The headline announced a first-ever occurrence in our city: “Affordable Housing Trust holds Walden Square loan commitment during tumult over design,” Aug. 6. And, in case the news didn’t fully register, the article added: “This is the first time the trust has delayed accepting a Planning Board final report under the AHO” and “The unexpected move by the Affordable Housing Trust on Aug. 1 delays confirmation of a $18.8 million city loan commitment to the project.”
For the residents at Walden Square Road, abutters and community organizers working to bring quality public housing to our city, the news represents a significant win. It took a small group of committed individuals working to keep the public informed through media campaigns, a petition (nearing 1,300 signatures) and word of mouth to make sure the Affordable Housing Trust take the Planning Board’s report on the poor quality of WinnDevelopment’s 250-foot slab-and-tunnel housing project seriously and issue its decision to hold on awarding it money.
Back in 2022, residents and citizens alike persuaded WinnDevelopment to abandon its 400-foot tunnel project over Walden Square Road in North Cambridge. Much to everyone’s chagrin, including the Planning Board and now the trust, the for-profit developer pitched the current 250-foot tunnel design. “Not good enough,” said many residents and abutters.
I attended the August. 1 trust meeting and was allowed to speak about the project. This was the first time the trust opened its meeting to outside comment. Despite existing legislation that all but muzzles public opinion on design for public housing projects, the trust was flexible enough to allow ordinary citizens the chance to comment.
The trust’s withholding its loan commitment until September or beyond is welcome news, but to fully understand the magnitude of Winn’s transgressions of the city’s guidelines to developments applying for municipal loans (i.e. trust money), let’s take a closer look at what the Planning Board and the trust had to say about the 250-tunnel project and why a people’s proposal is gaining popularity as a design scheme that would satisfy city, developer and citizens alike.
WinnDevelopment said recently with regard to its 250-foot slab-and-tunnel project that it is in the process of “improving bike and pedestrian circulation.” No matter how clever Winn’s improved scheme may be for bike, pedestrians and vehicles, it will certainly require a complex roadway plan for what is in truth a simple problem: how to solve the public safety and circulation issues a long tunnel would bring. By adopting a community-led people’s proposal, the tunnel is reduced to a mere 60 feet with Building A set far from the Yerxa Underpass. Simply and completely, the people’s proposal solves the car, bike and pedestrian circulation and public safety problems by keeping Walden Square Road open and accessible to all.
Winn’s current design includes a proposal for the placement of 152 trees The destruction of 12 mature, highly carbon-absorbent and epic-sized London plane trees on Walden Square Road replaced by 152 saplings and shade trees does not come anywhere close to matching the environmental benefits the 12 carbon-absorbing giants provide. Every London plane tree Winn destroys would need to be replaced with hundreds of trees. Benefits would not be gleaned for half a century, when the saplings finally reach maturity. Moreover, it is hypocritical for the city to profess to be ecologically and environmentally minded by removing parking minimums and asking residents to walk, bike or use public transportation while condoning an ecocide of the magnitude proposed by WinnDevelopment.
WinnDevelopment states it has “adjusted its designs within the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Overlay ordinance.” This is false. A Planning Board final report July 2 on AHO design states “there is more work to be done on the design of the site, particularly regarding the circulation. The revised design did not meet important AHO design guidelines regarding site circulation, landscape design and façade design and articulation. Most importantly, the board is concerned about safety for those navigating the site.”
The mission statement of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Association states that the proper design and effective use of a built environment can lead to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime and an improvement in the quality of life. Winn’s 250-foot tunnel project fails nearly every public safety recommendation made by the association.
Affordable Housing Trust member Susan Schlesinger said on Aug. 1, “It’s clear, I think, to everybody that the circulation issues there are very, very tough. It’s a private roadway that’s used publicly and there’s just a lot of issues about pedestrian and bicycle uses and neighborhood uses.”
Contrary to Winn’s statement that neighborhood associations had proposed several designs for Walden Square Road, there has always been one and only one. Before dismissing the people’s proposal out of turn, Winn, working in consultation with the Cambridge Development Department, must demonstrate it has scrutinized the new proposal’s massing, number of units, approximate costs and the phase-based construction strategy. The people’s proposal may provide up to 12 more units than Winn’s current scheme. This translates into more revenue for Winn and solves the community pushback on the project as it exists.
