Mass+Main zoning goes to full council, official’s alternative swept aside for now
Renderings show the before and after of the Mass+Main building proposed for the east edge of Central Square. Click for larger and expanded views. (Images: CBT Architects)
The Normandy/Twining zoning petition is going to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation for adoption from a council Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday. An amendment to hold it, and its signature Mass+Main residential tower, in committee for further discussion was defeated.
The council has not yet heard a recommendation from the Planning Board, which is tentatively scheduled to take up the matter again at its April 28 meeting. The board initially heard the proposal Feb. 24 (a transcript is here as a PDF) and had substantial questions about the drafting of the petition, the affordable housing, the off-site parking lots and a slew of other issues.
The council’s referral vote Wednesday came at the end of a 4.5-hour meeting in which design revisions for the 195-foot project, right on Central Square’s Jill Brown Rhone-Park at Lafayette Square, were presented for the first time. The changes could result in new zoning language for the petition, but no such changes were presented.
The developers promised to double the number of affordable housing units from 20 units to 40 units (8.5 percent to 17 percent); middle-income units would reduce from 21 to seven, but the total number of below-market-rate units would be greater: 47 units out of the project’s 232, instead of 41. They also presented a building design that is “more of a point tower,” said project architect David Nagahiro, of CBT Architects. The new design increases the setback of the shorter portion of the building, and sharpens the corner of the high-rise building while bringing it all the way to the ground level.
City councillor Dennis Carlone, an architect and urban designer, gave a 20-minute slide presentation on his alternate conception for the site. He pushed strongly for underground parking under the city’s existing public parking lots, though he acknowledged its additional expense. Carlone’s presentation included sketches of possible buildings, as well as advocating for 55 affordable housing units on the site – part of a proposal that fully half of any density beyond the current zoning should be devoted to affordable units.
City councillor Dennis Carlone presented an alternative for the site, with a diagram showing mass above the yellow line and a plan view of the site below. (Image: Dennis Carlone)
The meeting also included two hours of public comment before the presentations. A highlight was Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, speaking on the influence of money in politics, who said campaign contributions from developers can have a significant influence on zoning petitions, especially those that aren’t the result of planning studies. Lessig noted major contributions from real estate interests to councillors, adding: “Humans respond to favors favorably. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be brave or strong. You’d be a sociopath.”
There were more than 50 speakers during public comment, with about three-fifths speaking in support, some with reservations. For several, the city’s urgent need for affordable housing was the convincing factor.
Parliamentary tactics
After some questioning of the developers and city staff, but no substantial discussion of Carlone’s proposals or of changes to the zoning petition text, councillor Tim Toomey moved to refer the petition to the full council with a favorable recommendation. He also moved to cut off debate, which passed without objection. The referral motion passed 6-3, with councillors Craig Kelley, Nadeem Mazen and Carlone voting against.
Kelley had tried to amend the motion to allow the committee to hold additional meetings, but his amendment failed. He was supported by the same two who later joined him in opposing the referral motion: Carlone and Mazen.
Mazen then addressed his colleagues: “Coming to a conclusion on the existing proposal without also exploring the alternative proposal seems to me to be evidently and imminently premature.”
Carlone agreed, saying “we saw a new design tonight – a better design. We don’t know the zoning implications. It’s a point tower, not a slab building. And we’re approving it to go to council. I haven’t even seen a plan.”
The meeting adjourned.
Afterward, councillor Marc McGovern said he was unsure if the new changes and Carlone’s counter-proposal merited further discussion before the full council approved the petition: “I’d have to think about it,” he said.
“All we did is move the conversation to the full council,” councillor Denise Simmons said. “We have long conversations at the council all the time,” she said, addressing concerns about the logistics of taking up such an item at a regular council meeting. Simmons also said she would be asking the Community Development Department to analyze Carlone’s proposals.
Carlone, though, was taken aback by his colleagues’ lack of discussion of his proposal. “There was no interest,” he said. “I thought the discussion would continue.”
