Turning a parking lot in Central Square into a tower of all-affordable housing without private investment will shortchange Cambridge, taking up resources that could add more homes for lower-income residents to live citywide, officials said.
Staff have been preparing to send out this month a “request for information” to developers, due back Oct. 4, to whet appetites and spark ideas for 84 and 96 Bishop Allen Drive – parking lots that are part of an area rezoning and a portfolio of city-owned land ripe for use. The larger 84 Bishop Allen Drive was, until recently, the home of the open-air Starlight Square, and its four years as a creative center and meeting space has convinced people to think big about replacing it with a similarly useful but permanent structure as the base for people’s homes.
That the city is inviting interest from private developers on city-owned land, and is open to including market-rate homes, has caused some unrest.
“The RFI does not accurately reflect the vision that I heard from many people,” said Lee Farris, head of the Cambridge Residents Alliance. “I specifically heard residents ask for 100 percent affordable housing on top of a cultural space, not asking for market housing in order to pay for a cultural space.”
Fair enough, if the goal is specifically to have affordable housing in the heart of Central Square, City Manager Yi-An Huang said Aug. 5 at the summer’s special City Council meeting, but “I don’t hear as much of that as the driver for the conversation.”
If the goal is for more affordable housing in Cambridge generally, city officials must look for ways to stretch the millions in its Affordable Housing Trust that, once applied, may not go as far as people would think. Some $80 million went into the trust last year, but in Cambridge the per-unit cost of construction means that would be depleted to build just 320 homes, Huang said.
“It’s not impossible to do 100 percent affordable” where Starlight was, Huang said, “or those units end up somewhere else in the city” – the same number in one place or another.
Community benefits a private developer
The goal is to grow the number of units, he said.
“There are so many things that we are looking to try to fund that if there are opportunities for us to do a redevelopment by bringing in private capital, those are opportunities we should at least explore,” Huang said.
It’s similar to what the MBTA is doing at Alewife, where the transit agency is inviting in private developers as partners to benefit from state land in a way that will benefit the public, delivering more for less money, Huang said. In Central Square, the city would stay the owner of the land while offering a 50-year lease at no cost to a developer offering the most community benefits in support of the city’s officially stated goal: a mixed-used development that includes affordable housing, affordable commercial space, public parking, open space and a gathering space for arts and culture activities similar to Starlight Square.
The city’s nonprofit developers of affordable housing are invited to the table, said Iram Farooq, assistant city manager for community development. The quasi-governmental Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is also expected to be involved, according to a staff document given to councillors.
Bigger space, a greener square
The two lots in the RFI are on one block, but separated by commercial structures such as an H Mart grocery store. City councillor Burhan Azeem said he hoped the “back corner” space could be enhanced by acquiring or partnering with neighboring businesses.
“Those abutting lots kind of make it a very awkward space. If we’re able to get those neighboring lots, having a proper square in Central Square where people can hang out would be really, really nice,” Azeem said.
That could be fraught: The block has not just busy coffee shops, retail and the grocery store, but an existing Cambridge cultural treasure: Richard B. “Rico” Modica Way, a 100-foot lane known as Graffiti Alley where artists come daily to spray paint the walls to reflect their creative itches, cultural passions and political bents.
Still, Azeem’s hopes are in line with a vision expressed in late July by Geeta Pradhan, president of the Cambridge Community Foundation, of land swaps to allow for the creation of a green space in a square that has none between City Hall and the University Park commons. “We have an opportunity to realize a comprehensive vision for a civic gathering and celebration space, with a density of housing and human-centered design that encourages social interactions and the foot traffic needed to support vibrant economic activity,” Pradhan wrote in an online essay urging “the consolidation of public and private parcels for a beautiful green square.”
Seeking numbers to work with
Councillors on Aug. 5 mainly wanted to understand their options, and asked for data on what could be squeezed out of the city-owned lots: Whether 100 percent affordable on the Starlight Square space meant 20 units and a community space, councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler asked as an example, compared with a mixed-use site that “could be 200 units of affordable housing and 50 market-rate units.”
“I don’t care if it’s a for-profit developer or nonprofit developer, I want the most number of affordable units we can get,” councillor Marc McGovern said in agreement. “What do we say, ‘No, you’re a for-profit developer’ and turn our back on 100 additional units? Let’s find out.”
That information was expected to be developed through the few responses from the RFI – maybe just two or three, staff said – and shape a follow-up “request for proposals” that will come after Central Square is rezoned.
Though Azeem urged staff to move fast (“something this term would be nice,” he said), the timeline doesn’t feel rushed: After the RFIs comes back in October, a community engagement process is expected to last into 2025, with a request for proposals going out next summer.
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.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but why would a private developer even think of building a mixed use of 200 units of affordable housing with 50 units at market rate … and only a 50 years lease?
The numbers make no sense. Additionally, that would be developer would have to go through months and months (no, probably years and years) of community and City Council extreme micro managing. And that would be just to get started if it could ever get to that point.
If you want private developers, you better give them a real financial incentive to even consider a project. And, not just this project; any project in Cambridge. If not, nothing is going to get done except for a lot of meetings of the city council and the relevant “alliances.”
Partial Market rate properties only will increase the speed of gentrification and kick the can down the road, the problem is greed and connections of various city politicians and staff to various developers.
City Council members and board members, their family members and staff as well should have no say or control of development in the city if they have a conflict of interest thru employment, investment or connection to developers in regards to fund raising. We need to not have someone’s other connections influencing the process, this always leads to problems down the road and them not facing any consequences for their decisions or actions if they control the process.
This is a national problem, and if there is a push to expand how many people can sustainably live in Cambridge then we need fair housing, market rates in this state are way above the earnings of far too many people because of speculation and control by the top 10%.
The 254,201 multi-millionaires and 25 Billionaires in this state and their families and companies should not be deciding what is market rate and who gets to live where, as it is a sneaky form of red-lining property.