Moreover, we have not seen a single document showing Winn has so much as attempted to place three- and four-bedroom apartments in the people’s proposal. Winn must document – with schematics and cost estimates – that the proposal is not feasible or it must accept that neither citizens nor the city believes them.
If Winn truly wants to, as it says, improve “the site for current residents, and improve connections for the broader community,” working with the community, the Affordable Housing Trust, the CDD and the Planning Board, it must take a deeper dive into the people’s proposal, developing it to the point where all parties can judge its viability for themselves.
As part of its $80 million price tag for 95 units, Winn is asking the Trust for $18 million, while at Blanchard Road a B’nai Brith project is also requesting $18 million from the Trust, but for 110 units. Surely Winn and the city can spend 90 days developing the people’s proposal and assessing the feasibility of its design and the additional 12 units it may provide. Moreover, much of Winn’s design can be applied to the people’s proposal, as is the case with Building B and landscaping upgrade.
We’re always looking to improve life for people 10 or 15 years from now so those folks can be happy. If Winn’s project moves forward in its current form, in 15 or 100 years it’ll say what people usually say about the past: “Back in the day it used to be better here. Things are worse now.” A people’s proposal will not be perfect in every way, but the open road, the additional units and the preservation of the mature canopy will be proof that life at Walden Square Road is a better and safer place than it might have otherwise been.
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.
Drinking game idea: take a shot every time Federico says “250 foot slab-and-tunnel project”
If you think the carbon impact of those trees matters, you don’t have an understanding of the scale of climate change. You could cut down every tree in the Boston Metro and there would be no significant carbon impact. Just build the housing and stop being NIMBYs.
Bravo, Federico! Well said. I hope that you run again for the Council.
Federico Muchnik has consistently misrepresented this project, often exaggerating or outright lying.
His alternative plan is not feasible; it involves demolishing existing housing and displacing current residents, which contradicts the goal of increasing housing.
He claimed his plan would save money, but the numbers don’t add up, as he ignored demolition and other associated costs.
He also claimed to have a petition signed by over 1,000 Cambridge residents, but closer inspection revealed fictitious names and signatures from people outside the area, including Texas.
This is why we need the AHO—it prevents selfish individuals from derailing much-needed progress in addressing the real housing crisis.
Federico Muchnik has benefited from rising property values to increase his net worth. Now, he seeks to deny others the same opportunity to protect his financial interests. Rhetoric about “social upheaval” seems like a dog whistle.
It’s reprehensible to pull up the ladder after you’ve climbed it. Shame on you.
Is it me or are these rants sounding increasingly unhinged?
@FrankD. It’s not you.
Weird and cringey rant
I agree. Muchnik’s rants are becoming increasingly bizarre and desperate.
He’s essentially saying, “Listen to me! Do it my way!”—like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
He wants a plan where “all parties can judge its viability for themselves.” But that’s precisely why the AHO was necessary. Housing projects have been delayed and blocked by the need to appease every single neighbor, including those who will never be satisfied because they oppose any change.
Federico Muchnik exemplifies why the AHO was needed.
Thank you, Federico, for a clear statement of what’s happening at Walden Square.
What’s happening is wealthy individuals are obstructing much-needed housing developments to protect their property values.
Their tactics involve impractical plans that require demolishing existing housing—an unacceptable move during a housing crisis.
They’re fixated on minor issues like the length of a tunnel and the preservation of some trees, as if more trees can’t be grown.
Meanwhile, workers need homes.
Yes, thank you for clarifying this.
Well said @FrankD. These people would deny housing to disadvantaged people over the exact length of a tunnel and a few trees. Even worse, to get what they want, they would *remove* housing.
“Selfish” doesn’t quite capture it. You need to add “callous”.
What interesting comments. So incisive, so clearly addressing my letter point for point. Such precision, such reasoned arguments.
Hey, Einsteins: your knee-jerk mind numbing ripostes aren’t helping your cause. I’ve written a very specific letter itemizing why the People’s Proposal deserves a closer look. All you can come up with is dissing the writer or hack science? Is that the best you got?
