Attend Cambridge meetings from Nov. 21-27: Building higher in Affordable Housing Overlay
These are just some of the municipal meetings and civic events for the coming week. More are on the City Calendar and in the city’s Open Meetings Portal.
A rendering of a once-proposed building at 2072 Massachusetts Ave., North Cambridge, that would have a better chance of being developed under an expansion of the city’s Affordable Housing Overlay zoning.
EV charging and a ‘green fleet’
Health & Environment Committee, 10 a.m. to noon Monday. This committee run by city councillor Patty Nolan discusses how to expand the availability of electric-vehicle charging and reviews the city’s “green fleet” policy of buying all-electric vehicles for municipal use – a sore point for Nolan over the years as staff keeps coming forward with requests to buy vehicles that aren’t electric. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
Affordable Housing Overlay anew
City Council, 5:30 p.m. Monday. If there is going to be “more new affordable housing and fewer missed or stalled opportunities” from the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning passed in October 2020, it needs a revamp, Burhan Azeem and other councils say in a policy order. They seek “substantially relaxed dimensional requirements on a citywide network of corridors and squares” that could mean up to 25-story buildings in areas such as Central, Harvard and Porter squares and up to 13 stories in areas such as Albany Street, Alewife Brook Parkway, Bishop Allen Drive, Broadway, Cambridge Street, Concord Avenue, First Street, Fresh Pond Parkway, Massachusetts Avenue, Memorial Drive, Mount Auburn Street, Prospect Street and Sidney Street. This meeting also sees a suggestion for the Ordinance Committee to deliberate on a memo about Neighborhood Conservation Districts that will be less welcome to some.
Also likely to get attention is a city inventory of its property and plans for various parcels, since councillors have long urged the construction of affordable housing on city-owned parking lots. Ten properties are listed as “vacant or underutilized” in an inventory that shows city ownership of 551 acres across 167 parcels, with parks, playgrounds and other open space accounting for 481 acres of that across 93 parcels. (There are 15 parking garages and parking lots listed, but also 21 school properties, eight fire stations, seven municipal buildings, three Cambridge Health Alliance care centers and two vacant lots – Vail Court and Cherry Street. Some have intended uses already, such as housing at Cherry Street, while the Vail Court property is intended to become housing but has been tied up in court.) The report from City Manager Yi-An Huang agrees that “surface parking lots owned by the city offer the possibility of redevelopment to serve multiple municipal goals.”
Huang also seeks $200,000 for a Central Square-area municipal property needs assessment and planning study that will look over the next 15 years to “identify how the city can best leverage our properties to support municipal services and advance city priorities” there; and says the council should hear back after around 18 months on how to “support the creation and protection of cultural and human services.” Some work is begun, leaving the timeline not wholly clear, That’s the expected end date of a comprehensive mapping and analysis of cultural infrastructure underway with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in partnership with Boston and Somerville.
The council meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
Energy-use disclosure law
Economic Development & University Relations Committee, 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. Tuesday. This committee run by city councillor Paul Toner gets a Community Development Department update on changes to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance, and talks about the environmental and economic impact of the law on residential, business and academic properties and communities. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
City manager evaluation process
Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee, 3 to 5 p.m. Tuesday. This committee run by vice mayor Alanna Mallon looks at the council’s annual evaluation process for city manager – a process that got missed toward the end of Louis DePasquale’s time in office. The committee meets at City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave., Central Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
Charter review ground rules
Charter Review Committee, 5:30 p.m. Tuesday. The group sets decision-making ground rules for its deliberations and a framework for community engagement, and considers a proposed statement of values. Watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
East Cambridge conservation area
Planning Board, 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. The preliminary report of the East Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Study Committee arrives for consideration – more controversial than it might sound, as the study faces opposition from people who feel conservation districts add expense and complication to needed housing. Also before the board: an emissions accounting zoning petition and update to a proposed Citizens bank branch in MIT’s 610 Main St. building near Kendall Square. Televised and watchable by Zoom video conferencing.
Note that Planning Board is not doing in-person meetings at the City Hall Annex. We’re still doing zoom meetings. Public participation is done by zoom.
Yes – my apologies; a line about the annex appears on a template that I’m not always rigorous enough in removing.