“We can continue to have discussions about Carlone’s ideas in the full council,” councillor Leland Cheung said. “It happens all the time; I think it’s fairly routine.”
Reaction after meeting
The Wednesday hearing of the City Council’s Ordinance Committee drew many spectators, including around 50 speakers during the public comment period.(Photo: John Hawkinson)
At the close of the meeting, only those who opposed the zoning change remained in the room.
“It sucks. I can’t believe they accepted permanently zoned parking on the residential side of Bishop Allen as part of the package,” said Nancy Ryan, an Area IV resident.
Charlie Teague, a resident of North Cambridge, called it “a moment of truth” when six councillors left 75 potential affordable units “on the table,” a reference to the numerical difference between the Normandy/Twining and Carlone proposals.
“I’m dismayed it was passed with a positive recommendation,” Area IV resident Lee Farris said.
Audio problems plague room
The meeting was plagued with audio problems. As has been the case for meetings held in the newly renovated Sullivan Chamber at City Hall this year, audio quality was dramatically worse than before renovations, with repeated complaints that presenters speaking into microphones were inaudible.
“After yesterday’s complaints about the audio we decided to take a step back and rethink our overall approach to completing launch of the new system,” said Rebecca Fuentes, who has managed the renovation project for the Department of Public Works.
Speaking Thursday, Fuentes said two Information Technology department staffers experienced in audio systems would be sitting in on all coming public meetings to make observations and real-time adjustments to the system, and to make technical recommendations to the consultants who designed the room’s audio system. They will be joined by Paul Creedon of the City Clerk’s Office, who has been leading its technological initiatives, and who will be gathering public input on the problems.
Council meetings are scheduled to return to Sullivan Chamber next week, after having been held at the high school since June 2014.
This article was updated April 3, 2015, to change a “Public reaction” heading to say “Reaction after meeting” and clarify that it surveyed only those members of the public who were present at the end of the long meeting.
Anyone willing to bet that discussion in the full Council will be cut off on the grounds that that is the sort of thing that should happen in committee?
What an embarrassing piece of tripe this “article” is. I’m not sure what I love most about it. Is it the glowing affection for the biggest low point of the night in Larry Lessig’s ill informed poorly timed and ultimately distracting attempt to derail the five year long conversation about zoning in Central Square? Or the “testimony” of three people who are just about the least bias sources of opinion on Central Square? (sorry Nancy you know I loves ya) Maybe if you had asked Twining himself what he thought about his project you’d balance out the BS (though I think BS simply multiplies) Or is it the author’s opinion that Carlone’s presentation was in fact an “alternative?” I realize that this is just a blog and not necessarily the news, but honestly you could have at least tried a bit harder. It is like the comparison made to the court house…except the court house is twice as big and takes up a city block. Clearly Carlone has spent an enormous amount of time on his proposal, I wish he had spent as much time with CCD to see if it actually worked. Or better yet spent time with his colleagues to work on C2 for the past year and half. It is kind of hysterical that you quote Carlone’s opinion about his own project. I’m sure he was surprised that no one wanted to address it. Most of these people, including this blog, sandbagged C2 while the two year process was underway, and though I’m blushing that you all seem to think it so terrific all of the sudden it is hard not to feel there is an ulterior motive afoot. I spoke to Larry outside of the meeting and found him to be reasonable. It seemed to me that he hadn’t paid much attention to C2 nor did he realize how long this debate has been raging on, and while casual insult may not have been his intent I would find it impossible for him not to see how it was perceived. I always love how academics first response in a debate is, “well you didn’t understand…” Comedy. His first TED was on the laws that stifle creativity, and while his focus was on IP it could have very well been about zoning. It is so much easier to derail something than it is to stay on track. In short this article is bogus and written with such an obvious slant that it reads more like the funny pages, which is the least shocking element herein. Pathetic.
