The Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved an 18-unit East Cambridge condominium recently that includes four affordable units. The project was also endorsed by the East Cambridge Planning Team – the neighborhood organization that pays close attention to development. The site is currently occupied by a Dunkin’ Donuts’ and a large parking lot at Monsignor O’Brien Highway and Third Street.
This development is possible thanks only to the zoning reform passed by the City Council last October. It ended the long-standing rule of one parking space for each unit of housing. Cambridge is among a wave of cities across North America ending 1950s-era car-centric mandatory parking requirements. This frees the space previously required for parking for more housing and open space. More homes will be available for Cambridge families at a lower cost per unit with more trees.
Before the council lifted the parking requirement, the same developer had proposed a project for this site. The first proposal complied with 2022 zoning regulations. It was for three duplexes with six parking spaces and 1,900 square feet of open space. Thanks to the zoning reform, the revised project adds 12 more homes, including the four affordable units, and 600 more square feet of open space (a 31 percent increase!).
But where will these families park? Of the 18 households, about 12 will own cars, according to Community Development Department statistics. They will have options – they can pay for a reserved parking space in a nearby garage or use publicly subsidized free parking (also known as on-street parking). Some may choose to use a combination of public transport, biking and occasional car-sharing options instead of owning a car. The Lechmere T stop and a grocery store are only a three-minute and a six-minute walk. Our ever-increasing bike infrastructure is giving many more safe alternatives.
Not only does this project give more families access to the benefits of living in Cambridge and chips away at the 21,000-plus Can’t Wait List, but creating more homes near transit is also an important part of Cambridge keeping its place as a climate leader.
A trade of 12 homes for six parking spaces is a good deal. When a third of those homes are affordable, it’s even better!
Camilla Elvis, Linnaean Street
Camilla Elvis is on the board of directors of the group A Better Cambridge, which advocates for housing.
This post was updated July 30, 2023, with the group affiliation of the author.
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.
The trouble is not with reasonably-sized projects as this 18 unit project seems to be. The real issue is when massive projects such as Mass Ave and Walden combine with no parking minimums that the damage occurs. It’s so disappointing that we cannot trust our current City Councillors to keep things reasonable
Right on Camilla. Look around with an open mind, and you’ll see that Our Fair City is essentially a vast parking lot and road network with schools, shops and (not nearly enough) homes jammed inbetween. We can do better.
Swan song for the politicians doing what is good for our community.
The fewer the number of parking spaces, the greater the livability of the city.
Hear, hear.
The unreasonable position—particularly during a housing crisis—is blocking an 8-story building next to a T stop like 2072 Mass. Ave.
This is a profoundly ignorant position on an incredibly drawn out and complex project. In fact, the first project was far better and would have provided housing for families and with a reasonable set back off of O’Brien HIghway and parking. This project in no way will be livable choice for any family,reasonably concerned about safety for their children. Rather than sailing through the process once parking minimums were removed, the BZA essentially refused to rule since there were so many lingering legal issues with easement access for very longtime abutters. Attorneys for both sides were involved. ECPT only supported the project after the developer agreed to finally honor the century old easements without resorting to land court. BZA essentially affirmed ECPT position in toto. As far as parking availability? Perhaps the writer is referring to the municipal parking garage on First that the city essentially gave to Legatt McCall for 99 years? Good luck with that!!
what does 2072 Mass Ave have to do with off street parking? that project had so many permits and variances needed the (for-profit) developers (with $3 mm from the city), that the BZA couldn’t grant it. there were many exceptions and details including poor design and one elevator for a tall building on a busy corner.
As for no parking, let’s see what happens in winter, with electric vehicles, and low wage workers returning from shifts outside the city. They are the ones needing parking.
Mighty – What else would you expect from someone on the Board of “A Bigger Cambridge”?? Ideology trumps common sense and practical knowledge of and familiarity with a neighborhood and it’s concerns. In fact, I suspect the very concept of “neighborhood” is actually a dirty word for some of these self-styled “experts.” Can we now expect to see some new development proposals for Linnean Street, too?(Haha.) But first, could we at least see something done about the boarded up windows at the property at 45 Linnean, owned and operated by the Cambridge Housing Authority?? Apparently, “affordable” isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be, even on Linnean Street!
[From the website of “A Bigger Cambridge”:
As of January 2023, our Board of Directors includes:
Camilla Elvis
Daniel Hidalgo
Bill McAvinney, Treasurer
Kathleen Onufer
Dan Phillips
Justin Saif, Board President
Becca Schofield ]
More space for cars=/=better for families as you seem to suggest. Cars kill more kids than literally anything else in the commonwealth, including guns. The added open space at this project will offer a lot more safety and livability for children than more parking would have.
There are families without cars, there are families in apartments. Especially in a city as dense as Cambridge, “families” should not be synonymous with single family homes, white picket fences, and minivans (now increasingly SUVs).
I’m sure the 12 families that will live there and wouldn’t have been able to before won’t care very much about an absurd setback.
