How to end our sugar-coated gentrification and save Cambridge for all of us
Let’s think of them as “misguided.”
If the assertions of our city councillors, planners and administrators and even the Central Square Advisory Committee are to be believed – and I’d love to be able to believe them – all these august civic entities and players are acting exactly opposite to their stated intentions.
I’m talking about their oft-stated intention to help preserve and protect Cambridge’s diversity, our unique blending of diverse populations – the affluent and the poor; families, students and singles; all manner of races, ethnicities and age groups – that creates a rich tapestry of community influences and textures.
Why do I accuse these well-intentioned parties guilty of being misguided?
Truth is, they’ve been unwitting, yet highly willing, accomplices to Cambridge’s homegrown form of gentrification. I call it “sugar-coated gentrification” because the sugar-coating of a small percentage of inclusionary-zoning units, sprinkled very lightly over each development, has become the going price developers pay to build housing for highly paid executives, engineers and technicians – the same executives, engineers and technicians who will easily outbid middle-class families and poor people for the city’s available housing stock.
Who are the councillors, planners and administrators kidding, if not themselves? This small set-aside of units, usually 11.5 percent, will never come close to offsetting the loss of middle-class families and economically disadvantaged residents. We can argue reasonably about the value of inclusionary zoning, but there’s no arguing away the impact of gentrification. We all know the story; we’ve seen it in dozens of cities and hundreds of neighborhoods.
We’ve seen a flood of market-rate housing exert upward pressure on the price of housing, resulting in a citywide purging of the least-advantaged and most vulnerable members of our community, so we should be able to see the danger inherent when inclusionary housing serves as a gateway to massive development and upzoning giveaways.
The City Council is considering that 11.5 percent may not be enough to meaningfully affect the city’s loss of affordable housing. The council got away with demanding 18 percent from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for that nonprofit’s massive zoning giveaway. So naturally they’re considering raising the percentage to 18 percentage, as if that number were the answer to their vague feelings of concern and insufficiency in this matter.
In its clumsy, accidental way, the council has aimed the light in the right direction. It’s shown the question isn’t whether gentrification will have a negative impact, but how negative will it be. Or, as the council seems to be asking, “What percentage of inclusionary units will make up for all the Cambridge residents ultimately forced out by gentrification?”
Sorry, folks, but that’s obviously wrong-headed and counterproductive.
Nobody voted for the councillors so they could represent the interests of future Cambridge residents against those of current residents.
Nor does anyone want the council to focus on the well-being of developers and real estate firms at the expense of those same vulnerable residents.
Speaking of misguided focus, nobody pays the city manager or his deputies to foster zoning changes that would alter, perhaps harm, the character and rhythm of vibrant yet vulnerable neighborhoods.
If you believe what everyone repeatedly says, nobody in our city wants to force out current residents to make room for future residents.
If we want to create more affordable housing – and I mean housing less than the $2,400 a month deemed affordable for a single bedroom in University Park – we should build it ourselves. Yes, even with all the discouraging funding news coming out of Washington.
We should take that $14 million bribe paid by MIT and whatever we’ve socked away in the affordable housing trust and put it to good use building real, honest affordable housing. There are any number of ways we could fund such housing, if we chose to do it on a small scale. Twenty units here, 20 units there; something like that. There’s no need to bring in 16- or 18-story towers to achieve the same results.
It’s time we stopped sugar-coating what are basically acts of self-destructive gentrification.
It’s time we realized inclusionary housing isn’t a solution, but a Trojan horse by which developers will undermine the foundation of our community.
It’s also time the council called for a master plan for all of us in Cambridge to review and discuss – a plan that takes into account all the impact from 18 million-plus square feet of anticipated development over the next 20 years. A plan that maps out how we’ll approach city traffic, which will become even worse and more gridlocked with the addition of 50,000-plus car trips a day on our city’s roadways.
A plan that maps out the city’s future.
Better yet, a plan that gives the city a future.
“We’ve seen a flood of market-rate housing exert upward pressure on the price of housing, resulting in a citywide purging of the least-advantaged and most vulnerable members of our community, so we should be able to see the danger inherent when inclusionary housing serves as a gateway to massive development and upzoning giveaways.”
That is flat out wrong. It’s a basic misunderstanding of supply and demand and your plan will make housing affordability worse, not better. Greater density with fewer zoning restrictions is the only way to keep housing affordable in Cambridge. Arguments like yours only make the problem of affordability worse. I agree completely that housing affordability is a problem in Cambridge, but we need ideas that lead to more housing getting built, not less.