I’ll take that bet Hoffman…
You’re on, Mr. Barrett. Do you want actual (small) stakes, or just bragging rights at risk?
By the way, you’d be more believable when you talk about insults if you’d learn what honorifics are and use them. Once you have that one down, we can move on to proofreading. At some point in this process, you might also recognize that you also have a bias. The most important thing I learned in Prof. Parker’s Constitutional Law class was the importance of acknowledging and examining the bias built into our laws and, by extension, how we see situations. You can’t really address any big problems without doing that first.
Good morning, Patrick:
Sorry for the delay in response.
I think you have correctly identified an error on my part in this article — the folks quoted in the “Public reaction” section of the meeting were uniformly opposed to the passage of the petition out of committee, and that does not accurately reflect public opinion of the proposal.
The reason they were quoted is because I surveyed those who remained at the close of the meeting, and there were fairly few people left. I don’t believe I inadvertently selected only those who were in opposition, but it’s not inconceivable that I may have biased the selection unknowingly.
I judged that the public reaction after the meeting was more important than the public comment at the beginning of the meeting. That’s because a lot of new information was presented at the meeting that was not available to commenters at the beginning of the meeting.
With respect to some specifics questions you asked:
is it the author’s opinion that Carlone’s presentation was in fact an “alternative?”
Carlone’s presentation is titled “Mass+Main Petition Alternative,” so I used his own words.
I realize that this is just a blog and not necessarily the news
I may differ from Marc Levy on this, but I consider my work product to be news and not blog. To the best of my ability I try to be evenhanded and fair to all sides. I am imperfect, but fairness is my goal.
Most of these people, including this blog, sandbagged C2 while the two year process was underway,
That’s not my opinion and did not appear under my byline and does not reflect my actions or work.
Thanks for helping to raise the level of discourse in comments here. I have one request, though: could you please try to use paragraphs to break up your comments? They would be much easier to read.
I’m not totally sure what’s meant by “sandbag” here, but I have no opinion of C2 (or K2) until they’re actually heard and don’t remember having one while the process was going on. Assuming it means I criticized the C2 process or its findings, can Patrick Barrett or someone who feels as he does send me a link or two? I’d like to understand the perception.
Here are links to my writing that I found by searching “C2” on the site:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2013/03/28/zoning-proposal-for-new-central-square-could-go-to-council-within-four-months/
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2013/02/06/revamp-of-central-square-could-fall-to-cambridge-redevelopment-authority/
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/06/20/planning-board-says-to-wait-for-consultants-study-but-study-may-say-build-high/
Marc Levy
Wow. This process is such a wreck; Cambridge is becoming an embarrassment. You’ve got a rogue councilor proposing his own development proposals! I’ve seen this kind of armchair design before. It’s a lot easier to sketch when your money isn’t on the line… If Carlone is so excited about doing urban design he should really be out there as a developer himself!
Looking over this proposal, I’m kinda amazed. You have a proposal that looks to bring the public parking lot into the development, which would require a public RFP process with uncertain outcomes (i.e. not this) and taking years. I thought the CRA was opposed to developing the surface lots around Central? The proposal is to build about the same number of units over 2-3x as much land (i.e. less than half the density). It is 50% affordable… which is about the ratio in CDC mixed-income development. Which means that this project would require tens of millions in subsidies. Coming from where? Taking additional time… on a site with an acquisition cost a CDC/the City would never have paid. Has anyone even tried to consider the financial viability of this design!?
And I’m not even convinced that the urban design works! Is that back plaza going to create anything like the public space used as an example? Does the double point building have the right scale to achieve the effect? Again the example is of a much larger building. Etc…
However, my biggest complaint (and source of outrage) is holding this meeting at 4pm in the afternoon when I and many other people are working. How is this an example of good public process? Come on Cambridge, you planning and development process looks like 1980 (which to be fair was about when most of the participants were the age of the latest migrants to Cambridge)
Lessig, I love your work man, but I don’t think you’re fully aware of the situation your stepping in to. Councilors may also be biased by small numbers of demographically unrepresentative activists who also have a financial stake in Cambridge’s rising cost of living.
