Even as yard and parking changes head to defeat, Planning Board notes AHO features that concern
Planning officials voiced serious misgivings last week around the specifics of the Affordable Housing Overlay, which so far underlies three projects making their way through Cambridge’s permitting process. But they acknowledged that they were forced mainly to watch with concern and wait – maybe for a five-year review.
“It does feel premature to be changing the rules before we’ve even had one project go all the way through,” Planning Board chair Catherine Preston Connolly said Tuesday.
The resident petitions heard by the board pushed back on one aspect each of the year-old AHO: how much yard was need around a development, and how much parking.
In each case, board members saw cause for worry as developers pushed the limits of a law that was meant to eliminate barriers to building 100 percent affordable housing, including by decreasing the amount of open space needed and letting builders decide how much off-street parking, if any, would be provided to tenants. The Planning Board also found themselves at odds with city councillors, who had looked at the petitions in their Ordinance Committee. Yard setbacks were kept in committee Dec. 8; the idea of a parking requirement was rejected by the seven of nine councillors present Dec. 15.
The board’s votes Tuesday were 7-0-1 against the council adopting a yard setback rule changing the AHO (with Steven Cohen the abstention); and 8-0 not to recommend a change to parking rules. That came after member Hugh Russell pointed out how councillors had already voted – “It’s pretty clear,” Russell said, “they’re not going to do it” – and Connolly crafted a pointed motion reminding councillors that the board’s recommendation for parking at the time of the original overlay in 2019 was to require 0.4 parking spaces for each unit built, not zero.
Parking petition
Karen Cushing and other residents arguing in favor of returning some parking requirements made pitches to both bodies that the lack of off-street parking would just cause a battle for on-street parking, which was already scarce. “People of limited income have the same needs as everyone else, and their housing should provide the same amenities,” Cushing told the board. “We believe that the ordinance should clearly state its requirements rather than engage in wishful thinking that defers to the discretion of the developer.”
Public speakers agreed that installing amenities such as BlueBike rental racks but having no parking for lower-income residents defied their lived reality, as these were the residents most likely to need cars to make a living whether it be as Lyft or DoorDash drivers, carpenters with trucks, in the suburbs or at third-shift positions outside of mass transit hours.
Especially as more units are built for families, which has been a city priority for years, they’ll be the ones saying “I don’t need BlueBikes – how am I going to go shopping in January with three kids?” Norma Wassel said during public comment.
For most city councillors at their committee hearing, this was simple. In passing the AHO, “we came to the correct conclusion … because we’re trying to prioritize affordable-housing construction, not car storage,” councillor Quinton Zondervan said Dec. 15. “Those concerns were raised and discussed, and the council voted on it.” Vice mayor Alanna Mallon agreed that “This was not a mistake. It was intentional policy to meet the city’s goals around climate change, around parking, transportation demand management, as well as our affordable housing goals.” And to councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, the two-tiered approach that took parking away from affordable housing suggested that “we should be eliminating parking minimums for market-rate housing as well.”
Off-street parking still needed
Most Planning Board members saw it differently, with Connolly summing up that while it might make sense to push society in a car-free direction, “we are not 100 percent there yet.”
“It’s wonderful to let our visions and our wishes and our politics govern us,” Steven Cohen said. “If we are concerned about the interest not of developers, but of real, honest-to-goodness people, working people and poor people, get real. They have cars. They need cars.”
Member Lou Bacci said he was familiar with the argument that people had a choice whether to live in affordable housing built without parking, but he found it specious. “They’ve been on a long list for god knows how long, and if a unit comes up that’s available – the right size and so forth – they have no choice but to take it or they go back on the list,” he said.
“What we’ve done is oversimplified the problem and politicized it,” Bacci said. “This is what happens when people support things and have no idea what it contains.”
Saying that people need parking “goes against most of what the city believes these days, but I have always felt that particularly for family units, parking space was really important,” vice chair Mary Flynn said, proposing that when the AHO came up for review, there could be more stringent requirements for affordable housing built far from public transportation.
It was an idea that won some support among board members, possibly aided by such a project looming before them in Walden Square. Russell expected the AHO project – a 240-unit affordable development in North Cambridge built on what is now parking lot – would have “a big spillover” to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of on-street parking competition.
Winn project and setbacks
The same project, which hasn’t been presented to the Planning Board, was the source of the setback zoning change proposed by Michael Jeremy Yamin and other residents. The initial design was a slab 85 feet tall and 450 feet long at the edge of Winn property, wrapping around an existing nine-story building.
“It is kind of a striking example” of what a project built to the limits of overlay rules can be, Yamin said, and “an indication to us that the AHO needs to be refined unless we want to see this kind of scale across all of Cambridge.” A fellow presenter said that even as a supporter of the overlay, seeing the Winn proposal was “a shock.” (The developer said it is looking at alternative designs.)
