By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

On October 27 the Principle Group presented its Neighborhood Plan for Union Square and Boynton Yards.

Most of its content consists of worthwhile design and policy ideas that incorporate every new-urbanist virtue as well as concerns expressed by neighbors over the last year. The redesign of Union Square’s streets is particularly good.

Call all of that the “aspirational” section because the Plan contains no explanation of how this cornucopia of great ideas might become reality. Or who would pay for it.

When the Plan turns to what would actually be built and when, it betrays the SomerVision Comprehensive Plan and the consistently and continually expressed preferences of neighborhood leaders and groups. Call that the “getting real” section.

In preparing the elegant twenty-year SomerVision plan that was adopted in 2012, SomerVision’s steering committee thoughtfully identified and set goals for each of the city’s “transformative” development districts.

The Neighborhood Plan’s “Highlights” section claims consistency with SomerVision by stating that it has maintained SomerVision’s 60%/40% split between new commercial development and housing development.

It neglects to highlight the fact that it more than quadruples the amount of new development specified by SomerVision for the neighborhood. And that does not include required parking. Not does it offer an explanation as to why cramming in so much more development is desirable or even feasible.

The plan’s aspirational section contains appealing rhetoric advocating “human-scale” development. But the getting-real section calls for an inhuman-scale development pattern on the redevelopment blocks set aside for US2, the Redevelopment Authority’s chosen master developer partner.

Outsized buildings dominate superblocks that lack the frequent openings, spaces, and paths needed to shape the convenient and enjoyable walking environment humans feel most comfortable in.

The Plan’s solution is to put continuous and moderately sized storefronts on the superblocks’ ground floors. But Union Square will never be able to support that much retail. It already lacks a daytime population sufficient to support a thriving retail environment.

Building massive residential developments will do nothing to change that. But the Neighborhood Plan inflates SomerVision’s housing goal from 850 new housing units in Union Square and Boynton Yards to 3,130—more than half of SomerVision’ housing goal for the entire city. And that figure does not include the opportunistic conversion of existing commercial buildings to residential units that is already taking place in Union Square and will only increase.

The Plan states that it is focused on “creating significant new job opportunities and meeting our portion of the regional need for new housing….” But the SomerVision steering Committee never considered housing goals in a regional context. As is often cited, Somerville is already New England’s densest city, and Union Square, one of its denser neighborhoods.

While the Plan grossly inflates SomerVision’s goal for housing units, it reduces their average size by 20%. Assuming that 80% of these residential buildings are living space, the average new unit would be 657 square feet—not the family housing that Somerville most needs.

US2 became the master developer partner by responding to a solicitation that clearly stated the housing goal for Union Square as  “350 housing units for Somerville residents of all socioeconomic levels….”  But in February, US2 presented a plan to build 525 units of housing for millennials on the block that is the site of the Union Square Green Line station, and another 400 on the other side of the tracks.

Since our city has the worst jobs-to-workers ratio and the worst commercial-to-residential property tax base in the Commonwealth, the proposal was not well received by neighborhood leaders and organizations.

Yet it seems to be what the Neighborhood Plan’s getting-real section specifies for that block. It calls for a twenty-story residential tower next to the Green Line Station, a seven-story commercial building at the other end, and a large wraparound building in the middle that would be 6 or 7 stories of commercial or residential space. The wraparound building’s configuration and color-coding indicate that it is, in fact, residential.

One rationale that I recently heard for building many small units is that they would free up family housing that is now often shared by millennials who live together.  But I personally don’t know any Somerville millennials who could afford US2’s housing. The new units would most likely draw affluent newcomers, while family housing stock continued to decline, and its occupancy remain unchanged.

Leading the redevelopment effort with these kinds of projects would make getting to the promised commercial development highly unlikely. The reasons extend beyond the obvious fact that they would usurp the locations most attractive to employers.

Another essential reason is that Union Square and Boynton Yards cannot simultaneously accommodate both the level of development proposed and the transportation/parking infrastructure needed to support it. Leading with massive housing would absorb infrastructure needed for commercial development.

In traditional residential and commercial projects, the parking ratios are about 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. At Assembly Square, they’re about 2. The parking ratio implicit in the Neighborhood Plan is 0.6, and this won’t be achievable within the lifetimes of most living ‘Villens.

After realistically accounting for the Plan’s proposed development levels and their implicit parking requirements, scant room remains for SomerVision’s third goal—more open space. Somerville has the lowest proportion of open and green space in the Commonwealth, and Union Square has less than most Somerville neighborhoods.

SomerVision set a goal of 125 acres of new, publicly accessible open space. The Union Square Civic Advisory Committee set a goal of 20 acres. The Neighborhood Plan sets a goal of 12 acres, and it is not clear from its getting-real section what exactly it considers as open space.

Nor is it clear how this open space would be paid for, particularly without large increases in the tax revenues that commercial property generates.

Smart developers know that open space increases the value of their projects. In my last column I mentioned that the Vertex building that is part of the Fallon Company’s Fan Pier development generates more tax revenue than all Somerville commercial property combined.

Open space constitutes 54% of that development. But in the Neighborhood Plan, open space is hard to find among the seven redevelopment parcels set aside for US2.

It is difficult to understand the stark disconnect between what SomerVision and community groups advocated, and what the Neighborhood Plan proposes. If you believe that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is probably the truth, then consider these facts:  The Neighborhood Plan was prepared on a non-competitive-bid contract and paid for by US2.