One of you writes: “You could cut down every tree in the Boston Metro and there would be no significant carbon impact.” And you call me unhinged? We’re saving the old growth canopy at Walden Square Road for not one but three reasons: a) they absorb a ton of carbon, b) they provide a ton of shade, and c) they immediately cool down the street.
Another writes that I’m “outright lying”. You best be able to back up the statement.
Another calls our petition “fictitious” because there are petitioners from out of state. Make up your minds: are we nimby or not? Since when are you the arbiter of a petitioner’s legitimacy? This campaign’s gotten a lot of attention from near and far and I challenge you to submit 1 fictitious name from our Stop-The-Slab petition at change.org.
Another writes that I have a personal financial stake in stopping the tunnel project, that I write about “social upheaval”, and that I ought to be ashamed. Whoever you are, do your homework: my property accrues in value regardless of what happens at Walden Square Road. Have you forgotten we’re in Cambridge? Moreover, where do I use the words “social upheaval” which you have in quotes? And, ashamed? Shame on those who don’t look at the details of our People’s Proposal and see it for what it is: a better plan.
Another writes that a 250-foot tunnel is a “minor issue” as is the preservation of “some trees”. Sure thing, whoever you are: ask the poor to tolerate such things outside their front door. After all, they’re used to difficult situations. What’s an unsafe tunnel and another massive heat island to them? They can take it. They’re poor and won’t push back.
Another writes I am selfish and callous. Seriously? Again: try responding to the specifics of the People’s Proposal. You can see our design at http://www.openspacefilmproject.net/thefuture.
What about the tunnel makes it “unsafe”? Declaring it so does not make it so. Also, is the heat island effect not mitigated by the tunnel itself? It’s additional shade over the asphalt that would otherwise be unshaded.
As for the specifics of the “People’s” proposal, it touts “more” units than the current proposal, ignoring the fact that it would require demolition of existing units, displacing some families during construction. Ignoring that destruction also inflates the number of units above what the actual net new units would be.
Additionally, it pretends that the total project cost would be exactly the same as the current proposal, which is how it gets the supposed per-unit cost reduction. Fact is, you’re not factoring in the cost of hiring architects and engineers to implement the proposal, or the cost of demolition, or the cost of temporary housing for the displaced residents, or the cost of the construction of the additional units, or the opportunity cost of delaying the project even further.
How many people that have signed that petition live in Walden Square? And how many (of the limited number of signees that actually live in Cambridge) are wealthy nearby homeowners?
“Unsafe tunnel!” “Massive heat island!” Such histrionics don’t sound the least but unhinged.
The so-called “People’s Plan” misleadingly promises 107 new units. In reality, it requires demolishing existing housing, displacing current residents and only add 97 units net—barely more than the developer’s 95.
Reducing housing and displacing people are unacceptable during a housing crisis.
Federico claims to protect the “poor,” who “won’t push back” yet ironically, the push back comes from wealthy neighbors in $1.5-2 million homes.
“People’s Proposal”? Ha. Hardly.
The “People’s Plan” is unfeasible due to its proposal to displace people amid a housing shortage.
The plan aims to shorten a tunnel, which Federico claims is unsafe without providing evidence.
His proposal omits costs to appear cost-effective.
His claim of having a petition with over 1,000 signatures from Cambridge residents is false.
This effort seems to be a tactic by wealthy individuals to obstruct a project.
The plan’s flaws are evident, and thanks to the AHO, it is no longer a concern.
More answers to questions from the peanut gallery.
“What about the tunnel makes it “unsafe”? ”
Coming out of the Yerxa underpass cyclists and pedestrians are immediately forced to take a hard right and are ushered into a parking garage with traffic moving in two directions. Inside the tunnel cars are parked perpendicular to the tunnel, not parallel. They are backing in and out of spaces, like in a garage. Moreover, there is no “defensible space” in the building’s plan. Look up the term, or read on: a man, woman, or child emerging from a parked car in that tunnel, walking to elevators, is unseen by neighbors and abutters, a perfect scenario for a late night mugging. Think I’m exaggerating? Talk to the women that have been assaulted in enclosed spaces. Additionally, contrasting lighting situations between “inside” and “outside” the tunnel make it all but certain cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers will be more prone to accidents. And, most of all, have you seen how the space is currently a public passage? A place where parents convene in open air as they wait for the school busses? Have you seen the amount of sunlight and shade the road provides for everyone? A 250-foot tunnel is an aberration, an oppressive structure.
