silent majority on the Google group and the vocal majority at community meetings) has yet been articulated for everyone.  We're not NIMBY, we're not anti-development, and we're not anti-change.  We're pro adding housing that's 1) actually affordable, 2) permitted in a way that's supported by comprehensive planning (not decided parcel by parcel), and 3) preserves culture, character, and community - the reasons people want to visit or live in Davis Square in the first place.  With thoughtful planning and development, we can achieve those goals while still building up reasonably and preparing for the future.

Sharing some articles that help illustrate our informed position:

1) A thoughtful Somerville Times op-ed with data that shows a luxury-priced residential tower, even with 20-25% of units set aside as "affordable" at 80% AMI is not a solution to Somerville's affordable housing woes and will instead exacerbate them.  I think this is very helpful because it is based specifically on actual local data, unlike other articles I've seen shared on the topic which look at cities that are not necessarily comparable to Somerville.  Like the signatories from the Somerville Community Land Trust, the Community Action Agency of Somerville, and the Somerville Community Corporation, we reject the flawed "trickle-down housing" theory that's being shoved down our throats by a dishonest developer and a landowner leveraging Somerville's affordability crisis to pad their own pockets with $13 million and $42 million, respectively.  I think it's safe to say among this group of Somerville progressives that Reagan's trickle-down economics was a complete failure so it's surprising to hear some of our progressive neighbors argue that same theory should inform city planning decisions in 2026.

2) Here's a description of and a link to a NYT article (unfortunately NYT has a paywall) that's really interesting and exciting.  I'll paste the NYU description because it's more succinct/accurate/elegant than any summary I could write: "The article “How to Make Room for One Million New Yorkers” by Vishaan Chakrabarti proposes a visionary plan to address New York City’s acute housing shortage without dramatically altering the city’s character. Chakrabarti, leveraging his expertise as an architect and urban planner, suggests that New York can accommodate over a million new residents by strategically developing underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs. His firm’s analysis identified potential for adding 520,245 homes, focusing on mid-rise and high-rise buildings that blend seamlessly into existing neighborhoods. This plan emphasizes sustainable urban growth, affordable housing, and improved access to transportation, positioning it as a feasible solution to the city’s escalating housing crisis while preserving its unique urban fabric."  Thanks to Steve Post for sharing this article originally.

3)  Attending the DSNC meeting and looking at the DSNC website, one would think that no new housing is being built in the Davis Square catchment area.  That's simply not true.  Clarendon Hill,  a large-scale affordable development is located within the Davis Square neighborhood boundaries identified by DSNC but not listed on the DSNC website and never acknowledged at DSNC meetings.  And, it's already partially complete!  At full completion the development will have 591 units - 216 of which are affordable (36.5%).  80 units will be for moderate-income tenants at 110% AMI; and 295 units will be market rate.  This project is a partnership between nonprofits Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH) and Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) and real estate investment/development firm Gate Residential.  The city was involved as well, which shows that the city IS capable of taking action when the right project is presented, despite what Copper Mill wants us to believe - complaining about city inaction serves their false narrative.  No thriving businesses were demolished, no community was displaced, no cultural was destroyed.  Clarendon Hill should be a model that DSNC studies, not ignores.  

In addition to this large scale development that's a model for adding affordable housing on the outskirts of Davis Square, there's another development in progress that gives us a model for development within the square's business district.  Though the DSNC website says that the new residential development at 53 Chester St. (next to Redbones) is still in application status and no verbal updates were given at the meeting yesterday, this project was in fact was permitted in February and demolition was completed this week!   The building will be 4 stories, first floor commercial with three residential units on top, adding a small bit of housing while remaining consistent with the character of Davis Square and not disrupting Davis' existing business, community, and culture.  

I think it would be helpful for DSNC to focus thoughtfully on developments underway that are positive models rather than fixating on debating one controversial and unlikely proposal from a developer that we all agree is untrustworthy (to put it mildly).  Let's start working together on actual improvements to Davis Square and pushing forward the neighborhood plan. 

Best,

Rachel

[Jeff Kaufman]

I don't think Clarendon Hill is inside the DSNC boundaries?  Per the map (blue area) that only goes as far as Teele.

Jeff

--
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/CAN%2BJWrMnOicSR9%3DtM6PJmk68wq-Vv3EH2nHW-zLvhJ1jCA4OBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Meredith Porter]

Hi Jeff and everyone, Clarendon Hill is at 34 North St, not in Davis Square (the blue area), but within the 1/2 mile of the Neighborhood Boundaries, so that anyone who resides there is eligible for DSNC membership.

Best regards,

Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)

---

From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff.t....@gmail.com>
To: "Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>, "Zachary Yaro" <zmy...@gmail.com>, "Zach Meyer" <zfm...@gmail.com>, "Joel Paul" <jpau...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:15:04 AM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAK36jCO2AZT-2OQ33xYLVYdxXmtnsFVMYGbHmxcTDcUmOq-D4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Derrick Rice]

+1 to the sentiment: Neighbors' concerns and opinions shouldn't be dismissed via pejorative labeling.

I speculate that the "NIMBY" label gets deployed when folks are referring to the "character" of the neighborhood, but they never refine what it is that they exactly mean. It is sometimes seen as a Dog Whistle for NIMBYism. In practice I think this phrasing (absent more detail) is never productive.

I suggest that folks who are opposed to certain developments based on "character" do a little more work to describe what it is that they mean. Thank you, Rachel for beginning this when you say "the reasons people want to visit or live in Davis Square in the first place", but it is still unclear to me. Are lack of shadows a reason people want to visit or live in Davis Square? Is it an old-timey feel? Is it brick sidewalks? I can say that none of those are what draw me to Davis Square, but I could entertain that it may be true for others.

- Derrick Rice (he/him)

[PJ Santos]

As someone who somewhat self-identifies as "YIMBY", I don't appreciate being grouped with the Reganites. I don't think it is much of a leap to say that Republicans do not care about helping the poor, and there is no evidence that cutting taxes for rich people would have that effect. 

Conversely, I VERY sincerely want to lower housing costs, and there is ample evidence and expert consensus that building a lot of housing would help achieve that goal. 

You're welcome to distrust experts or to prioritize other objectives over lowering housing costs, but falsely calling us "Reganites" is the exact kind of labeling you complained about in the first part of your email. 

