The conceptual design for the redevelopment of a stretch of Davis Square’s Elm Street looks to include housing rising 25 stories, according to a presentation by developer Copper Mill from a community meeting held Dec. 11. The developer said construction would at least temporarily displace all storefronts on that stretch, which include McKinnon’s Meat Market, Dragon Pizza and The Burren pub.
Previous iterations of the redevelopment hoped to keep The Burren open during construction.
Copper Mill representatives presented two design ideas for a 500-apartment residential building, which would sit atop a “platform” of retail spaces at Elm and Grove streets. Both reflect the 25-story height and differ mainly in whether the residential tower is oriented diagonally from the street, with a sharper rectangular shape.
Reception of the building’s size and height was generally positive.
“I’ve had a lot of friends and family leave Somerville because of housing,” resident Joel Paul said. “I want to move from Winter Hill to Davis and can’t. I think Davis Square is a perfect place to put 500 or even more units of housing.”
Elaine Almquist, a resident and driving force behind a new Davis Square Neighborhood Council, spoke of her own need for more housing to be built. “My husband and I are one of those people who, if we are unable to have an affordable apartment, are not going to be able to stay in this neighborhood,” she said. (The council posts notes from every meeting.)
One resident expressed concern over size: that “a 500-unit building would add about a thousand residents to Ward 6, which is an 8 percent increase in the population.”
Resident Zev Pogrebin added his own take after the meeting that a jump of 8 percent would be “pretty incredible.”
“That with such a small amount of construction impact on the local community we can work this much on solving the local housing shortage” was impressive, Pogrebin said. “I hope that some of the other folks who are concerned about the height can see that.”
Andrew Flynn, founder of Copper Mill, has that the building would likely not be financially viable if it had much fewer than 500 units, and that the number of units is in response to a local and regional housing need.
“The general consensus acknowledges that there is an acute housing crisis, and hopefully this building could move the needle in a meaningful way,” Flynn said.
Closed storefronts
Previously plans on the site looked at building around The Burren, possibly cantilevering a building over it to allow the beloved Irish pub to stay open.
“That seems to be more complicated than anticipated,” Flynn said, and The Burren will have to relocate temporarily or close during construction like other stores on the stretch. “But we’d love to find an opportunity to work in collaboration with The Burren and bring them back into a 21st century space – properly designed, purpose-built, fully ADA accessible and code compliant.”
Flynn said his hope was to “retain the organic character inside its four walls.”
The Burren owners bought Christopher’s in Porter Square, half a mile away from the planned redevelopment in Cambridge, where renovation is underway on a restaurant to be called McCarthy’s and an adjoining Toad bar. When the deal was announced in April, it was hoped McCarthy’s would open in September, but the sale didn’t go through until June. Though Toad was repainted almost immediately, construction on the new restaurant didn’t start until September.
Developer-community dialogue
Copper Mill has held four community meetings in the past few months, all early in the building design process.
“I have been extremely pleasantly surprised,” said Almquist, of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council. “So far they’ve been very open-minded and doing a good job of listening and rolling that into what their plans might be. I’m cautiously optimistic that, if that remains, we’ll end up with a result that is good for the community.”
One example is that, at a prior meeting, a resident suggested that the residential lobby entrance be placed on Grove Street instead of Elm. In the Dec. 11 presentation, the lobby entrance was moved to Grove Street to reflect that comment, and the relocation was cited as a plus for the design along with making the height less visible to people on the sidewalk below .
“Community members certainly have a well-founded inherent skepticism, and we understand that. Our job is to earn their trust and credibility,” Flynn said.
Flynn is hoping for construction to begin by the end of 2025. He anticipates 18 to 25 months of construction, although he emphasized that the timeline is uncertain.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
LOL to Joel Paul and others who believe such a monstrous project will not change the neighborhood or that the businesses closing will ever be back. Two years closed means you can count them gone. And the housing will not end up affordable in the end… this is a repeat of what has happened in other cities across the country.