“Is the heat island effect not mitigated by the tunnel itself? It’s additional shade over the asphalt that would otherwise be unshaded. ”
Uh, no. A tunnel will not mitigate a nine story 250-foot long slab-generated heat island. The positioning of Building A directly over Walden Square Road, in tandem with the current #21 Building (9 stories, and 300 feet long, I believe), plus the current #’s 19 and #20 buildings creates a “cul-de-sac” an enclosed “urban canyon” that will prevent the open and free circulation of air. Look it up here: https://vimeo.com/956622592 . Moreover, circulation of air “inside” the tunnel is less than if there were no tunnel there at all. A car idling “in” there will not only increase temperature, but I can already see the layer of soot on the tunnel ceiling, just above where people walk.
“As for the specifics of the “People’s” proposal, it touts “more” units than the current proposal, ignoring the fact that it would require demolition of existing units, displacing some families during construction. Ignoring that destruction also inflates the number of units above what the actual net new units would be.”
No families are displaced during phased construction of the People’s Proposal. The strategy: build Building B first. Once it’s up, move tenants out of #19 and #20 Walden Square Road into that new structure. Then demolish the old buildings and proceed with Building A, the People’s T-shaped structure that keeps Walden Square Road open. Regarding additional costs, neither you nor I can estimate the price of demolishing 2 buildings, but Winn can – and should – provide the public with more than a simple “no” regarding feasibility of the People’s Proposal. We want to see numbers. Moreover – the net gain of new units with the People’s Proposal is 12. In other words: Winn’s current scheme yields 95 units. Ours yields 107.
“Additionally, it pretends that the total project cost would be exactly the same as the current proposal, which is how it gets the supposed per-unit cost reduction. Fact is, you’re not factoring in the cost of hiring architects and engineers to implement the proposal, or the cost of demolition, or the cost of temporary housing for the displaced residents, or the cost of the construction of the additional units, or the opportunity cost of delaying the project even further.”
Look, Winn has sunk how much money into the slab-and-tunnel design? Let’s say a million? For starters, the People’s Proposal doesn’t touch Building B. It just proposes a staggered building schedule. So Building B is pretty much sussed out already. Next are the costs of architects and engineers. Winn, valued at 2.5 billion dollars, can surely find 90 days to come up with a realistic scheme that serves the people, not just Winn. And, again: there is no temporary housing cost. Tenants move out of #19 and #20 into Building B. And, regarding delays: Remember: once these behemoths go up, they’re up for a hundred years. This is important to get right, even if it takes more time to plan.
“How many people that have signed that petition live in Walden Square? And how many (of the limited number of signees that actually live in Cambridge) are wealthy nearby homeowners?”
You’re missing the point. We have 1300 signatures from people near and far. Moreover, are you aware of the culture of intimidation we’ve been documenting for almost three years? The largely non-English speaking immigrant population at Walden Square Road has surrendered to years of indifference, coercion, and top-down management to such an extent that they just want to be left alone or are trying to get the hell out of Walden Square because of awful living conditions and – now – the possible destruction of their only road. Sometimes the disenfranchised cannot speak for themselves. Everyone – every person – that has signed our petition subscribes to the basic idea: the slab-and-tunnel project is bad idea for Walden Square, for its residents, and for the city as a whole. This is a classic case of a for-profit private developer doing whatever the hell it wants at the expense of low income residents’ quality of life.
Let me understand. Federico Muchnik wants to kick people out of their homes in the middle of a housing crisis so that he can have a shorter tunnel???
Wow! The “People’s Plan”? What a joke.
As others have said, this is exactly why the AHO was needed.
Have you run your proposal by the people that would be kicked out of their homes if they are okay with that to eliminate the tunnel? Or are you just making assumptions that serve your own interests?