What a mess. The only silver lining is that I’m going to be priced out of Cambridge soon and won’t have to worry about these insane politics!
Mr. Barrett,
I’ve never known Mr. Hawkinson’s reporting to be anything other than accurate and balanced. This article, which is certainly newsworthy and a valuable redux of the meeting, is no exception.
The Normandy/Twining proposal is steaming ahead to be another Cambridge classic: Spot-zoning and blatant favoritism to permit a developer to cram another thoughtless, outsized, tedious blockhouse in a civic center. Just what the world needs.
The majority of big proposals endorsed by city management and rubber-stamped by permitting authorities in recent years are much the same: blocky, ugly buildings that are cheap and easy to build, maximize density and leasable square footage, and offer little else. Parks and green space? Sensible, well-planned parking? Rooftop gardens? Fountains? Beautifully designed pedestrian areas? Looking at most of the recent big developments here, you could pretty well convince yourself that the profession of architect and urban planner doesn’t exist here. Many of the buildings look like they were designed by kids who flunked “Lego.” And they’re decorated by obnoxious signage, often in violation of zoning or handed variances for no reason.
Personally, I’m glad that Larry Lessig spoke up on the obvious color of money at play here. Developers pay to support the majority of councilors, and in return, council supports developers. It’s not complicated.
I am reminded of the opening line in the Ward Commission’s report, which blew the lid off decades of shoddy, substandard government construction: “In Massachusetts, we have learned that corruption is a way of life.”
Plus ça change.
I usually take dollar bets Hoffman, but if you’re into something else I’m down. Ice cream, bragging rights…whatever you got kiddo.
Nancy Ryan was absolutely right this does “suck.”
It sucks that everyone in the CRA did their best to derail C2 insinuating that those who participated overtly bias money mongering usurpers. I especially loved it when an elderly woman stood up, pointed at me and exclaimed, “That man hates old people.” I’m not sure what the topic was that day, but it was nice to know that this stranger could see right through me so easily, and the comment added a ton to the discussion.
It sucks that those same people, Carlone included, now think C2 is terrific and no one is calling them out on it. Carlone likened the process to “Pearl Harbor” in robo-calls prior to his election. Now he largely seems to agree with C2. I like it when someone can admit they were wrong, I just haven’t heard the, “Sorry, I was wrong” part. If C2 was so great where the F were you people two years ago? (disclaimer: C2 is actually great and should be adopted tomorrow)
It sucks that the news-O-sphere in Cambridge is so lacking that Cambridge Day is even considered a supplement to it as the slant is very strong, seemingly in favor of councilor Mazen and Carlone. Did no other councilor have an opinion of the process? Are the opinions that are in line with Cambridge Day’s the only ones worth cultivating?
It sucks that Carlone spent more time with his “alt” project than it seems he has with C2 zoning on which he claims it was based. It is obvious that this “alt” has been on his mind for a while as he alluded to it at a CRA meeting a few weeks prior while he and Mazen spoke to the group about Normandy’s proposal. Why didn’t he let CCD in on it … or any other councilor … or his co-chair… just what the hell was that? Why the hell were 3 units put on top of the garage?
At least the Gooch (can I call him that?) had the foresight to have a model of the court house made as the juxtapose to his client’s proposal makes anyone’s comment about the similarities between the two laughable.
It sucks that this blog and others can casually insinuate that certain council members are corrupt without no proof of corruption whatsoever. Councilor Mazen parked his bus for almost two years on an illegal lot. When the council finally got the yarbles to go after this landlord for letting his property rot, running an illegal commercial lot, and creating one of the biggest safety hazards in Central Square councilor Mazen tabled the order. I’m not sure I’ve seen a more questionable blatant act by a city councilor since I’ve been in Cambridge. Where was the “Day” on that one? Is this not a clear cut example of what Larry was talking about? Does Mazen receive money from the Abu-Zarha family? Is that ok?
