The Cambridge City Council Housing Committee will discuss Wednesday a radical proposal to revise the Affordable Housing Overlay. The proposal, put forth in November by four city councilors – Marc McGovern, Burhan Azeem, E. Denise Simmons and Quinton Zondervan – is alarming. It would allow 13-story buildings on 13 corridors across the city, up to 25 stories in Porter, Harvard and Central squares, and would remove setback, parking and other current requirements.
The lack of public transparency and sound analysis behind this proposal renders it completely illegitimate from the start, and we ask that it be thrown out in its entirety. It is a radical, poorly formulated proposal that seems designed to provoke and inflame division. The proponents appear to be motivated by a combination of political naiveté, believing that such a drastic policy action can be executed by unilaterally making track changes on a document; and political cynicism, believing that starting from such a wildly over-the-top position will allow negotiating down to an apparent “compromise” on increased building heights.
We encourage the Housing Committee to hit the reset button.
A sound analysis and citywide discussion is needed to evaluate the performance of the AHO to date. It has been in place for just over two years, and during that time six projects have been approved. A logical starting place would be an analysis of the results compared with expectations, a discussion of barriers that exist for projects that didn’t go through and an examination of where the opportunities lie for more affordable-housing development in Cambridge.
We urge our City Council to develop a clearly defined, publicly supported affordable-housing strategy for our city. The multitude of ideas and recommendations generated through Envision Cambridge have never been formally adopted nor implemented. Different groups are pursuing conflicting goals based on fiercely held assumptions. Our city needs to develop a long-term strategy for increasing affordable housing, advanced in partnership with residents and urban design experts and leveraging the innovations and best practices from communities around the country and the world. Our city’s affordable-housing strategy should include numeric targets, budget allocations and an implementation plan that draws on diverse approaches to increasing housing stock – including using vacant and underutilized city properties, buying existing buildings or units and using vouchers and subsidies, as well as creating well-designed new construction.
With strong council leadership, Cambridge can become a role model for innovative, inclusive housing strategies rather than reverting to the 1970s-style high-rise approach this proposal advocates. Let’s reject this radical proposal and start from a place of transparency, analysis and comprehensive planning.
Lisa Dreier, Susan Frankle, Michael Kennedy, Gus Rancatore, Margaret Rueter and Merry White, members of North Walden Neighbors
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.
So this letter says: “A logical starting place would be an analysis of the results compared with expectations, a discussion of barriers that exist for projects that didn’t go through and an examination of where the opportunities lie for more affordable-housing development in Cambridge.”
OK, let’s look at 2072 Mass Ave, a proposed affordable housing project. It didn’t go through because of a height limit, so it needed to get a BZA waiver.
And one of the reasons it didn’t get a BZA waiver is because the authors of this letter, the “North Walden Neighbors”, fought real hard to kill the project: https://northwaldenneighbors.org/
The chutzpah involved here is astonishing, really: killing an affordable housing project and then calling for a discussion of why affordable housing isn’t being built. I am _very_ impressed.
Anyway, since the height of the proposed project was what required the BZA waiver, the proposed AHO extension would in fact enable this project to be built.
And that’s why the authors call for a “strategy”: they don’t want affordable housing, they just want a never-ending discussion.
We’ve had decades of little housing construction, it’s time to change that. Enough studies, we already have mountains of evidence showing increased housing construction puts downward pressure on prices, reduces displacement, and reduces homelessness. It’s time to build.
Been living in Cambridge 25 years. With the exception of Paul Toner, this is the worst City Council concerning residents not being heard! Even the City Manager told me it’s a big problem.
Affordable housing, labs, bike lanes are just a few subjects where the Council has decided that resident’s should not be involved in the planning process. As Donald Trump will tell you it’s my way or the highway!!! What a shame!!!
Every ounce of what little good will there was in this piece was lost with the phrase “well designed new construction”.
Perhaps if the NIMBYs responsible for this crisis hadn’t prevented development for decades then these tall buildings wouldn’t be necessary. But here we are.
I hope the city council recognizes that the people being displaced in this city and many other residents are sick and tired of the NIMBY bull.
Incentivize affordable housing and upzone the city, and remove ridiculous nimby zoning regulations that make building housing for the middle class impossible.