SAm:
Thanks for your response, but I would maintain the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply here, since the marketplace demand for housing in Cambridge appears to be inexhaustible. Quite frankly, my feeling is we have an insoluble problem and appear to be so desperately reaching out for solutions we’ll only end up exacerbating the difficulties. What everyone keeps missing in the Cambridge Residents Alliance’s argument to reject current proposals is the call for a CITYWIDE STUDY and, ultimately, a CITYWIDE MASTER PLAN that would hopefully allow us to make the most of a very difficult conundrum. If you believe, as I do, that real estate and housing costs will rise no matter what we do, then any effort by zoning change to dramatically increase the permissible number of marketplace units will in turn dramatically increase the rate by which those costs rise. Far better for the city to use available funds to build and manage affordable housing; in small increments, would be my preference. Unless you believe the character and fabric of Cambridge is so invulnerable to these marketplace demands, you would want a community discussion—as we are now having—about proposals to radically alter the physical landscape of our community. Harvard Square was revitalized over the years without recourse to 16- or 18-story towers; the same can happen to Central Square.
From all appearances, the Central Square Advisory Committee was set up with a pro-business, pro-development agenda in mind. Why would anyone who doesn’t share that world-view give their recommendations any credence or support? Remember, those folks on the committee were told there was currently 40% additional capacity on the Red Line during rush hour. If I believed that I might be more open to towers in Central Square myself.
SSJ,
The Cambridge housing market is more complex than simple supply and demand. We have the second greatest density of residents per square mile of all the cities and towns in Massachusetts. Somerville is first, Boston third.
And Cambridge has consistently higher prices than either of the others in every category of housing.
My question is: “Just what is a good mix of income diversity for a city?”.
The suburbs, far less dense than the cities, tend to serve the middle very well. Cambridge, far more dense than most, is a city of extremes. Our current upzoning policies, which encourage both ends of affordability (very tall buildings cost more to build per square foot than low and medium heights), are not addressing the middle.
PSS:
For all intents and purposes, the City already has a Master Plan (MGL 81D). Most of the studies and data required to formulate one are all available on the CDD website. There may be a problem with properly involving the Planning Board in keeping it fresh and communicating it. A well-conceived Master Plan, if it is going to be useful, must be assessed and changed on a yearly basis.
The main point of this article is still valid: If the current housing plan for more diverse housing isn’t working and may be making the problem worse, why not recognize the problem and address it?
Tom Stohlman
The only thing I would add to this discussion is the fact we haven’t discussed the impact of all this development on the quality of life in Cambridge. We should be asking ourselves “Do we really want all the additional traffic, congestion, noise, etc.?” As I said somewhere else, “You only need drive around this city at rush hour to know how close we are to maxing out our roadways.” In case you haven’t noticed Fresh Pond has been gridlocked for much of last week, nobody seems to know why. Western Avenue is a parking lot these days; mostly due to construction, but a cautionary tale nevertheless. And the Longfellow Bridge is scheduled for massive dislocation of traffic for 3 years starting in July. We live in a world that grows ever more complicated. We can’t just react with solutions we can predict won’t work.
Hey Paul! You know, you’re right, we can’t just react. We should sit down for a couple of years and do some planning. We should invite the public, put together a committee, draw input from all walks of life, and come up with some outline to address the growing needs of its current and future residents. I’d call it something like “The Central Square Advisory Board” or maybe the “Kendall Square Advisory Board”…and then I’d draft zoning recommendations and post them online for all to see:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/externallinks/zoningordinance/article20.aspx
.
.
.
I wonder if in your professional life, when confronted with people who disagree with you, you walked into the room called them heartless, greedy, morons and then said, “Now lets do business…” Essentially that is what you’re doing here, and in several rants prior. How is that working for you? Have you gotten anyone under forty to show up at a meeting yet? (City council hopefuls aside?)
.
.
People pop off the word “gentrification” like it was meant to scare the bejesus out of us. Cambridge property values were kept artificially low for way too long. Further, our residential tax rate is incredibly low contributing to higher sale prices. Our reliance on commercial to pick up the slack an pay for all the services we all shamefully take for granted puts further demand that we increase development. We spit in the eyes of developers who created a windfall in tax revenue to pay for the services we all demand and then ask the people who work in these new structures to live in Roslindale. We call them “yuppy” or whatever the nomenclature of the time. Memories are short in this town. Those that know, don’t want to go back to the days of high crime, drug dealers on every corner, and brothels on Main St. Its bad enough that you can set your watch to when shootings begin in this city and which “neighborhoods” they are going to occur. .
.
We can do things to mitigate the impact on lower income folks, but artificially supporting 36%+ of the population as we currently do in some areas of Cambridge…not the rich white parts mind you, is criminal. 18% low income housing is enough…too much in my opinion, but I would concede such a position provided that we never build an exclusively low income structure ever again in Cambridge. All one has to do is listen to the rambling ptsd ridden soliloquies of Mr. Bill Cunningham to see/hear first hand the damage living in such a place can have. That may seem harsh, but when a man stands up and says, “I don’t want those people coming to my neighborhood.” I know something is rotten in Denmark and needs looking in to.