On a happier note, I'm glad you brought up Clarendon Hill! A few months ago I went to meet with their Residents Alliance as a representative of the DSNC board and talked about what we're doing + told them they're all eligible to be members of the DSNC. (Their project is not on our tracker because although they are eligible to be members, that building is outside our exclusive negotiating area). Unfortunately, they also schedule their monthly meeting for the last Monday of the month, so they won't attend many of our meetings. However, I brought up the idea of doing a joint meeting in their community room sometime over the summer, which I hope we'd be able to pull off. Another interesting topic of discussion was that they also engaged in a CBA-type negotiation with POAH/SCC, and they may be another helpful resource for us on how to negotiate with a developer. 

The board has also reached out to Weston Manor to do similar outreach. If anyone else is interested in connecting the DSNC to underrepresented communities, join the outreach committee! 

Regarding the Clarendon Hill project, there's a lot to like about it, it also went through the 40-B process that Copper Mill is trying to use. However, they already owned the land, and they relied on a bunch of grants/low-income housing funding to get the project to pencil. My understanding is the project has been a bit messy, there've been some delays due to the complex funding stream, and I remember there was a labor/wage theft dispute a few years ago. 

Projects like Clarendon Hill or the Broadway Star Market are great in that they provide some much needed affordable housing, but they're flukes in that getting the land and complex funding in order is not something we can count on happening very often, and relying on projects like that to address our housing shortage is pretty "thoughts + prayers"-y. By contrast, Copper Mill is coming in with their own funding, so it can happen in parallel to any state grants Somerville can get. I'm with you that the Copper Mill proposal could be much better on the affordable housing front. If we end up negotiating a CBA, we might have a choice between asking for a smaller building, or for it to stay the same height and to deepen the affordability requirements. I'd certainly push for the second option! 

A last concern that I have about Clarendon Hill is that it is a real shame that a big chunk of our city's affordable housing is stuck on its outskirts, near big, unpleasant roads like the Alewife Brook or the Mystic Parkways. The area around Davis Square is the wealthiest in the city, and has the least amount of affordable housing. A big apartment building with 126 (or more!) affordable units built right on top of the Red Line would be life changing! 

[Leiran Biton]

The “character” of a neighborhood is a perfectly valid consideration when thinking about what you love about the area. It’s fine to ask for more description, from a place of curiosity; I think we should honor a person’s sentiments when they say they enjoy the “character” of the neighborhood without asking them to dissect their feelings. 

I personally love the 2/3 family, dense rows of homes in the neighborhood. The community that this scale of density gives rise to is unparalleled. It’s a place you can actually get to know many of your neighbors and always have more people to meet. It’s also not as overwhelming as I find more vertically developed cities (e.g., NYC, Boston proper). That’s part of what drew me to Somerville and Davis Sq in the first place. 

Best,

Leiran Biton (he/him)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/bd093a8e-a650-42ee-9533-20d306495f97%40app.fastmail.com.

[Ashish Shrestha]

Regarding Clarendon Hills, it's incredibly misleading to call it 591 units with 216 affordable.  This project is not new housing, it's a reconstruction/addition to an older public housing project.  The previous building had 216 units of public housing, so the new construction actually adds no new affordable housing at 80% AMI or lower.  It only adds 110% AMI and market rate housing.  

The Chester St project is 3 units of residential so it also adds no new affordable housing.

[Ashish Shrestha]

I would also point out that, regarding that NYT article posted, "New York can accommodate over a million new residents by strategically developing underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs " - Well, the proposed Copper Mill site is exactly an underutilized single-story building near a public transit hub.  I think the writers of this NYT article would agree that the Copper Mill site is an excellent place for dense urban development.  I'm glad you brought up this article!

[Louisa Stephens Bissett]

Hello,

In case anyone would like to read the New York Times article, here is a gift article (paywall-free link). Hope it works!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-solution.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kVA.n6ao.akO9Vd8WKgVx&smid=url-share.

Best,

Louisa

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/fc6f7d62-042a-41f9-8816-c30b5f9d6853n%40googlegroups.com.

[Conor Brennan]

I’d also add I believe we're talking about the North Street Development,

I would add that a percentage of CH -North Street units were not occupied because of disrepair.

The original buildings were built in the 1940’s. 

So the amount of affordable habitable units has increased.

One subject that doesn’t come up of in a lot of these threads is Tufts and their responsibility to the housing crisis. 

The TAB building which they own, should have been redeveloped for housing. It’s a huge lot and with some creative design could be very attractive option for student graduate housing. 

Síocháin

Conor

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKiYbQSJVd0KXZ_MRaV9A5DqOW5RScc-sZS3inhH26U3K6jK_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeff Byrnes]

Always love to see Tufts doing better at providing homes for its students.

 

I will share that the most recent dorms they decided to build received a ton of pushback for reasons unclear to me, including from Senator Jehlen.

 

If we want Tufts to do better at providing dedicated student housing, we also have to be welcoming & collaborative when they put forward plans to do so.

 

I struggle with “Tufts should do more” when every time I’ve seen them try to do so, they get put through the wringer.

 

None of this aimed at you, Conor! You only touched on a thing I’ve long thought about.

 

Let’s make it simpler & more clear for them to add student homes, and ensure Medford is doing the same!

-- 
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/3C248725-4165-4326-9FDA-133B0F03F0DA%40pjryans.com.

[Christopher Beland]

On Fri, 2026-05-22 at 14:05 -0400, Conor Brennan wrote:

The TAB building which they own, should have been redeveloped for housing. It’s a huge lot and with some creative design could be very attractive option for student graduate housing.

Yeah, having a surface parking lot and low building on the TAB parcel is a poor use of space. Unfortunately, it's zoned Commercial Building (CB), which means it's illegal to build housing there, and any building must be 1-2 stories.

I actually think it would be good to phase out CB zoning city-wide, but this parcel would be a good place to start. It's the only CB parcel in DSNC jurisdiction; the only other one west of Central Ave is the Stop and Shop lot on Alewife Brook Parkway. The TAB lot would probably be better as MR6 (any combination of commercial and residential allowed), and that could be something the DSNC Zoning Committee works on. It could also be included in the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan, which is supposed to be accompanied by proposed zoning changes.

-B.

[Conor Brennan]

Chris, Jeff

I agree this is an area where DSNC could really show leadership by bringing together the multiple stakeholders involved.

I served on the Powder House School redevelopment project, and at the time I thought the Tufts proposal was very strong. Ultimately, their plan was rejected after they indicated they would purchase the Powder House School property and potentially sit on the project for a decade. At that point, the school had already remained vacant for more than 14 years.

