Objections to Central Square boutique hotel plan
The city encourages housing development of all kinds and requires low-rent apartments to be included in all new housing. But new construction adds to neighborhood density, so the need for new housing is always pitted against the neighbors’ desire to preserve existing conditions and limit density.
We tenants and housing advocates often say that neighbors use “preservation” and oppose dense development as a cover for social discrimination. And of course that does happen. But what if the neighbors are themselves lower-income tenants and the development does not add anything to the permanent housing stock?
There is such a situation now on Massachusetts Avenue near the heart of Central Square.
A developer, Chevron, wants to convert the former Cambridge Gas-Light building at 711-727 Massachusetts Ave. into a 37-unit “boutique hotel.” This plan would double the building’s bulk, eliminate rear access and add height, requiring variances and a special permit.
The site is on the corner of Temple Street, abutting Housing Authority property called Cheryl-Ann’s Place. The only other structure on Temple is the YWCA. The two sites provide some 150 dwellings for lower-income renters. Moreover, the city has committed to another affordable housing development on Bishop Allen Drive, facing the exit end of Temple Street. For all these residents, Temple will always be the main route to shopping, transit and social activities in Central Square.
Residents at Cheryl-Ann’s Place have objected to the planned hotel mainly because its six-story height would radically obstruct their sky and sunlight.
Another issue arises from Chevron’s plan to locate the hotel entrance on Temple Street, replacing the building’s current vehicle access alley. This means passenger and delivery loading would take place on that quiet little one-way street.
Few of the Ubers, taxis, and other delivery vehicles coming to the hotel entrance will be familiar with Temple Street, where many residents have difficulty with walking, seeing or hearing. Hotel patrons will be too transient to get used to this neighborhood.
It seems to me that these factors converge to pose an elevated and persistent danger, especially to pedestrians.
Street safety could be addressed by keep the building’s main entrance on Massachusetts Avenue. But they – the city, or Chevron, or both – don’t seem willing to do that. Rather they seem to simply deny the street safety risk. Approval of the hotel plan would require the city (and us) to accept that risk.
Should the proposed hotel be built as planned, who will take the blame if residents are endangered or injured by vehicles using that entrance?
In December, the Planning Board asked the developer to come up with some changes. Chevron has submitted some modifications, which the Planning Board will take up Tuesday. I’m sure they did their best, but in my view they did not resolve the issues.
Bill Cunningham, Newtowne Court
So your argument comes down to “I don’t want strangers in my neighborhood and being anti-development is OK when the result would inconvenience me?”……slow clap.
Welcome to inclusion in the shadowing, densification, and noisification of Cambridge.
Equity for all!
I’m sorry if I gave that impression, Mr Noubert— that isn’t my argument at all. In fact I think that there are legitimate reasons to oppose developments elsewhere, although sometimes opponents have reasons they would prefer not to state outright. In this case it can’t be about keeping strangers out, since Temple Street is in the heart of Central Square, and the current residents expect to see lots of strangers in this business district. For my part, this hotel would NOT be a particular inconvenience — I live ten blocks away, so it’s not exactly “in my back yard” as the saying goes.
Bill, you’ve been fighting the good fight for decades longer than I have, but I can’t agree with your assumption that the neighbors always oppose new housing. East Cambridge, for instance, has fought hard for new housing, and it’s the City and its favored developers who have dragged their feet because they make so much more money on commercial buildings. Those 280 apartments at 88 Ames Street, to name just one, took nearly two decades of advocacy and shaming by neighbors, while the City and Boston Properties kept finding new ways not to build it. We finally got an ally in the reconstituted Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, and that housing is there now.
Do we want to keep our already dense old neighborhood from losing our remaining tree canopy, light, air and sky and keep the links to our history? Sure, but we show up regularly to support neighbors and even developers who find ways to bring new homes in and update old ones while respecting the people around them. I remember when you and your neighbors sounded the alarm when the K2C2 process floated the idea of taking your homes in the name of mixed-income densification. We supported you, and you’re still there.
Thanks for pointing that out, Heather. On rereading, I see that my letter does do a bad job by implying that neighbors always oppose new housing. However I meant to observe only that (1) impacts of increased density must ALWAYS be weighed against community needs, including the need for affordable housing; and (2) at least some neighbors USUALLY do oppose new development— whether of housing or not —and there are various reasons for this.
The main point is that THIS is a development that does nothing to balance its negative impact on its neighbors, who happen to be the very people the City claims to prioritize— namely, low-income tenants.
Bill, I wholeheartedly agree with both (1) and your main point, and I’ll say that we really needn’t discuss (2) because (1) is the important part. As a general matter, I think that many people are too quick to assume that people in subsidized housing should be slobberingly grateful that they have a place to live and that they should just shut their yaps about the living conditions. As to the rest of us, we must want poor people to be homeless if we think that good living conditions matter if that would reduce the size or number of subsidized apartments provided.