What infrastructure do you have in place to support this hi-rise in neighborhoods? The parking areas have been eliminated, so these people will have to park on the street. What does that do to existing residents?
No one is against development. But I am against development that forces housing into random neighborhoods in the name of affordable housing. I am against waiving all requirements because it’s “affordable housing'”
Cambridge is a desirable place to live. Not everyone can afford to live here. If people cannot afford Cambridge, they can move across the town line and save 20% right off the bat. I don’t understand why we feel we have to bend over backward to accommodate anyone who has expressed living in Cambridge.
Ok, so ignoring the fact that everything ajdisidoro listed has had endless community input, you realize the whole point of our entire system of government is that we elect people to do these things for the people who elect them right?
I know it can be hard to accept, but there are clearly people who elected these councilors.
Cambridge resident- you used NIMBY 3 times which doesn’t advance any meaningful dialogue. He who labels me Libels me. I agree with “well-designed new construction”. Why can’t we have striking buildings that enhance the streetscape.? And frankly, I was against 2072 Mass ave because the 10 Stories (driven by 40B not AHO) only had ONE ELEVATOR and was on a busy corner with no carve-out for true drop-off. that is a safety issue. Come back with a better design. What is being lost is any understanding of historical community context with 25 stories in a tourist draw and destination. we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Going from 80 ft to 150 ft or more without study or review is irresponsible. I don’t know anyone who wants to live in Kendall Sq. What about infrastructure? What about Electrical capacity while Cambridge is demanding more for their overlapping and confusing policies. And frankly, while we need affordable housing this approach is creating segregated housing unless they are mixed-income and mixed-use. Even with waiving any kind of zoning regulation, a developer still has to visit CDD, ISD (inspectional services), and other formalities before moving forward. NEW STREET will be a great AHO project as will the church conversion in East Cambridge. Look at what is moving forward before we canyonize corridors.
I certainly don’t trust you or the authors of this piece to be the arbiters of what a well designed building is, and I think it is morally reprehensible to allow people to be displaced or become homeless because you want high end design more than homes.
Meet Nimbee, the mascot who scorns bike lanes, development and change
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/04/nimbee-bee-mascot-satire/
“I dislike anyone or anything that threatens to change my neighborhood from what it was like the day I moved here. Any change that happened up until that moment is totally cool, though, and should be given historic preservation protection in perpetuity.”
It is this NIMBY attitude that helped create the affordable housing crisis. This “discussion” is them putting up yet another hurdle designed to prevent the development of affordable housing. Iis a familiar play by this author and associates.
@pete
These questions about electrical capacity etc is a distraction and an attempt to throw up roadblocks. Raising building height for affordable housing does not mean all the other regulations and approval processes are thrown away. Developments still have to follow regulations.
A city cannot thrive without affordable housing. We cannot ask lower-wage workers to live farther and farther away. It will make it harder to businesses to hire people. It will increase traffic and green house gas emissions.
“Historical community context” is nonsense. The city has been changing and evolving since the moment it was founded. That is what cities do. The world is not static. That evolution is suppose to halt the moment you move here and buy a house?
This attitude will strangle the city and leave people without housing. Why? To preserve historical context? People need housing not history.
This is almost “The Onion” style satire… probably should’ve kept this one in the drafts folder
That image is purposely and outrageously misleading.
This location is in the Harvard Square Conservation District, which would block building any building like this one. CCC previously shared this ridiculous image, knowing all too well that the location is subject to historic preservation restrictions—CCC President Suzanne Blier is on the Steering Committee of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association.
Second, Cambridge adopted a lengthy set of Design Guidelines along with the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, and the non-profits who build affordable housing in Cambridge along with the Cambridge Housing Authority have followed those guidelines closely and engaged with the Planning Board to incorporate their input.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Housing/Overlay/zngamend_aho_designguidelines_20200728v2.pdf
If the image is as misleading as you state, I don’t know enough, then the Cambridge Day should be ashamed for publishing it.
Any comment from the newspaper?
@HelloCambridge
I was just thinking the same thing. Harvard Square is a protected historical district. You can’t just plop a 25-story building in the middle of it. That picture is misleading at the least to the point of lying.
I think there is consensus among the comments. This is NIMBY nonsense.
