A plan to replace the parking lot at the Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House nonprofit with affordable housing met resistance Wednesday at a meeting with around a dozen residents, several of whom wondered where the parking would go.
The project, led by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and designed by Studio G Architects, would include eight to 12 units at 71 Cherry St. that could be apartments, townhomes or three-story condos. The developers are gathering community input to decide. The homes will be on the back side of the 9,000-square-foot lot facing Pine and Eaton streets, where the CRA hopes to begin construction by 2027.
It would be built under the rules of Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay, zoning intended to make it easier to build affordable housing citywide. The 6-year-old idea to build on the parking lot, with construction once expected to start in 2023, was reintroduced in the spring, bringing this first community meeting.
“The CRA has made a public commitment to deliver at least 20,000 square feet of affordable homeownership housing,” said Kyle Vangel, the redevelopment authority’s director of projects and planning. “And we see this project as a way to deliver some of that commitment that we’ve made here.”
The project’s goal is to provide residents with affordable homeownership opportunities, the CRA says – in a way, a continuation of the work of the Margaret Fuller House to meet the needs of its neighborhood. Built in 1807, it was the childhood home of Margaret Fuller, the first female war correspondent, and has served as a community center since the Industrial Revolution. The Port community has relied on it to host events, a food pantry and recreational activities.
New pantry space and a community meeting facility would be part of the project, the CRA says.
Support and concerns
Neil Miller, 29, a longtime resident of Cambridge who recently moved to The Port, said he is proud of how much Cambridge has done to provide affordable housing opportunities and feels that the addition will be good for the community.
“Cambridge has done so much to encourage affordable housing,” Miller said. “It’s so great that this is taking advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay to create homeownership for people in my neighborhood.”
Dorothy Lane, who lives near the Fuller house, said she is concerned that the city is putting more low-income housing in crowded low-income neighborhoods where there is a parking shortage.
“I’m 75 years old,” she said. “I work three days a week. When I come home at 7 or 8 I can’t find parking, and that is a concern. It’s just very unpleasant day to day to have to struggle to find parking two or three blocks away.”
The Fuller house parking lot is shared by many businesses in the area. Lane fears that the new units will cause people to look for parking along her street – making it even more difficult for her to park near her home.
Answers through design
She and her neighbors also shared a flurry of other concerns, including the “heat island effect” – higher temperatures in urban areas as trees and other greenery is paved over – as well as safety issues and a rat problem at the food pantry that could be worsened with more population density.
“Our neighborhood has some of the highest percentages of gun violence and shootings in the city,” said Daniel Jeffs, who opposed the lot as a location for the project. “We have a lot of rats from the food pantry, and that has been an ongoing problem ever since I lived here. So my question is, if you’re going to subdivide a lot, how is Margaret Fuller going to expand their food pantry capabilities? If they can’t currently run it on their footprint.”
A Studio G representative said the firm plans to work with the city to address residents’ environmental, safety and parking concerns.
“We’re meeting the city’s green factor requirements, and that includes cool streets and heat island effect and planting trees,” said Rashmi Ramaswamy, Studio G project manager. “Our hope is that by being able to design buildings that have reflective roofs, that have planted areas, in combination with the DPW shared streets initiative, some of those concerns that you have will improve things for the better.”
This development comes as Cambridge continues to change its zoning to create more housing. The Affordable Housing Overlay was updated in October to allow higher affordable-housing buildings by right in squares and along major traffic corridors; a vote this month allows four-story residential buildings to go into areas once limited to single- or two-family homes, and to go up to six stories if buildings include affordable units.
“The city has had success with some affordable homeownership projects in the past, including inclusionary units that are affordable homeownership and larger condo projects,” Vangel said. “But it’s relatively scarce. We’re excited to contribute to the housing ecosystem in the city for a project like this.”
This story is part of a partnership between Cambridge Day and the Boston University Department of Journalism.
This post was updated March 3, 2025, with a corrected quote and name of the speaker.
