WinnCompanies’ proposal for additional housing at Walden Square (“Affordable housing additions at Walden Square move forward with Planning Board misgivings,” July 9) looks a lot like our very own Cabrini Green. I very much hope that the city manager, the Community Development Department and the Affordable Housing Trust will stop this apparent runaway train. The additional housing proposed for Walden Square would be a social disaster, unfair to current residents and a hollow promise to its intended residents. It would also be an environmental disaster, since no amount of money could restore the losses to tree cover and air quality that this misguided project would bring about.
Eve Sullivan, Pemberton Street, Cambridge
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.
Leave it alone! Stop messing up communities under the guise of”Making this better”.
Just-A-Start is notorious for doing this, they did it at Rindge towers and now the residents cant have visitor park when they come visit.
Nah
“Environmental disaster,” “losses to air quality,” and “social disaster” sound like exaggerated claims. Any actual evidence for any of that?
We have a housing crisis, and people need homes. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Classic 1960s “environmentalism.” Housing bad, endless asphalt parking lots good. Next.
I frequently use the Walden Park drive to cut through from Porter Square to Danehy Park. So long as Winn is keeping everything clean, it’s a nice walk with some trees and open space. I would hate to lose this.
This project will indeed get built, regardless of the various concerns expressed. That train has left the station (although “moving with delays” if it’s the T.)
Maybe the next project could get built outside North Cambridge and East Cambridge, the densest parts of a dense city?
I don’t get all the hyperbole over the project. Winn made some changes, it seems fine.
NIMYs hate change no matter how many people it helps. Cambridge needs more housing.
My e-mail to WinnDevelopment:
Dear WinnDevelopment,
Curious as to why you passed on taking a second, deeper look at the neighborhood-conceived scheme for the proposed development at Walden Square Road.
Community voices persuaded you to come down to (still a whopping) 250-foot tunnel. And, there’s a better neighborhood-conceived design that brings that tunnel down to a “we can all get along” 60-foot length, avoids heat islands, saves the mature canopy, and adds a net gain of 107 units (as opposed to the net gain of 95 with your plan). On an 80 million dollar project that brings the price per unit down from $842,105 to $747,663, a savings of $94,442 per unit.
More units, less cost per unit, public safety issue solved. Doesn’t it make sense save money while getting more units? Any company or city official would want to take a closer look. It just makes good business sense.
The plan we’re calling: The 3rd Option:
– Brings the total number of new units up from 95 to 107
– Brings down the per unit cost by 100K.
– Shortens the tunnel / parking garage to 60 feet, down from 250
– Sets Building A back from the Yerxa Underpass thereby solving a major public safety matter
– Preserves the site’s oldest, most mature trees, solving a chunk of the negative environmental impact two buildings will have on the site
– Is supported by residents at Walden Square Road, abutters, and nearly 1200 signatures on a petition
See attachments, and take a look at the video (9 mins) at: http://www.openspacefilmproject.net/thefuture, top of the page, “the residents speak”.
In the words of Planning Board chair Mary Flynn: “Why don’t we just slow down a little? It seems to me that we’re throwing caution to the wind and not ackowledging fully that there are still issues that need to be resolved.”
Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
More at: http://www.openspacefilmproject.net/thefuture
————————————–
Before anyone shouts not in my backyard, for the record, I live a half mile away from the site.
Our 1200 petitioners (www.change.org/stoptheslabs) simply recognizes a bad design, a bad location, both of which can be improved by taking a deeper look at the “3rd option” (3rd time’s a charm).
Cant comment on this specific project, but in general we would benefit from a conversation that doesn’t begin with “Cambridge must build enough housing to house every last person who might want to live here”.
Greater Boston Area has a housing crisis. Cambridge is the second densest city in the greater boston area.
NO amount of housing we can build barring dramatically changing the city will solve this problem alone.
Government must consider the lifestyle of the existing residents. Claims otherwise “Housing at all costs!” Are unfair and unjust.