It is morally reprehensible to deny people housing because you like the way city is or used to be. Many people who were here before you no doubt opposed the changes to the city that you now enjoy. Pulling up the drawbridge is about as selfish as one can get. Especially when the issue is housing people.
And about all this “transparency” and “sound analysis” malarkey: “I’m just asking questions” is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
@ajdisidoro
The city has had public meetings, has taken feedback, and made modifications to address residents’ concerns for everything that you mention.
If you don’t pay attention (or vote), you can’t complain when things change. You certainly can’t say “I wasn’t informed” because it wasn’t for lack of trying.
As for the City Manager. Agreeing with people is a great way to calm them down.
Will we ever get to the point where we have enough low income housing? What is our goal? 20%, right?
If this is passed, what is next? I get the sense for some folks it will never be enough.
On the image: it was created by a zoning attorney and developer who works in Cambridge and wa based specifically on the language of the AHO amendment petition. According to this person, one of the councillor sponsors responded to this image by noting that it is correct.
So you completely offload responsibility and never address the veracity of the claim that the conservation district would make this building impossible to construct?
Seems dishonest.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
So, the picture was based on the language of the AHO petition but did not take into account the regulations of the Harvard Square Conservation District.
That’s what we said, the picture is highly misleading.
@Yet Another Cambridge Resident
How about we go until there is no longer a housing crisis?
Changing zoning rules like raising height restrictions is happening in many cities. It is based on considered thought and analyses (see below). It is not a “radical, poorly formulated proposal” The authors of this letter seem to have very little interest in veracity. How many ways can you mislead people in one letter?
How Communities Are Rethinking Zoning to Improve Housing Affordability and Access to Opportunity
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-communities-are-rethinking-zoning-improve-housing-affordability-and-access-opportunity
To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/
Zoning Restrictions Present Major Obstacles to Housing Affordability
https://www.nahb.org/blog/2019/06/zoning-restrictions-present-major-obstacles-to-housing-affordability/
@FrankD I think every town needs to pitch in. Cambridge has contributed significantly.
What if we just develop every green, open space. Go for 50 levels, instead of 25? I’m sure you get the picture.
The proposed change to the AHO has well-intentioned Cambridge residents on both sides. Unfortunately, having one’s heart is in the right place doesn’t replace rational analysis for achieving the goal of providing more affordable housing. The developers are using the emotions of well-meaning citizens to maximize their profits. On the one hand they say that tall buildings will allow more open space. On the other hand they want to remove setback requirements. On the one hand they say that regulations allowing X number of stories doesn’t mean the developers will use all that height. On the other hand they complain that a project planned to be X stories actually needs more height because they discovered groundwater.
We need to look beyond the obvious but problematical “solution” of higher, denser, cheap apartment blocks (with no setbacks and no parking) to find more creative solutions to the issue. I’ve heard what seem to be practical solutions from people more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. Among those ideas are greatly expanding the section 8 program, offering affordable rent-to-own programs, and building on land already owned by the city. I’m sure there are others.
A well-planned solution would include extensive citizen input along with guidance and advice from housing and city planning experts. It should not be written in secret by a small group of developers and a few city councilors who are friendly to them. Affordable units already cost a million dollars per unit to develop. (Why it should cost this much is beyond me.) Adding more units to a building is not going to meaningfully bring down this unreasonably exorbitant cost, it will just increase profits.
Stop the secret conclaves and start a transparent process that considers solutions beyond big cheap apartment blocks.
@Yet Another Cambridge Resident.
Here we go, the tired old NIMBY argument of “where does it end?”
Don’t use straw hyperbole arguments. No one is talking about 50 story buildings or developing every green.
Someone probably made the same argument when the first 5-story building was built.
@karencon
There is nothing inherently “problematical” about raising building heights. That is your *opinion*. In fact, urban planners and scientists from around the US and world have identified it as a prime way to build more affordable housing.
You can’t address the problem without increasing density. And we can’t create more land.
If one’s heart was in the right place, one would not deny people housing because they like the city the way it is.
And the argument that developers are greedy. Well, so are NIMBYs. Typically, what motivates them is protection of their property values.
I am also suspicious of the secret conspiracy claimed in this letter. You hear accusations like this every time the city changes something. Then you find out that there were public meetings, feedback taken from the community, etc.