In my 27 years in Teele Square, many in the neighborhood have felt that Tufts University has not always been the community partner residents hoped for, particularly given the lack of a clearly visible long-term community development plan.

At the same time, I’m sure Tufts would also benefit from having a more definable and predictable path for future development.

Flexibility, collaboration, and forward-thinking zoning policies in our commercial corridors and on larger parcels should be a priority for the administration and community moving forward.

Thank you

Conor Brennan

PJRYANS 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 22, 2026, at 11:55 PM, 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--

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/9337ea9104aca2e4b55700d61bc47402a2ef7134.camel%40alum.mit.edu.

[JOSIAH AUSPITZ]

Conor, PJ., Ashish,

 

You may want to consider the following background info to your comments on this thread:

 

For Conor:

 

1.  You ask that Tufts help to relieve the housing shortage.   It has, in point of fact, undertaken to build new housing on Boston Avenue that will take 670 juniors and seniors out of the Somerville-Medford housing market in August 2027:

 

https://capitalprojects.tufts.edu/projects/401-403-boston-avenue-student-residence-facility

 

2.  You regret that Tufts is not using the TAB Building for housing.  That building was formerly the Western Junior High, owned by the City and sold to Tufts in a deal in the early 1980's that included leasebacks for City offices.   As a side community benefit Tufts became one of the two largest supporters of the initial renovation of the Somerville Historical Society (now Museum) Building on Spring Hill.  The idea that the Western Jr. High structure could or should have been used for housing was not seriously considered, as there was scant market interest in "Slumerville" -- and house prices were quite affordable-- in those bygone, pre-Red/Green/Orange Line days.  On a smaller scale the City did, however, repurpose  elementary schools on Morrison Avenue and Upper Broadway for residential use. 

 

For Ashish

 

1. While you correctly note that the Dana Family holdings on Elm Street fit the model for intensive treatment described in the NYTimes article, the article also describes the care with which the New York architect/planner adapts each project to its surroundings, which Mass Housing calls its "context."  

 

2. Mass Housing has cited a failure to design to "context" as grounds for declining or revising high-rise projects.  I am told that were the agency to issue a subsidized loan for a 27-story high-rise, this would set a record for it.

 

3. The other reason Mass Housing has declined to fund projects has been financial risk.  Mass Housing, which raises its funds by issuing tax-free municipal bonds, has a duty to its bondholders to exercise due diligence that  the funds it re-loans to private developers will be repaid in full.

 

Which brings us to PJ's view, shared by others who self-identify as YIMBYs, that "Copper Mill is coming in with their own funding" and that we should grasp a golden opportunity to add substantially to Somerville's affordable housing stock.

 

1. The preliminary $259 million funding package that Copper Mill proposed in late December of last year relied heavily on a projected $169 million ten-year loan from Mass Housing at a subsidized rate of 4.25%.  Under current and likely future market conditions CM's initial numbers do not inspire confidence that $169M Mass Housing funding can be taken for granted.

 

2. The Boston metro housing market is segmented.  CM's projected market rate rentals ($4250/mo for a single bedroom apartment) fall in the "luxury" class, where they must compete with luxury apartments near mass transit in other parts of Greater Boston.  The appendix to Ed Woll's must-read posting on this site analyzes comparable rentals. It would appear that the CM project offers substantially higher rates for less space and fewer amenities than the competition. 

 

3.  As Ed Woll's research is now four months old, I have done a quick AI check on vacancy rates for comparable rentals in Boston and Somerville,  Whereas the vacancy rate for apartments overall has been in the 2-3.5% range, the vacancy rate for single bedroom high-rises at $4000+/mo is already within the 7.5-10% range, roughly triple. This does not include pipeline projects that will add more units in the luxury segment in coming two-three years, under conditions of federal research cutbacks, reduced graduate school admissions, tighter conditions for foreign visas, and layoffs in middle management white collar jobs.

===============

As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to enter into serious conversation with concerned Davis Sq neighbors,

 

Lee Auspitz

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3C248725-4165-4326-9FDA-133B0F03F0DA%40pjryans.com.

[PJ Santos]

Hi Lee, 

Yes, if Copper Mill tries to charge too much for their units, some will be vacant, which would mean they'd lose money on the project (too bad!). If they want to make money from those units, then they'd have to lower the price, which I think would be good. 

Even if they initially are able to rent all the units out at that price, at some point the "new building premium" will wear off, and they'll be faced with the same choice: lower the rent or lose money on vacant units. 

I'm not sure where the AI is getting your 7.5-10% vacancy rate from, I don't think I've ever seen any public agencies separate out "high end" units from regular market rate ones. Maybe the AI is citing a generic value for new units in all cities, or something weird about how new buildings handle their lease up period? I do know our vacancy rate is usually in the 0.5-2.5% range, where a "healthy" rate is 5-8%.

I don't think I agree with you that the housing market is so neatly segmented. If a rich person who can afford $4250/month cannot find a place in a not-built copper mill tower, what stops them from paying that much to outbid someone for an old unit in a triple decker? 

I don't disagree that rich people will live in the nicest houses in the city, but that'll be true whether or not the nicest units are in some brand new tower or not. In a world with fancy luxury units, there's older homes left for us mere mortals. If there's no fancy towers, then the rich will live in our 100 year old formerly working class housing, and the rest of us will be gradually forced out. I, and the Housing Needs Assessment and other analysis I've seen all think that's what's happening, which is why I'd like to see more housing in our square. 

Regarding the Mass Housing loan, I'm not sure if I follow your point. If their funding falls through, then they won't build it and this discussion is irrelevant. 

Thanks for the good discussion, 

PJ

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/1381838635.1205888.1779570153013%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Ashish Shrestha]

For reference, 270 3rd Street (Vivo apartments) in Cambridge has their availabilities online.  They have 4 units available today, i.e. vacant.  The building is 7 stories of apartments (first floor lobby) with at least 20 units on each floor (cant find an exact number right now, but my girlfriend used to live there).  That would give a ~3% vacancy rate right now as a data point.

One beds in Vivo rent for $4400.

I would ask that we stop using AI to generate data points.  This is the second time it has been used to provide a wildly inaccurate data point.  Somerville, and the Boston area in general, is a unique area that cant be guessed by a text predictor.

[Conor Brennan]

Lee,

I’m aware of both your statements,

I’m talking as we sit today,  not 1980’s real estate market or Somerville. 

It’s 2026, what are the options to keep moving forward on housing.

TAB building is a large lot.