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.
Parking should be our lowest concern—experts agree it harms city life.
More parking means more cars, increasing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It encourages driving, even for short trips, and forces lower-income residents, who are less likely to own cars, to subsidize parking for wealthier drivers.
Most car trips are under a mile. If people walked instead of driving for convenience, roads would be less congested, and parking would be more available.
Many cities are now reforming parking policies to foster more livable, sustainable urban environments.
US Cities Are Falling Out of Love With the Parking Lot
https://www.wired.com/story/us-cities-are-falling-out-of-love-with-the-parking-lot/
How Parking Ruined Everything
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/07/cars-parking-take-up-street-space-cities/674174/
Let me get this straight—we shouldn’t build desperately needed housing because someone might have to park a few blocks away?
It’s ironic to hear concerns about tree loss used to defend parking when cars are a major source of air pollution.
Likewise, worrying about “heat islands” while prioritizing parking is contradictory—cars are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change.
Those truly concerned about the environment don’t defend convenient parking.
Congrats to the Margaret Fuller House this has been a looooooong time in the making. “Heat island effect???!” lol
Feels like they should be able to fit more than just 8-12 units on a 9000 sq ft lot, right?
Cwec – I suspect it depends on whether they are to be rental or condo units or town houses. Town house design takes more space and makes less units (thanks to duplicated utilities etc.) while putting 2 buildings of units of 4-6 floors (presuming 1 unit per floor) would make the 8-12 stated units. It also depends on how many bedrooms are designed for and how much common-room facility space is involved (laundry, storage, etc.)
A 900 to 950 ft floorspace for a 2 bedroom unit per floor, for example, is not unusual.
You need space between buildings to meet fire code requirements.
The CRA made a critical mistake. They should have come to the neighborhood with a plan for 16 units of affordable home ownership, then reduced it to 12 so the neighbors who prefer parking over homes could have claimed a victory. Now what will be the final result? It is a sad day when my neighbors choose cars over affordable home ownership.
@Cambridgejoe I’m not sure about the fire code requiring space between buildings. Adjoining townhouses can be built, for example. I imagine there’d be additional requirements maybe, like active fire suppression, advanced alarms, etc. but I don’t know that it outright forbids adjoining buildings. I could be wrong though.
But assuming lot coverage of 75%, six stories could yield ~40000 sq ft interior space. Assuming roughly a quarter of that for common areas like staircases and hallways, 30000 sq ft could be 30 apartments of 1000 sq ft each.
That’s probably an optimistic scenario, but I would still think more than 8-12 units would be entirely doable.
The parking lobby is beyond parody at this point. Citing heat island effect to defend a parking lot is genuinely absurd. Asphalt surface parking is a huge driver of that.
As described in the article “higher temperatures in urban areas as trees and other greenery is paved over” Why are parking lots increasingly being equated with green space lately?
I fully support this nonprofit’s decision to build housing on their property. I hope they move forward with a proposal that includes additional units. I live around the corner, and this neighborhood desperately needs more housing.
The bike lobby is beyond parody at this point.
The only thing that is going to really change the environmental problems is to get China and India to stop using coal. Anything else is virtue signaling.
Dorothy Lane is 75. She shouldn’t have to struggle to find a parking space.
Everyone saying 12 units it too low is likely right. Back of the napkin math on this should put it closer to 20-30 units.
This proposal has nothing to do with biking. It is about adding more housing. Those claiming heat island effect to defend a parking lot are virtue signaling.
Parking right in front of your house cannot take precedence over providing people housing in the first place.
@concerned43 Environmental issues extend beyond just global warming. We should still seek to make our local climate more livable, heat island effect is very specifically a local, not global, climate issue. Also nobody mentioned bikes?
I didn’t see anyone mention bikes. It doesn’t make sense to worry about a heat island when the issue is removing a parking lot.
Providing housing during a crisis is a virtue, not virtue-signaling. Ensuring people have homes should take priority over one person finding parking.
