Playing Monopoly here isn’t a game
The Cambridge version of Monopoly was released in November by Top Trumps USA.
Home to plumbers and philosophers, geneticists and custodians, descendants of long-ago immigrants and new residents, Cambridge risks sacrificing diversity and history to profit-driven development. We face a polarizing challenge pitting out-of-town investors against long-term conservation and sustainability efforts. The classic board game Monopoly was patented back in 1935, but the Cambridge version – yes, it exists – makes special sense today.
“OWN IT ALL!” screams the headline on the Monopoly game box. Kendall Square, Longfellow House, even City Hall and the Charles River are up for grabs. For those fighting out-of-control development it looks like a nightmare with a pair of dice. To those pushing to “build, baby, build,” it’s a dream come true. Often this is accompanied by pushback on long-standing building preservation efforts, conservation districts and environmental drives to safeguard mature trees and open spaces.
As one of the most densely populated cities in the United States, Cambridge doesn’t have many open lots to build on. Proposals such as the now sidelined, misnamed “Missing Middle” zoning petition promised to open the floodgates to larger and higher buildings where double- and triple-deckers now stand. Current tenants would be hard pressed to make a down payment or pay rent in the new luxury housing.
Advocates of building “a bigger Cambridge” want to go further, loosening zoning rules so investors and developers can simply build more. All homes, single-family and multi-unit alike, could be scooped up by the highest bidder, torn down and replaced by much larger, much more profitable buildings. Some additional units would be created but would go to those able to pay sky-high market-rates.
Most of us look back with horror on the days massive bulldozing of neighborhoods was admired. Even in Massachusetts, it was government that condemned neighborhoods such as Boston’s West End and the hundreds of homes in Roxbury razed for the never-built Inner Belt highway. Now it’s the private sector that puts a bullseye on homes in hot markets. Outside of enacting sensible tenant protection laws, how can city governments help residents stay in their housing? How can we promote smart growth that adds homes without overwhelming neighborhoods? How can we stop this real-life Monopoly game in our cities?
Cambridge Citizens Coalition leaders support ending exclusive single-family zoning districts in our city. Cambridge has one of the lowest percentages of single-family homes among American cities at just 7.2 percent. Making it possible to create units within existing homes is a smart way forward. CCC also endorses an areawide approach to housing, transportation, parking and infrastructure for our largest employers. These issues are addressed in an Advancing Housing Affordability zoning petition recently taken up by City Council.
Constructive zoning changes cannot do everything, but they will help especially when coupled with other policy changes: adding more affordable housing transparency and oversight, and more support for renters; employing the U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program; and a plan to mitigate heat islands and flooding impacts.
Text from the Cambridge Monopoly box. (Photo: E. Houghteling)
Some developers and their friends say that demolishing our long-sustainable historic homes and cutting down our mature trees is sound environmental policy. It is not. It is greed that fuels this kind of disregard for green space in an already tightly packed city and shows a lack of concern for the well-being of all Cantabrigians.
One issue to address in Monopoly game terms is a petition before the Ordinance Committee on Wednesday to greatly restrict citywide architectural preservation efforts and neighborhood conservation districts. This petition, which clearly oversteps state law and city ordinance, is a reaction to preservation efforts in East Cambridge, one of the hottest development areas, and indeed global markets. If approved, this petition would make new NCDs harder to create and put current ones at risk, removing professional requirements for committee members. In the end, who benefits from these proposed changes? Not current residents – homeowners or renters – but rather those seeking to rush the process such as investors and developers who have no reason to work with their neighbors on compatible design. While the Cambridge Citizens Coalition strongly supports architectural change, building new structures and repurposing old ones, we believe that good design is critical in a dense and deeply historical city such as ours.
The basic rule of Monopoly is to build as much as you can on as many properties as possible. Again, the box says it all: “Buy amazing sites, make the highest bid on each property, build houses and hotels, and become the richest citizen of Cambridge!” For many, that’s a threat, not a promise. It’s time to put sanity back into our public policy and rein in the forces that have turned our city into a real-life board game that celebrates profit over community.
Katiti Kironde belongs to the Cambridge Citizens Coalition.
It’s easy to straw man a hidden cabal of corporate elites out to decimate existing residents. I’m a young professional who wants to be able to have decent housing that’s reasonably close to work. I see my peers forced to commute 1 hour into Cambridge for the sake of historical preservation, trees, and noise. It bothers me the degree that existing homeowners and residents got their piece of heaven in Cambridge and seek to lock out tens of thousands of others who would like a place to live in Cambridge.
^^^^Laughable.
There is no “right” to live in Cambridge any more than there is the right to live in Manhattan.
Central Square has become unlivable due to the noise and pollution. Kendall is not fair behind.