Thank you

Conor Brennan

On May 23, 2026, at 5:02 PM, JOSIAH AUSPITZ <jlau...@comcast.net> wrote:



[Edward Woll]

Ash,

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, the table of comparable rents in the submission  to Mass Housing showing that the Copper Mill projects were 20% to 30% too high (in addition to the $1.6 million Copper Mill computational error) came from the comparable rentals that Copper Mill listed in its submission to Mass Housing, not from AI.

Ed 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAMQNHnxz_Mc3oDn1ff1LJgSDYAtU1aYGnLTz7%2B-HHhF0Kwz%3DHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeff Byrnes]

Ed,

 

Ashish pointed out that the rents at Vivo, a nearby high-end rental property, are $4400 for a 2-bedroom home.

 

I just looked, and they appear to have a single 2-bedroom available, at $4972 for 1144 sq ft.

 

Copper Mill’s table in their MassHousing application shows the asking rent for their market-rate 2-bedrooms will be $4500 for 661 sq ft.

 

The studios are closer in size, perhaps making them a better comparison:

Property	Price	Size
Vivo	$3270	466
Copper Mill	$3500	346

 

Copper Mill’s proposed studios are ~7% greater in price, the 2-bedrooms ~9% less, than Vivo’s existing, scant, offerings.

 

So yes, Copper Mill’s flats will be pricier per square foot, but I’m not sure this is enough of a difference to matter, and seems pretty consistent with the fact that newer homes cost more.

 

These homes are priced for someone like me (office worker, mid-career, married), and when my wife & I moved in together it was into a 1000 sq ft 2-bed in Cambridgeport. It was plenty big enough for the two of us, we spent 3 wonderful years there together before moving into a 1500 sq ft place in Somerville b/c we wanted a third bedroom so we could raise two kids (got one so far!)

-- 
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/F220C1D1-EEB3-4C2B-9079-8AE1D4B5D1F2%40woll.us.

[jlau...@comcast.net]

Conor,

The relevance of the history is to suggest that the 40-year owner-tenant relations between Tufts and the City in the TAB Building must be taken into account.   

Lee

_________________
Josiah Lee Auspitz
17 Chapel Street 

Somerville, MA 02144 

Landline phone: 617-628-6228 fax: 617-628-9441

Phones do not receive text messages

---

From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Conor Brennan <co...@pjryans.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 10:28 PM
To: JOSIAH AUSPITZ <jlau...@comcast.net>
Cc: Louisa Stephens Bissett <lstep...@gmail.com>; Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [DSNC] food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CEBDB413-F77A-41C3-9399-18DD3F5599F9%40pjryans.com.

[Zev Pogrebin]

Hi all,

Just want to chime into this discussion. Sorry for the super long email in advance.

“Somerville’s affordability crisis” Op-Ed

I don’t think that the evidence in the article substantiates its claims. For example, the op-ed states that “A moment’s reflection should suggest that any Somerville resident who can afford to pay $4,000-to-5,000 per month for a two-bedroom apartment is already living in one.” However, this is not readily apparent to me, nor is it well evidenced in the piece. The op-ed also lays out the concept of the affordability “fraction,” that “If we continually increase the 100% denominator, we will chase the 20% numerator until we have no more land to develop”. This whole mindset assumes that new market-rate construction will decrease the amount of naturally affordable housing as compared to the baseline, which is also not well substantiated in the article. The converse of this claim is a key argument from the self-described ‘YIMBY’ types, who have pointed to academic research from other cities about this phenomenon.

More importantly, I keep hearing the false premise that, as one commenter puts it "Somerville has already done so much to balance regional housing supply and demand that we are seriously unbalanced and hurting. We’ve built proportionately more housing than any other town. We’ve adopted every possible affordable housing measure and have been leaders in doing so." However, this is plainly not the case. Despite being heavily gentrified, our neighborhood has only built 53 total housing units (11 affordable) in the last decade (Clarendon Hill is quite far from us, and I don’t count it).  It has likely lost overall housing units due to duplexes or triple deckers getting converted to 1-2 family luxury homes. And the city overall is not doing much better. Look at our zoning code. The vast swaths of NR zoning in the city and the 4-story CC zoning in the center of Davis indicate to me that we are not “adopting every possible affordable housing measure”. To me, what “adopting every measure” would look like is policy to allow for market and affordable high-rises being built in every square and zoning reforms to allow mid-rise buildings in NR/UR zones. Are we even doing the bare minimum to address the housing crisis, or just patting ourselves on the back for 20 years of building a relatively small amount of new units while gentrifying our naturally affordable triple deckers?

New York Times Article

I strongly agree with comment stating that Copper Mill’s proposed project is in-line with “strategically developing underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs”

Adding on, New York, in many cases, has already taken political risks to drastically up-zone neighborhoods where Somerville has not. Looking at the NYT article’s methodology, they “calculated the number of units in each proposed building using the following assumptions: [they] allocated 37 percent to 45 percent of each lot to open space, and then multiplied the remaining lot area by the number of stories allowed as determined above to calculate the amount of buildable area" (emphasis mine). The methodology is using the existing zoning of each site to compute the possible new density on up-zoned land. However, this analysis specifically depends on New York itself, which has permitted some relatively extreme up-zonings since 2000. For example, a lot of the underutilized lots for high rise construction are in Downtown Brooklyn, which was up-zoned in 2004 and now has buildings as tall as 94 stories next to single story buildings. Similar conditions exist in other neighborhoods, most notably LIC and some parts of the South Bronx. When the Times article talks about existing neighborhood character (alluding to height), some of that neighborhood character consists of buildings that have only been built in the last few years and would have been considered "outside of the neighborhood character" before their construction. In Davis Square, we haven't done anything to allow taller buildings yet so we don't have this level of potential for new by-right construction. I am arguing that state and city should allow Copper Mill to be built because Davis square's current zoning is out-of-line for the efficient provision of "sustainable urban growth, affordable housing, and improved access to transportation” that is baked into the NYTimes article.

Some examples of the existing conditions of already re-zoned neighborhoods with underutilized lots which can continue to produce large amounts of housing in the article methodology:

Long Island City

Downtown Brooklyn

Neighborhood Character

Question for everyone: what does neighborhood character mean to you? When I think about neighborhood character, absolute building height has very little impact to me. I associate neighborhood character mainly with the make-up of use, (whether residential, commercial, industrial, etc), the size, type, and appearance of commercial activity at the ground floor, the presence of certain architectural features, the urban from of the streetscape (width of streets, height of street-walls, etc), and the people that frequent the neighborhood. These are the things, which, to me, have the most impact on the way that I interact with a neighborhood. The hight of buildings, in terms of the number of stories, doesn’t really impact me too much on a day-to-day basis. To me, the new Copper Mill renders are far more in-line with Davis Square’s neighborhood character than the Citizen’s bank building, the other bank building with the ticker on it, or the Domino’s pizza building.

