The seven parcels up for redevelopment. (click to enlarge)

By David R. Smith

The “Final Four” of potential master developers chosen by the Union Square Civic Advisory Committee (CAC) will have to bring their A-game to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (SRA).

The master developer eventually chosen by the SRA will work with the city and property owners in the redevelopment of seven parcels in Union Square.

The CAC has held several meetings since January, three of which were devoted to allowing the nine developers who responded to the city’s request for qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment project to make presentations and answer questions. The 20-member CAC subsequently met to discuss each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. From the nine, four were selected, and those recommendations were forwarded to the SRA, which voted last Thursday to accept the CAC’s report, as well as its recommendations of the four developers to be considered.

According to the city’s website, “once a master developer partner is selected, the committee will act as a sounding board for the Master Developer. The committee will help shape proposals that will then be brought forward for full public review, providing the community a dialogue with the developer to help determine a strategy that ensures the continuity of this unique and vibrant square, while making sure all the pieces come together in a way that creates community-driven, sustainable and strategic economic development.”

The four developers chosen by the CAC are Gerding Edlen, the Abbey Group, Assembly Square master developer National & Federal Realty Investment Trust, and US2 (Magellan Development).

Criteria used to evaluate the respondents included the financial capacity to complete the project, experience with large-scale projects that incorporate commercial, residential and institutional uses in a complex and dense urban setting – particularly settings where public transit was a factor given the pending extension of the Green Line into the square – sustainable building practices and working with contaminated sites.

While the SRA accepted the recommendations, it did not move on narrowing the field down any further, particularly after one of its members, Michael Dwyer, handed out copies of articles showing past financial issues, as well as online complaints, of a few of the finalists. (For example, one anonymous poster on the website Ripoff Report (ripoffreport.com) complained about a condo building in Chicago developed by Magellan, saying, “the sales agents will mislead you, property reports will change, and you will live in a building that is unsecured and costly to make safe and livable.” In presenting the information, Dwyer did qualify the handouts, saying, “Everything on the Internet is not true; I get that.”

As an example of why research and proceeding with caution on a realistic scale and timeline is important, Dwyer pointed to the situation in Quincy Center, where the master developer, New York-based Street-Works LLL, pulled of a $1.6 billion revitalization project, citing the project’s economic unfeasibility and what it felt was an unrealistic timeline set by the city. Dwyer noted the Quincy project is similar in scope to Union Square.

Union Square CAC Chairman Wig Zamore attended the May 8 meeting to explain why the four were chosen and to answer questions from the SRA.

In addition to the other criteria, the capacity to create job jobs and maintain what Dwyer called the “small business ecology” of the square were also factored in to the RFQ evaluations.

Zamore said some respondents were marked down for not focusing on job creation, an issue which SRA member William Gage described as his “big concern” for the future development and life of Union Square.

The main issue moving forward will be which company, as Dwyer said, “has the wherewithal, the muscle to complete this pretty big job,” especially as that job will be carried out over a period of years.

“This is a complicated 12 acres,” Zamore said of the parcels to be redeveloped. “They’re not going to build this many square feet in one economic cycle.”

The information Dwyer distributed addressed that issue, at least in regards to Gerding Edlen, which had a few of its developments in Oregon revert to bank control during the Great Recession. According to one report, the company cut staff and shifted from development to buying buildings and retrofitting them with energy-efficient and green technology and then reselling some and holding on to others and leasing them.

Still, in discussing – and eventually accepting – the four recommendations, there was some discussion over Edlen and whether it should be at the top of the list.

“I’m not sure Gerding should be number one,” SRA member Jim McCarthy said. “I always liked Federal Reality; I thought they were very good.”

In response to his comment, though, Ed O’Donnell, the city’s director of economic development, said it is not necessary at this point to rank the four before the SRA has further delved into each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

“There’s a whole host of tasks remaining on the part of the SRA,” O’Donnell said. “It’s not necessary you rank one, two, three, four – or anything else – at this point.”

SRA Chairman Nancy Busnach echoed that point.

“Our job tonight is to see if we accept the CAC’s recommendations and take it to the next step in the process,” she said.

The discussion then shifted to whether the SRA should focus on the four candidates or just the first three, considering US2/Magellan only made the top four after a second round of discussions of potential finalists among CAC members.

“I’d rather have four than three; it gives us more to look at,” Busnach said, adding she did not think the SRA should “eliminate unnecessarily upfront.”

“The CAC did such a great job; I wouldn’t want to negate 25 percent of it,” she said.

After voting to accept the CAC’s recommendations, and setting a time and date of 5:30 p.m.  Thursday, June 5, for its next meeting (likely at City Hall), Busnach credited the work of both the CAC and the hundreds of residents who have taken part in the process up to this point.

“It’s history-making that so many Somervilliens got involved in the process and put so much time and energy into it,” she said.

*

The CAC’s summary of the master developer finalists:
*

Gerding Edlen was considered to be the team with the greatest commitment to sustainable development.

No other team was close in this regard. They also showed a history of projects executed at scales that would be compatible with Union Square and that sensitively incorporated local arts and crafts. There was limited concern that one of their housing projects may not have been aimed at a diverse population.

Federal Realty and National Development were familiar to most CAC members because of their accomplished mixed use work at Wellington Circle and Assembly Square. Their mix of skills and experience is favorable. Their integration with local on the ground built fabric and existing small businesses needs to be assured. Similarly there is some concern about putting too many of Somerville’s eggs in one basket.

Abbey Group by consensus did not do well with some aspects of presentation. The CAC liked their integrity and was especially impressed by their extraordinary entrepreneurship in tackling and accomplishing both Landmark Center redevelopment and Mass MOCA, among other projects. Abbey were considered most realistic with regard to their own weaknesses. Their designers and consultants were considered exemplary.

US2 had the most experience with large scale urban development and finance. Though their larger developments are too high and “big city” to fit well in Somerville, they exhibited accomplishment at multiple scales and in various challenging situations. Their urban designers and other local team members are considered broadly skilled. With their size there is some question about our relative importance.