Planning Board members said they were hamstrung by not having the project before them and that it was too early to be changing the AHO even though, as Flynn put it, the intent of the overlay had people “expecting to see much smaller projects across the city.” In addition, as Russell again pointed out, Planning Board dissent was “academic” considering the will of the City Council.
“Anyone who’s a building design professional knew this was coming. There’s always those who will try to maximize everything they can,” Bacci said. “To start picking the AHO apart now is a mistake. But I think all of these concerns should be kept, and at some point a review needs to be done.”
Let me make sure I have this straight–
The AHO is passed, with obvious flaws, documented in countless meetings by dozens of detailed pieces, many in this newspaper.
Now the first plans come through, and people are shocked (haha) to see the previously documented flaws in the AHO designs.
But now it is both too late and apparently too early to fix the problems. We have to actually build flawed projects, THEN change the AHO? Today we just wring our hands?
Some of us appear to be slow learners
Sounds like the AHO is working well by avoiding the outdated regressive views of the obstructionist planning commission. God forbid we build some moderately dense housing rather than suburban homes and parking lots.
I would like to view the world through kinkemam’s rose-colored glasses where building wrap arounds, elimination of green space and lack of even handicapped parking spots is “moderately dense”.
I would like to resurrect an example from the not-so-distant past: 1979 Mass Ave (corner of Beech), sometimes referred to as the Plywood Palace. The city government bent every rule to allow this to go forward and then bodies like the BZA held it up for years afterward as a cautionary tale of what we never want to see again.
That’s how we do things around here. We push and push to make sure that a bad idea happens, usually so that developers will be happy, enthusiastically demonizing opponents as evildoers and lionizing proponents as on the side of the angels. Then we’re shocked to find that it was in fact full of flaws and assure everyone that no one could have foreseen that it would turn out to have the flaws that people warned against.
I was heartened at the extent to which the Planning Board explicitly agreed that people who live in public housing and other below-market housing are human beings who want and deserve good things just like everybody else. They need and deserve green space, and many of them need their cars for work, often doing jobs that make it possible for others not to own a car.
I live close to the Walden development. To be transparent, our family has received city social services, and we work in the food service / grocery business. I am heartened by the Planning Board’s common sense and stating the obvious. We walk and bike through the area to be constructed, either to go to Danehy or Peabody School parks. It is a dense area with not so many trees. It would be a shame to jam more stuff into this site and get rid of the few trees that there are. If this is what the AHO intends, then it seriously needs to be reconsidered.
The AHO was sold as the magic answer to the terrible legacy of “redlining,” where privileged – racially segregated – areas of Cambridge would supposedly suddenly see noble “affordable housing” projects spring forth – like knights in shining (“not-for-profit”) armour – to “solve” the Cambridge affordable housing “crisis.” Bono has his binoculars out. The AHO was always about enabling the completely unrestricted green-lighting of much greater “density” where it already exists, not where it doesn’t. The whole thing is a sham. Fake “virtue signaling” for all the hypocritical liberal phonies in Cambridge. Cram lots more poor people into places where they are already tightly packed, and call it “helping our most vulnerable.” Rubbish.
Cambridge is not moderately dense. We are very dense, second only to Somerville, at 15,000+ residents per Square mile.
15% of the available housing in Cambridge is for low and moderate incomes, just making the top ten of all 300+ Massachusetts cities and towns.
Yes we can do better, but the AHO sacrificed good building and site design and open space for density.
Every resident of Cambridge deserves affordable housing, good design, and open space. Zoning laws which encourage these benefits are the way we can do better.
The Brazilian favelas are examples of dense, affordable housing built without zoning restrictions – they are also slums.
Our fair city continues to follow a “let the market solve our problems” rather than taking an involved, coordinated, proactively nuanced approach to resolving these incredibly complex issues.
The “whole thing may be a sham” as Poor Pro Bono suggests but if we continue down this road, we will have, without a doubt, a brand new slum.
I was very impressed that the planning board took the time to ACTUALLY CONSIDER some of the issues and yes, “mistakes” (flaws) in this maiden voyage of challenges to the AHO. The council has been pre-determined from the beginning without looking at the big picture. This is “intentional policy” at any cost. period. I would think a councilor would want to keep a close eye on something so important to see it working for everyone. The message is don’t question their decision even though they acknowledge that “it is not perfect”. IF it is not perfect then it has flaws!. So we have to wait 5 yrs? By then, flaws are baked into the formula. According to CDD it is just too hard a task to CORRECT zoning city-wide.
Yet, now the Planning Board is reviewing CDD’s attempt to indeed re-zone the entire city, stream-lining legislation to make a one-size-fits-all plan allow for the Brattle St Historic District, for example, to look like Mid- and East Cambridge and their densely packed workers cottages. Doesn’t this take the same if not more effort and discussion? They are looking to eliminate single-family housing but they are taking it a step further in adding to the re-zoning the entire city where it doesn’t apply. people need to pay attention because affordable housing was only mentioned once as an example of too complicated. As a result, we are going to build more luxury housing just in time for Google employees.