You’re right that you can’t properly assess the cost of demolition or construction — but on the flip side, you also can’t use the supposed per-unit cost savings as a reason to adopt your proposal.
The Winn project offers significant benefits:
– 95 new affordable housing units in an area with severe shortage
– Family-sized units
– Upgrades to improve connectivity (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular)
– Commitment to plant over 150 trees
The opposition’s arguments, primarily from wealthy homeowners, focus on tunnel design details. These concerns pale in comparison to the urgent need for affordable housing in Cambridge.
The developer has made efforts to address community concerns, modifying plans after feedback. The project has gone through numerous planning meetings and received city approval.
The “People’s Project” appears to be a last-minute attempt by affluent residents to derail a project in its final stages. Starting over now and uprooting people from their homes because of tunnel length preferences is unreasonable.
Ultimately, the Winn project’s benefits in increasing affordable housing supply while mitigating negative impacts far outweigh the opposition’s arguments.
@FrankD. That sounds perfectly reasonable. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Or in the case of NIMBYs, perfect is the enemy of any change whatsoever.
Tangential I know, but remember when this guy was defending racists and transphobes that he was running on a city council slate with?
More inanities from the dimwitted comments section.
cwec: ask any tenant at #19 and #20 if they’d move into one of the new apartments in Building B when it’s completed. To a person you’ll get a “yes, just say when”. The dream of leaving any of the buildings at Walden Square Road for a new apartment across the way is already so remote, so unimaginable for the tenants here that a concrete offer such as that would feel like a gift from above.
And: FrankD: There’s nothing last minute about the People’s Proposal. We’ve been advertising it to Winn and the city for at least 2 years. This is simply the proposal we’ve always pitched, but renamed by me.
The other items in your FrankD list:
– 150 trees will nowhere near compensate for the destruction of old growth mature canopy London plane trees.
– So far, Winn’s plan to improve connectivity rates an F for Fail by the Planning Bureau + the Trust – which sent the proposal back to Winn until September – at least.
– The People’s Proposal has as many family sized units at Winn’s.
– The total units in our plan can surpass 95, likely reaching 107.
All: demand the CDD and Winn cooperate to spec out the People’s Proposal using the city’s engineers and architects. That’s what they’re paid to do. Winn can be a good neighbor and responsible developer by taking a realistic look at the People’s Proposal.
Stop trying to make fetch happen
@Federico Muchnik
“ask any tenant at #19 and #20 if they’d move into one of the new apartments in Building B when it’s completed. To a person you’ll get a “yes, just say when”
You seem to be completely ignoring that your proposal to demolish their homes would mean they would be without one in the meantime.
“This is simply the proposal we’ve always pitched, but renamed by me.”
So this is your proposal that you labeled “the People’s Proposal”? Do I even need to explain how obviously this framing is rhetorically useful for you but how baseless it actually is?
“150 trees will nowhere near compensate for the destruction of old growth mature canopy London plane trees.”
Your plan also requires demolishing mature trees. Why is it fine when you do it, providing less space to plant new ones for that matter, but unacceptable in the original proposal? You aren’t practicing an objective standard here (par for the course with you it seems).
“So far, Winn’s plan to improve connectivity rates an F for Fail by the Planning Bureau + the Trust – which sent the proposal back to Winn until September – at least.”
The planning board literally approved the project to move forward despite some misgivings. There is coverage of that on this site: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/07/09/affordable-housing-additions-at-walden-square-move-forward-with-planning-board-misgivings/It it was a failure as you suggest this would not be the case. You are blatantly misrepresenting reality. I am genuinely not sure why Cambridge Day continues to allow people like you to repeatedly lie with impunity in their opinion and comment sections.
“The People’s Proposal has as many family sized units at Winn’s.”
Ok? and?
“The total units in our plan can surpass 95, likely reaching 107.”
If you don’t have a definite answer for the number of units it isn’t actually a serious proposal that can be compared objectively to the actually existing proposal. It’s easy to make a fantasy not bound by reality look better on every metric, doesn’t mean it actually would be.
