The possibility of 25-story towers of affordable housing rising in some Cambridge squares and 13-story buildings on major streets got a bit further away Monday.
Potential big changes to the city’s Affordable Housing Overlay were slowed as city councillors agreed to send them to two committees for preliminary discussion rather than to the bodies where language gets on track to be voted into law.
The policy order proposed “more new affordable housing and fewer missed or stalled opportunities” than the zoning passed two years ago, with “substantially relaxed dimensional requirements on a citywide network of corridors and squares.” As crafted by councillors Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern, E. Denise Simmons and Quinton Zondervan. The new proposal focuses on putting the tallest buildings in transit-rich areas such as Central, Harvard and Porter squares and up to 13 stories in areas such as the Alewife Brook and Fresh Pond parkways, Bishop Allen Drive, Broadway, Concord and Massachusetts avenues, Memorial Drive and Albany, Cambridge, First, Mount Auburn, Prospect and Sidney streets.
“We’ve spent the year doing research,” Azeem said in introducing the order, noting that the first emailed exchange on the idea was sent Jan. 28. “We really tried to limit our scope as much as possible. Some of the amendments are still significant, but we chose 14 streets and [a handful of] squares to make our amendments – this means that 90 percent of the city by surface area is not touched at all.” The heights were set to lower the cost of building per unit, he said.
The original zoning passed Oct. 5, 2020, was intended to eliminate design limits and hurdles for developers putting up buildings of 100 percent affordable housing – including in parts of the city dominated by single-family homes and so far lacking in affordable units. More than a year in, there have been mixed results with little new territory added.
The introduction of the order alarmed some residents, who sent letters to councillors and spoke during public comment of “radical” changes that seemed to be sneaked in for overnight approval just before Thanksgiving – though even the fastest track proposed Monday still would have sent the zoning off for a likely three months of discussion.
Diverted to other committees
The order entered debate Monday with zoning language for the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board, which would start a 90-day clock on passing the law or letting it expire.
It ended, after roughly an hour of debate, headed instead for separate hearings with Simmons’ Housing Committee and the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee chaired by councillor Dennis Carlone. An attempt by Simmons and Zondervan to mandate a single, joint hearing was defeated by Carlone’s insistence that the focuses were too different to be combined.
“This is the most dramatic, complex change in zoning that affects neighborhoods and neighborhood business districts since I’ve been here, and that’s 50 years. It deserves both Housing – which is primarily within and the immediate surroundings – and Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, because these are potentially dramatic changes to the character of neighborhoods,” Carlone said.
There was also an attempt by Zondervan to set a Jan. 31 deadline for those hearings “so that we know that this is not going to drag on indefinitely.” Carlone said he was “almost insulted” by the comment, since he’d vowed to hold hearings as soon as January if he got the drawings and studies underlying the proposed AHO amendments.
People felt “blindsided”
The deadline was defeated in a 4-5 vote; the four sponsors of the order made up the minority.
“I personally am very interested in talking about increasing height and density on the main corridors and squares – whether the numbers that have been chosen and thrown into this proposal are the right ones, I don’t know. That’s why we need to have a much longer conversation,” said councillor Paul Toner, who made the suggestion to redirect the proposal that ultimately passed 8-1, with only Zondervan opposed.
Vice mayor Alanna Mallon called the proposal “a tough spot to be starting from” considering that the original AHO had “five Housing meetings before we even had any zoning language in front of us” and that she’d heard city planners weren’t consulted on the numbers. Councillor Patty Nolan said people felt “blindsided.”
The number of communications received by councillors from alarmed residents was a factor, Toner said, despite appreciating Azeem’s enthusiasm and the work put into the proposed changes.
“It needs a lot of discussion. And I think the reason we’ve gotten all these emails is it sounds like there’s been conversations going on since Jan. 28 – I don’t know with who or how many people, but obviously the general community wasn’t aware of it,” Toner said.
Public comment
Opposed residents showed up calling the proposal “radical,” with “confusing” guidelines that would result in “massive” buildings with no open space – and the terms “appalled,” “alarming,” “extreme” and “reckless” made repeat appearances in testimony as well.