If the city rejected your arguments, maybe the didn’t accept them.
The get input-from-everyone attitude is just another roadblock. As you can tell from these comments or any look at social media, you can’t get people to agree on anything. This is just a way to delay changes by bogging them down.
In any case, I don’t see why we should favor the opinion of these authors on building design and urban planning when there are experts who do this for a living.
Maybe we should listen to the experts:
How Zoning Broke the American City
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/zoning-housing-affordability-nimby-parking-houston/661289/
How Communities Are Rethinking Zoning to Improve Housing Affordability and Access to Opportunity
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-communities-are-rethinking-zoning-improve-housing-affordability-and-access-opportunity
The “secret conclave” involves, assuming this passes:
1. A city council meeting.
2. A housing committee meeting (today).
3. A neighborhood committee meeting (March).
4. A continuation of the housing committee (March).
5. Another discussion in the full council.
6. An ordinance committee meeting.
7. A council vote, followed by publication in a newspaper.
8. A final council vote.
So eight public meetings, all of which you can (or could have) visited in person, or watch/watched on zoom, or watch recordings after the fact.
Very secret!
Sadly, this whole article is NIMBY nonsense.
The North Walden NIMBYS need to step aside and let others have a chance to live in Cambridge.
There’s nothing wrong with high-rise developments, and they are a way to increase affordable housing for many current and would be residents.
I would love to see the authors of this letter propose an alternate strategy – without allowing for any tall buildings – that will get Cambridge the number of housing units that it needs. I’m almost certain that would require tearing down all of the single-family homes in West Cambridge. As much as *I* would love to see every 6 million dollar mansion in that neighborhood replaced with six stories of apartments, I don’t suspect that’s what they want. What they want is to keep this housing from being built, period, and that’s simply not an option. It is so so so so much more “radical” to suggest that you think that working people should be forced to leave or live on the street in order to keep Cambridge stuck looking exactly as it did in 1950 than it is to suggest that we build a few more tall buildings. “But what about the parking” -> the proposal explicitly places the tall buildings near T stations. You don’t need a car to get around Cambridge, especially not if you live by the T. I certainly don’t have one and I don’t live nearly as close to the T as to where the new tall buildings would be zoned in this proposal.
My gripe with the proposal is that it’s “radical” and “unreasonable” to set a height limit at all for affordable housing. Any affordable construction projects that meets building safety standards should be legal to build anywhere in Cambridge. That’s the common sense proposal. What the city council is proposing is a good step but still far more conservative than the common sense approach.
What is the city’s commitment to keep adding affordable housing without adding additional infrastructure? call me NIMBY or what ever name you want – you cannot just keep adding random hi-rises in neighborhoods to accommodate a few hundred more people at a time without expanding the infrastructure or roads, public transportation and parking.
when does this end? When we get 1,000 more residents? When we add 2,000 more? 10,000 more? I just dont understand why the woke people of Cambridge feel they have to accommodate even single person in Cambridge.
Cambridge already has the highest percentage of affordable housing in the state. Take this story to a Brookline or a Newton or a Wellesley and watch how quickly you are laughed out of meetings.
@EastCamb
There are not “random” hi-rises going up. This “when will it end?” is just NIMBY alarmist nonsense. All the permits, regulations, planning meetings etc will still be in place. People shouldn’t have homes because you want easy parking?
However much affordable housing is available isn’t enough because we have a housing crisis.
Like it or not, the population of Cambridge is going up. People need somewhere to live. We need to accommodate people here because people work here.
There is nothing wrong with 25 srory buildings. People need homes.
The selfishness of existing residents arresting housing for others is astounding. I fully support the policies that this group opposes.
@EastCamb
Let’s take your most extreme number. 10,000 move into Cambridge. There are 117,090 people in Cambridge now. 10,000 more is an increase of less than 8.5%. The population has been increasing by an average of a little over 1% per year.
The point is that we will reach 10,000 more people in Cambridge in a few years regardless of what we do, even if the zoning rules don’t change.
More people means that we need more housing. If we don’t build more housing, the consequences are not good.
1. High housing costs are a major problem for employers.
Retailers need cashiers and restaurants need servers, etc. We will have trouble attracting and maintaining police officers, firefighters, teachers, and nurses.