Additionally the question is not about total units it is about net units. Your proposal requires the demolition of existing housing, reducing the net number of new units meaning, even if the new building has more units in your proposal, it doesn’t actually mean more housing and that is saying nothing about the potential for displacement your proposed demolitions would create that doesn’t exist in the actual proposal.
“All: demand the CDD and Winn cooperate to spec out the People’s Proposal using the city’s engineers and architects. That’s what they’re paid to do. Winn can be a good neighbor and responsible developer by taking a realistic look at the People’s Proposal.”
I do not think the developer needs to waste resources, both public and private, just to follow the desires of a random NIMBY, who isn’t even an abutter, has lied repeatedly about both the original proposal and his counter proposal, and who seems primarily motivated by racing the costs of the project to the point it is no longer feasible and simply dies.
Shame on you. Shame on Cambridge day for publishing your lies and distortions.
@Federico Muchnik
To address more lies and dishonest framings:
“Another calls our petition “fictitious” because there are petitioners from out of state. Make up your minds: are we nimby or not? Since when are you the arbiter of a petitioner’s legitimacy?”
I think the point was made pretty clearly and effectively by AvgJoe that many if not most of the signatories are not actually abutters with real skin in the game, that many, including you, seem to have a vested interest in opposing the project, and I feel totally comfortable saying someone from Texas has no legitimacy to block affordable housing in Cambridge.
You have stated repeatedly that the tunnel is unsafe and have finally provided some reasons for why. However, those reasons do not stand up to basic scrutiny and some parts appear to be outright lies. To go point by point:
“Coming out of the Yerxa underpass cyclists and pedestrians are immediately forced to take a hard right and are ushered into a parking garage with traffic moving in two directions.”
False. See circulation plans here: https://www.waldensquare2.com/_files/ugd/058696_73e7a2dacf7e414c8648d2bfef14a4aa.pdf
The plans very clearly direct pedestrians and bicyclists along a new path on the outside of the building directly connected to the underpass and with a new accessible connection to Bolton Street as well. This is objectively an improvement over the existing design that lacks a dedicated path and has pedestrians and bicyclists sharing space with cars in the parking lot, including those “parked perpendicular… not parallel.”
This proposal would mean that at least some kids would no longer have to share space with cars to walk to school. You are fighting to demand they keep having to.
” Moreover, there is no “defensible space” in the building’s plan. Look up the term, or read on: a man, woman, or child emerging from a parked car in that tunnel, walking to elevators, is unseen by neighbors and abutters, a perfect scenario for a late night mugging. Think I’m exaggerating? Talk to the women that have been assaulted in enclosed spaces.”
This is paranoid and delusional. Buildings with parking underneath are extremely common here and around the world. It will be a lit and likey filmed location and there is no reason that this is more likely to happen in the new parking lot than the existing one. Simple fear mongering on your part here.
“. Additionally, contrasting lighting situations between “inside” and “outside” the tunnel make it all but certain cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers will be more prone to accidents.”
There is a lighting plan available that appears designed to address exactly that. https://www.waldensquare2.com/_files/ugd/058696_73e7a2dacf7e414c8648d2bfef14a4aa.pdf
What is your problem with that plan? Additionally the existing parking lot is not consistently or well lit and can lead to conflicts between cars and people outside of them, and again because this will give pedestrians and cyclists dedicated space away from cars the plan is more likely to reduce crashes than increase them.
“And, most of all, have you seen how the space is currently a public passage? A place where parents convene in open air as they wait for the school busses? Have you seen the amount of sunlight and shade the road provides for everyone? A 250-foot tunnel is an aberration, an oppressive structure.”
I actually don’t think parents waiting for the school bus in a parking lot is some essential virtue to defend. If you are really concerned about that you should be fighting for a better bus shelter and waiting area for them rather than just throwing out self contradictory kettle logic just to see what sticks.
“Uh, no. A tunnel will not mitigate a nine story 250-foot long slab-generated heat island.”
A single building doesn’t generate heat island effect on its own, and since it is a new building there are city and state and building code requirements to mitigate it. Heat island is an effect of urban agglomeration. One of the biggest contributing factors is surface parking, which this building replaces. Its impact on urban heat island is most likely to be negligible if not negative.