No one ever said, “Cambridge must build enough housing for every person who might want to live here.”
Conversations start with “we need to build more housing” because we are facing a housing crisis. The issue isn’t about building housing for people who “might want to live here”; it’s about housing for essential workers—nurses, retail workers, restaurant staff. These people, despite having full-time jobs, cannot afford to live here. They either travel long distances or are homeless because they can’t afford rent.
This crisis affects more than just the homeless. Unaffordable housing drags down the local economy as businesses struggle to find workers who can afford to live nearby.
People need homes. Workers need homes.
Prioritizing personal lifestyle over addressing a severe housing crisis is short-sighted, selfish, and heartless.
Mr. Muchnik conveniently neglects to mention that the “neighborhood-conceived design” he is pushing requires the demolition of some existing apartments on the site (Buildings 19 & 20), meaning the net housing gain of this supposedly better 3rd option is 97 units (107 new units minus 10 demolished), which is hardly an increase over the developer’s plan for 95 new units. And though the provided design “plan” is really just a vague 2D drawing atop an aerial screenshot, making it hard to be exact, it appears to remove a different group of trees and have a larger overall footprint.
So it’s not actually much better when it comes to tree canopy, heat island effect, or net new units/cost per unit. The biggest difference is the “tunnel” (which is incidentally is 200′ not 250′ long – just another bit of misinformation he’s been circulating) being shortened to 60′, but it’s hard to count this as significant benefit when there hasn’t been a single convincing explanation of why a tunnel is problematic in the first place. Simply repeating “slab and tunnel” over and over again like it’s some weird and scary thing does not constitute a substantive objection.
But sure, let’s tear down apartments well before the end of their service life and displace the existing residents living there, not to mention further delay housing for nearly 100 low-income families, just so that someone who owns a 1.9 million-dollar property a half-mile away (not even the tallest building in Walden Square is visible from his house) doesn’t have his aesthetic sensibilities offended when he cuts through Walden Square to get to Danehy Park or uses the Yerxa underpass! At least the author of this op-ed is an actual abutter, even if her objections are bunk.
This piece is a dogwhistle, racially coded, denigration of public housing masquerading as concern for its residents and the environment.
Complaints of a “social disaster” sound like a dog whistle to me.
Cambridge’s population is rising, and people need homes. Cities evolve; you can’t hit the freeze button when you move in.
“Unfair and unjust” describes a few self-centered people blocking developments that benefit the greater good.
This is why the AHO is needed: to prevent people from using vague, selfish complaints to block much-needed housing.
You know what impacts lifestyle? Not being able to afford a home.
I don’t support this proposal. Enough is enough. Our taxes have more than doubled since we moved here.
The only recourse I can think of is to vote in City Council members who support a livable Cambridge. Cambridge will never be able to support every person who would like to live here.
NIMBY is not the issue so don’t waste your time replying with this generic response. Housing projects our in my backyard already and I fully support these.
@Ruby The Winn plan will bring much-needed affordable housing, allowing essential workers like nurses, police officers, and restaurant staff to live in our community. “Livable Cambridge” means ensuring these workers can afford to live here.
It’s unlivable when essential workers are priced out, local businesses can’t find employees, and traffic and pollution increase from long commutes.
“Enough is enough” is just the NIMBY rallying cry. The tax increases have nothing to do with this plan.
It’s ironic when people say, “Don’t build here where I live,” but insist NIMBY isn’t a factor.
Enough is NOT enough when thousands are waiting for affordable housing.
“Enough is enough” defines NIMBY.
Eve, with all due respect, you bought your home 50 years ago and haven’t had to deal with the incredible rise in housing cost. Your home’s assessed value has outpaced inflation by over 600% since then, in part because Cambridge has continued to add thousands of jobs but nowhere near enough housing.
