
Presentation of plans for 10 city-owned parcels in and around Central Square went poorly Monday, with city councillors dismayed by lackluster public engagement by city staff that left them skeptical of a reportโs conclusions. Both sides were blindsided by the Central Square Business Improvement District announcing the end of its open-air Starlight Square complex.
โWe have decided this year will be Starlight Squareโs last on Lot 5,โ said the letter from the BID, led by president Michael Monestime. Lot 5 is at 84 Bishop Allen Drive, a parking lot that was transformed with scaffolding and scrim during the Covid pandemic to host entertainment, retail and civic gatherings.
The announcement came despite the Central Square Lots Study Report saying that planners envisioned keeping the Starlight Square uses in a permanent structure while adding housing.
โWe have made the difficult decision to refocus our resources on finding a permanent home for Starlight. Its energy, not its temporary physical form, is its most precious asset,โ the letter said, noting that in 2022, the project was awarded federal Covid-relief funds from then-city manager Louis A. Depasquale โto present a path to permanence โฆ last week, that award was rescinded, because it was deemed no longer necessary, given the findingsโ of the lots study.
Monestime was unavailable for comment because of a family emergency.
The cityโs handling of American Rescue Plan funds has drawn some of the sharpest criticism of City Manager Yi-An Huang and his staff, including the surprise withdrawal of promised funds not just to Starlight but from a study of an expanded Jerryโs Pond reclamation project in North Cambridge. Questions have dogged staff over a uniquely bewildering rollout of post-Covid aid toย nonprofits that continued into Monday, when Huang acknowledged โthere was a bit of a desert in communication.โ A Finance Committee meeting takes another look at the aid funds March 26.
[documentcloud url=”https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24459617-030524-central-sqare-lots-study?responsive=1&title=1″]
That desert extended into Central Square over the past week, as the BIDโs announced shutdown at the end of its current license agreement in July โ making its fifth season a half-season โ was a revelation to city staff.
โI went to the BID,โ Huang said. โI said the city is here to be a partner โ come to us with a vision of what you want the future of Starlight to be on Lot 5 or anywhere else. We know that Lot 5 will be available for many more seasons to come. Thatโs why I was so surprised to see this, because we were saying, โWhat is the plan for 2025-2026 and beyond? We are open to it.โโ
That includes the possibility of closing Norfolk Street to car traffic on Starlight Squareโs east border, Huang said, making more room for a Starlight that could have indoor and outdoor gathering places and entertainment โ noise to the closest neighbors has been a problem for the past couple of seasons โ as well as underground parking, retail space and affordable housing overhead.
Skeptical councillors

Councillors were in a skeptical mood, though, led off by Sumbul Siddiquiโs concern about a โdisconnectโ between staff and the BID over a yearslong wait for the Covid funds and sudden deletion. โThat award was first given I think in late 2021?โ she said. โThereโs just been so much time gap. It really makes me disappointed.โ
Siddiqui and vice mayor Marc McGovern shared a concern that a clumsy municipal process would just remove a beloved amenity despite good intentions for the vision described in the cityโs report. โIt would be really upsetting to a lot of people in the community if we lose Starlight and weโre 10 years out before we see anything actually built on that lot,โ McGovern said.
In the study from city staff, two of the 10 parcels are eyed for open space; one for community use; one for office space; one for six to 10 units of supportive housing such as for older adults and people with disabilities; and the rest for mixed uses, such as 689 Massachusetts Ave. being turned into offices and a relocated library branch.ย
Public outreach
Just as the council was nearly unanimous in its discomfort over the shock of the Starlight news, a study that in other circumstances could have been seen as exciting seemed to be greeted largely with mistrust after a look at the studyโs accounting of public engagement over the past seven months: โmore than 15 interviews were done with staffโ; there were more than 75 comments at pop-up events, more than 90 online responses; and more than 250 meeting attendees.
โYouโre going to move the library based on 75 Post-its?โ resident James Williamson asked during public comment.
He wasnโt the only one taken aback.ย
โTwo hundred and fifty is a very, very low number,โ councillor Ayesha Wilson said. โFor four to six months especially during the campaign season, we could tell you โ we knock at thousands, thousands, thousands of doors right during that period, and we touch a lot of people across our city.โ
Holding her temper
Mayor E. Denise Simmons was one of the sharpest critics during the meeting of staff efforts, expressing exasperation by putting up a slide showing that Central Square has had 24 studies dating back more than four decades to 1980 โ โHow long do we have to wait to see something happen?โ Simmons said. โYouโre trying to sell it and I canโt buy itโ โ while noting also that she was disappointed in efforts to capture the will of the people on changes: โ250 people clearly does not represent the depth of the people that are in Central Square,โ Simmons said, noting that there were churches in the square with Sunday congregations that exceeded 200.
When Huang replied that her message was contradictory โ that she was simultaneously asking for more reliance on existing studies and more outreach โย Simmons had to control her temper, beginning at a yell and then modulating. โIโm going to try to be my better self,โ she said. โWe thought that the community engagement was lacking. As we go forward, I want it to look better. Thatโs what I thought I heard, and thatโs how I feel. I donโt want to start anything over.โ
Looking ahead
The Central Square study is expected to go out as a โrequest for informationโ to the developer community within the next four to six weeks, said Melissa Peters, director of community planning for Cambridge. That two-month response period will be used to take things to the next step, issuing a request for developer proposals. The information will help the city โget a better sense of our options in terms of development, economics and business models so that we can have a clear RFP that lists what outcomes we are looking at โ X number of housing units, affordability requirements, affordable commercial space, civic space, parking and really what we think is financially feasible,โ Peters said.