Credibility of Copper Mill

I don’t think it’s fair to say “we all agree [Copper Mill] is untrustworthy (to put it mildly),” and I’d ask that people speak from their own perspective and not put speak for others. It’s fine if you think that Copper Mill is untrustworthy, but I would ask that you say that instead.

Best,

Zev

[Leiran Biton]

In answer to your prompt, the height of buildings does impact me when I am walking around an area. I find tall buildings (10+ stories) to generally be less welcoming than more traditional scale buildings in the Somerville/Cambridge area, i.e., 2-3 family homes. Mid-sized buildings (4-8 stories) are not terribly imposing, and feel more in-line with the existing character of the area than much larger buildings. Much higher than that, and an area starts to feel less 'neighborhood' feeling and more 'big city', and frankly becomes a more imposing urban environment for me (e.g., almost every part of NYC). Conversely, one-story buildings with ample parking (e.g., the Domino's building) generally feel like under-utilized space to me.

Are there decisions being made in this conversation? For those of us who may not be able to fully engage in this conversation because of family or other responsibilities, knowing the 'stakes' of the conversation would be helpful. If this email exchange is going to be determinative of DSNC's position, it should be clearly messaged that this is what's happening.

Best,

Leiran Biton (he/him)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/0711d2c9-37d7-4bb1-b7ba-d41d16e94e26n%40googlegroups.com.

[Sara Oaklander]

I loved reading this, Louisa. So inspiring. Thanks for making it possible. I'm noticing it was written/published in December 2023. Wondering if they've done a refresh since then...especially since Mamdani took office. Does anyone know?

[Jeff Byrnes]

Leiran,

 

Because I didn’t see an answer: no, this discussion isn’t a decision-making space. It’s conversation amongst interested members of DSNC, in the hopes of learning more about each other’s positions, as well as potentially influencing decisions when they arise during formal meetings of DSNC.

-- 
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
 

🌐 somervilleyimby.org

🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY

🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY

📱 704.516.4628

On May 25, 2026 at 1:39 AM -0400, Leiran Biton <leira...@gmail.com>, wrote:
 

In answer to your prompt, the height of buildings does impact me when I am walking around an area. I find tall buildings (10+ stories) to generally be less welcoming than more traditional scale buildings in the Somerville/Cambridge area, i.e., 2-3 family homes. Mid-sized buildings (4-8 stories) are not terribly imposing, and feel more in-line with the existing character of the area than much larger buildings. Much higher than that, and an area starts to feel less 'neighborhood' feeling and more 'big city', and frankly becomes a more imposing urban environment for me (e.g., almost every part of NYC). Conversely, one-story buildings with ample parking (e.g., the Domino's building) generally feel like under-utilized space to me.

Are there decisions being made in this conversation? For those of us who may not be able to fully engage in this conversation because of family or other responsibilities, knowing the 'stakes' of the conversation would be helpful. If this email exchange is going to be determinative of DSNC's position, it should be clearly messaged that this is what's happening.

 

 

Best,
 

Leiran Biton (he/him)

On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 7:03 PM Zev Pogrebin <zpogre...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Hi all,

 

Just want to chime into this discussion. Sorry for the super long email in advance.

 

“Somerville’s affordability crisis” Op-Ed

 

I don’t think that the evidence in the article substantiates its claims. For example, the op-ed states that “A moment’s reflection should suggest that any Somerville resident who can afford to pay $4,000-to-5,000 per month for a two-bedroom apartment is already living in one.” However, this is not readily apparent to me, nor is it well evidenced in the piece. The op-ed also lays out the concept of the affordability “fraction,” that “If we continually increase the 100% denominator, we will chase the 20% numerator until we have no more land to develop”. This whole mindset assumes that new market-rate construction will decrease the amount of naturally affordable housing as compared to the baseline, which is also not well substantiated in the article. The converse of this claim is a key argument from the self-described ‘YIMBY’ types, who have pointed to academic research from other cities about this phenomenon.

 

More importantly, I keep hearing the false premise that, as one commenter puts it "Somerville has already done so much to balance regional housing supply and demand that we are seriously unbalanced and hurting. We’ve built proportionately more housing than any other town. We’ve adopted every possible affordable housing measure and have been leaders in doing so." However, this is plainly not the case. Despite being heavily gentrified, our neighborhood has only built 53 total housing units (11 affordable) in the last decade (Clarendon Hill is quite far from us, and I don’t count it).  It has likely lost overall housing units due to duplexes or triple deckers getting converted to 1-2 family luxury homes. And the city overall is not doing much better. Look at our zoning code. The vast swaths of NR zoning in the city and the 4-story CC zoning in the center of Davis indicate to me that we are not “adopting every possible affordable housing measure”. To me, what “adopting every measure” would look like is policy to allow for market and affordable high-rises being built in every square and zoning reforms to allow mid-rise buildings in NR/UR zones. Are we even doing the bare minimum to address the housing crisis, or just patting ourselves on the back for 20 years of building a relatively small amount of new units while gentrifying our naturally affordable triple deckers?

 

New York Times Article

 

I strongly agree with comment stating that Copper Mill’s proposed project is in-line with “strategically developing underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs”

 

Adding on, New York, in many cases, has already taken political risks to drastically up-zone neighborhoods where Somerville has not. Looking at the NYT article’s methodology, they “calculated the number of units in each proposed building using the following assumptions: [they] allocated 37 percent to 45 percent of each lot to open space, and then multiplied the remaining lot area by the number of stories allowed as determined above to calculate the amount of buildable area" (emphasis mine). The methodology is using the existing zoning of each site to compute the possible new density on up-zoned land. However, this analysis specifically depends on New York itself, which has permitted some relatively extreme up-zonings since 2000. For example, a lot of the underutilized lots for high rise construction are in Downtown Brooklyn, which was up-zoned in 2004 and now has buildings as tall as 94 stories next to single story buildings. Similar conditions exist in other neighborhoods, most notably LIC and some parts of the South Bronx. When the Times article talks about existing neighborhood character (alluding to height), some of that neighborhood character consists of buildings that have only been built in the last few years and would have been considered "outside of the neighborhood character" before their construction. In Davis Square, we haven't done anything to allow taller buildings yet so we don't have this level of potential for new by-right construction. I am arguing that state and city should allow Copper Mill to be built because Davis square's current zoning is out-of-line for the efficient provision of "sustainable urban growth, affordable housing, and improved access to transportation” that is baked into the NYTimes article.

