The first project following Cambridge’s landmark multifamily zoning reform in February gives a hint at conflicts to come, as a Mid-Cambridge neighborhood comes to grips with construction of four- to six-story multifamily homes as of right.
The proposed development at 60 Ellery St. is a 29-unit, approximately 24,000-square-foot building of five studios, 17 one-bedroom homes and seven two-bedroom homes. Twenty percent of the building’s square footage will be allotted as affordable housing, likely four or five units, said owner Mike Tokatlyan of Contempo Builders.
Tokatlyan, architect Evan Stellman of Khalsa Design, and another developer met with residents June 6 to discuss neighborhood concerns. In the nearly two-hour discussion, almost 15 residents had complaints about the building’s size, design and street access.
Many expressed concerned about development affecting the historic nature of the neighborhood. The development would replace a four-unit brick building with a building nearly six times its size, with a much more modern design.
Mary Beth Lawton, the owner of a neighboring condo, said she bought her property with the belief she would be in a historic area. “I realize that 60 Ellery is not an historic building, but ours is,” she said. “I don’t think this building is appropriate for this neighborhood.”
The new building is designed with an exterior of four stories of thin brick and two stories of composite metal paneling in various colors. Designs show an accessibility ramp, common roof deck, mail room and bike space.
Nearly every speaker criticized the proposed design, describing it as “discordant with the vicinity” and “out of context.” The windows, exterior materials and landscaping were of particular concern. “You have this faux historicism to this design that I think that you should rethink,” one resident said of the thin brick exterior. “It really does a disservice to the actually genuinely well-designed buildings around us.”
Stellman and Tokatlyan said they are taking the neighborhood into consideration. “We’re taking a lot of cues from the architecture of the existing structure,” Stellman said, noting the similar window designs and brick siding. Tokatlyan added that the 60 Ellery development will not be the first-large scale apartment building in the area.
Developer motives
Emotions ran high at times, with some speakers questioning developers’ motives and demanding transparency, particularly related to affordable housing. “This is not about affordable housing. This is about you guys wanting to make a lot of money,” one local said. “I think we should build this affordable housing, but not that all of these units are going to be sold at market rate, right? It’s insane. It’s like a steal.”
She emphasized the low number of affordable housing units in comparison to the full 29-unit building. She asked to see a more detailed breakdown of the costs, which developers agreed to.
In a heated moment, Tokatlyan argued the financial reality of the development. “When someone doesn’t understand the cost involved, he just attacks the developers as being greedy. Please break it down for me on paper and show me how it would be possible to build them all affordable,” he said.
The recent zoning change in Cambridge was not only a move to address affordable housing, but to contribute more housing overall, he said, because “the Northeast has a major shortage of housing units, both affordable and market rate.”
Recent zoning decision
The greatest criticism of the building has to do with its size, a direct result of the recent zoning decision by the council that approved four-story building construction citywide, going up to six-story buildings with the inclusion of affordable housing units.
Despite the decision, residents pressed the developers to change their plans to fit the neighborhood. “Where is the context, where is the imagination?” Mary Lee Boyd said. “You are developing to the zoning. You’re maxing out the zoning instead of looking at context.”
“Whether your design complies strictly with what the city allows you to do is not an issue. An issue is what impact does your building have in the community,” another resident said.
Tokatlyan emphasized that the city as responsible for the decision. “If you have an issue with the building being built to that size, you can relay that to the city of Cambridge,” he said.
One resident, Catherine, who did not give her last name, called the decision a “utopian idea.” “It’s too much change. There’s no plan. The city has no plan.”
Parking and accessibility
In accordance with Cambridge zoning, the building is not required to provide parking. “We imagine the buyers of these units would be people that would rely on public transportation or utilize the bicycle infrastructure that the city has,” Stellman said.
This brought additional concerns for Ellery Street residents. “I think people who are going to buy these luxury units, they will want to have a car, right?” one said.