.
.
Calling linkage a “bribe” not only mischaracterizes legally what happened with the MIT rezoning of Kendall it also insults everyone in the city who worked to achieve what will be a wonderful and much needed development of that area. I think you’re a smart enough fellow to realize the damage such a casual misrepresentation can cause. Lets work with the facts alone…agreed?
.
.
You raise some important issues smattered within your attack on the good people that work in this city; the importance of infrastructure and traffic mitigation. Couldn’t agree more, and it needs to be addressed. I think that is why “site plan review” exists. I can’t wait to have that talk with MIT and the city hope to see you there.
.
.
The “master plan” argument is a tired one. If I want to hear that nonsense I can call up King of Kaiser and they can tell me all about it. You needn’t regurgitate. Here is the illusive plan you and your group keep asking for:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/planud/masterplan.aspx
.
.
My biggest issue with your massive insult is your stance on housing. I can tell by what you’re writing that you’ve no idea what housing costs in this city. Further I can tell that you don’t live near the anachronistic housing projects of Area IV or any other part of the city. This must be true; how else could to you laud the continued construction of such a social mistake? I abut washington and newtowne, and one day, when the addled minds of Cambridge no longer hold sway over a council who views the position as a job and not the civic calling that it is, I will see to it personally that these mistakes of a bygone era are razed. In their place will be communities three times their current density with as many low income units as there are now with just as many market rate and middle income to match. It will be brought into this century with all of the development currently skirting around it, too afraid to engage them. I promise or I’ll die trying.
.
.
That you clamour for more exclusively low income properties tells me further you don’t read the bridgstats from the Cambridge police department. It tells me that you spend no time in these areas at all and that your position on the issue is based on nothing more than a feeling. How else could you advocate such a position?
.
.
Cambridge housing is expensive Paul Steven, incredibly expensive. You can’t change this by creating more exclusive low income ghettos through out the city. Sorry, I mean exclusive ghetto housing in Area IV, East Cambridge, and Cambridge Port…the only places we build said housing.
.
.
I like your moxie though, and I appreciate that you’re willing to take the time to care. It’d be nice if you could approach the scenario with some facts instead of what I can only characterize as a smug sense of righteousness that really just gets in the way of getting things done. We have to consider future Cantabridgians as well as those who fortunate enough to buy at $30/sqft. However lost in your sense of “we live here” is the fact that there are generations of kids going through our school system that also won’t be able to afford to live here and won’t qualify to live in the ghettos you wish to proliferate. This isn’t a $14 million dollar problem, and letting at least three different organizations run amok building low income enclaves in this city is destroying any hope this city actually has at holding on to the middle class.
.
.
I look forward to future discussions. Though I would appreciate the omission of literary flamboyance. I just finished year two, and I’ve got a ton for free time. If you’d ever like to just insult me in person come on down to Tosci’s between 8-9am. Ciao!
I think it’s premature to conclude that demand for housing in Cambridge is inexhaustible. We haven’t actually built enough new housing to really test that theory. Yes, Cambridge is already dense compared to Massachusetts cities, but as a resident, would you really argue that it’s too dense? The vast majority of the city is 3 stories or less, and the city has abundant parkland and open space. That’s a good thing, but my point is to highlight that it’s not some overbuilt Kowloon-esque hellscape. In my opinion, Cambridge is the best place to live in the State and just about the best place to live in the entire country. I think as many people as possible should get to live here, and I think it would take an unimaginable amount of new housing to make Cambridge an undesirable place to live. And bear in mind, we’re not even at peak-Cambridge population. The city peaked back around 1950 at 120,000 residents. So even with all of the new construction, we’ll just be getting back to a historical high by the end of the decade. It’s good to have that historical perspective when making arguments against any and all new housing.
And I cannot agree with the presumption that more housing brings more congestion. First of all, you’re talking about car congestion. For those of us who walk, bike and use public transportation, Cambridge is an easy city to get around, and there is absolutely no congestion problem of any kind today (and seriously, the relative flatness of the city, and its density make it ideal for biking, walking and public transit). Many of those cars are from out-of-town people commuting to and from the city for work. Nothing wrong with that, but also not congestion driven by residents. In fact, Cambridge has the highest share of trips made by foot of any city in the country (http://www.wbur.org/2013/05/14/walkboston-masspirg-car-report), and a very high share made by bike and by public transportation. The point is that more residents in Cambridge does not mean more congestion of cars in the way that you presume it does. All of the mega development in Kendall sq has actually coincided with a drop in congestion in the area according to a Globe article a few years back.