 

Some examples of the existing conditions of already re-zoned neighborhoods with underutilized lots which can continue to produce large amounts of housing in the article methodology:

 

Long Island City

<long-island-city-nyc-2015-vs-2022-v0-2kze7clr9khc1.png copy.jpg>
 

 

Downtown Brooklyn

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKto8%2BVOxsRoSB%2Bp7pWPaGChc%2BR13NL%3DX%3DZC1Vy2ugZwt%3D1pcA%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Edward Woll]

Hi Jeff,

The analysis of Copper Mill comparables and overstatement of revenue referred to are in the attached 17 page document submitted to Mass Housing in February 2026 and circulated to DSNC weeks ago.  

Any comments you have on it would be appreciated. 

Ed

[David Booth]

On 5/24/26 19:03, Zev Pogrebin wrote:
> Question for everyone: what does neighborhood character mean to you?

My answer:

1. Interesting people. That is what attracted me to Somerville. But
current zoning is now causing a major shift in Somerville's population,
as artists, activists, musicians and other lower-income people are
forced out by rising housing costs.

2. The architecture. I love the old New England architecture here.
Steel and glass high rises do *not* fit in, but 6 story buildings -- or
even 10 story in some locations -- could fit in just fine if they were
designed to match the existing historical architecture.

3. Trees and green space -- super important.

4. Emphasis on walkability.

Thanks,
David Booth

[Jeff Byrnes]

Thanks David. Some food for though on this:

 

“current zoning is now causing a major shift in Somerville's population, as artists, activists, musicians and other lower-income people are forced out by rising housing costs.”

 

This is true, since our current zoning doesn’t allow enough homes to be built to satisfy demand, so homes that have been affordable to lower-income folks continually become homes for upper-income folks, either through rent increases or renovations for sale as condos.

 

This means that your #1 & #2 points may be in contention, b/c in order to reduce that displacement pressure, we need a lot more homes, and those homes can only emulate 100+ year old architecture to a point, since modern building codes & materials, as well as some of zoning’s regulations, dictate how new buildings look.

 

One thing I think would help though, is adjusting zoning such that builders are incentivized to build ornamented boxes, instead of the current style of articulated buildings (i.e., the outer walls of a building pop in & out, with alternating materials & finishes). Might be worthwhile to ask local architects what would need to change to shift away from the articulated design back to the more prevalent & historically-consistent ornamented style.

 

Basically: I think they’re in contention if you wish to preserve existing architecture. But if we can be welcoming of new buildings that “rhyme” with older architecture, then we can make these preferences act in harmony.

-- 
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
 

🌐 somervilleyimby.org

🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY

🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY

📱 704.516.4628

--
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/f8a67d60-84d3-453b-ae6b-1f4584b16779%40dbooth.org.

[Carol]

Ornamental box style is very boring.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3ec7c3b6-5e98-47e5-b677-d1c952d02b08%40Spark.

[Edward Woll]

Further resource material dealing with neighborhood character and context is at MassHousing itself, as referenced below.  

Ed Woll

Handbook: Approach to Chapter 40B Design Reviews

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/10/16/handbook-approachtoch40b-designreviewa.pdf

Here are a few excerpts:

c.40B Guidelines on Design Review

The c.40B Guidelines prepared by DHCD (revised as of July 30, 2008) suggest approaches for applying the regulations with some additional terms and phrases in section 3. Findings, Design (760 CMR 56.04(4)(c)):

“Relationship to Adjacent Building Typology – Generally, a Project is developed in the context of single family dwellings and introduces a different form of housing into the neighborhood. Assuming that this is the case, it is important to mitigate the height and scale of the buildings to adjoining sites. In this context, it is particularly important to consider the predominant building types, setbacks, and roof lines of the existing context.

• The massing of the Project should be modulated and/or stepped in perceived height, bulk and scale to create an appropriate transition to adjoining sites.

• Where possible, the site plan should take advantage of the natural topography and site features, or the addition of landscaping, to help buffer massing.

• Design may use architectural details, color and materials taken from the existing context as a means of addressing the perception of mass and height.

Relationship to Adjacent Streets – Likewise, the manner in which the buildings relate to adjacent streets is critically important. Massing should take into account the pattern of the existing street frontage as well as maintain a human scale by reasonably relating the height of buildings to the width of the public way.”

These elements form the criteria under which the design review process is executed. The next sections provide an approach for completing the reviews including the sequential steps for the review, further define the terms used in the process and provide the forms for consistent applications.

...

Affordable housing projects under c.40B often have design elements that are different from the surrounding context as described by the terms used in the regulations; e.g., use, scale. However, with careful design and consideration of the project elements in relationship to the adjacent streets and properties, the projects can better integrate with the surrounding context.

...

Building Massing and Scale

Massing is the “organization of the building’s overall volume”. As an example, building forms providing the same volume of space may be low and wide or tall and thin. ...

Scale may be defined as the height and massing of a building and building elements and the relationship to surrounding spaces and structures. Common relationships are to the size of a human, to the context of the site, or in the relationships to adjacent buildings.

The mass and scale of a building may be reduced by altering the building’s bulk. The features that can minimize the mass and scale should be about the same size as the same features on adjacent properties. ...

Building Typology

...

Affordable housing projects typically vary from surrounding building types, but within the range of building types of buildings in the neighborhood.

...

Key design issues to review in the application materials and discuss with the applicant include:

• Facade appearance and orientation - Does the proposed design front onto the street the same way as the adjacent properties?

• Architectural and site details - Are the construction details of the proposed design SFDU compatible with the adjacent properties or minimize the differences between the new and existing structures?

• Design treatments of the edge - Do the street and landscaping details minimize the differences or buffer the transition between the different sizes, materials or orientation of the new design and adjacent properties?

...

Surrounding context

The surrounding context is defined by the existing development patterns outside of the site. From the c.40B Guidelines, specific reference is made to adjacent building typology and adjacent streets. Assuming that the new buildings will vary from the surrounding buildings, consideration should be given to the differences in architecture and settings. The conditions of the adjacent streets may define access points that in turn affect site layouts. The location of the buildings in relation to the streets may also be a factor in the visual impact of the building, as the following images in Figure 7 show.

...