2. Cost-burdened people buy less stuff.
When families have to spend more on housing, they have less to spend on goods and services. This means less money for local businesses.
3 Traffic will be worse.
High housing costs mean people have to drive long distances to work. (Note the proposed taller buildings near public transit).
I could go on. But the bottom line is that research shows that the shortage of affordable housing costs the American economy about $2 trillion a year. If we don’t address it, we will all pay the cost.
If you want to fast forward take a trip to SF. I frequently travel there and have watched it to my eyes go downhill yr after yr. Depending on which measuring stick you use:
Jobs (less of them)
Crime (all time high)
Property values (dropping fast)
Homelessness (all shelters full)
New business formation (all time low)
There is a finite amount of land available in Cambridge. Can Cambridge accommodate another 20k residents 50k ? Double its size?
It’s so amazing to watch the fabric of the city destroy itself. It’s like a barge with no captain.
Weed shops all time high
Mental health crisis
State of small businesses crisis add Christopher’s and
Bike lanes for frankd and the big bike lobby at 20m a mile complete with red war paint eating up the pavement
Public school enrollment plummeting
“Affordable” housing going round the merry go round
Water polluted with chemicals now fixed we hope!
Bring back rent control! Can’t believe that hasn’t made its way up the ladder yet.
Well onto the next “issue” for the city to solve lmao.
On the Harvard Square Conservation District language (or any such Conservation District in Cambridge): the commissioners look at the design being proposed prior to any demolition approved and then can recommend design improvements. In some conservation districts their recommendations must be followed, in other cases the design improvements are simply recommendations. One of the larger issues in Harvard Square is finding a site large enough for a massive structure of this size. Another is whether a current property owner wants to sell for residential rather than current commercial use (which tends to be far more remunerative). That said the illustration shown here was created by the developer/zoning expert to convey a sense of the scale of such structures. 25 story is two and a half times taller than the largest structure here, the Smith Center, which itself stands out as a structural anomaly. Another issue for the city more generally is whether such towers make sense for this purpose. Current thinking is that more human scale housing for affordable contexts is far better. The aim is not to replicate the failed 1950s federal segregated housing, which is now being taken down. Still another issue is why we are not building on city owned land using city funding which would allow us to designate such housing for the c.3000-3500 current city residents. When one takes state or federal funding, not only is it hard to get, but also one has to open it up to others from elsewhere who apply. And, increasingly people are realizing it is far better to provide housing that people can own, thereby building equity, and allowing their grown children to live with, and/or retain their housing if their financial circumstances improve. The city could contract with one of the local banks to provide down payments for any such tenants in need of financial support for the down payment. When the tenant leaves, the unit would go back into the affordable housing pool of city owned properties.
“When does it end?” I don’t know what that means. When does what end? When the economy of Cambridge stops growing, perhaps? The premise of the question makes no sense. But one thing I can say for sure, whatever you are worried about ending, if it relates to housing availability it doesn’t end now.
Also the intellectual coherence between “this is a regional problem so Cambridge shouldn’t tackle this by itself” and “neighborhoods should get to decide” is non- existent bordering on laughable.
I don’t know the authors but they 1) must not have kids they care about, 2) don’t want their kids to be able to live in Cambridge, or 3) have incredibly high hopes for their kids future earnings potential.
Building more housing relieves pressure on the entire system. To finally be able to buy a place here, we as a family needed to earn well above $300k+. That’s insane. This isn’t just a give away to “low income” people (although I think 80% of median is like $100k in Cambridge so I think we are talking nurses, teachers and lots of professionals here). Allowing more supply will “trickle up” for a change and also enable lots of upper middle income young families to continue to afford to live here.
I’m not sure about the supply argument except as that pertains to those who qualify for affordable housing and also want a non-equity building “forever home.” I do hope that this doesn’t preclude changes to zoning that allows for more market rate housing as well. I’ve still a candle in my window for Central Sq which is currently the lowest zoned BB district in the city. I hope since it seems the neighborhood groups supporting this now agree that 280′ is kosher for affordable that they also feel the same way about market rate housing.
I’m sure we all would have preferred a more natural, incremental, and “human” increase in housing in this city.
The fact of the matter is that because of anti-growth groups in this city, none of it was built. Nothing you wrote, Suzanne, does anything to address the current crisis we are in. Instead it reads like an exercise in what-ifs and reality distortion.
