Comments | davis_square: Somerville revokes designation of Tufts as Powder House School re-developer

ron_newman in davis_square

Somerville revokes designation of Tufts as Powder House School re-developer

Mar 20, 2014 13:44

after the university announced that it would not begin construction there for at least 15 years.

Somerville Times article
Wicked Local/Somerville Journal article

from the Times article: "Next week, a community meeting originally planned to continue discussions of the Tufts proposal will now instead offer the community an opportunity to discuss ( Read more... )

local government, powderhouse, development, tufts

Comments 13

somervilleguy March 20 2014, 17:54:43 UTC

Glad that tufts is gone from this process. Also amazingly arrogant that they would buy a property and let it sit for 15 years. Does show the true contempt they have for the city.

ron_newman March 20 2014, 18:02:35 UTC

I don't understand why Tufts bid on this at all if they had no ability to meet the city's specification (that redevelopment be complete at least started within 3 years).

ext_1771774 March 20 2014, 18:36:59 UTC

I'm with you, Ron. I'm very confused as to why they need that amount of time to develop. Then again, they just started a large project on the corner of Harvard Street and Boston Avenue in Medford that stood vacant and in disrepair for many years.

ron_newman March 20 2014, 18:44:24 UTC

Wasn't that home to artists' studios (and thus not 'vacant') until very recently?

Thread 9

ext_1771774 March 20 2014, 18:34:48 UTC

Hi Ron,

Is the address for the TAB building correct? I always thought it was 167 Holland.

ron_newman March 20 2014, 18:38:24 UTC

I just copied what was in the news article. Given the building's length, either address should work.

jason237 March 21 2014, 14:59:33 UTC

Two alternate proposals by Davis Square Partners and Diamond Sinacori were also recommended alongside Tufts’ proposal for final consideration by the mayor.

Here's the committee's report: http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/PHCS%20Report.pdf

I'm disappointed that the proposal with the most housing was disqualified primarily for that reason. But given the rampant NIMBYs in Union Square lately and the cited 2009 experience, I can't really blame the committee.

secretlyironic March 22 2014, 20:30:51 UTC

Some additional housing is better than none.

When someone says "it'll all be expensive luxe etc" my response is: 500 yuppies want to move into your neighborhood. They will pay $500/month more than you pay now. Do you want them to take your lease, or lease a new building down the road?"