Many described the dense population of Mid-Cambridge and the already high traffic on Ellery Street. Without designated parking, residents fear the building would add congestion to the central thoroughfare. One speaker expressed accessibility concerns. “The lack of parking with such a high number of units has a very discriminatory effect on the elderly, the disabled and families with young children,” she said.
Moving forward
Other resident concerns included rats during demolition, trash placement, a pathway easement, noise from the common deck and shadow on a nearby solar roof and neighboring gardens, many of which the developers were able to ease.
The proposal was taken to the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission for a hearing June 9; the case was continued then, with the owner agreeing to come back with answers to commission questions, particularly regarding a property easement. The commission also encouraged additional materials to better fit the context of the neighborhood. The commission’s July 7 meeting has been canceled, which makes Aug. 4 the earliest the case will be heard again.
Should the development be approved, Tokatlyan anticipates a 16- to 18-month construction process and up to 24 months until full completion. He and Stellman assured residents during their meeting that there would be further conversations with the neighborhood. Tokatlyan said the development team is open to design changes and further feedback from future discussions, but that the building height will not change.
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.
Thanks for this coverage.
I would appreciated a bit more about what power this Neighborhood Conservation District Commission has over such project and how they got this power.
“Historic Neighborhood” is a meaningless term, and is just being used to stop anything that a handful of people don’t like. Should Kendall have remained as empty warehouses simply because those buildings were old? Or should have Cambridge Crossing remained a toxic brownfield site because the pollution is historic? Or maybe we should remove car access from Ellery St, after all it’s a “historic neighborhood” that predates Henry Ford’s assembly line.
I hope to see that the new zoning being as-of-right actually holds up to that label and that we can add a couple dozen new homes to this city that sorely needs housing growth.
“Tokatlyan emphasized that the city as responsible for the decision. “If you have an issue with the building being built to that size, you can relay that to the city of Cambridge,” he said.”
So he IS building to the zoning without consideration of context. Kendall Sq did save the FOUNDRY, repurposed 19th C factories. Even MIT built around historic buildings on Main St with great success. Kendall was also basically an industrial tabula rasa with few residences, and I consider anyone dismissing history as rather ignorant. Many of the commissions are non-binding which means ideas are suggestions leading to a better product. Cambridge is desirable because of it. 50 yrs of investment with an understanding only to have no say or meaningful meeting? that is anti-democratic.
For the above complainers, what neighborhoods do YOU really live in? Do You own Vehicles and if so are you going to give up your parking areas for the greater good? How about kids? Got Any? How about income level? Do you own or rent? Do you plan to continue to live here in Cambridge for 5+ years yourself?
I’ve seen no posts here over the years from either of your accounts… are you really residents or are you outside ‘hired guns’ for developers with an agenda to push? Or are you folks who are planning to sell out and make a killing on the sale of your property to a developer as you head out the door?
As a 25+ year resident I am curious why you’ve been silent until these recent posts and issues here in the comments sections… I get very suspicious about these issues…
After a change to the law two years ago, the Neighborhood Conservation Districts are no longer allowed to regulate size and shape.
So a 6-story apartment cube can be built 5 feet away from an 1840s house, looming over it at triple the height, and all the Conservation District can do is argue about what shade the bricks should be.
Nobody is arguing that nothing should ever change. City regulations should seek to strike a balance between new growth and avoiding negative impacts on existing residents and historic properties.
This sounds great to me: I rent nearby and would love to have more supply come on the market.
How much power do these Conservation Commissions really have to delay or block development like this? Respectfully, this just seems like bad faith weaponization of “historic”-ness. The buildings nearby seem totally average to me, like you would find in literally the entire city. It’s not George Washington’s house, or something.
What negative impacts? Complaints about “historic character” are just excuses to oppose any change. Cambridge has changed many times—these neighbors weren’t here when it started, and they don’t get to freeze it now.
People need housing. I support that because I care about people, not profit. It’s ironic to hear accusations of selfishness from those defending exclusionary zoning that benefits them.
Same with parking. The city doesn’t owe you public space to store your private car. Blocking housing for that is selfish.