“The positioning of Building A directly over Walden Square Road, in tandem with the current #21 Building (9 stories, and 300 feet long, I believe), plus the current #’s 19 and #20 buildings creates a “cul-de-sac” an enclosed “urban canyon” that will prevent the open and free circulation of air. Look it up here: https://vimeo.com/956622592 .”
First of all the building would not actually enclose anything. There would be a free passage of air that from everything I can tell corresponds to the predominant wind direction (from the west). Also just an aside, Boston is the windiest big city in the country, dead air is not really a common problem here at all, and generally new buildings are designed to minimize wind to maximize comfort.
It is also incredible to me that the only proof you provide to back this up is your own ramblings. You are not an expert. You are not a reliable and impartial source. Why should anyone take that seriously?
” Moreover, circulation of air “inside” the tunnel is less than if there were no tunnel there at all. A car idling “in” there will not only increase temperature, but I can already see the layer of soot on the tunnel ceiling, just above where people walk.”
Again people will not be walking through the tunnel. 250 of tunnel feet should probably be pretty easily cleared by simply natural air flow but I am sure studies are being done and ventilation will be added if necessary. Parking lots under buildings are extremely common and we have figured out how to minimize this issue a while ago.
“No families are displaced during phased construction of the People’s Proposal. The strategy: build Building B first. Once it’s up, move tenants out of #19 and #20 Walden Square Road into that new structure. Then demolish the old buildings and proceed with Building A, the People’s T-shaped structure that keeps Walden Square Road open. Regarding additional costs, neither you nor I can estimate the price of demolishing 2 buildings, but Winn can – and should – provide the public with more than a simple “no” regarding feasibility of the People’s Proposal. ”
Everything you propose is a fantasy, you have not actually done the work required to say how feasible it is or what the staging of it could be, you are simply asserting it would work the way you want it to. You are also demanding that the developer do that research for you. The basic question is why? Why should they do that? Why should they add costs and delays to much needed housing? Because you say so? Why do you think you should be the one who dictates this? Why do you think you speak for the people (who had decided you do not represent them, by voting you out of office)?
These are classic nimby tactics to delay projects and add costs, often to the point that projects simply die. You also cannot give a genuinely coherent answer about what is actually better about your project without fear mongering about a tunnel or lying about trees, which your project would also require cutting down.
“We want to see numbers. Moreover – the net gain of new units with the People’s Proposal is 12. In other words: Winn’s current scheme yields 95 units. Ours yields 107.”
This is genuinely incredible. Winn has actually provided numbers. You have invented a proposal with no floor plans or specifics at all with slightly fewer new units (although possibly fewer net units due to demolitions, which you still are not actually acknowledging). If you want to claim your proposal provides more units “we want to see numbers” and you telling Winn to do it for you isn’t convincing anyone.
“Look, Winn has sunk how much money into the slab-and-tunnel design? Let’s say a million? For starters, the People’s Proposal doesn’t touch Building B. It just proposes a staggered building schedule. So Building B is pretty much sussed out already. Next are the costs of architects and engineers. Winn, valued at 2.5 billion dollars, can surely find 90 days to come up with a realistic scheme that serves the people, not just Winn. And, again: there is no temporary housing cost. Tenants move out of #19 and #20 into Building B. And, regarding delays: Remember: once these behemoths go up, they’re up for a hundred years. This is important to get right, even if it takes more time to plan.”
This is genuinely incoherent and does not address at all the reality that delays increase costs as is explicitly identified here as a contributing factor for our regions high housing costs: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/construction-costs/
You benefit from high housing costs so of course you don’t care about that, but many people like myself actually do want if not need to see affordable housing built more quickly and with fewer unnecessary expenses incurred by NIMBYs like you. These delays make housing less available and less affordable.
“You’re missing the point. We have 1300 signatures from people near and far.”
You are missing the point. Who cares about signatures from people from far? Also a lot of your “people near” are not as close as you suggest and are of a materially different status and class position than the people who will actually live there.
