Councillor vanBeuzekom explains her ‘no’ vote on MIT’s Kendall Square petition
On Monday the City Council voted to approve a petition from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to transform 26 acres of property it owns around Kendall Square at Main Street and 1 Broadway. Seven councillors voted to approve the petition. One councilor abstained from voting. I voted against the petition.
This is a worthy petition, and the projected development brings exciting opportunities for positive change in Kendall Square. I ultimately voted against the petition because I feel that together Cambridge and MIT can do more. Three areas in which this petition needed improvement are housing, net-zero energy standards and noise levels.
Build housing for graduate students and workers
Many residents and former transportation secretary Fred Salvucci expressed concerns that a lack of MIT-provided housing for graduate students has the effect of forcing graduate students into the neighborhoods to rent available apartments – in turn pushing rental pricing up and a diverse community out. In the previous century, MIT was very engaged in helping the city create housing: LBJ, Corporal Burns and a senior building in East Cambridge were financed and built by MIT. Keys were handed over to the Cambridge Housing Authority. The city-sponsored Goody-Clancy study of Kendall Square confirmed a great need for residential housing. Twenty-five hundred new jobs in Kendall will exacerbate the need. With this petition existed the opportunity to request MIT provide a significant housing commitment (in the 2,000- to 4,000-unit range). We are now left with an “MIT study” on this topic. The approximately 300 housing units that this petition requires do not ensure the success of small retailers near Main and Third streets. Without the promise of foot traffic seven days of week, the mix of retailers and restaurateurs will likely be geared toward the weekday workforce.
Establish net-zero energy usage standard for buildings
Cambridge and MIT can be leaders by using building standards that address the climate crisis. MIT is one of the few institutions today that can make net-zero energy usage buildings a reality – this institution is at the forefront of creation. Using technology, engineering, equipment efficiencies, building standards and the purchase of renewable energy credits insures that the climate is protected. MIT’s new Sloan Business School building was built to use one-third the amount of energy of a similarly-sized building, and a MIT joint-venture building project in Switzerland achieved net-zero energy standards. These standards are achievable in Cambridge, and MIT, the self-acclaimed inventor of the future, is a clear leader. The net-zero energy usage amendment I submitted failed 4-4-1.
Keep the city noise standards at a livable level
As Cambridge grows and shifts, neighborhoods and industry will coexist in mixed-use districts. The MIT petition approves an increase to the 50-decibel sound level allowed for night-time noise. The new allowable limit will increase to 65 decibels for new commercial construction. There are more than 700 residents living in or next to this new zoning district, and they deserve to enjoy a reasonable level of quiet. Allowing an increase in level will add to the ambient noise in the city, in turn making compliance more difficult. The reduced noise standards amendment I submitted failed 4-5.
Many aspects of MIT’s petition are appealing to me. Repurposing surface-level parking lots into opportunities for first-floor retail, making space for affordable startups and innovation companies, the potential for middle-income housing and new low parking ratios are all great things for Cambridge. So too, is a strong commitment to use local union labor and grow the city’s revenues, which ultimately keep taxes low for residents and business alike.
The City Council has an obligation to ask that good projects become great projects. The council has the opportunity to work with all Cambridge stakeholders and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology in endeavors that are bold and praiseworthy. Such opportunities are far and few between.
Minka vanBeuzekom, MPH, city councillor
Councilor,
This is a first for me. I do not recall ever seeing councilors reach out to the masses to explain the way they have voted on any particular item. Yet in the aftermath of the Kendall/MIT petition we have two. While I understand Denise Simmon’s “present” vote much less than I can fathom your “no” the reasons you’ve given seem a bit suspect to me.
I. SETTING LOFTY GOALS OFT LEADS TO DISAPPOINTMENT
“With this petition existed the opportunity to request MIT provide a significant housing commitment (in the 2,000- to 4,000-unit range).”
Really councilor; 4000 housing units? May I ask where they would have gone? Where did you get this range from? Would that housing all have been graduate housing and thus excluded from the tax base in that area? I think you needn’t beat yourself up over the loss of this housing as it does not seem based in reality. I think at “best” you got exactly as much housing as you were ever going to get. You must also bear in mind that Twinning is building down there (144 units), Alexandria is adding roughly 240 units, and North Point redux is adding another 345 units all within a couple of years. Not to mention that the final phase of North Point will add considerably more housing.