If I don’t want to stand in the square with Minka! signs or annoy my neighbors with phone calls or other nonsense what avenue is “ok” to support candidates I believe in? Please let me know as I’m sure the Day, and others would absolutely have a solid moral compass with which to guide me.
It sucks that we live in a city with such great minds that zoning is oft viewed like it was taboo or the equivalent of witchcraft. Raise your hand if you’ve ever gotten a variance! In Kelley’s four year BZA history how many times does article 5, mud room, and basement appear? The rules make no sense, I’m just grateful the PB and BZA have resolve.
It really sucks that C2/Normandy detractors are fostering a backwards system where commercial development doesn’t add a tenth of the mitigation the inclusionary housing program does. I’m still in awe how those who trashed C2, and want to trash the Normandy petition, can’t see how even if you moved linkage to $50/ft it would barely come to a tenth of the value currently at play in the Normandy petition, and easily of greater value in C2.
Finally, lets talk about bias. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that fact that I own property in Central Square (and God willing someday I’ll own more), and while people have accused me of profiteering or trying to make a “kajillion” dollars its groups like the CRA that have made it so damn impossible to get more market rate housing that truly business has never been better.
Thank you CRA! Thank you super-citizens that show up at every damn hearing making the cost of everything go through the roof.
Thank you for your nonsense talking points about 50/50 affordable housing in areas that already have over 30-36% affordable housing when the areas of the city with the “good schools” that look more akin to walden pond have less than 10%. Now that is progressive!
So yes, I am bias. I want my son to grow up in a clean, safe, environment without the sterilization inherent in the suburbs and not have to pay BB&N $40k/yr because my son can’t get into the “good” schools. I want my business to grow and will continue to cultivate avenues that I find both achieve that end and are also responsible. I also want my friends, tenants, and colleagues to have a chance to see their businesses and lives improve and will always work toward that end. Last I looked most of the people rallying to “save” Central Square don’t spend more than a minute in Central Square. When you do, and you’ve truly a stake in the area, come talk to me.
(disclaimer: I don’t edit, never will, and I especially don’t proof read and sometimes I’ll even be doing multiple things whilst I type. Read at your own discretion)
Mr. Barrett, I repeat my request that you learn what honorifics are and use them. I always give you and others that basic respect, but you don’t seem to think you need to reciprocate.
It’s obvious that you don’t proofread, and it’s too bad you don’t edit. Stating your comments clearly in a way that doesn’t require us to read your mind to guess what you might have meant had you used actual coherent sentences would help a lot.
You are also prone to jumping to conclusions that have little basis in fact, like suggesting that people who opposed C2 now like it because they oppose something that’s even bigger than C2 proposed. That doesn’t follow.
One of the things I gain from writing things down is a better understanding of what I’m talking about because I strive to make sense. You would improve the dialogue greatly if you did the same. Just dumping your stream of consciousness onto the computer screen and hitting post doesn’t add nearly as much as a little editing would, and it also makes people like me think much worse of you than I bet you deserve. I’ve seen occasional hints that you’re far more thoughtful than you usually appear, and that’s the person whose comments I’d like to read.
Mrs. Hoffman,
Unsults not withstanding I appreciate the benefit of your doubts, though I would prefer you at least attempt to address the actual issue of this discussion.
You have undoubtedly read C2 (which probably makes us two out of maybe 105k people who haven’t) so you know that the Normandy proposal really isn’t that far off of what C2 would have achieved. It is one section of the area C2 intended so in that way it totally “sucks” but given the lack of reasonable discourse on the issue and the Council’s inability to pull it together; is it really difficult to understand why the Normandy proposal exists?