Amazing how decisively the anti housing people have lost this argument if that is the only “fact” that can be cited for why the old project was “better”
Curious about this ill-informed Opinion Piece, I looked up the author. It seems she is on the Board of the pro-developer group, A Better Cambridge, and has also served on the election campaign of one of their Councillors’ Burhan Azeem, who has championed this policy on social media. Why this important background information not revealed by the author or editor – particularly since the election season is now underway. The environmental harms of such a policy are clear, removing critically needed green spaces and trees, especially important in highly dense neighborhoods such as East Cambridge which face heat island impacts and environmental injustice concerns as a result. What is also noteworthy in this piece is that the author is also pushing the AHO-2.0 citywide upzoning proposal that this Pac put into play for this election, and has misrepresented what this is about. The number more often give for the Cambridge-specific residents on our Affordable Housing lists is closer to 3,000-3,500 individuals. The number cited by this author instead is for the broader group of people in need around the country and area seeking to find a place in our city’s subsidized housing, most of whom sign up on multiple lists in our city and others.
A number of Cambridge Councillors continues to have reverse “field of dreams” mentality about parking minimums and bike lanes. But if you don’t build it or decide to remove it (parking spots) they (cars) won’t simply not come.
Our transportation issues are complex — we need reliable and affordable mass transit — which we DO NOT have; we need more affordable housing — with parking for those who must drive to work outside the city; removal of parking minimums simply enabled big builders to offer parking (usually at a steep fee) to high-end buyers and lock the lower income brackets out of a spot; we need professional street planning done by qualified planners to move the traffic through our city — not stall it on our major thoroughfares; we need public parking facilities near commercial centers — not a few spots on the side street converted from resident parking.
We need Councillors who see the big picture, who make decisions based on facts and research not ideology, who listen to constituents, and who are not beholden to special interests.
We need to think about that when voting in November.
I’d be OK with this if these same properties were not given any resident or visitor parking permits. If the argument is that mass transit and bikes and walking will take over for cars, then let’s follow through and get rid of the parking permits that these properties would otherwise be given.
@NC walker “But if you don’t build it or decide to remove it (parking spots) they (cars) won’t simply not come.” Is actually literally true and there is documented evidence of this all around the world. If you build infrastructure that centers cars the car will be central, if you don’t more people will take alternative modes and fewer will primarily rely on the car. I suggest you look into the related concepts of “induced demand” and “traffic evaporation.” Both have plenty written about them at this point.
“Our transportation issues are complex — we need reliable and affordable mass transit — which we DO NOT have” and demanding more space for parking isn’t going to get us there. In fact it is one of the barriers to things like bus lanes that increase the speed and reliability of transit.
“we need more affordable housing” – we do
“with parking for those who must drive to work outside the city” – we do not and as I explain below this will directly make the housing less affordable.
“removal of parking minimums simply enabled big builders to offer parking (usually at a steep fee) to high-end buyers and lock the lower income brackets out of a spot” this is nonsense. Low income people are a significantly less likely to own cars in the first place, which means that when parking is included in their building it raises the costs for them for an amenity they do not need or use. Building a single parking space costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are much better ways to spend that money in affordable housing development.
“we need professional street planning done by qualified planners to move the traffic through our city” this is already what is happening, you just think you know better than the experts. The FTA also recently reviewed Cambridge’s bike infrastructure and was highly positive about the improvements for all road users.
“not stall it on our major thoroughfares” bus and bike lanes both have higher capacity than general travel lanes so adding these lanes to major thoroughfares actually boosts capacity and allows more people to flow through in the same time. What is actually stalling traffic the major thoroughfares is cars. I suggest you look up diagrams of how much space the same number of people take up as pedestrians, on bikes, on transit, and in single occupancy vehicles. It is absurd how bad the urban geometry of cars is.
” we need public parking facilities near commercial centers — not a few spots on the side street converted from resident parking.” No we do not. The existing lots around commercial centers are rarely ever full, especially the lots around central. There already is parking but when we undervalue the cost of parking along the curb no one wants to pay for it.
Clearing land for parking, which in a city as dense as this is the only option if you want to add more parking in those places, is how you destroy town centers and downtowns not improve them. Let Houston make those mistakes, Cambridge should and thankfully does know better.
@Jerry Vandesic, sure lets do it, and while we are at it let’s gradually reduce the number of permits for existing residents as well.
^ my dude you are arguing with people who complain about preserving green space In a parking-free development that has more green space than the original plan had with parking.
Apparently paving over green is fine for parking SUVs
@Slaw +1. You are arguing with NIMBYs whose main priority is a parking spot for their SUVs.
Families need housing and cars hurt and kill people (and the planet). We can address these issues if people stop opposing any change whatsoever.
In the interest of transparency, Ms. Elvis is also a City employee and previously served as campaign manager for Councilor Azeem, a conflict of interest that led to her censure by the state Office of Campaign and Politicial Finance. So does this piece represent her opinion, or that of the City administration, Councilor Azeem, and/or ABC, a developer-funded Political Action Committee that itself has been censured by OCPF?
Doug, no surprise coming from a NIMBY CCC donor like you, but those are serious misrepresentations.
CCC received the same type of OCPF no-action letter, and you’ve written in Cambridge Day without disclosing any affiliations, so apparently you should be pointing fingers at yourself as well.
http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/actions/cccpac2019.pdf
Cambridge Day does not appear to have any policy regarding what affiliations letter writers should disclose, and past letters are easily found on this site that do not include such information, so this whole thing just reeks of bias. Does Cambridge Day have a policy against libelous comments?