“We met in an emergency meeting last night by Zoom, and across the city people were stunned by this – shocked, angered, frustrated,” said Suzanne Blier, president of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association. “Some of them are working on design and zoning issues at Alewife collaboratively, and on Cambridge Street collaboratively, on Northern Massachusetts Avenue collaboratively. This would destroy all that work. It has nothing to do with the Envision plan,” she said, referring to a three-year development planning process.
They were countered by supporters of the changes such as Charles Franklin, who considered the amendments “measured” and “thoughtful” and – though he recognized the law required conversation that prevented the zoning from being adopted overnight – “ready to pass as is.”
Resident Jessica Sheehan said she appreciated the leadership shown in presenting the order. “I have heard the word ‘radical,’” Sheehan said, referring to opponents’ public testimony. “Personally I would say ‘bold.’ And so many of us who care about housing affordability have been asking for boldness.”
Skeptics among officials
Even had the order proceeded as Azeem and his co-sponsors wanted, it was unlikely to speed through the legislative process. Planning Board members voiced serious misgivings in December about the projects arriving before them under the existing overlay and said then they were looking forward to the AHO’s five-year review. They could use the amendments as a chance to try to literally reshape the zoning.
Carlone sounded as skeptical as anyone, using the debate to call again for the city to buy land and lease it to developers to lower the costs of building housing only a few stories high. The amendments continued a slippery slope toward construction of giant buildings that are infeasible economically and bad for building community, he said.
“When Mass + Main was approved, I said this is just opening the door and we were told oh no, no, no,” Carlone said, referring to the 19-story Watermark Central tower in Central Square. “When the AHO was approved, [we were told] ‘This is all we need. Economically, the numbers work out.’ … This is just another step forward in degrading regulation.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Carolone’s premise that taller building are infeasible economically is not genuine. if taller projects didn’t make economic sense, they wouldn’t be built. But tall buildings get the massive financial advantage of dividing up our incredibly high land costs(and high permitting, legal, and process fees) amongst multiple units.
Also worth pointing out is the opposition is mainly coming from CCC members who oppose everything. It’s just what they do.
These “blind sided” and “appalled” residents are going to be even more of those two things when there aren’t enough low income people left in Cambridge to staff EMS, their favorite coffee shop, or whatever.
Somerville is currently building 6 jobs for every household. Most other cities do this. Simply another giveaway to landowners while keeping out undesirables all in the name of historic conservation.
Nothing must stand in the way of ponies for everyone….
Well, now that it’s being put on a slower procedural track, I’m sure nobody will complain about insufficient notice ever again! (:
The Open Meetings Law is a real problem. Councillors and community members seem personally offended when they don’t hear about things before they’re released despite it being literally illegal for Councillors and the general public to hear about things before they’re released.
Anyway I hope we can figure out a way to have real conversations because no amount of procedural outrage will make our need for affordable housing go away. This bill seems like a good idea and it deserves its day in the sun.
Affordable housing is and should be a priority for us. But no development, AHO or otherwise, should be allowed to completely transform the architectural coherence of the city, especially without intensive public comment and agreement that 25-story buildings (as currently proposed) are acceptable as the new normal in neighborhoods throughout the city. There is no excuse for constructing overbearing eyesores.
One of the features of Cambridge that make it delightfully liveable is the relative lack of massive construction projects, in contrast to Boston, for example. If I wanted to live in a big city full of tall buildings and without parking, I would move to New York.
By all means, build more affordable housing. But build it to complement the rest of our beautiful city.
It’s too bad Councillor Azeem either forgot to read his own proposal or thought that we wouldn’t. His claim that “this means that 90 percent of the city by surface area is not touched at all” is a blatant lie. In fact, this proposal would upzone every square inch of the city that can be built on. Heights are dramatically increased for any district that currently allows heights of at least forty feet, and setbacks are removed for every single project, no matter where it is. It’s really easy to tell; the redlining shows where changes are proposed.
I will also note that I’m so far the only person identifying myself by name. I can’t imagine why the cheerleaders and trash talkers aren’t willing to identify themselves. Have they gotten cyberstalked by these Champions of All That is Good and Holy the way I have? I have a screen name that I use elsewhere, but here in My Less and Less Fair City on Cambridge Day I own my words. Too bad they aren’t willing to do the same.
