In a rendering of the Walden Square II affordable-housing project, an existing building is at right and a proposed structure at left. (Image: WinnCompanies)

A version of a 100 percent-affordable-housing project in North Cambridge known as Walden Square II was met with generally positive feedback from neighbors as the Cambridge Planning Board heard its proposal Tuesday – the first since the idea’s 2021 unveiling. Opposition to the project remains, however, in the form of signatures on a petition led by former City Council candidate Federico Muchnik.

While several neighbors had concerns about the project, most seemed generally appreciative of the developer’s design changes and neighborhood engagement; previous neighborhood meetings for older versions were marked by divisions between neighbors for and against the project. 

The site, owned by WinnCompanies, has 240 affordable apartments across 20 three-story buildings and one nine-story building. Winn proposes to add 95 affordable units: 33 one-bedroom units, 33 two-beds, 23 three-beds and six four-beds spread across two buildings, one 80 feet tall at seven stories and the other 69 feet at six stories. Twenty-seven units will rent to households at or below 80 percent of the area median income; 44 at or below 60 percent; and 24 at or below 30 percent.

In an interview, Winn spokesman Ed Cafasso highlighted that more than 1,000 households stood on the waitlist for affordable units at Walden Square. 

Winn had originally proposed a 450-foot, eight-story slab that would have partially blocked the Yerxa Road Underpass while cutting down mature trees and taking away parking spaces. The design and mismanagement of Winn properties prompted then-mayor Sumbul Siddiqui to write a letter questioning whether Winn should expand. Since this 2021 proposal, Winn has changed its design significantly and received a blessing from the former mayor. 

The new design features a parking garage and tunnel under the larger of the buildings as an extension of Walden Square Road, and it adds 10 parking spaces. The design also calls for a bike and community path connecting to the Yerxa Road Underpass, as well as improvements to pedestrian and bike circulation through raised crossings and new pavements. The project still requires the destruction of several mature trees.

Road? Driveway?

The board’s main issue with the plan concerned the use of Walden Square Road, which is connected to the use of the site as a whole. While many elements of the site, such as open space and the Yerxa underpass, are public elements, board members asked for clarity regarding whether Walden Square Road would function as a public road or a private driveway – especially since that section of road is explicitly owned by Winn.

Tom Sieniewicz, vice chair of the board, was in favor of using the road for more of a public use, which would require additional safety measures. “That might mean that when you have a crosswalk that’s close to an underpass, that it looks like a crosswalk – that it’s got zebra stripes that are painted on the ground,” Sieniewicz said.

Board member Mary Lydecker fell the other way, believing that section should function as a driveway, citing pedestrian safety as one reason. “I could imagine more ride-share potentially, but I don’t think the site itself necessarily is warranting a lot more vehicular traffic,” she said. 

Sieniewicz cited his time as an architect during Boston’s Big Dig tunnel project, and noted that, as people enter the tunnel in their cars, their eyes will need time to adjust so they can see pedestrians in the tunnel.

Neighborhood reacts

The majority of the meeting’s attendees seemed satisfied with Winn’s changes. Former city councillor David Sullivan, who lives near the proposed project, commended Winn for “listening carefully to neighborhood comments and making appropriate changes.”

Kathy Higgins, another neighbor, stressed the need for affordable housing. “What makes it great is the 95 new permanent 100 percent affordable units and the fact that they will include many large family-size, and 5 percent will be accessible to those with wheelchairs.” Other nearby neighbors agreed, with one calling it a great site for additional affordable housing.

Opposition to the plan has held fast, however, in the form of a petition by Muchnik, who has now collected more than 600 signatures – more than 100 just this week. Muchnik noted that he delivered copies of the petition, whose goal is to block the development entirely, to members of the Planning Board, Community Development Department, city manager, mayor and the City Council. 

Because the project falls under Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay, the board’s comments function mostly as suggestions, and members are unable to block the project’s development. In an interview, Muchnik acknowledged this, but remained confident that “public opinion can change things,” adding that his email list includes “a few thousand people.” 

Some neighbors expressed concerns over the general circulation of pedestrians, bikes and cars around the site. 

Additionally, Muchnik and neighbors – as well as board member H Theodore Cohen – were troubled about the project’s cutting down mature trees and replacing them with mostly ornamental trees, despite the plan’s promises to replace all trees cut down. Neighbors and the board echoed a Community Development Department memo that prefers felled trees get replacements with the widest diameter possible. 

Designs become set

Several community members who were architects or said they’d consulted with architects were at the meeting. Norma Wassel expressed concerns about the use of the covered Walden Square Road: “A main concern is still the heavy use of that road.” She said alternative designs by three architects working pro bono were submitted to sway minds toward other approaches. 

Chair of the board Mary Flynn asked whether such public comments and collaboration would be taken into consideration. James Rafferty, a Cambridge attorney who represents Winn, was clear that the collaborative phase of the project was over: “In terms of realistic expectations, I don’t think we envision a further participant collaboration on significant design change.” Matt Robayna, the project lead, said Winn had made a “good-faith effort” to change the plans according to neighbor wants. 

Flynn and the board ultimately agreed with neighbors who favored the project. “You responded very well to the community in terms of working with them to redesign this, to still try to achieve the 95 units but to do it in a way that is better integrated into the site and meets the needs of the residents and addresses issues that were raised,” Flynn said.

Winn will need to return for a second design review, after which it will need to work out funding with Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Trust.