@Jason we’re not expecting Cambridge to solve the housing crisis alone, but Cambridge needs to start doing its part in solving it. Pointing out that Cambridge is already somewhat dense is only looking at one part of the equation: the supply. It doesn’t consider how we’re manipulating demand for housing. Fact of the matter is that we have added tens of thousands of jobs in the last few decades, and only a fraction of the number of homes. We’re one of the greatest contributors to the housing crisis in the region, we need to step up and become a part of the solution.
People want to benefit from a city’s economic growth and job opportunities but oppose meeting the housing needs that come with it. People want to live where jobs are.
“Let someone else do it, we’re dense enough already” sums up NIMBYism.
@cwec Cambridge has been doing its part for a very long time.
@avgJoe, NIMBY is a cop-out. Since it is so easy to get ‘on the list’ for affordable housing here in Cambridge, the ‘list’ is long and outdated for starters.
MrNice, I agree with the increase in traffic and polution, but I will point to the one lane now in Mass Ave as a major contributor to this. Another screwed up Cambridge plan.
@Ruby
Do you have evidence to support your claim that the affordable housing list is “too easy” and “outdated”? It sounds like an opinion, not fact.
The changes to Mass Ave are for safety and to reduce traffic. Calling them “screwed up” is your opinion. City planners make changes like this because they work.
More affordable housing in Cambridge would mean fewer people driving to Cambridge, which would also reduce traffic. Many Cambridge residents get around without a car. You can’t do that if you have to drive to Cambridge for work.
As for Cambridge “doing its part for a long time,” it hasn’t been enough. Housing has lagged behind job creation, causing a housing crisis. Cambridge hasn’t done enough, not even close.
People shouldn’t have to endure substandard housing or long commutes just because a few privileged people want to protect their property values or their notions of city “character” or “lifestyle.”
Thank God for the AHO. This shows why it was sorely needed. It’s disgraceful when people try to pull up the ladder after they’ve climbed it.
If you think the affordable housing list is “too easy” and “outdated” (claims made without evidence), consider this:
“Affordable” is defined as 30 percent of income. Almost 50 percent of Cambridge renters struggle to pay their rent, with many paying half their income or more. Some pay 60 or 70 percent, according to housing advocates.
But Cambridge has “done enough”? Clearly not.
You have owned a home here for a long while.
Cambridge has been good to you. Maybe consider letting it be good to others too, especially those in need.
@Ruby
As others have pointed out already, Cambridge has been adding to the demand for housing much more than it has been addressing said demand. The only thing it’s “doing its part” in is delivering sky-high property values for the select few in Cambridge fortunate enough to own their homes.
It’s disheartening. Long-time homeowners who have benefited from rising property values now block others from similar opportunities. They deny people homes for trivial and selfish reasons, like preferring the status quo and protecting their property values.
Cities evolve. @Ruby: The Cambridge you bought into years ago was different from the city of the previous generation, and it will continue to change. Do you think you can stop this just because you’re now part of it?
Denying workers homes out of petty self-interest is morally reprehensible.
If we’re going to nitpick lists: of the much-touted 1200 signatures on the petition against this development, only 192 are in the zip code containing Walden Square. And likely only a small fraction of those are *actual* neighbors/abutters for whom this project could plausibly have any kind of impact, given the same zip code also encompasses areas like Avon Hill and the entirety of North Cambridge.
In fact, the majority (~700) of the 1200 signatures are out-of-state, including around 50 from each of FL, TX, and NY, and 70+ from CA. Just ~400 are from Cambridge – certainly not the 70% that Mr. Muchnik told the Cambridge Day last month. Not to mention the sprinkling of duplicates and questionable signatories such as “sweatyclanyt sweaty” and “The Glee Club”…
Anyone in charge of an online petition should do these incredibly basic validation steps and be honest/transparent about the caveats, but of course the “1200 signatures” that Mr. Muchnik’s been throwing around sounds more impressive and better supports his effort to create the illusion of widespread neighborhood opposition to this project.
@picoplaff Wow. Everything Federico Muchnik has said about this development is misleading, disingenuous, or an outright lie.
I guess if your morals allow you to keep people out of homes for trivial reasons, lying is no big deal.