With regards to the right mix of incomes in the city, I just don’t think anyone should presume to decide what that mix should be. I live in Cambridge because I like it’s diversity, but we can’t arbitrarily decide what the income mix should be – everyone’s definition of the optimal mix will be different. I am all for trying to maintain affordable housing stock, but if we do that while restricting supply, it will necessarily drive up the average prices of non-price-stabilized housing, and it will restrict a lot of potential residents from living in the city who either can’t afford the inflated prices, or who aren’t lucky enough to get one of the limited supply of affordable units.
I agree Cambridge has an affordable housing shortage, but your solution will not address that. Instead, you want to ensure it has an across-the-board housing shortage. That’s even worse.
If it were up to me, I’d let developers build greater density in exchange for higher percentages of low-income housing, maybe matching FAR increases point for point with affordable housing share of the development. That way we’d get more housing overall and more affordable units built and developers would actually have an incentive to build affordable units rather than having to rely on public funds.
Patrick: You confuse my call for a CITYWIDE look at the impacts from projected development with the biased and goal-driven process that spanned two years and devoured many volunteer hours and pizza pies. That latter process fed you and your fellow committee mates distorted data (such as an imaginary 40% additional rush hour capacity on the Red Line) to back up a foregone conclusion ie. Cambridge needs unprecedented development (later refined to apartment towers) in Central Square. I and my compatriots question the wisdom of calling for such major changes without looking at how that wave of development fits into the overall scheme of things, with specific concerns about traffic, public transportation, housing costs and quality of life issues. If the C2 process had been as inclusionary of different viewpoints as you seem to think it was we probably wouldn’t be having this dialog today.
Secondly, was that an invitation to meet you for breakfast? I never thought you’d ask!
No, seriously, Patrick, I appreciate the gesture and will try to get down to Tosci’s a week from Tuesday. I’d make it sooner but the shortened work week coincides with a number of other events in my usually open schedule. Let me know if that works for you. You can reach me at [email protected].
Till then, thanks for sharing your views! I may not agree with them, but at least all of us get a chance to consider differing points of view.
Best regards,
Paul
P.S. I did my best to keep my literary flamboyance to a minimum.
SSJ,
The evidence shows that the demand for Housing in Cambridge is inexhaustible. High density compared to other cities and towns, high prices compared to other cities and towns.
You said: “The vast majority of the city is 3 stories or less, the City has abundant parkland and open space.” We’re in agreement that it’s a good thing.
Peak Cambridge population took place in the same physical units Cambridge has now. The difference is that Cambridge had large middle class working families, so there were more people living in the space.
Regarding congestion, I walk and take the T everywhere whenever I can. And according to the WBUR/MassPIRG report, so do my fellow residents. And this is what I see with my own eyes: Multiple buses, packed with people, skipping stops because they are at capacity. Red line trains (and station platforms) packed to capacity, causing people to wait for the next train. Morning and evening gridlock on Fresh Pond Parkway, Prospect Street, and the streets adjacent to the Longfellow Bridge.
I just can’t reconcile what I see every day with your statement: “there is absolutely no congestion problem of any kind today”. We do agree that housing is not the main culprit. The transportation infrastructure is frayed, and we have to work on easing the transition from a car-centric model to a bike-walk-shared ride model.
The City has presumed to decide what the right income mix will be with their zoning and housing policies. And that mix squeezes out middle class working families.
I didn’t offer a solution, just a problem (our current policies are not addressing the middle), and a suggestion to recognize the problem and address it.
You do offer a solution: “I’d let developers build greater density in exchange for higher percentages of low-income housing,…” That’s what we’re doing already. Those higher densities will increase building heights over 3 stories and reduce open space, and the evidence shows it will help everyone but the middle.
Tom Stohlman
PS Patrick is right about the Master Plan, but I still think our elected and appointed officials have to keep it fresh and relevant.
+ First, just as an aside, who is the “All of us” in your article’s title? Am I to assume that Paul Steven Stone is, as George Bush so famously put it, “the decider”? Enough said.
+ Patrickbarrett is correct. The $14 million you speak of will not even begin to solve the affordable housing crisis on your terms. Also, “small scale” and “20 units here, 20 units there” will not begin to address the housing problem as described in the article.
+ The issues around the city master plan has already been commented on enough.
+ If the towers are prevented, there is no linkage money to build your proposed housing at all. If a tower is not appropriate in Kendall Square of all places, what is your vision?
+ Although the details of your plan are very scant, it seems to advocate for an approach which would further ghettoize some of our poorest neighborhoods, as I’m very sure that none of the housing you write about would end up in say, the Neighborhood 9 areas of Avon Hill, Old Cambridge, etc. You need only look at where such housing has been built in the past to confirm this. Rather than diverse neighborhoods, you end up creating a very segregated city where at best, rich folk go with their friends to our various festivals to sample food, music and dance and then return to their ‘virtual’ gated communities.