The only ponies being given away are to existing property owners in Cambridge, who continue to see double digit percentage increases in property values by doing nothing other than fighting development.
What a comment
Thank you CD for this overview article. It was good to hear Councillor McGovern state that the city has c.7,000 Cambridge-specific residents and workers on our affordable housing list. It would be good to know how many of these are actual residents: roughly half (3500)? Having before us these numbers is important in planning going forward. Let me also clear up a few things in the comments: only about 5 of the 24 or so opponents to the amendments are CCC members and CCC has been supporting many issues here, putting forward our own Advancing Housing Affordability Petition (to add more units to single and two-family homes). Also current long-term residents DO NOT benefit from increased property values, my own property taxes increased over 26% over the past five years because of increased property values. Those people on fixed income, or those in lower or middle-income brackets suffer significantly from such property value increases.
Well either upzone all of Brattle and take a wrecking ball to the mansions there and build 4-6 family homes in their place, or accept these sky scrapers, or live in a city with no employees to work in local businesses.
Honest to god you think that property owners in Cambridge haven’t benefited? Cambridge has the lowest tax rate in the state, and a massive deduction for owners. How many more handouts do you need?
“It was good to hear Councillor McGovern state that the city has c.7,000 Cambridge-specific residents and workers on our affordable housing list. It would be good to know how many of these are actual residents: roughly half (3500)?”
For arguments sake, let’s use these numbers. Where are the 3500 “actual residents” currently living in Cambridge? In housing that is unaffordable? Help me, I’m confused.
@concerned43:
An article, the first portion of which discusses this waitlist can be found here: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/5/26/cambridge-housing-crisis/. It articulates a different waitlist length – I’m not quite sure where the difference comes from – but also clarifies the number that are Cambridge residents.
As far as where they are living: precisely as you say, in unaffordable housing. Affordability is measured by cost-burdenship, which . 49% of Cambridge renters are cost-burdened, which means that they pay >30% of their income in rent. I couldn’t find the relevant statistic for Cambridge renters, but additionally, 20% of cambridge households are severely cost-burdened by housing, which means they pay >50% of their income towards housing. Source: http://www.housing.ma/cambridge/report
@Suzanne Blier, re: property taxes – compared to most neighboring cities, Cambridge has significantly decreased its property tax rate over the past 10 years, thereby generally keeping the property tax level for many homeowners (I know that is not the experience for all). As cited here, https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/financedepartment/propertytaxnewsletters/FY22/fy22propertytaxupdatenewsletter.pdf, 69.3% of residents have not seen an increase of more than $100 in their yearly tax bill over the last ten years. All of this said, I do appreciate that targeted assistance for affected homeowners is necessary (and is something the city already administers in many cases), including through its substantial exemptions.
@Heather Hoffman: I’m curious about what you’re writing here. Heights are increased for districts that allow more than 40 feet, but that does not include Res A-1, Res A-2, Res-B, or Res-C, which does account for a majority (perhaps 90%) of the residential areas of the city and really includes mostly areas like the corridors but maybe is slightly more “expansive” than the specifically listed ones. Am I missing something? Would like to hear if I’m misinterpreting things from your perspective. I do think the height provision specifically does feel tailored to the stated geographic purposes of the amendments
I generally agree re: the setbacks, I think setbacks are a key feature of good walkeable urban design. I wasn’t able to tune in yesterday but would like to hear more about why that provision was included based on AHO projects that have been going through the pipeline recently
@ Kavish Gandhi,
Thank you for the information and the links. It was very helpful.
I’m still a bit puzzled and perhaps you can help.
For arguments sake, let’s assume that of the 20,000 on the list for affordable housing, 2000 are currently living in Cambridge. Intuitively, we know that is a low number, but let’s use it.
Let’s assume that overnight, by some miracle, new affordable housing is able to be constructed for those 2000 on the list and they move into those apartments.
Then, over the next year, those “unaffordable” apartments that were vacated, are rented by people who are not “cost-burdened.” Does that mean that all other things being equal Cambridge has increased its housing stock by 2000 apartments, and let’s say four people per apartment…Cambridge has added 8000 people to its population? Am I looking at this correctly?
Thanks for your help.