The proposed multifamily development at 60 Ellery Street is a necessary and positive step toward addressing Cambridge’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. It reflects the city’s zoning reform to allow more multifamily housing and increase supply. While it includes affordable units, even market-rate housing helps reduce overall costs by expanding availability.
Vague concerns about “neighborhood character” should not outweigh the urgent need for housing. The site’s proximity to public transit and bike infrastructure supports Cambridge’s goals for sustainable, transit-oriented development. Removing parking requirements further encourages greener transportation and helps reduce traffic and emissions.
This project is a responsible and timely response to a critical need.
“Cambridge needs more housing” means that real estate agents need more housing to sell and rent. I don’t doubt that these apartments would be advertised as “luxury homes” in a “charming historic neighborhood”. And, of course, opposition to changes like this signifies classism, racism, anti-immigrant-ism, and other deplorable isms that have nothing to do with the prosperous people who would move in, even to the “affordable” apartments.
I understand that neighbors might not like this but we need more housing.
“Without designated parking, residents fear the building would add congestion to the central thoroughfare.”
That doesn’t make any sense. Off-street parking for new building residents may decrease competition over street spots, but it would increase traffic congestion, not reduce it. More parking means more cars means more congestion. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Cambridge desperately needs more housing. The new building is great, I just wish it were 16 stories instead of 6.
“Cambridge needs more housing” means I want a place to live before I get priced out. If you bought, say, 25 years ago, ask – could you afford today, at that stage in your life?
Perhaps this is the reason young families have such a hard time hanging on, whether they “intend to stay for 5 years” or not.
Look up the history of choosing your neighbors in this country. It does not have a pretty history.
@DKB50 Be serious—Cambridge clearly has a housing crisis and a shortage of homes.
Real estate agents and developers are entitled to make a profit; they’re not expected to work for free.
It’s hypocritical for those who benefited from restrictive zoning and rising home values to criticize others for making money.
@Cambridgejoe
Chiming in as one of the “complainers”, I have lived in Cambridge for five years and plan to live here for the rest of my life. I’ve been active in this forum for a few years now, so maybe go back a while to verify that. We’ve interacted directly before, in fact.
I live in Mid-Cambridge, and my family has one car. We pay for our own off-street parking. I don’t expect on-street parking to be forever available for me, or forever easy to find, because I recognize this is a large city with lots of competing priorities for curb space.
I don’t work for or with developers, I just want to see more housing because it’s a nightmare to try to find a new place to live in Cambridge. When’s the last time you hunted for a place? Of the homes that are within budget and meet criteria, they are few and far between, and building more is a good thing.
@L M N O “So a 6-story apartment cube can be built 5 feet away from an 1840s house, looming over it at triple the height, and all the Conservation District can do is argue about what shade the bricks should be.”
I recognize we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this, but I don’t see anything wrong with this whatsoever. I don’t even think every 1840s house is worth preserving. Old doesn’t mean significant, sometimes it just means old.
Cambridge doesn’t need more housing, affordable or not. The Boston area might need more housing. But, Cambridge specifically doesn’t need more housing.
It’s just fine as it is. An extremely dense city that has enough people. The city’s resources are very stretched. As far as I can see, there are no rational reasons for the city to have more residents.
People might want to live in Cambridge. It doesn’t mean everyone has a right to live here. If you can afford it, you can live here.
Cambridge faces a severe and widely recognized housing affordability crisis. It is the most expensive city for renters in Massachusetts, with one-bedroom apartments often costing $2,900–$3,375 per month—driven largely by a lack of housing supply.
This makes it increasingly difficult for people who work or study in Cambridge to live here, forcing them to move elsewhere and worsening traffic and commute times.
City leaders, housing experts, and much of the public agree that more housing is essential to meet demand, support economic growth, and preserve community diversity.
Cambridge is growing and adding jobs, and a vibrant economy benefits everyone. Workers need places to live. Telling them “if you can’t afford it, don’t live here” is as callous as saying, “let them eat cake.”