This expansion is needed.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
That is just NIMBY alarmist malarkey. No one is proposing a 25-story building in the middle of Harvard Square.
The population in Cambridge has been going up 1% a year on average. More people are moving here whether you like it or not or regardless of what we do about zoning. If we don’t increase density, housing costs will go even higher and that will suppress the local economy.
Businesses depend on workers of all income levels. They will struggle to find workers. We’ll have trouble attracting keeping police officers, firefighters, nurses, etc.
The more people spend on housing, the less they have to spend on local businesses. Local businesses will suffer.
Traffic will increase because more people will have to drive to Cambridge. That’s more congestion, less parking, and more greenhouse gases wrecking the planet.
The affordable housing crisis costs the American economy$2 trillion a year.
We should not address it because some people “like the city the way it is” and because of “historical context”?
Your solution is to help lower-income people with down payments on houses? How are lower-income people supposed to pay their mortgages, taxes, etc on expensive homes? You can’t be serious.
Cities change and evolve. That’s what they do. You don’t get to hit pause because you like things now. And if you try to, the consequences are dire.
@cambridgeresident
+1
The NIMBYs have held back development for years, creating this housing crisis. Now they say “it’s too much change”. They should have thought of that years ago and allowed gradual growth.
This expansion is needed. People need homes. The population is going up whether you like it or not.
The authors of this letter offer no solutions to the housing crisis. They just offer a bunch of alarmist hyperbole and misleading distortions.
And they would deny families homes.
The claims that we need to use city land are more non-seriousness, trying to trick those not paying close attention. Councilor Nolan uses this silly sleight-of-hand as well.
2072 Mass Ave was on city-owned land—bought by the city’s Affordable Housing Trust for the explicit purpose of building affordable housing near transit—but the authors opposed it. https://www.communitypreservation.org/cpc-report
Stop treating your neighbors like they are idiots.
Just be honest and say you don’t want affordable housing instead of coming up with this endless blizzard of bad-faith nonsense.
FrankD – and others. Let’s keep to facts. People living in AHO units have to pay a percentage of the rent. So most tenants have to work. And today, a significant percentage of Cambridge residents and those living elsewhere are working from home (telecommuting). Is it 45% in Cambridge? (I would have to check). This new post-covid move to telecommuting is having an impact on office vacancies in Cambridge and elsewhere. We all should be open to a wide array of approaches to these issues – in Cambridge and the area. I know that I am. Yes to adding more housing – and to insisting that the CDD do the kind of planning and design that would address both the locations that are best suited and the added issues around infrastructure, transportation, schools, green spaces, and other needs.
@Hello Cambridge
@HelloCambridge
Wow. Let’s review.
1 The authors used a highly misleading image to suggest a 25-story building in the center of Harvard Square.
Nonsense. Not going to happen in a historic district
2. The authors called raising height restrictions for affordable housing not thought out and questionable.
In fact, this is considered proposal based on actual data from experts around the country and the world. You can Google this.
3. The authors’ counter proposal is use of city land.
The authors are suggesting an alternative they have already rejected.
The mendacity is strong in this group
I forgot one.
4. The authors claim “secret” meetings and no feedback from the community.
In fact, there is a well documented series of public meetings about the proposal.
And, finally, they would deny housing to families. They objecting to everything and offering nothing. Even the alternative they offer has already been rejected by them.
Erm — you seem to think that Cambridge is just home to “tech”.
You expect biotech employees in the worlds leading hub for biotech research to work from home?
even if they are working from home you can’t evict these high paid workers from the city if they want to live here and can afford to live here, even if they are working from home.
Last — the privilege and lack of perspective in your post is surreal, but perhaps not surprising since it was written from the ivory tower.
The people the AHO will be helping are not working in jobs that can be done remotely. Unless we have remote EMS workers, grocers, and bud drivers now?
Wow…
I’m actually appalled at your lack of understanding of this city’s economy and the businesses driving the growth. There is no lab space vacancy in Cambridge, even with the biotech stock downturn there is will insatiable demand for lab space.
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about
Last — it is well known that office conversions are often completely uneconomical.
Employees are still requiring employees go in some or most days a week.
Biotech will always have fully staffed physical space.
This argument is inane