And you really think “build baby build” is going to help the prices in Cambridge? How did packing things in unrestricted and to great height work out for New York?
Is it an oasis of affordable housing and green spaces? Or is it a hellscape of towers with issues and streets choked with traffic and garbage?
And guess what, with remote work now a reality…..your kitchen table is within reasonable walking distance not matter where you live.
Yeah, I’m sure Cambridge will do much better with another “tens of thousands” here. Let’s take care of the homeless and drug addicted that are here first before catering to this privileged crowd.
Commuting is not easy. This is why we need an area wide approach to housing, transportation, parking, and infrastructure that brings into play our largest employers with specific goals and yearly reviews/ oversight. On the issue addressed in the op ed itself (monopoly games, investors, and the effort now to gut our long standing preservation efforts), most of the buildings that will be torn down in East Cambridge likely would end up as labs or offices (not housing) and any housing built would likely be market rate and well beyond the means of any of us. Both will raise property values, taxes, and housing costs generally. Also, why would anyone promote a Cambridge going forward that is without trees or our rich tapestry of historic buildings? Trees protect us from climate change and health impacts of heat islands; our historic buildings are where much of the City’s naturally occurring affordable housing tends to be found.
taguscove–Just a few years ago I was a young professional priced out of Cambridge. But I recognize your points about “decent housing” and “piece of heaven”.
The trouble is that there are too many people like us. There is simply not enough room for “decent housing” to accommodate everyone who wants to live here. While there would be enough room if 10-story buildings were dominant here, and that is what the developers and their political cronies would like, that would leave Cambridge no longer a “piece of heaven”. Catch-22 comes to mind.
this is a thought-provoking look at how life imitates classic games or the ultimate goal. It is also a fable or metaphor of sorts to be careful what we wish for. Some points made were that housing has become a commodity by outside investors willing to capitalize on tax and preservation breaks, get as many variances as possible deviating from zoning rules, and unfortunately- the very people for whom this “housing” was built do not qualify for it after all.
Of course, in a perfect world, one would want a single house with picket fence minutes from employment. But that is not the case. I want to live on Beacon Hill but why would I feel entitled regardless of its expense?
Preservation, trees and housing are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, trees should be/ are considered infrastructure contributing to the well-being of public housing and other neighborhoods. Where are the architects who can creatively design around certain mature trees for everyone’s benefit? Where are allies for a more cohesive Cambridge instead of the current divisiveness pitting one issue against another to the detriment of other societal benefits? Integrated housing near affordable grocery stores, transportation and yes, open space help everyone’s quality of life. Housing should not be a tradable commodity which can also create unintended consequences.
And BTW- many homeowners scrimped, saved , sacrificed and pooled resources to buy that dilapidated house only to have pro-housing people chastise them as racist, elitist, selfish, exclusionary and tone-deaf. Why are multi-generational families being inadvertedly targeted because others are jealous or wanting? That is not fair either.
taguscove,
There is nothing hidden nor remotely straw-like about the cabal of developers looking to enrich themselves while they destroy this city by developing as much as possible in order to rake in the profits while the opportunity to deceive citizens and make so much money exists. Reading complaints like yours about commuting a whole hour to get to work is sad. If that’s the toughest hardship in your young life, you are a very fortunate person.
In the meantime, the lives us old folks have worked for decades to create and now want to preserve, are to be ended because they are an inconvenience for some who can’t have what they want, when they want it.
If all the real estate development you would prefer actually occurred, when your working life is over, you would not be able to leave Cambridge fast enough given the lack of historical preservation, trees and green space, quiet and shade and viability.
If you think it’s noisy now, if you get your wish, as soon as you start living in your “piece of heaven”, you’ll find that your “piece of heaven” is also raucous and noisy since the flood gates of never-ending real estate development have opened and there you will be.
“And BTW- many homeowners scrimped, saved , sacrificed and pooled resources to buy that dilapidated house only to have pro-housing people chastise them as racist, elitist, selfish, exclusionary and tone-deaf. Why are multi-generational families being inadvertdly targeted because others are jealous or wanting? That is not fair either.” Thank you Pete because this would be me and my family. Tuguscove, ours was a broken down, neglected rat infested wreck when we bought it years and years ago. And BTW those who think that we all got deals should think again. These houses were expensive for their time as well and we were not earning the salaries back then that young people of the same age earn today (we are in our seventies). Our salaries reflected the times we lived in. There were no high tech, bio tech salaries and executive pay in the millions even, rofessors were poor back then. We scrimped and saved and put a lot of sweat equity into our house and because the value of everything has gone up so has that of our house. Why villainize us? When we were growing up bread cost .50cts a loaf! It costs 3 or four times that today. Are you berating Wonder Bread makers??