People shouldn’t have to struggle to find homes.
We shouldn’t house 12 families because one person may have to walk 2-3 blocks to park their car??
I hope they do build more than 12 units. We need housing. But they are only building on part of the lot.
Re: “We shouldn’t house 12 families because one person may have to walk 2-3 blocks to park their car??” (And similar comments.) It’s most assuredly not just “one person” but rather a significant number. A walk of 2-3 blocks, especially for seniors, many of who have mobility challenges, would be unsafe in darkness and/or under icy conditions. These people aren’t wealthy either, and the increased parking burden could force them to move from their neighborhoods. The needs of one set of residents shouldn’t be prioritized over those of another, likely older demographic. This is just one more ageist, faux-progressive project.
We’re discussing affordable housing. Should 12 families be denied a place to live just so others can park a few blocks closer?
This mindset reflects an elitist attitude. Many low-income individuals can’t afford cars and already struggle to cover rent, often spending more than half their income on housing. Prioritizing parking convenience over housing access only deepens inequality.
Housing is a fundamental right; parking is a convenience. Communities should prioritize policies that provide affordable homes rather than cater to car owners’ inconveniences.
Affordable housing isn’t “faux” anything—it represents real people, real families, and real housing.
Everyone deserves a place to call home. Nobody deserves free doorstep parking, especially at the expense of others.
Is it “ageist” to ask some people to walk 2-3 blocks?
What do you call it when desperately needed affordable housing for 12 low-income families is blocked just so a few people can avoid a short walk?
The parking lobby is becoming a parody. Sometimes I wonder if they’d oppose curing cancer if it meant losing a single parking spot.
As for a “significant” number of elderly, the article mentions just one person.
@Frank It’s absurd to equate disagreement on the topic of parking with a POV that might “oppose curing cancer.”
It’s absurd to prioritize easy parking for a few over housing for a dozen low-income families.
That’s the point. It’s disappointing that this needs to be said.
Frank didn’t actually equate those things though. Frank said “Sometimes I wonder if they’d oppose curing cancer if it meant losing a single parking spot.” This is clearly hyperbole meant to emphasize the absurdity of the degree to which some people prioritize parking over all other considerations.
Speaking of “faux-progressive” what would you call citing ageism to oppose affordable housing because of parking? Elderly people are both less likely to drive: https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-9/why-older-adults-stop-driving/ and are more likely to need affordable housing: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/30/1215460460/housing-seniors-affordable-harvard-report-baby-boomers
Seniors need more walkable and accessible communities, catering to cars above everything else gets us further from that.
Are illegal immigrants in Cambridge entitled to affordable housing?
I do hope they take design review seriously. The Fuller House is historically significant. Other houses on Mass Ave porter sq (Frost terrace and Mellen st) maintain the integrity of the old house and APPROPRIATELY add housing to maintain the streetscape character. I would hate to see a cheap box with big glass windows and tacky materials. Context is everything. You can get away with a lot with good design.
OK if all occupants and their visitors are required to never park a vehicle in Cambridge.
Building housing without parking is simply ludicrous. Uncorrectable mistake.
This problem must be resolved upfront because it can never be rectified.
Experts agree that parking has numerous negative impacts on cities.
It reduces space for housing, businesses, and public amenities while increasing traffic and congestion by encouraging more driving. Parking also fosters car-centric environments that are hostile to pedestrians.
Urban planners, environmentalists, and transportation experts increasingly agree that cars are not the future of urban transportation. In response, cities worldwide are successfully implementing parking reforms.
Importantly, this is an affordable housing development. Prioritizing parking disproportionately harms low-income people, who are less likely to own cars. Parking also drives up housing costs, effectively making lower-income residents subsidize car ownership for wealthier ones.
Nearly 35% of Cambridge households are car-free, a steadily rising trend. Nearly half of residents don’t own a car.
Building housing without parking makes sense—providing a spot for every resident and visitor is ludicrous.
Excess parking is a fixable mistake.