These arguments made by CCC leaders and others, that we should only create enough housing for people who have managed, against all odds, to stay in Cambridge as housing costs have skyrocketed—and ignore many thousands of former Cambridge residents who have already gotten displaced—are typically disappointing.
Cambridge has a housing crisis that can be solved by building more housing. Every resident survey reveals housing costs to be the most important issue to Cambridge residents, and yet we have failed for decades to allow that housing to be built, harming renters and people of low and moderate income because rich local NIMBYs care more about subjective neighborhood aesthetics—and doubling or quadrupling their property values by artificially constraining supply—than people living on the streets and families spending half their income on rent.
What a disgusting, unjustifiable situation.
@concerned43:
Since my comment, I have confirmed that the 7000 “Cambridge-affiliated” list includes Cambridge residents and workers. I personally don’t see a reason to separate out the 20000 and the 7000, but no matter.
It could mean something like that. However (and to be perfectly transparent, I’m a board member of an affordable housing developer who works in Chelsea, Revere, Everett, which is where some of this is coming from), a nonnegligible percentage of affordable housing projects include acquisition of existing market-rate units. In that case, we’d see a direct conversion of units (and perhaps expansion of the building). I don’t have a good sense how units produced in this way will balance units will balance with wholly new units. At the same time, Cambridge has and will grow, and do think that’s an inevitable process as Greater Boston grows.
I’m happy to engage more offline about how I think adding these units will affect rents across the board – the short is that I’m not very hopeful that the ‘decreased demand’ will lower prices for those units, as goes a housing supply argument. But I do think there’s something to be said for that force to operate in some way, which would mean that those ‘unaffordable’ rents would become slightly more affordable.
I had thought that what I wrote made it clear that every district that has setbacks, which would include every residential district, would see its setbacks disappear or, for the occasional rear setback that made its way into this amendment, be reduced, under this proposal. In other words, Councillor Azeem either doesn’t know what his amendment says or he figures he can get away with lying to us because none of us will bother reading it. Dramatically increased heights apply to fewer districts unless the project decides to forego the zero setbacks and gets the bonus for keeping a couple of blades of grass on the property.
We cannot have a useful discussion about whether this is a good idea if we aren’t even talking about the same set of facts, especially if the biggest proponent is blatantly lying about what it says. I expect to disagree with people about whether a proposal is wise or not, but I absolutely draw the line at lying. I have learned to apologize and correct myself when I find out that I had my facts wrong. I look forward to seeing if the Councillors and members of the public who are misrepresenting the facts here will do the same.
Peace Be Unto You,
All this is implying is that affordable housing isn’t homeless housing. Money is being diverted away from addressing, ending, and eradicating homelessness in Cambridge. Also it will turn out to be an exclusionary zoning initiative as far as homelessness is concerned. Another example of how our city municipal policy makers and administrators are moving in the opposite direction of creating long range homeless housing. Shame on you all.
Yours In Peace
Hasson Rashid
Deeply Concerned Citizen
Cambridge,MA
I’d like to see existing zoning laws kept the same or strengthened. Why do so many assume it is Cambridge’s responsibility to provide affordable housing for all who would like to live here? Cambridge is very expensive, isn’t one solution that many people should live farther out and commute? Plenty of people do it here and all over the country every day; it’s not fun but not the end of the world. Maybe in some way Cambridge could support that (free buses, commuter rail reimbursement if you work here etc, just thinking off the cuff). I wish there were a friendlier, less cynical, and more ideal solution. This amendment and the like can only lead to long-term urban decay and wealthy housing developers. And of course, no one wants a slum in their backyard, whatever they say in public.
@Heather Hoffman:
I did not mean to misinterpret things – and it’s disappointing to have an implication of dishonesty upon even trying to engage in conversation, but I understand that there have been a lot of attacks in this conversation. I just wanted to make sure I understood your criticism correctly, because I did see a clear difference between the height and setback provisions.