The cross section below (Figure 9) indicates the ways in which the location and design of the proposed buildings may also be defined spatially in relation to surrounding streets and buildings.

...

Attachment A: KEY DESIGN ISSUES

...

Scale – The scale of a structure should be compatible with the surrounding architecture and landscape context. Compatibility of different building scales or sizes may be addressed through building typology, orientation, roof lines, setbacks, and the position of the building on the site. That is to say, the size of these elements relate proportionally to the size of the human body.

Height – The height of the proposed buildings should generally be compatible with the surrounding buildings and structures. The treatment of rooflines, setbacks, and position of the building on the site may be used to mitigate differences in height. See also Building Height Stepbacks.

...

Building Height Stepbacks - The design objective of a building stepback is to reduce the shadowing effect on public streets and surrounding buildings and prevent a “canyon” effect when taller buildings are located directly across the street from, or adjacent to, one another. At the same time, street enclosure (or the “Street Wall”) is an important design element in establishing or reinforcing surrounding development patterns. A typical building stepback requirement would specify that building height within a certain distance of the street right of way line not exceed a certain limit (stories or vertical feet). This height at the street right of way line may then be increased by a prescribed amount (in stories or feet) for interior portions of the building that are setback a further distance from the street right of way line. Building setback requirements may also specify certain roof styles, directional orientation and pitch facing to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and established building patterns. Building stepback requirements may also specify that those portions of the roof in the stepback area may be used for certain specified accessory uses such as rooftop gardens, terraces, or similar uses.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3ec7c3b6-5e98-47e5-b677-d1c952d02b08%40Spark.

[David Booth]

On 5/30/26 19:50, Edward Woll wrote:
> Further resource material dealing with neighborhood character and
> context is at MassHousing itself, as referenced below.

Thanks. I do not see anything in that list about fitting in with the
existing architectural style of the neighborhood.

David Booth

>
> Ed Woll
>
> Handbook: Approach to Chapter 40B Design Reviews
> https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/10/16/handbook-

> approachtoch40b-designreviewa.pdf <https://www.mass.gov/files/
> documents/2017/10/16/handbook-approachtoch40b-designreviewa.pdf>

>> /“current zoning is now causing a major shift in Somerville's

>> population, as artists, activists, musicians and other lower-income

>> people are forced out by rising housing costs.”/

>> This is true, since our current zoning doesn’t allow enough homes to
>> be built to satisfy demand, so homes that have been affordable to
>> lower-income folks continually become homes for upper-income folks,
>> either through rent increases or renovations for sale as condos.
>> This means that your #1 & #2 points may be in contention, b/c in order
>> to reduce that displacement pressure, we need a lot more homes, and
>> those homes can only emulate 100+ year old architecture to a point,
>> since modern building codes & materials, as well as some of zoning’s
>> regulations, dictate how new buildings look.
>> One thing I think would help though, is adjusting zoning such that

>> builders are incentivized to build ornamented boxes <https://
>> www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/106j6t0/
>> the_most_beautiful_building_in_boston/>, instead of the current style
>> of articulated buildings <https://www.archdaily.com/977932/the-
>> architectural-pandemic-of-the-stick-frame-over-podium-
>> building/6221c1a1faa1470166cd9eaf-the-architectural-pandemic-of-the-
>> stick-frame-over-podium-building-image?
>> utm_source=Pinterest&utm_medium=organic> (i.e., the outer walls of a

>> building pop in & out, with alternating materials & finishes). Might
>> be worthwhile to ask local architects what would need to change to
>> shift away from the articulated design back to the more prevalent &
>> historically-consistent ornamented style.

>> Basically: I think they’re in contention if you wish to /preserve/

>> existing architecture. But if we can be welcoming of new buildings
>> that “rhyme” with older architecture, then we can make these
>> preferences act in harmony.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Byrnes
>> he/him

>> 🌐 somervilleyimby.org <http://somervilleyimby.org/>
>> 🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org <https://bsky.app/profile/
>> somervilleyimby.org>
>> 📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY>
>> 🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY <https://better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY>
>> 📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY <https://www.instagram.com/
>> SomervilleYIMBY>

>> <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/3ec7c3b6-5e98-47e5-b677-d1c952d02b08%40Spark <https://
>> groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3ec7c3b6-5e98-47e5-b677-
>> d1c952d02b08%40Spark?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/7E82CF47-715B-4275-820C-E8C24691B8EA%40woll.us <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/7E82CF47-715B-4275-820C-
> E8C24691B8EA%40woll.us?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Jeff Byrnes]

Ed, I’m familiar with those guidelines, and others like it.

 

They tend to result in what we see being built over the last 20 years, so if that’s not what’s preferred, they’re best taken with a grain of salt.

 

As for “Ornamental box style is very boring”, that’s not particularly helpful, nor does it invite dialogue.

 

Ornamental boxes are the typical style of our older apartment & commercial buildings, so if one is saying “I like the way Somerville looks today”, that’s what one is asking for. 

 

I’m fine ignoring aesthetics altogether, since they’re quite subjective, and building enough homes for everyone is more important than what those homes look like, but starting from that stance isn’t helpful in establishing dialogue.

 

Personally, I’m hard pressed myself to consider this building as “boring”, but as always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

-- 
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
 

🌐 somervilleyimby.org

🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY

🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY

📱 704.516.4628

[Meredith Porter]

On May 29, 2026, at 3:59 PM, Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org> wrote:

> Thanks David. Some food for though on this:

> 

> “current zoning is now causing a major shift in Somerville's population, as artists, activists, musicians and other lower-income people are forced out by rising housing costs.”

>  

> This is true, since our current zoning doesn’t allow enough homes to be built to satisfy demand, so homes that have been affordable to lower-income folks continually become homes for upper-income folks, either through rent increases or renovations for sale as condos.

Is it really true that current zoning is now causing a major shift? I've been concerned for decades that our neighbors have been forced out by housing costs that have increased dramatically. We shifted to a whole new form-based zoning ordinance in December 2019 that made it possible to do much more development by right. There have been quite a few amendments as well. Zoning is just one factor that affects housing supply. Costs of land, materials, labor, and interest rates have huge effects, and other regulations affect costs too. Can enough homes be built in Somerville to satisfy demand in any case? The demand is immense, and Somerville doesn't exist in isolation. Conditions in surrounding communities make a big difference too. This isn't to say that we shouldn't do our part or that changes to zoning and regulations aren't warranted, but I firmly believe that good zoning is essential in making our city livable as it changes. That's where neighborhood character comes in. It's subjective, and we all should have a voice in determining what's appropriate.