+ Inclusionary-zoning as you describe may not be perfect, but the idea is to avoid the creation of segregated housing projects for the poor and this is a very good thing. The exact percentage of affordable units can and should be debated.
+ Why would anyone not want folks who are working here in high tech, medical fields, whatever, to NOT also live here? These are the current clean industries which have replaced the dirty ones which used to line the Charles River or North Cambridge, and it makes all kinds of sense to house our new ‘factory workers’ close to their place of work as was done in the past. If they are living and working in Kendall or Central Square, that is far LESS auto traffic commuting in from the outer townships. As residents they are far MORE likely to be invested in the quality of life, schools, and general upkeep of the city.
+ Greater demand on our subway system (could) actually result in an improved system. The Green Line is slowly, slowly extending to Somerville, Medford and beyond, HYM may hopefully contribute to improvements at the new Lechmere station. So, perhaps a valuable linkage could be to further tie improvements to the “T” with new transit oriented developments. Everyone benefits.
+ Developers recognize the high value of building here. They unfortunately do not always follow best practices which would ultimately benefit the success of their own developments as much as the existing city. Equipment noise, lack of retail, lack of mixed use programming, inappropriate scale – the list can go on and on and is most evident in the historically poorer parts of town. This, in my view is another advantage of providing some housing for the developers, for the highly paid tech workers in these same neighborhoods – better attention to better quality development is better assured. What is NOT desirable is a continuation of the strategies which developed Cambridge as a place of office buildings, labs and parking garages, and it’s streets mere conduits for commuters to the outer townships. Diversity of all kinds is both highly desirable, essential and a huge challenge. Unfortunately I do not yet see any viable answers to the challenges spelled out in your article, nor in the angry ‘us against them’ approach which sometimes colors community debate.
Paul,
Your continued insult of the K2C2 process is not getting us any closer to seeing eye to eye. Should wish an actual dialogue you have to at least acknowledge that good people were in attendance; people who care deeply and were not “fed” anything that wasn’t backedup. We spent tireless hours going over stats and data, and not just what the city offered. People who were legitimate experts in their field (notice the use of “legtitmate”) offered opinion based on facts only. The only reason you suggest otherwise is the fact that those educated opinions do not allign with your own.
.
.
Remember the “tower” that Forest City attempted to put up as a means to generate housing during their second at bat with the city? Remember how the CRA and Area IV coalition put flyers everywhere stating that it was 16 stories, only had luxury units, and blocked out the sun? Remember how you and your ilk protected a park inhabited by drug addicts? I do … I remember how your group told the people living in Newtowne that a wrecking ball was coming. You used terror, and lies, to anger a mob into producing fear amongst the council. Unfortunatly these tactics work because the council lacks a spine so they backed down leaving Forest City to sit back on the bench for another season. So, let us not accuse the other of having goals. My goal is to bring this backwards little nook into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be; nothing more.
.
.
Remember “Crush Hour?” I attended. There your cohorts presented the most slanted piece of unscientific nonesense I’ve ever seen. Kaiser likened the T to a glass of grapejuice and at the end concluded that half use is mostly over capacity. The studies presented showed usage at peeks and in some cases, absolutely we have a transportation issue, but not nearly close to the lampooned vidoe King offered of chinese pedestrians being pushed into rail cars. What I saw and heard were people miffed that they couldn’t get a seat during peak hours. King offered up a story about how he couldn’t get on with a projector one afternoon as proof positive that the redline was doomed. Your group thrives on concesus to the point where your meeting are like an analog version of facebook and have little to do with moving the population of Cambridge forward.
.
.
So…let us not point the finger relative to whom is being fed what. If we accept personal experience as proper scientific method (which of course it is not); I get on the T every morning in Kendall around 8am with absolutely zero trouble. Yes, sometimes I do not get to sit down, though not all the time. I also head back home around 6pm and again, no issue and often I get a seat (around 75%). So if I employ the CRA-method, the conclusion must be that everyting is fine; right?
.
.
What gain do you calculate me, my wife, and my son have in pushing a development agenda in Central? Do you think my property will increase exponentially and thus produce a windfall with which I will then use to feed my lust of avarice? Truth is, the fact that I am a good landlord and have nice apartments has proven to be the most effective business model I could have hoped for. Further, base on the draft outline the ccd put online I couldn’t do much more than I already have, at least not squarefootage-wise. Additionally at this poin it would be far to cost prohibitive. Wouldn’t it be cool if I had some competition and I was forced to improve?
.
.
It was remiss on the part of C2 that members of Newtowne and Washington weren’t mandated to be a part. I think that is my only regret, but I wasn’t picking the team…I just sent in my resume.
.
.