I agree with you that setbacks are important. The 30% open space provision seems to imply that setbacks will by necessity be part of a project anyways – but I get your point. My reading of this is that it aims to give flexibility to the nonprofit developers as to where to put setbacks to accommodate the open space provision. It still may not be wise. I’m wondering, for you, if you can point to an example of a building that was built by one of the nonprofit 100% affordable developers that particularly concerns you. I know the legacy of especially but not exclusively private, commercial and market-rate development in Cambridge, especially East Cambridge, but I do think it’s worth for everyone to keep in mind that the set of developers is different here, and the financial incentives are also different. Not that they don’t still exist
@Nimbus: Can you point to a single development by Cambridge’s affordable housing developers that looks like a “slum?” And I’m curious: for you, do you consider the $20+ million that Cambridge spent in 2021 to subsidize its homeowners by lowering its residential property tax rate a subsidy to keep the city affordable? For context, this property tax lowering was more than the entire rental assistance budget of Massachusetts at the time. Why doesn’t your argument apply to those people, and if not, how can you justify the subsidy? If you have reasons to justify it, are you against similar subsidies for long-term renters who are valuable to Cambridge but are paying more than 50% of their income in rent? This comprises more than 20% of current renters in Cambridge. If not, what would you like those subsidies to look like?
Rather than taking people’s words out of context to accuse people of lying (comments about where this proposal applies quite obviously referred to the very limited corridors and squares with increased heights), CCC and neighborhood association leaders need to stop their own lies. Instead, their streak remains unbroken from the multi-year effort to pass the existing 100% affordable housing overlay—which they vehemently opposed—by claiming that the existing overlay produced 1000 new affordable homes last year.
In fact, the 100% affordable housing overlay has not produced anywhere near 1000 homes since it was enacted in 2019. In reality, there are fewer than 300 new affordable homes moving forward under the 2019 overlay. We need to increase the rate at which we create affordable housing—creating less than 100 affordable homes per year will never get us anywhere close to enough homes for the many thousands of Cambridge families on the affordable housing waitlist.
(52 New St. is 107 new homes. Jefferson Park federal includes 103 new homes. They are also rehabbing 175 existing homes, which obviously does not increase the supply of affordable homes. Similarly, 116 Norfolk is 25 new homes, with 37 existing homes being renovated. Sacred Heart is 46 new homes. Walden Square 2 is paused, sadly, apparently indefinitely at this point. 1627 Mass Ave is just starting the process and doesn’t have any numbers yet.)
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingdevelopment/aho
In addition, almost all of these projects receive funding from Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Trust, so for better or worse, Cambridge retains community control over what proposals get funded and can move forward. And the affordable homebuilding nonprofits responsible for building most new affordable homes in Cambridge (Just-A-Start, Homeowners Rehab, Inc, and Preservation of Affordable Housing, along with the Cambridge Housing Authority) have acted as good neighbors and local stewards for decades.
In what universe do you think that people earning minimum wage are going to, or can even afford to, commute from far flung suburbs in to Cambridge to work at our supermarkets, EMS, as well as any other business?
There is no reason why Cambridge needs sky scrapers. Allow 4-6 stories by right everywhere in the city and watch the housing crisis alleviate.
A lot of restaurants around the city no longer do lunch service because there aren’t enough people available to work. Boston is in the middle of an EMS staffing crisis.
The effects are real and it is only the beginning.
I say again — sky scrapers are almost certainly unnecessary. Paris has a higher population density than NYC and all its buildings are 5-7 stories.
@marc levy – appreciate the work you and the rest of the Cambridge Day team are doing and support you for that.
That said I would really love something more substantial on this topic. This article seems very procedural and presumes a lot of prior knowledge about Cambridge Housing. This obviously seems like a quite important topic.
For me I’d love to address two things:
1) what is the “Affordable Housing Overlay” and how is the proposal changing it? Maps showing what’s allowed now and what is proposed to change would be helpful, including any competing proposals
2) What are the “neighborhood association” that had this “emergency meeting”? Is this something official? I live in Cambridgeport. Is there an association “representing” me? If so how?
Again appreciate the work but I would really appreciate something more in depth about this topic
Hey CambridgeResident,
I’ve been a “Cambridge Resident” for 37 years and a home owner for 26.
Me and my kind of have weathered Savings and Loans collapses, absentee corporate landlords, great recessions, constant construction, rats, gun fire….the list goes on.
Where is this “double digit” increase you speak of? It ain’t in my bank account.
Homeownership is preferable to renting, certainly. But it ain’t no pile of gold either.
