What we’re missing from Envision Cambridge
Envision Cambridge is a remarkable collaborative plan. From 2016 to 2018, more than 5,000 Cantabrigians participated to usher in a comprehensive plan to guide Cambridge in the following years, including more than 2,000 survey respondents, more than 115 committee members and more than 74 public meetings.
Circumstances around Envision changed when certain assumptions were off target, though. The need for an update is apparent.
The Covid pandemic disrupted the plan materially, exacerbating a housing affordability crisis by changing the nature of work to work-from-home.
We also contradicted ourselves in some areas in execution. While we highlighted learning as one of our cherished values, we discontinued our support for some foreign-language schools, at least for some time. We bemoan that 40 percent of our surface is impervious, yet want to turn the Fresh Pond Golf Course from a green space into a residential area. While we celebrated our city as a city of neighborhoods, we jumped to the fast implementation of several policies amid a noticeable outcry of social neglect.
It is time for us to reenvision and adjust. We should add emergency preparedness as one of the domains of our discussion. The pandemic, the opioid abuse epidemic and the emerging crisis of migrants will require a different touch to our policy priority and city workforce. We should also add government competency as one of our desired goals. Otherwise, we can have all the lofty goals we want but won’t see better outcomes anytime soon.
We also need to think outside the box. We may not need to build any Burj Khalifa in Cambridge, but why can’t we build two or three John Hancocks in places such as the Fresh Pond Shopping Mall? Will it not add 3,000 housing units and bountiful businesses to solve our collective problem? Will it not spare many squares and corridors near and dear to the hearts of neighborhoods?
Adding 3,175 affordable-housing units is equivalent to adding three Prudential or John Hancock buildings, which will save us from adding at least two dozen 12-story buildings across the city. This seems a plausible option, especially if we also want to enlarge our open spaces as asked by the plan.
Hao Wang, candidate for Cambridge City Council
The same people that oppose the AHO amendments would also oppose towers at Fresh Pond. In fact, they’ll oppose any density increase anywhere. We should ignore them, pass the AHO amendments, and upzone Fresh Pond.
Also, calling a golf course a green space is a joke. It offers no environmental benefit over just about any alternative use. Urban golf courses are one of the worst uses of land, next to landfills and large surface parking lots. They serve few people while wasting land that could house thousands of people, dozens of businesses, and acres of public park land.
Hao, I agree with you.
The Cambridge Crossing neighborhood is a great example. People were complaining before it opened about how bad it would be, saying that there would be too much traffic and not enough parking. But now it is here, and it is next to transit, and it is really wonderful. We have a very large public park and open natural space, picnic tables, and places for people to eat and drink, and some large housing buildings as well as more space for people who are doing really amazing work. There are also so many people biking from the new path and also walking around with their dogs and families.
I agree that we need to think BIG and BOLD, and make that new area special. If we up-zone Fresh Pond, let’s make sure the developers are locked into very generous public space commitments and enough housing, but let’s let them go big, too.
I agree that the Fresh Pond area could be one site for taller affordable buildings, but not to “spare” other areas. There’s no harm to spare those neighborhoods from – height, density, and affordability don’t hurt anyone! Some people don’t like taller buildings or affordable housing, sure, but that’s not the same as suffering harm.
It’s not a good idea to concentrate affordable housing in just one area of a city. Every neighborhood is an appropriate place for affordable housing, and every neighborhood is an appropriate place for added height and density. Building tall, densely, and affordably in only the areas where those kinds of buildings already exists just propagates past patterns of legally sanctioned segregation.
@multimodel, how are you? I hope the sunshine brings us a better day. @cambridgegent and @ Jess, thank you for agreeing with some of what I wrote. Even if we build taller buildings in easier-to-build areas, the building should be mixed and house all kinds of housing, not just affordable. We should house the crucial city workforce. I am running as a voice for all minorities, including “just 4,000” golfers using Fresh Pond Golf Course (:-). Talk to you later.
A friendly disclaimer: I am not specifically calling to build John Hancock like buildings in Fresh Pond Shopping Center. It is a figure of speech. Adding 3175 units is equivalent to adding several large buildings in easier-to-build places such as Fresh Pond Shopping Mall, compared to harder-to-build places such as Central Square. Where to build and how tall to build is up to the civic consensus. Thank you.
@multimodal- re FP Golf Course- you might ask the hawks, owls coyotes and deer who live at the FP Golf Course if it is not a green space. You also might ask the people who walk Fresh Pond if they are not invigorated by the occasional sightings of those non-human animals in a reasonably welcoming habitat.
While certain animals might be able to make do with a golf course instead of a natural environment those are the exception. Using bio-diversity to defend a golf course is ridiculous. Golf courses are monocrops of invasive grasses, use huge amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, and even just the trimmings have huge negative impacts on water quality because of algae blooms (crazy to have one next to a reservoir). Golf is legitimately a threat to bio-diversity and a healthy environment.
Golf also requires just about the highest land usage per participant of just about any sport. It is inherently an elite and minority sport. All of that environmental damage exists only to benefit a small and privileged minority.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/07/17/golf-is-a-giant-board-game-damaging-the-planet-time-for-it-to-go
It possible to actually improve the ecosystem and add housing if you get rid of the golf.
@Slaw thanks for sharing your view. Knowing I may lose your vote if I have not yet, I want to say that just because golf is arguably an “elite and minority” sport, we should not simply ban it in Cambridge. Losing Fresh Pond Golf Course will mean that Cambridge will be the only famed city without one. I admire Tiger Woods as my idol not because he is an elitist but because he is a commoner like us who excel in this sports. There are youngsters in our city use FPGC as their home course aspiring to some day become successful like Tiger Woods. Just because we need affordable housing, we shouldn’t rid of Central Park from Manhattan or Boston Common from Boston or bike lanes from Cambridge. We can find solutions to build affordable housing while preserving our open spaces.
I specifically mentioned that without the golf course you could expand actual green space and add housing so the comparison to losing Central Park or the common is just a red herring. This golf course is not equivalent to those multi use and multi purpose spaces it is a huge amount of space dedicated to a single, and yes highly elite, activity.
Preserve actual open space for everyone not golf courses for the rich. And using the infinitesimally small chance that someone on that course could make it big time out of poverty as an excuse to keep it is using the illusion of meritocracy to preserve inequality. Cambridge deserves better public spaces.
We can agree that Cambridge deserves better public spaces. I also believe Cambridge deserves a golf course. It is in a flood zone and adjacent to a wonderful senior center. We should not displace residents or their activities just because one does not like elites. With that said, I am interested in meeting you and learn your perspectives.
It being in a flood zone is all the more reason to get rid of it. As I said already:
“Golf courses are monocrops of invasive grasses, use huge amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, and even just the trimmings have huge negative impacts on water quality because of algae blooms (crazy to have one next to a reservoir)”
Ending the golf course wouldn’t displace anyone, that framing is completely bad faith. Here is what it could look like: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2021/06/01/transform-a-golf-course-into-a-peoples-park/