Something to keep in mind: https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis
If you think this will help Davis Square, think again. This will turn Davis Square into Kendall Square– sleek, stylish, and lifeless.
WAAAAHH!!!! WE NEED MORE HOUSING!
WAAHHH!!!!! IT WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!
WAAAHHH!!!! WE NEED TO KEEP OUR RENTAL AND TAX BASE LOW!
WAAAAAHH!!!! BIG TECH AND UNIVERSITIES ARE GREEDY AND EVIL!
The housing crisis stems from insufficient construction to meet demand, both locally and nationwide. Providing enough housing should be the top priority, as the lack of affordable options hampers the local economy and affects everyone.
@vasilyev@alum.mit.edu
Cambridge and Somerville are addressing the housing crisis through a combination of market-based solutions and affordable housing policies. They are not using the market alone.
However, increasing the overall housing supply remains crucial, as the fundamental issue is a shortage of available homes.
@Cambridgejoe Actually, building more housing across the country has led to decreases in housing costs.
Even market-rate housing helps by easing demand on affordable housing, which lowers nearby rents.
It’s basic supply and demand economics.
No it hasn’t AvgJoe you are drinking the Kool-Aide.
Everytime this has happened in other major cities it results in more gentrification, higher prices and a lot of people from outside the state moving in as well as speculation purchases of the properties by investment funds.
It did NOT work in Seattle. New Housing brought in new people but rents continued upward. My wife has family in Seattle who have faced this issue directly.
In CA rents stabilized more because of a HUGE number of people leaving the state not because of construction (and the Housing crisis continues).
There are claims made about Austin TX, but I can’t find anyone who lives there among my contacts that has not seen continuing rent increases.
Minneapolis politicians claims things have stabilized and improved but in reality The average rent for a studio apartment has increased by 10% annually, while the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment has increased by 8% annually, and the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment has increased by 7% annually. Minneapolis is a hot market for renters, with the number of people searching for a place jumping 159% compared to last year.
Each of these places tried policies and pushing for new housing projects/towers just like is being pushed in Somerville and Cambridge. It does not work like the politicians are claiming, it lines the pockets of the developers and the warchests of politicians to stay in office.
No, Cambridgejoe, your cognitive bias is showing. You cherry-picked a few examples and shared anecdotes instead of engaging with comprehensive evidence.
Extensive analyses of the housing market consistently show that building housing, even at market rates, reduces rents. For example, a review of recent studies concludes:
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044)
Authors’ findings:
1. Increased housing supply reduces rents or slows rent growth regionally.
2. New construction can lower rents or slows rent growth in nearby neighborhoods.
3. New supply is linked to measures of gentrification but does *not* significantly heighten displacement of lower-income households.
4. Chains of moves triggered by new supply free up housing across the income spectrum, giving higher-income households alternatives to older units and reducing competition for lower-income residents.
You also overlook the importance of housing policy. Experts agree that housing supply must align with local policies promoting affordable development—a strategy already being implemented here.
The housing crisis stems from a lack of supply. Any viable solution must include building more housing. That’s just common sense.
@Cambridgejoe
A Pew Charitable Trusts’ study, More Flexible Zoning Helps Contain Rising Rents, analyzed four jurisdictions—Minneapolis, New Rochelle (NY), Portland (OR), and Tysons (VA).
The findings show that relaxing zoning to allow more housing significantly slowed rent growth. These communities experienced rent increases of just 1-7%, compared to the national average of 31%.
Therefore, your claim that “every time this happens in other major cities it results in higher prices” is demonstrably incorrect.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
@CambridgeJoe: That level of analysis is on par with “it’s cold where I am so global warming can’t be real”
The discussion in this forum is missing the point: it’s not about affordable housing. It’s about the size of the building. Placing a 25-story structure in the proposed location is misguided. It will cast long shadows, bring more cars to an already congested area, and damage the very character that brings people and businesses there in the first place.