The requests were expected to feed into an ongoing rezoning of Central Square, but the intersecting timelines for developing the lots and rezoning the entire area โ what Peters called parallel processes โย proved confusing.
โWhen the zoning is done, will that change what weโre seeing here in the fit study? I would think what youโre looking at now is based on current zoning,โ councillor Joan Pickett said.
Itโs true, Peters said, and the RFP for the cityโs 10 lots will wait until after the zoning is done โ which itself would mean โgoing back to the communityโ for input, but probably not something as formal as putting together a working group such as the one looking at changes on Massachusetts Avenue from Cambridge Common into North Cambridge. A working group is โcertainly something that we can consider,โ Peters said. โIt might extend the deadline.โ



Completely feckless city council. Huang was right to call out the hypocrisy of the councillor, and this is further proof that our city manager form of government is probably the only reason things are even kind-of working. The city council has proven itself incapable of leading.
Central has numerous empty/vacant/decrepit parking lots that sit unused because this council refuses to lead. It simultaneously complains about how “nothing gets done” WHILE managing to continue doing nothing.
Stop doing endless studies and just do something.
Edited, for later-call me when youโre done in NC:
Wow. I had to read this and the Starlight love letter four times to really grasp the colossal fumble this is by the city of Cambridge. A non profit (!) group stands up an award-winning program at the height of COVID that becomes a cherished community destination, so much so that it earns an ARPA grant. Then, a new City Manager is hired and decides to rescind the money (unilaterally?) and support his Community Development Department (need to rename this department immediately) in publishing a study that says the private sector will build, in this economy, a laundry list of uses on the same property, including the preciously held community space. This study is destroyed by Council on Monday and the Manager cries wolf.
Iโm laughing and Iโm crying.
Godspeed to the Starlight team.
Wow. I had to read this and the Starlight love letter four times to really grasp the colossal fumble this is by the city of Cambridge. A non profit (!) group stands up an award-winning program at the height of COVID that becomes a cherished community destination, so much so that it earns an ARPA grant. Then, a new City Manager is hired and decides to rescind the money (unilaterally?) and support his Community Development Department (need to rename this department immediately) in publishing a study that says the private sector will build, in this economy, a laundry list of uses on the same property, including the preciously held community space. This study is destroyed by Council on Monday and the Manager cries wolf.
Iโm laughing and Iโm crying.
Godspeed to the Starlight team.
It’s about time someone thought about the unfortunate home owners and residents who have to put up with all the noise, garbage and drug use going on at this entertainment venue. The pandemic is over. Let’s get back to normal life.
The future of Starlight is important, but even more important is whether affordable housing or high-end market rate housing is built on city-owned lots. The city study is saying that some lots, like Lot 4 at the corner of Bishop Allen and Essex St., would only have market housing on them.
Every year Cambridge residents say we need more affordable housing. I do not want market housing built on city-owned lands that provide a great opportunity for affordable housing. The city’s request for information that is going out soon needs to specify that we want affordable housing.
Thousands of high-end market housing units have been built in the last few years and it includes 20% affordable. We should not miss a chance for 100% affordable housing on city-owned land.
Lee,
Not that I’d dare question the validity of a statement made by the Cambridge Residents Aliiance/DSA but have we really built “Thousands of high-end market housing units have been built in the last few years?” Do you have that right? If so that would mean hundreds of affordable housing has also been built because as you state this was all done with 20% inclusionary. If so that’s astounding and I guess it could also mean that maybe that affordable housing is being built and thus starlight … a truly unique space … may be slightly more important than something we appear to already be doing. There is of course the rest of Central Sq which needs to be completely reworked and if what you said is correct, and I’ve no reason to think it not, we will build lots of affordable housing via 20% inclusionary and we can leave starlight where it is and built a bigger and badder square within the square because, and I’m sure you’ll totes agree, Central Sq needs more than the afford able housing you say we are already building. Team work makes the dream work.
Mr. Barrett is a real estate developer and shouldn’t comment. I call conflict of interest.
All of the city owned lots that could support housing must include an option for 100% affordability. To rule out the option for market rate/inclusionary housing or the option of 100% affordable housing at the city owned sites would prematurely limit opportunities and would short circuit what is the desire of the Cambridge community which is for maximizing affordable housing. We have to strategize ways to make funding available by initiating a transfer tax and adding city resources.
Gerald,
Absolutely no one is suggesting affordable or inclusionary be ruled out.
Patrick, take another look at the graphics on the central square city lots study. On page 48/49, for example, 96 Bishop Allen Drive (lot 4), the city indicates that only market rate inclusionary housing is an option. This was brought to my attention by Lee Ferris, see her comment above. I want all options for affordable housing, including 100% affordable, on the table.
It says “market rate with inclusionary” with regard to massing it does not state that only market rate housing is being considered. It also says on page 48 as a “community highlight” that affordable housing is required. It is a bit confusing though. However while I know it’s envogue to manufacture outrage this really shouldn’t be one of those moments. The lot study was not CDDs finest work product. Producing this document without a complete overhaul of zoning is a waste of time. I hate to see Central Sq continually stumble like this. We can add 4000 units to Central Sq within a decade if folks actually wish to. Inclusionary is broken and the AHO at most will deliver 400-ish units if any. Market rate is required throughout the district but there is an opportunity for the City to join in by leveraging parcels or creating transfer mechanisms within the district. Vision is required.