I think you misinterpreted what I said. My apologies.
I don’t think Cambridge needs to encourage more people to live here. 120,000 is enough. We have a very diverse wonderful city… economically, racially, and ethnically. From that standpoint, it’s perfect.
The city is stretched to provide adequate services for all of us. It is a city that is facing a financial problem today and in coming years. It is a city that is not adding jobs.
The economic middle class in Cambridge has been decimated. As I’ve said, house rich and cash poor.
Cambridge needs a middle class. Instead it gets wealthy young working people buying expensive condos. And people building “McMansions.”
Why aren’t firefighters able to live in the city. Doesn’t the city care about them? Cambridge had Rise Up Cambridge guaranteeing 500 per month
for certain families who earned less than a certain amount. Cost was 22 million. Why don’t we subsidize taxes for the firefighter’s homes?
Continued in next comment.
An economic middle class is crucial to this city. Why don’t we give a tax subsidy to those who work for the city and live here. Why aren’t they able to live in the city. Doesn’t the city care about them?
The city wastes a lot of money. But, it refuses to have an ombudsman who would pay 10 times over for him/her self. All those millions of dollars… yes millions, that could be used to help those economically middle class city workers to be able to live in this city.
Let’s do something to help them before the city loses its entire middle class.
Worth pointing out there’s a six story building literally the next block over. There’s a four story apartment building on the corner. It’s right next to a lightly used Swiss consulate building. This building is not going to “change the character of the neighborhood.”
@cwec Putting aside the age of the house, there are significant negative impacts if a very large building is built very close to an existing building. Can you see the sky when you look out the window? Would you be unhappy if you never saw the sky again from inside your home, because a cube several times taller and wider than anything else in your neighborhood was built 5 feet from your fence?
Of course there exist neighborhoods where tall buildings are close together, sometimes even touching. But they grew gradually. And by the time technology developed to allow widespread 6 story buildings, there were laws enacted for their placement. This unprecedented zoning change throws it all out the window.
Most people live next to buildings that aren’t going anywhere. But the minority of people who live next to a developable site are who zoning is supposed to protect.
Small tweaks to this zoning would allow for substantially more housing without these terrible consequences.
This is fantastic. More of these types of projects need to pop up all over Cambridge. It’s time to finally build as much housing as possible on our limited land.
This comment, surely from a housing-secure person living in a high-value home, is really rich:
“I think we should build this affordable housing, but not that all of these units are going to be sold at market rate, right? It’s insane. It’s like a steal.””
Why is it your business how much money is going to make? Did you scrutinize the profit the person who built your house made??
1. “Cambridge doesn’t need to encourage more people to live here. 120,000 is enough.”
Housing demand remains high due to jobs, here in Cambridge. Blocking new housing won’t freeze the city—it will raise prices, push out residents, and erode diversity.
2.“We have a very diverse, wonderful city… From that standpoint, it’s perfect.”
Cambridge is diverse, but disparities are growing. Minority are being priced out. High housing costs threaten the very diversity being praised.
3. “The economic middle class in Cambridge has been decimated… Cambridge needs a middle class.”
Exactly. Rising costs are driving out moderate-income families. Affordable housing—especially for families—is essential to keep the middle class here.
In summary:
Building affordable housing isn’t about adding people—it’s about preserving the diversity that supports essential workers, and keeping middle-class families from being priced out. Without it, Cambridge risks becoming a city only for the wealthy.
The fearmongering used to oppose development is absurd and undermines credibility. Claiming it’s a “nightmare” to live near a 6-story building is laughable.
You know what is a nightmare? Spending half your income on rent—something many Cambridge renters face because of opposition to development and restrictive zoning.
Families shouldn’t be denied affordable homes because a building might cast a shadow. The horror!
@concerned43 Where are the McMansions? Zoning reform hasn’t brought them—it’s brought 6- and 12-story buildings with affordable housing. The McMansion argument was always nonsense. Time to move on.