Remember, this is a private venture trying to make a return on their investment, not an intentional municipal program to create more housing at that specific corner. Instead of the city approving one 25-story building, what if we approved four 6-story buildings? Or ten of them, through public/private partnerships, installed in and around areas like Davis with great access to services, that do not interfere with the human-scaled urban landscape?
@joelephant: You misread the comments.
As mentioned earlier, research indicates that even market-rate developments lead to reduced rents in surrounding areas.
Just to be clear: This means the project’s impact on lowering housing costs is not dependent on it being affordable housing.
@joelephant
Try to remember: humans need housing. We have not created enough. That is why we have a housing crisis. We need to create more.
It’s baffling to hear arguments against building more housing during a housing crisis caused by insufficient supply.
One has to question the motives of those who go to great lengths to block housing for others.
@joelephant Four 6 story buildings would require four times as much expensive land, right? Where would you find three additional parcels of equivalent size? And wouldn’t the added cost of land drive up the unit cost of the apartments, making them even less affordable?
Your concern about preserving the human scale of Davis Square is well-taken. Then again, that human scale didn’t help fifty years ago when Davis Square was practically moribund. The Red Line rescued it; we can hope that a well considered residential development such as the one described may preserve the vitality of the square for another half century.
Cities must expand housing to meet demands created by job growth. That is a human-centric approach.
Restricting housing based on aesthetic preferences is inhumane. It forces people to spend excessive portions of their income on rent, all because of a wealthier person’s taste.
When developers say that 500 units are needed to make the project economically feasible, what they are really doing is setting everyone up to be grateful for a reduction to “just” 300 units.
That sounds like a sound plan to build more housing, which we sorely need.
I was at the community meeting in the Baptist church on Dec. 11. The developer had done only the shallowest and most trivial changes responsive to previous meetings. The only meaningful concession was agreement to move the building entrance to Grove Street (a no-brainer). The consultants spent 20 minutes talking about how the Davis skyline would improve by rotating their sky-scrapper 90 degrees. They then presented a deceptive, degraded, sketch of the old design and asked us to choose. Are we supposed to be such children that we are convinced to accept a horrible design by him presenting an even more horrible design? The talk about how he cannot finance a smaller building is, at best, disingenuous. Fine – have him sell the property to someone who has better financial connections and is more committed to preserving the square.
The building is absurdly destructive to the scale and architecture of the square. Furthermore, the developer has taken no responsibility for the parking crisis that he will create.
There is no reason to give in to a fast-buck developer who only wants to maximize profit by foisting a building on us that could just as easily have been designed for Abu Dhabi.
@DanE
Denying people sorely needed housing based on personal tastes and aesthetics seems shallow and selfish.
You may find the design “horrible,” but I disagree. To me, it looks perfectly fine. I like it.
I value dense, vibrant, and diverse cities because they create lively neighborhoods with more restaurants and amenities.
That’s my personal preference, and unlike opposing housing, it doesn’t deny others a place to live.
As for parking, we need less of it. More parking only encourages driving and increases traffic. Davis Square is a public transit hub, and the focus should be on making it more accessible without cars. A denser, more vibrant neighborhood reduces the need to drive altogether.
@DanE. Your opinion on the design is subjective, not factual. I have no problem with it.
The project adds 500 apartments to a community in need of housing.
Your comments suggest you’d prefer a minimal design with fewer units. This opposition to adding housing contributes to the ongoing housing crisis.
Exclusionary zoning has roots in discriminatory practices. The reference to Abu Dhabi is inappropriate and potentially offensive in this context.
This development will provide essential housing and boost Davis Square businesses through increased density.
However, some prioritize personal preferences or parking convenience over community benefits.
A true measure of community is how we support those less advantaged, not how we prioritize our own tastes over others’ housing needs.