So yeah “ponies for everyone” because the idea of building to the sky without parking or outdoor areas is laughable.
The idea that leaving pricing in the hands of big box developers will solve the problem is laughable.
The idea that these big box developers will allow rent control is laughable.
The idea that building studio and one bedroom apartments will somehow stabelize housing for multi-generational families is laughable.
But by all means, continue to demonize the very people who have created the very stability that makes Cambridge attractive today.
Onwards you crazy pony lovers!
cport88,
Overlay Orignial Language and process: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Housing/affordablehousingoverlay
Proposed amendment: (start on page 252)
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3767&Inline=True
There are many neighborhood groups. Many claim to represent the neighborhood but it has been my experience that this is rarely the case. I wouldn’t rely on anyone but yourself to act as your voice. Here is a link to all the neighborhood groups currently registered with the city but please bear in mind that being registered is not an endorsement by the city:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/9ac5ec58c97c439388e42601f2e554a5
Kavish Gandhi, I apologize for not being clear. I in no way intended to suggest that you were misrepresenting anything.
@ Sam Noubert
I’m sorry that the city you are fighting to protect is changing. I also am sorry that you are so hostile to new people adding to the vibrancy of our city.
FWIW – and I’ve said this before, Paris has a higher population density than NYC and almost all its buildings are 7 stories tall, and I think you will be fighting a losing battle if you try to argue that Paris isn’t a “livable city”. We don’t need these sky scrapers — we need to end the overly restrictive and nonsensical zoning laws; which are and remain free ponies for property owners in Cambridge.
This is what the train system of Paris looks like :
https://www.ratp.fr/en/plan-metro
Now pick just 5 dots on that map, and that is what the public train system of Cambridge looks like.
Please don’t compare the two cities.
^^^^^^. BOOM!
I’m interested in the above debate about the appropriate density for Cambridge, but just want folks to be cognizant of what specifically these changes to the AHO are and are not proposing: which are mainly increased height in a select number of corridors and squares (largely along existing transit), as well as elimination of setback requirements, for *development of buildings that are 100% affordable*.
There does exist a 30% open space requirement, so “without… outdoor areas” is not true.
Also, I want to note that “The idea that building studio and one bedroom apartments will somehow stabelize housing for multi-generational families is laughable.” is not accurate to the housing that will get built under this particular proposal. I’m all for a separate, robust debate about the appropriate density and height of market-rate housing, which does tend to be studio and one bedroom; but the housing in question here is 100% affordable, most likely by one of Cambridge’s nonprofit developers, and more than likely will consist of family units.
Certainly understand that a number of the above sections I quoted were responding to other things, rather than being about the proposal, but think it’s helpful to stay clear about what the specific changes to the city on the table are.
I don’t see a “boom”. This is the US — where is your pride? We can’t build great things?
Peace Be Unto You,
Cambridge, don’t believe the hype, all so-called social problem at Central Square, and other areas of the city, can directly be trace back to city hall. Municipal policy makers are to blame. There are enough federal, state, and local monies and resources, circulating through the local public treasury to accommodate, all the legitimate needs of those poor peoples at Central Square, and other areas of the City of Cambridge, in which the truths of the predicament of homelessness are being hidden from the citizen and residents. Cambridge has been maintaining
a Triple AAA Bond Rating for soeme years, and that means private monies and resources are available to the city for combating its diverse degrees of poverty and homelessness.
Yes, Cambridge is able to provide much better for its poor and homeless, citizens and residents, but it is turning a blinded eye, and diverting needed monies and resources, resources away from sensitive priorities. Some label the cities failures on poor political will. Cambridge don’t let no one fool you, the local municipal policy makers are responsible for fixing the broken lives of the local poor se
Peace Be Unto You
Please please forgive me for an error. The above post went to press before I was finish writing it. The cut off should have continued with ” poor and homeless segments of the community. Thank you for reading my humble words.”
Thank you all for tolerating my mistake and corrections.
Yours In Peace
Hasson Rashid
Highly Concerned Citizen
Cambridge, MA
^^^^ Apparently not. YOU brought up Paris and it was rightly pointed out that the metro system can support the density there. Here, we cannot.
Double boom.