“Moreover, are you aware of the culture of intimidation we’ve been documenting for almost three years? The largely non-English speaking immigrant population at Walden Square Road has surrendered to years of indifference, coercion, and top-down management to such an extent that they just want to be left alone or are trying to get the hell out of Walden Square because of awful living conditions and – now – the possible destruction of their only road. Sometimes the disenfranchised cannot speak for themselves.”
This is just gross. Yes, the tenants of Walden Square have real issues which they have been fighting over for years and they deserve support in that. But they deserve real support not people tokenizing them for their own BS.
You are claiming them as part of your fight, but I don’t see them on the front lines of it, and I don’t see you standing with them to address the actually issues they have brought forward either. They clearly have not signed on to your petition in any large number. You are claiming them for your pet issue, claiming that issue as their issue, ignoring the issues they actually raised, and holding yourself up as their champion. Again, gross.
Because of your antics I went back to listen to the public information sessions and while residents do express some concerns (which you happily replicate on your website) the overall mood was nothing like you suggest and people also spoke very favorably about the ways this would improve the connection to the underpass for pedestrians for example, which you flagrantly misrepresent. This is a matter of public record.
“Sometimes the disenfranchised cannot speak for themselves.” They are speaking, but you aren’t listening and are speaking over them. You are not a white savior.
“Everyone – every person – that has signed our petition subscribes to the basic idea: the slab-and-tunnel project is bad idea for Walden Square, for its residents, and for the city as a whole. This is a classic case of a for-profit private developer doing whatever the hell it wants at the expense of low income residents’ quality of life.”
And your campaign is a classic case of fact free NIMBYism that speaks for poor people’s “quality of life” while making sure that none of us can even afford to live here.
The Winn plan offers significant benefits that outweigh any drawbacks.
Despite attempts to derail this affordable housing project, the Winn plan has completed the approval process and is ready for implementation.
Starting over would unnecessarily delay the construction of urgently needed affordable housing.
It is illogical to halt a vital project over minor issues, such as tunnel length.
And BTW, trees grow.
@Federico Good neighbors don’t block housing for disadvantaged community members over minor issues.
Derailing an approved housing project over details like tunnel length and trees is unreasonable.
That is why many suspect the “People’s Project” is merely a tactic by wealthy neighbors to block affordable housing near their $2m homes.
@slaw makes many valid points: @Federico’s concerns about trees and tunnels are unfounded, lacking any evidence for those exaggerated claims.
The so-called “People’s Plan” appears to be a poorly conceived strategy aimed at obstructing an affordable housing project.
Why should Winn and the city waste resources addressing this NIMBY tactic? They no longer need to, thanks to the AHO.
@Federico: Stop exploiting low-income individuals for your agenda. The only opposition to this project comes from you and other affluent homeowners.
Claiming to act in the interest of the poor is disingenuous when your plan threatens to displace them from their homes.
Federico Muchnik’s opposition to affordable housing projects appears to be primarily motivated by concerns about preserving Cambridge’s existing character and scale, rather than defending the interests of low-income residents:
Muchnik launched a petition against a 7-story affordable housing development near his home, citing concerns about “excessive density” threatening Cambridge’s character.
He opposes buildings taller than 5 stories outside main corridors and developments larger than 8 units in neighborhoods because they don’t harmonize with existing neighborhoods.
Despite claims to support affordable housing in principle, his policy positions align closely with typical NIMBY arguments focused on preserving neighborhood character and limiting density.
His emphasis on building height limits and neighborhood preservation appears more concerned with maintaining the status quo than addressing affordable housing needs for low-income residents.
Does anyone really believe that Federico Muchnik is doing this to help the poor?
@Federico, just from a tactics perspective, do you think you’re helping your cause by insulting those that have legitimate reasons for opposing your proposal, or for opposing your opposition in general?
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s wise for someone with political ambitions to insult their potential constituents in favor of petition signatures from people “from far”, as you said.
Others have already pointed out the problems with your arguments, but the condescending insults really don’t help your case here at all.
@cwec Not only are the arguments flawed, but there’s also apparent dishonesty. This person has consistently opposed increasing density to create affordable housing, preferring Cambridge to remain as they like it. Now, they’re suddenly concerned about poor people walking through a tunnel.