Juxtapose the Normandy project to Ames St. or the court house. Ames wrote their own zoning and can’t get to 15% affordable let alone the 20% Normandy is offering. The court house folks said “f-it” and went commercial. Sure they gave use 24 unit but against 500k sqft I doubt they batted an eye-lash. Of course the court house is 200+ sqft bigger than the Normandy project and takes up almost an acre and a half of land. So what makes this project so special that is deserves the attention of Larry Lessig or the acute attention of a city-wide group like the CRA?
The biggest issue I have, and why I first addressed how horribly slanted this “article” is, has to do with the fact that while the now lauded C2 was being formed in open discussion over the course of two years this happened:
1) Yanow Downzoning petition, which would have kept the city parking lots as parking lots in perpetuity. This was signed by all leadership of the CRA and several other who thought it a keen idea.
2) Crush Hour; a presentation by the CRA to show the connection between development and the dystopian hellscape it creates. The main theme was that nothing should be built until the red line is fixed.
3) A series of leaflets as part of an anti-development campaign were thrown around my neighborhood (Area 4) and in Central misstating to facts of C2 and later to block a 14 story residential tower next to the fire station. Again the CRA was responsible for the literature as well as the message sent out to residents that completely upset any reasonable conversation during public comment at the C2 meetings.
4) John King was given permission to make a presentation at C2 to discuss his/CRA’s concern that the neighborhoods weren’t being considered and that the path the C2 board was on would lead us to another dystopian future wherein humans would be shoved into trains with large broom-like objects and our lives would be reduced to a hellish binary existence.
5) Several CRA members used their own blogs to misquote facts and attack members (most indirectly) as being opportunist, profiteers, and usurpers of the culture in Central Square. Further, they characterized the membership of the board as non-inclusive of the neighborhoods and comprised mainly of development interests and shills for development; an absolute lie.
6) During the election of 2013 C2 was a major talking point. One councilor took it upon himself to send out robo-calls where he likened C2’s recommendations to Pearl Harbor. This candidate was elected and claims the CRA as his base.
7) The last bit of shenanigans that took place was the new position by the CRA and other groups not satisfied with C2, that we needed a Master Plan. It was stated by these groups that we had no plan which violated state law and that C2 wasn’t planning. Thus we spent the last year and half after the conclusion of C2 spinning in circles.
So that is where we have been. Now the CRA seems to be saying:
1) Parking lots should be built upon and soon. A complete 180 from the Yanow petition, and contrary to any position taken by the CRA during C2 which recommended their use by either private or public/private means.
2) C2 is great! We should move to adopt it immediately. The “Pearl Harbor” status has been removed and now C2 “modified” or otherwise is really the way to go. Again a complete 180.
It is really difficult to sift through the BS and articles like the one Hawkins presents here makes it even more difficult. I am displeased that our leaders haven’t simply ignored this seemingly fickle group of super-citizens and just changed the damn zoning. As one of the few people who understand our ordinance, I’d expect a bit more flexibility from you with regard to changing it. Surely you don’t think its a masterful work of perfection…right?
I am equally tired of the position taken by some that suggest I’ll make a “kajillion” dollars as being proof positive that my interest here can only be pecuniary. That is personal, but given Larry’s distraction at the last meeting it is something that I plan on addressing with a bit more gusto. I have a stake, personal and financial, but more over I owe Central Square in a way I can never repay; so I’ll go right on advocating for Central. If anyone should not want the Normandy project it should be me (or maybe Carolyn Fuller). I could block this thing and hope they turn tail and sell off their assets. I would never allow a commercial project on either side of my building on Main and they know this. However this is not how I operate, and I wouldn’t want to put all the “real” activists to shame when I handcuffed myself to the Quest parcel in JBR Park to block a lab; and you better believe I’d do it in a second.
Finally, I make no apology for my writing in haste. If you don’t want to read my comments; then don’t. I have been constant in my comments, generous with my time, and willing to reach across vast distances (to the horror and suspicion of people I genuinely enjoy/work with) to find some common ground. However, you can just as easily talk to me in person, I can only warn that there isn’t much difference.