What puzzles me, is the contention that seems shared between you and the Cambridge Residents Alliance is that somehow you feel like graduate students would flock to housing created. What would be the incentive I wonder? Would you have tried to mandate that grad students move into these units following the ludicrous 30% parking mandate Kelly thinks he is going to impose? I’m not sure I see the allure of living in a 300 sqft micro-unit @ $1500-$1800/mo especially when contrasted with paying less than $1000/mo to live with some colleagues and have a lawn. And if we’re not building micro-units your 2000-4000 housing units looks like 1.5 mil additional square feet of space added to the project at least, and 3mil sqft at most. How big was the total approved project again?
II. AMENDMENTS OFFERED AT THE BUZZER ARE NO WAY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
Councilor, a net-zero project IS praise worthy. Why bring up such an important aspect in the final moments leading up to a vote? You and your brethren have had eons to discuss everything under the sun, and yet many of you brought forth last minute twists and turns to an already contentious and heated situation. From a business standpoint that looks ludicrous and disorganized, and from the cheap seats where I hang my hat it looks embarrassing. Imagine for a second that it was MIT that added the change, last minute, to include an amendment that added … ANYTHING …to the proposal or worse yet, Forest City, they’d be railed, hung out to dry, admonished for being so deceptive. Your endeavor is a noble one, and one that in the design of the project(s) affected by this zoning change hopefully will find renewed voice.
Similar in folly was the amendment for the decibel change. I live a stone’s throw from where this development will occur and I am not fond of noise. However, the increase was part of the petition discussed by the council, bringing an amendment to change this, changes the deal. I just do not understand why any of the council thought these last little tidbits were a good idea.
I even like councilor Cheung’s additional 50′ for housing; but why the hell were we talking about it at the night of the dance? I hope this is a situation where I’m just missing something and look the bigger fool.
Further, it really showed me how poorly you all work together. How unfortunate it must be that as a group there seems to be little to no communication among you.
III. NEXT STOP CENTRAL SQUARE
Though you did not vote for it (you really should have) the rest of the council (Simmons excluded) saw this proposal through. I am grateful to those that had vision and understood the language of compromise. None of you got all that you wanted to get, but rarely in what I would call a “good deal” does anyone. More importantly the thriving innovation culture that is Kendall Square gets a chance to reinvent and grow. Our all important tax base, heavily weighted on the commercial sector, grows fueling the expensive services Cantabridgians demand.
Housing is being built in this city, your lament to Kendall will hopefully be short lived as we all now look to the oft neglected Central Square. You didn’t vote for the Forest City petition, you didn’t vote for Kendall, but I sincerely hope you don’t let Central Square skip your blessing. Development is coming and it will bring housing; MARKET RATE, low income, middle income, and it’ll all be under the same rubber roof! We need vision on this council as this debate will most likely be more difficult than any other this council has had to deal with.
One last item, I can not presuppose that you are swayed by the coming of an election year, but I can’t help but recognize the problem you must be aware are on the horizon. Too many candidates are vying for your base and that will cause an issue. I remember casting my #2 vote for you last year and I doubt I’d do it again. However all is not lost, I just hope that in the future your amendments come early, and your voting style loses the staccato and end with an “s.”
You have to remember that there is more to Cambridge than these radical fringe groups that think they own the place. A new breed of Cantabridgian is slowly waking up in this city and they are tired of the “no” vote; and they rely on pragmatism to rule the day, not hysteria.
Good luck, god speed, and support local businesses.
Your pal,
Patrick W. Barrett III
two quick corrections: Housing for students and workers certainly doesn’t need to be in ALL in Kendall Square and I don’t think I wrote that it did. MIT’s history of building in the city shows they understand the concept. The vote for Forest City’s zoning petition was unanimous.
Minka,
1) You are talking about the MIT/Kendall petition vote, naturally one could easily make the connection between the context of your editorial and where you thought said housing ought to go. If you’re not talking about Kendall Square then what does that have to do with the Kendall petition? Love ya, but that makes zero sense.
2) Yes the vote was unanimous making your nay vote for the adoption of the commitment letter all the more curious. I do recall the great “loop-hole” hysteria of 2013, though I do not recognize it as warranted.
I look forward to the Central Square discussion.
What I’d really like to know though is why you vote “NO” on councilor Decker’s last minute amendment to ignore K2C2 recommendation that the 10mil generated from this project NOT go to the adjacent neighborhoods?
I’d like to know why such an amendment would even be suggested? That to be was the biggest “F” “U” I seen all year.
of course I mean to say; “Why did you vote “Yes” on Decker’s amendment?”