The truth is Paul Steven Stone, I’ve already won. My property value is going up amongst all my holdings in Cambridge, because we don’t build. Supply is down, demand is way up and no one, until recently, has had the cajones to do anything about it. Now we have a “crisis.”
.
.
Be assured though, buidling will only help mititgate the problem, it won’t solve it. Rents won’t go down too much, but right now the “studies” that are out there grossly misrepresent what units are actually going for. So while I do not advocate for towers throughout Cambridge, I do think they fit well in Central and Kendall and will deffinately help mitigate the continued rise in cost. This is the way it is everywhere in the known universe; your ilk’s continued contention that Cambridge bucks this trend is offered without facts, data, or reason to support. I wish you’d just come out and say that you don’t want change. You don’t care if people can come live here, and you just want things to stay as they are. At least then I could talk to you and your compatriots and not roll my eyes everytime you and the CRA or Area IV coalition come up with some new nonsense to derail development.
.
.
I look forward to meeting in person should you wish it. You know where to find me.
JPX: Two points: first, the title of the article that you take exception to is not one of my choice or preference. You’ll have to pick that bone with the editor. Secondly, I never claimed to offer, or even seek, a solution to the affordable housing shortage. I’m not sure how solvable it is. I was, however, hoping to highlight how well-meaning efforts to balance the loss of such housing might ultimately, in my opinion, exacerbate the problem. In my mind, we should step back and consider taking small steps—to increase affordable housing AND to upgrade or revitalize Central Square.
Peter: I grew up in the Bronx and, to my eyes, Newtowne and some of the other subsidized housing compounds are nothing like the ghettos I grew up with. Also, this world is made up of people who see things differently. If you feel good about the way the C2 process was conducted, good for you. I don’t, though I do appreciate the time and effort you and the other volunteers put in. If you’ll notice, in my original commentary, I described all the parties involved in the process as “well-meaning.” Give me a little credit for attempting not to demonize anyone, even if I do believe there was an agenda some participants brought to the table. Had I or any like-minded residents of Cambridge been invited onto the committee, I’m sure we would have brought our own agenda. It’s only human nature. Hoping to soon discuss with you these and other peculiarities of the human condition, I’ll just sign off with a neighborly “Bye now!”
Patrick: my apologies for calling you Peter!
JPX-
Everyone benefits from a liveable city. All of us. I agree with you that “equipment noise, lack of retail, lack of mixed use programming and inappropriate scale” all make for a less-than liveable city.
All of those negatives are evident in my neighborhood but not-so-evident in say, Central Square (at least not yet). I walk all over the City, in all the neighborhoods and your generalization about rich vs. poor neighborhoods just isn’t correct. (And it also sounds very “us vs. them”.)
The issue of housing high-rises in Kendall has already been resolved. They are already there and continue to be built. I actually think trading density for housing is a good theory, but we’re not trading for enough housing. The office/housing ratio in Kendall is still, according to the Consultant to the K2C2 studies, far less than it should be. And Developers continue to trade far more density of office space, for (as JSS puts it) a “sugar coating” of housing. Open Space loss for greater density is also continuing problem in Kendall.
We are in total agreement that the office/lab/parking garage model is undesirable. Mixed use makes a city liveable. I’ll go further, mixed use (including housing and open space) should be a requirement when office/labs are built.
We are also in agreement that the old model of affordable housing projects doesn’t match anyone’s vision of an inclusive and diverse City. For me at least, neither does a City with no middle class.
Patrick-
I’m the one who used personal experience to knock down the statement that: “there is absolutely no congestion problem of any kind today”. Sounds like we can also say: “On the Red Line around 8am on weekdays there is no congestion.” Perfectly valid scientific observation.
Change is coming, can’t stop it, but we can ride it in a better direction than one which continues to favor offices without housing and housing without diversity.
Tom Stohlman
Quite a fascinating discussion about an issue on which we all have viewpoints and about which we all care. I will throw in a few thoughts and observations to the mix and in no particular order:
1). Tall Buildings. I continue to be amazed at the predisposition to dislike or oppose any building that is considered tall ( I am tempted to argue that we really don’t have any sky scrapers or high rises in Cambridge but that’s really not the point). From a simple economics standpoint taller buildings allow the developer to spread land acquisition and regulatory costs across a larger number of units helping drive down average costs. This is a good thing if we want more affordable units for all. I believe that the current unofficial ceiling of 300 feet is misplaced and should be removed in certain parts of the city such as parts of Kendall, Osborn Triangle and most of all North Point.