BTW Tuguscove, the Camnridge you are advocating will NOT be “a piece of heaven”, but just another congested, over developed town with no charm that you will soon find unliveable. Then I guess you will hunt around for another “peice of heaven” and insist that they accommodate you as well and that too will turn into charmless urban hell and on and on it will go. Boy wouldn’t I love to live on Marlborough Street, but not if they have to destroy what I love about it to make that dream come true. And, oh, Pete, I do not call the build, baby build lot, “prohousing” . WE are all pro housing. But some of us want it approached methodicaly, with a sensible long term plan that makes sense for our, evironment, infrastrucure and water resources, quality of life and respect for everyone involved. That lot is not prohousing, they just want what they want and will demonze anyone who simply says “hey wait a minute, let’slow down, let’s have a plan. Maybe we can expand and build more, but let’s map it out. We can have X but not Y, or Y but not X” WHOA Them’s now fightin’ words in this city. What a shame.
We’re not all pro housing, nor are we all progressive. We have some highly entitled folks who are happy trading their personal comfort for the pain and suffering of thousands to protect their preferred personal aesthetics.
If you believe tall buildings are what makes a city “congested” and “unlivable”, that’s totally fine. There’s a whole wide world out there that is becoming more empty every year as more folks seek urban communities to meet their needs and fulfill their climate obligations. But a city which doesn’t evolve to meet the needs of its residents–both present and potential, in equal measure–is one that is failing its moral duty.
I’m glad that most in the city are ready to move forward and meet those duties. For those who are not, I hope you can see the way your behavior fails to live up to the practices you preach.
until you put forward a policy that requires, or incentivizes for 80% inclusionary housing, instead of the meager 20%, you are not resolving the problem, you are creating it, while painting yourself with goody thoosy shellac, but it is just skin deep, your corporate interests are showing!
This past weekend I had the pleasure of visiting New York City. While I had some quibbles with Manhattan, the streets of Brooklyn are full of elegant brownstones, are lined with trees and shade, are generally quiet (much fewer cars than most Cambridge streets) … and are TWICE the density of Cambridge.
Density is not incompatible with good noise insulation, quiet streets, shade, or green space. What IS incompatible with those things is a suburban style of sprawl, dependent on cars, or an insistence that existing property owners should have veto powers over any nearby changes.
Another thing incompatible with suburban sprawl is any hope of Cambridge making room for its renters and its children, and preventing them from being pushed out by rising costs.
“preferred personal aesthetics?” “moral duty?”
There are PHDs in history, Sociology, Schools dedicated to design and National organizations with Lawyers protecting heritage for the next generation while allowing expansion. It does happen.
There are artists and there are engineers in temperment. Why should one discount the others’ proclivity or strengths? You may be an engineer with no understanding of art but does that invalidate another point of view or practice? And where is the compromise? All I see in your statement is my way or the highway (maybe literally).
Now just to be clear: I am the one that used the terms “congested” and “unlivable”…..nowhere did I say anything about “tall buildings”. FYI I have nothing against tall buildings so PULEEEZE do not put words in my mouth and then question my morality. No need to go there. Stick to the facts. Tall buildings have their place and in places like Cambridge, where land is scarce, they may have to be a solution for areas where they are suitable. FYI…again…congestion and tall buildings are not the same…OK??? Get out much? Go go overseas and right here in Mass where zoning has not disallowed it and see one, two and three story houses piled upon each other with barely space between them. I guess to you that does not qualify as congestion. But to me it is, so NO I do not want to crowd our city by over building in any form (tall or short)so none of us can enjoy it and we have to sacrifice the environment. Because then what made Cambridge the place, I chose to live will no longer be what made me love it in the first place.
BTW let’s stop using the pro and anti in front of housing. Let’s get it settled once and for all that we are ALL for housing and for ways to provide it for those in need. We just have different visions of how to go about it and what it should entail. That does not give either one of us moral superiority and to frame it as a matter of morality is outrageous, unfair and just plain wrong. Actually, ultimately it is a way to disqualify me and probably shame me into silence; good luck with that. I am “preaching” nothing, I just have an opinion. Attack it on its merits, fair enough, but please do not chastise me and question my morality, that’s just a cheap shot, you must be better than that Mr. Schmidt. Insults are for kids in playgrounds.
There is plenty there for you to challenge and refute if you have the facts, otherwise get off your high horse.
Taguscove,
How can you be priced out of Cambridge when you own a single family in Cambridge that you bought in 2019 for $1.3M?
Pete you are so right!!! Thank you. It seems that with some people like Mr Schmidt, those of us that disagree with his vision are moraly failing!! The nerve
projectfabrizio you nailed it! I think that from now on we should call them the 20 percenters or maybe the crumb tossers. You gotta love how they always use the “affordable housing ” advocacy thing to fool everyone. It is a transparent veneer…sorry guys we see through that fig leaf!!!! NEXT????