City councillors voted 8-1 on Monday to approve an East Cambridge lab project and, with it, funding for nonprofits citywide.
Life sciences developer BioMed Realty will develop the two-story building at 320 Charles St. into a taller site with more land density. In exchange, BioMed will allocate $16.8 million to East End House, $3.3 million to the city’s community benefits fund and around $1.7 million to the Cambridge Community Center, Community Art Center, Dance Complex and Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee.
The payout is an amendment to a previous proposal that would’ve given $20 million in mitigation funds to East End House.
Before approving the BioMed project, councillors voted 8-1 to amend the proposal after a concerted effort by several nonprofit leaders to stop the original deal due to what they – and more than half of the night’s public commenters – said was an unfair process and arrangement. The same dynamic played out in the final vote.
“There could probably be a case study on what happened here,” said councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, who voted in favor of the amendment. “I think we have a lot to learn.”
Instead of discussing building development, Siddiqui and other city councillors spent half an hour addressing concerns about the process of coming to a deal and the city’s struggle to fund nonprofits overall.
“Right now, with the challenges nonprofits are facing and what’s up ahead, there’s a lot more need,” Siddiqui said. “So how we do things and allocate money through these policies is really important.”
Calling for improvements
Councillor Patricia Nolan voted in favor of the amendment and agreed the council has many improvements to make.
“What I saw was that, after good-faith negotiations, based on what the city requested, an agreement was reached and then, after the seeming consensus, some serious and valid concerns were raised about how it unfolded,” Nolan said. “To many, this agreement appeared to be counter to council-stated values and past attempts to ensure development led to communitywide discussions.”
Nolan said that the council still needs to make clear who is selected for a community process when one is established and what the difference is between a community benefits project and contract zoning and mitigation funding.
“Whatever we do as we fix this process, we need to commit to those goals,” she said.
Vowing to make motion
Councillor Paul Toner was the sole vote against the project. He noted that many people supported BioMed’s project because they thought it would support East End House and said he didn’t hear any complaints about the proposal from the council until the week before the council’s last meeting in June.
“I live in North Cambridge, I wouldn’t think for one second that people in North Cambridge should get any of the impact mitigation money based on what’s going to happen in East Cambridge,” Toner said.
This was the council’s only meeting in July and August. Toner said he will file a policy order in September to get clarity on how similar deals are developed.
“There’s been a lot of accusations about a lack of transparency,” Toner said. “Well, if that’s true, then all of us are guilty, because we were part of those meetings for a year.”
Sal Zinno, senior vice president of development at BioMed, said by email Tuesday that the company was “pleased to support the local community and fully support the City Council’s decision on the allocation of community benefit funds. Last night’s vote represents a win for Cambridge. It creates a clear path forward for the thoughtful development of 320 Charles St., including a well-designed building and enhanced open space. The community benefit funding will directly support nonprofits across Cambridge, helping them thrive. At BioMed, we look forward to continuing our involvement with these organizations.”
“For us, being a developer in Cambridge means more than just building – it means being an active, contributing part of the community. We believe this outcome reflects that commitment. It also aligns with our broader mission: to provide the mission-critical infrastructure that accelerates our tenants’ capacity for innovation as they advance human health,” Zinno said.
Michael Delia, president and chief executive of East End House, also shared a statement after the vote.
Delia said the nonprofit was “deeply grateful for the $16.75 million commitment that brings a new East End House community center within reach. This outcome reflects months of hard work by the Eastern Cambridge Coalition, BioMed Realty and the City Council members who championed this cause – we thank them for standing with us. At the same time, this process has laid bare the systemic barriers nonprofits face in securing infrastructure support, even as we provide essential services that advance health, equity and opportunity in our city. We hope this moment marks a turning point. Nonprofits are not supplemental; they are foundational to Cambridge’s future. We look forward to working together to build a stronger, more sustainable path forward for our sector and the communities we serve.”
Hearing opposition
In approving the amendment, councillors paid heed to the more than 25 leaders of nonprofits and others at Monday’s meeting offering public comment against the original East End House-BioMed deal, calling it unfair and asking why they weren’t invited to contribute to the conversation.
Tina Alu, executive director of the Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee, joined other nonprofits in asking for $5 million of the original $20 million slated for East End House to go to the community benefits fund. She said she wasn’t satisfied by the process or the compromise.
“We are committed to ensuring that we are present at all meetings where these decisions are made so that 14 handpicked people in one neighborhood will not be able to make decisions that impact the entire city,” Alu said. “We will not be told again that a strong, inclusive process has taken place when only one nonprofit was ever made aware of any of these meetings.”
Christopher Hope, executive director of the media nonprofit Loop Lab, said the compromise was a step in the right direction and that the process by which funds are distributed must reflect the full diversity of the city.
“Inclusion isn’t symbolic, but structural,” Hope said. “We’re not here to ask for crumbs but to help set the table.”
This post was updated Aug. 5, 2025, to reflect that the final vote on the zoning went 8-1. It was updated again to add a statement by a BioMed executive.
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.
This situation illustrates why the city’s practice of selling zoning relief in exchange for payouts to unrelated charities is irrational and harmful in many dimensions..
Contract zoning sets neighbors in opposition to non-profits who feel that they must sell neighborhood air-rights to ‘earn’ funding. These baked-in conflicts of interest divide natural neighborhood allies who would otherwise work together to protect the environment for future residents. The divisive design of contract zoning benefits developers and the city councilors who take developer money. The system even benefits city staff who can avoid the responsibility of creating and upholding a robust zoning ordinance.
Agree with Paul Cote.
NGOs (non-governmental organizations) receiving public funds seem like they are governmental organizations, Drop the NON? These funds should be rebated to tax payers or used by the City Government. The History Cambridge — NGO is so broke it wants to sell the 2nd oldest building in Cambridge Hooper-Lee-Nichols House, located at 159 Brattle Street. to fund its “History Programs”? But Brookline owns the Edward Devotion House. It is one of the oldest Colonial structures in Brookline and is owned by the town. The Brookline Historical Society administers the property. The cities of Newton and Waltham, as well as Boston, do own historic homes. Both Newton and Waltham have local Historical Commissions that oversee and manage historic properties within their jurisdictions. In Boston, the city’s government also owns and maintains historic properties and sites. Why can’t the Cambridge Histrorical Commission own and operate Hooper-Lee and use these funds to purchase?