I don't believe that the market can ever provide enough homes to those who are truly lower-income unless there's some fundamental restructuring. This is really important, and we'll continue to need a variety of approaches to deal with it, including through zoning and CBA's.

Best regards,

Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)

---

From: "Jeff Byrnes" <je...@somervilleyimby.org>
To: "Edward Woll" <e...@woll.us>
Cc: "David Booth" <da...@dbooth.org>, "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:01:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] What neighborhood character means to me

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/0c01b62a-e792-454a-92db-3bb04d7353ba%40Spark.

[Edward Woll]

Hi David,

Here are some excerpts from the design approaches:

Design may use architectural details, color and materials taken from the existing context as a means of addressing the perception of mass and height

it is particularly important to consider the predominant building types

However, with careful design and consideration of the project elements in relationship to the adjacent streets and properties, the projects can better integrate with the surrounding context.

This link, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/approach-to-chapter-40b-design-reviews-handbook,  takes you to the following: HANDBOOK: APPROACH TO CHAPTER 40B DESIGN REVIEWS

One excerpt says:

Key design issues to review in the application materials and discuss with the applicant

include:

• Facade appearance and orientation - Does the proposed design front onto the street

the same way as the adjacent properties?

• Architectural and site details - Are the construction details of the proposed design

SFDU

compatible with the adjacent properties or minimize the differences between the

new and existing structures?

• Design treatments of the edge - Do the street and landscaping details minimize the differ-

ences or buffer the transition between the different sizes, materials or orientation of the

new design and adjacent properties?

See also:

Scale – The scale of a structure should be compatible with the surrounding architec-

ture and landscape context. Compatibility of different building scales or sizes may be

addressed through building typology, orientation, roof lines, setbacks, and the position

of the building on the site. That is to say, the size of these elements relate proportionally

to the size of the human body.

Height – The height of the proposed buildings should generally be compatible with the

surrounding buildings and structures. The treatment of rooflines, setbacks, and posi-

tion of the building on the site may be used to mitigate differences in height. See also

Building Height Stepbacks.

And:

Façade Design – The facade is literally a French term meaning “the face”. It is a combina-

tion of design elements that when artfully composed create a harmonic impression. Just

as we can have long and narrow or wide and open faces, so do buildings. A rule of thumb

would have new construction mirror some aspects of the facade design of neighboring

buildings so as to create a continuity across projects.

Ed

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/ccfb84ee-2cbd-415d-a33f-f25bc99e7423%40dbooth.org.

[Jeff Byrnes]

In terms of zoning’s impact, both the old zoning & the current didn’t/don’t allow enough new homes to stem displacement & rising prices.

 

The current zoning is far more sensible & allows for amendments, but bear in mind that in 2019 it mostly had the effect of legalizing what we already had: 2-fam houses & 3 deckers.

 

Almost all of the new homes we’ve seen were built in Assembly & Union. About 2000 more homes were built over the last decade, or about 200 per year.

 

Roughly 75% of the city only allows 3 homes per parcel, so we just didn’t add a lot of zoned capacity in 2019 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

If we want to replicate Austin’s results (+30% more homes in 9 years, 2015–2024), we’d need to build ~11k more homes over the next decade (~30% of ~37k homes).

 

That’s more than 5 times as many homes as we’ve been building!

 

Hopefully those numbers give an idea of the scale of the challenge, & why current zoning is still holding us back.

-- 
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
 

🌐 somervilleyimby.org

🟦 bsky.app/profile/somervilleyimby.org
📖 facebook.com/SomervilleYIMBY

🐘 better.boston/@SomervilleYIMBY
📷 instagram.com/SomervilleYIMBY

📱 704.516.4628

[Penelope Doherty]

Hello all - 

I'm new to the 'hood and therefore have been hanging back, listening and learning. The comment in Jeff's writing below about replicating Austin's results caught my ear, however, and I feel warrants a comment: 

Having spent most of my life in Austin and worked with the City on its Imagine Austin endeavor to shift to form-based code, it's important to know that Austin's fabric and available space is hugely different from Somerville and a comparison will not be apples to apples, as they say- more like peas to watermelons 🙂. The options are vastly different and therefore so are the appropriate tools and resulting percentages.

Happy to share more as helpful; my challenge in attending has been the scheduling. FYI I am neither NIMBY or YIMBY (more like AIOBY - appropriate in our back yard) 

Best, 

Penelope

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 8:13:59 AM
To: Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>; David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>
Cc: Edward Woll <e...@woll.us>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/5be1ffb8-551d-4bbc-882b-5f95e5e0cc59%40Spark.

[Conor Brennan]

Penelope,

Appreciate you making this comment, I visited Austin for the first time last November.

Space is something that they don’t lack. 

I like “ AIOBY - appropriate in our back yard”

Thank you 

Conor Brennan

PJRYANS 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 31, 2026, at 4:48 PM, Penelope Doherty <dohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/IA2P221MB1465624A530724A991088E35A5142%40IA2P221MB1465.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Edward Woll]

Thank you, Penelope.  

DSNC is concerned about the Davis Square neighborhood.  And what we do in the Davis Square Neighborhood does affect there city overall, which is the scope of Somervision 2040. 

Does any one have detailed map with data showing for the Davis Square neighborhood (and for those who want to take on a bigger task, for the different parts of the city  the public T-stops and 

• Dwelling unit density, such as an overlay on a zoning district map?
• Locations of residential buildings over 4 stories?
• Locations of residential buildings with 50 units or more?
• Locations of affordable housing, whether 40B or otherwise

I think that the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan process did compile a detailed analysis of development potential of the area almost lot by lot.  Let’s find that out first and see that data. If development has been as slow as posited below, the data should still be relevant and useful.

Ed

[Judith Liben]

Not sure this article about Austin made it to this group.  Sorry if a repeat.

https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/3DBB8793-48D1-4F25-A22A-B0C717EEF735%40pjryans.com.

[Penelope Doherty]

Hi Judith - yes, Jeff linked to i that article in his comments and I read it thoroughly. I'd be happy to go through the points in the article which actually argue against some of the things being proposed/advocated for here. It really is quite a different situation in Austin so it just might not be the best leg to lean on.  

Best, 

Penelope 

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Judith Liben <judith...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:22:23 PM
To: Conor Brennan <co...@pjryans.com>
Cc: Penelope Doherty <dohe...@hotmail.com>; Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org>; Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>; David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>; Edward Woll <e...@woll.us>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>