I hope people do pay attention to the planning board and neighborhood conservation districts. I wonder why this case is being reviewed when it hasn’t even come before the historical commission to take a final vote to even SEE IF they want to pursue it. From the beginning, the CHC has been challenged at just doing its job by those who could care less about city history and culture. a Conservation district is not a historical district with its stronger regulations. It is more flexible and allows for renovations, expansion, and even demolition in some instances. And Kendall Sq keeps expanding and gobbling up property and housing. where is the balance?
So, some members of the council would like to remodel residential Cambridge into the Bronx (except we’d have more bike lanes)? While appeasing and enabling building “developers” who so charitably would be willing to help out our community (bless their little souls)? Am I understanding this correctly?
@Nimbus
Why set expectations so low? I don’t see any reason why Cambridge couldn’t exceed the Bronx or Brooklyn in vibrancy
There is never enough housing, just like the govt does not ever have enough money. The govt can get $1B fall from the sky tomorrow, and they will still ask for more money. We can build 1,000 more units in Cambridge tomorrow, and there will still be a need for more housing in Cambridge.
Why are we trying to fit everyone in Cambridge?? Why? People who have paid money to live here (rent or own) expect a certain quality of life. That is why they paid a “premium” to live here and not in Dorchester or Natick or Arlington. You want to put hi-rises everywhere so we can accommodate more people? In that case, why dont we put housing on the Cambridge Common? If we build high, it will accommodate at least 5,000 units. Oh – that takes it too far and that is not a line you are willing to cross? But ok to put hi-rises everywhere else in neighborhoods so its more scattered does not call attention to one area?
Cambridge has gone above and beyond to add affordable housing. However, the reality is, not everyone can afford to live here. Please dont ruin it for people already here by force-fitting housing into neighborhoods under the excuse of adding affordable housing.
@EastCamb: you paint a bleak picture. Can you point to a 100% affordable housing property built or currently proposed by one of Cambridge’s nonprofit housing developers that has impacted your “certain quality of life” or has felt “force-fit” into your neighborhood? I agree that we should inspect the details of this proposal, but it’s curious to hear these properties described in this way, and want to know some examples of what you’re referring to
It is not true that Cambridge has not gone above and beyond to add affordable housing. It is true that many other communities in the Metro area have not even done the bare minimum, but that doesn’t mean that Cambridge has added a significant amount itself, especially as market-rate rents have comparatively skyrocketed here. I’d be curious to see statistics that show otherwise
Finally, “the reality is not everyone can afford to live here.” I’m curious reading this to ask a question that feels relevant to me: Cambridge significantly subsidizes its homeowners, by effectively lowering its property tax rate year over year to make sure that most residential homeowners are not impacted. It does not subsidize its renters in the same way. Would you support equalizing relevant subsidies to renters and homeowners, and thereby preventing the displacement of long-term renters in Cambridge, just as we help prevent the displacement of long-term homeowners? What measures do you support that Cambridge adopt towards this end?
just a comment, many long-time home owners usually own triple deckers or two-family houses purchased in the 80s or inherited through generations. They are the ones who keep rents low and reasonable, mainly for family members and friends yes, but also for students and other renters. These are the people who are under pressure to sell to developers who return luxury market-rate housing and crying they have to build big or it is not economically feasible.
indication of harm not proof of harm is what people should watch for. If there is proof of harm, it is too late. East Camb has a point. No matter how much housing, money, bike lanes, it will never be enough. We are so far ahead of the curve in so many ways, it’s not going to matter if other municipalities are behind the 8-ball. We get green houses gases from elsewhere. Let’s help them get up to speed to help everyone!
I’m sympathetic and agree that these multifamily landlords who act in this way should be protected from such pressures. We are not ahead of the curve on housing – I see this touted a lot, and though we have built some housing, we are quite behind compared to the skyrocketing rents due to the unrestricted development we’ve seen. Please provide statistics to support this argument.
However, it’s strange to see these arguments trotted out in opposition of expanding the Affordable Housing Overlay. The nonprofit developers in question have to build properties that are 100% affordable (I do recognize that ‘affordable’ is not affordable to everyone, but at maximum affordable to <80& AMI is a far cry from luxury market rate rents). Luxury market-rate units are not going to get built under the proposed policy.
Again, I think I'd want someone to point to a property build by one of these nonprofit developers that concerns you so deeply.