2). Inclusionary units – the approach is a strong one whereby the ordinance works to encourage a mixed income development and is in stark contrast to the approach to building affordable “projects” in the 60’s. there remain questions on how to better oversee the program so that people are not re-leasing their units or abusing the system, but it seems to be working well for the most part. The current talk about moving towards a higher requirement for inclusionary units may, in my mind, be putting the cart before the horse. First, I think we need to ask ourselves how much affordable housing do we need as a component of the overall housing stock and then see how it fits into the inclusionary zoning ordinance. While we’re discussing the inclusionary ordinance, I would like to propose an option for developers in the ordnance that could yield even more inclusionary units. The option would be for taller buildings, for purposes of discussion lets say 18 stories or more. In these buildings the owner/developer would be able to exercise an option to have the top 25% of the building be all market rate units in return for the inclusionary percentage being increase by 1/3. So if the inclusionary percentage is 15% and the developer exercises this option the inclusionary unts are now 20% of the total building but located only on the first 75% of the building. The developer gets to have the higher rent floors as market rate and we get more inclusionary units. I see this as a win for both parties.
3). The Deferred Maintenance Phenonemon.- if you have the inclination and the time take a couple of hours to visit some of the open houses for Multifamily houses on the market now. What I have seen and what you may see is that many, but not all, have serious deferred maintenance issues that are not reflected in the prices. It’s keeping many of the historic buyers from buying but not others. These homes have had little to no major maintenance done in decades. Roofs, siding, lead paint, foundations all need work that can run into the 10s of thousands and 100s of thousands very easily. Fixing up these properties is important and helps make a better neighborhood (we all like our neighbor’s homes to be in good repair) but it does drive up the rents needed to cover the cost of buying and repairing the home. So I am not seeing a whole bunch of greedy property buyers out there. Rather, I am seeing people who are outing substantial sums into properties to make the useable, safe and ready to last another 50 to 100 years.
Finally, I have found the discussions in the comments to this piece refreshing. People exchanging ideas with respect and acceptance for different positions. With the election season already seeming to be under way, I hope the focus can remain on the issues and not descend to hyperbolic statements designed to evoke and stoke fear in an effort to gain votes and voters. Regardless of which side of the issue you fall, discussing the ideas will yield a better Cambridge than a battle of slogans, sound bites and scare tactics. Heck, do we need a Cambridge Person’s Pledge, not for money but for a fact-based policy debate and campaign?
I believe Charles, you are spot on in all of your observations.
I believe Tom, that you and I may agree on most everything too, including the believe that the city would benefit from much more housing in areas like Kendall Square. The question then becomes what market does it cater to. PSS’s article seemed most concerned about the least financially advantaged, and seemed to support the idea of more city built and managed housing projects, and if that is true, I take exception to that as I attempted to outline in many ways above.
I hold no ‘us vs them’ in any of my expressed views – and for you to suggest that is both inaccurate and rather insulting. Although there is a much healthier mix here than other cities, it is simply a statement of statistical fact that wealth and poverty largely exists in separate neighborhoods of our city. Likewise, certain parts of the city contain the majority of CHA housing projects and apartments with Section 8 voucher support and would be the likely continued recipients of the type of housing suggested in the article – further segregating our town. I don’t believe either of us support that.
The question of middle class housing is more complicated, subtle and as you’ve said, equally important. I say complicated, in light of the main fact of the article – the issue of gentrification. A neighborhood like Cambridgeport has seen a huge wave of gentrification by a population who would be largely classified as middle class. Is that good or bad? The houses are now better maintained, crime is lessened, and there are pleasant yards for the kids.. but a huge number of less advantage folks were displaced as a result. The headlining photo of this article shows a factory being demolished for what is claimed to be luxury housing, but is in fact geared towards middle income housing. The building, “One First” is no landmark beauty and it might have been much nicer to have redeveloped the existing factory building, but no one was displaced from existing housing stock. Is this example good or bad?
The vision of middle class housing in Cambridge needs to be articulated in specific terms. What are its financial perimeters? (judging from our countries recent tax debates this will be hard but that’s just an aside) What does amenities it need to contain? Can it be a condo in a high rise, mid rise or a town house or does it need to be a three bedroom house with a yard? That needs to be matched with availability of (highly limited) space the high demand for that space, the needs and ideals of the middle class families aimed for. It is certainly very right to aim for as wide a population as possible but it’s also obvious that it is unrealistic to be able to accommodate everyone. Many middle class folk claim they want to live here but cannot afford it, but in fact, they are unwilling to sacrifice the yard, space, garage or whatever else they get in the outer townships, something which may be impossible to supply here at a reasonable cost. At the same time many if not most of us in this city are in fact middle class and we put up with or even enjoy certain qualities which others would find too inconvenient or impossible for their particular lifestyle needs. All of that said, there is no doubt that housing prices held pretty steady during a terrible recession are now going up by leaps and bounds. And again, is that good or bad? Like the other questions, it’s both, of course. These are very interesting and important issues, and I support your concerns 100%.
On the other hand, if patrickbarrets assertion about PSS’s and associates dealings with Newtowne residents is true, (and seems to be substantiated by a letter which can still be viewed online by the head of the CHA) this is really, really bad…. “I remember how your group told the people living in Newtowne that a wrecking ball was coming. You used terror, and lies, to anger a mob into producing fear amongst the council.” A reworking of that project could have improved conditions and amenities for existing residents, could have added more affordable housing,added middle class housing, introduced retail on a street which could sure use it, and vastly improved the urban qualities of a very important street which links two very important squares. IF this is true it represents truly despicable behavior, and a hugely regrettable loss for a part of the city which could have really benefited from sensitive redevelopment.
Paul,
You can call me Peter anytime.
I was looking at two family this past week. It should have been condemned and yet it sold for over a million in Cambridge Port. The buyer will have to put in at least $250k to make it habitable. (notice I didn’t say “nice”). I was amazed by this, but it seems to be the new norm. I’d say the market feels bubbly, and I think it may be, but only to the extent that these ludicrously low rates are enabling sellers to demand more and buyers to stretch money out about 2 points further than they could in 2005. JPX (strange name; is it Swedish?) makes a few good points about the plight of middle class folks in Cambridge, and I would have to agree that their departure is not entirely market based. I disagree with him/her however when he/she makes the assertion that prices have stayed steady. Since 2005 (the market peak before the recession) I would say they’ve nearly doubled in some parts of this city.
.
.
However I think it is difficult to pin down who exactly is “middle class.” Is the person who buys a single family in Cambridge Port for $1.5mil middle class? Should we be subsidizing these people at all? I wrestled with that on the C2 board and still don’t really have a good answer. Gentrification isn’t a dirty word and it is possible to change an area for the better without dismantling what made it so great in the first place. The C2 board always had this at the foremost of our thoughts.
.
.
All I really want through these next crucial years is for Central Square to get its due. I’d like to see another 2000 units of housing and I’d like to have Newtowne and Washington finally brought into the conversation like they are a part of the community and not something we need tiptoe around. We already have tall structures in Central so its not like we can’t imagine what it would be like. Though I think we can all agree that a bit a design review might be in order.
.
.
Charlie I love your stuff man, but the segregated 25% tower is just a smaller version of what I want to see end. I agree too that I’m not seeing a lot of greedy property buyers, I’m seeing scared property buyers who are spending way too much for way too little. I hope that in five years when their notes adjust that it doesn’t bite them in the rear. However at these prices you just have to condo … its impossible to hold once you’re over 500/sqft, at least it is for me. The tosci’s coffee invite remains open to all.
Patrick,
I am with you on the pricing and cost to make properties habitable. You either have to reach with how much you can afford or skimp on the needed improvements. Both put you in a potentially bad situation. And if rents stabilize too many of these homeowners are relying on all units being fully rented which is dangerous.
I also understand your comment on my 25% idea. What I am struggling in my mind is how do we develop a system or set of policies that encourages inclusionary zoning but does so in such a way that does not create incentives not to work. Having an inclusionary unit with a market rate, for example, of $4500 could be a disincentive to work more and bring your income beyond the inclusionary threshold. So I am struggling with how we work through a potential disincentive to work more with a desire to create slightly more inclusionary units. Open to any and all thoughts and suggestions.
The Inclusionary ordinance has been viewed, in my opinion, as a political third rail in Cambridge so it is not often discussed or reviewed. I think it is time to have that discussion and see where it leads us. Ideally there would be some way to further include inclusionary units in those parts of the City that don’t have large residential properties being built to better incorporate the inclusionary units across the entire city.
As for people who say that building more housing won’t impact the cost of housing, I say, let’s build 10,000 new units and really make a dent in the housing crunch. Might not drive the prices down, but will stabilize the current rents and slow the meteoric rise seen in some areas of the City.
Again, hope to have a real conversation abut this during the election rather than having it set up as a pro vs. anti development battle or whatever else you want to call it. Will see you for coffee one of these mornings.
I have an idea: let’s tear up every usable parcel and jam as much development into that parcel as possible. Once Cambridge becomes a shadowed, ugly, traffic-choked hell, that should help drive prices down. Supply and demand at work my friends!
For a glimpse of what a traffic-choked hell might look like please check out Western Avenue or Fresh Pond Parkway during morning rush hour. Be advised to walk rather than drive.
Its comments like these two that prohibit reasonable people from taking you seriously John S. and Paul Stone. “Traffic choked hell”??? I think maybe you guys aught think about how good you really have it here, then think about how close you are to a major city, and ponder whether or not Manchester-By-The-Sea is for you.
There are jams this is true, do they rise to the level of “hell”-like … I’d say no. Maybe it will get bad enough that people simply won’t drive anymore? So yes Paul, we finally agree… walking is better than driving.