Ellery Street six-story apartment building advances with reminders of passed zoning (updated)

Demolition and construction of a six-story apartment building at 60 Ellery St. falling under recent multifamily zoning reforms was moved along with a 4-1 approval Monday by the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission, contingent on a follow-up meeting to review final improvements to the design.

Public comment drew what is by now a standard mix of supporters and opponents, but with a newer theme: reminders that many points of opposition were answered five months earlier, when the multifamily zoning was passed by the City Council in February – specifically to let homes go up faster by not having to respond proposal-by-proposal to pushback on such things as height and density. The commissioners also act under the zoning, the goal of which is to say “yes” to new housing.

The building’s 30 homes will include six studios, 18 one-bedroom apartments and six with two bedrooms. Twenty percent of the units will be inclusionary affordable housing, for a total of six units. Details for the placement of the inclusionary units will be negotiated with the city. 

Builders anticipates a 16- to 18-month construction process with permitting and up to 24 months until full completion. 

Updated plans for the project included changes suggested at previous community and commission meetings, including using brick that better maintains the feel of the neighborhood and installing an underground transformer rather than a mounted one.

Developers will push the building back from the street, reducing the overall square footage by around 1,280 square feet to include more landscaped area in front of the building and shrubs and trees to the right. The main entry is shifted to the side; the front gets balconies.

Concern from neighbors

Many concerns from the public were repeated from previous meetings – objection to the demolition of the current structure, distaste for the proposed height and design and frustration with developers’ style of communication.

Some residents noted that the current structure is in good condition with no need for replacement; others were concerned with the environmental effects of demolition. “Additions could be made to the existing structure in order to accommodate the housing situation in Cambridge,” said Mary Beth Lawton, a neighbor on Ellery Street.

Owner Mike Tokatlyan of Contempo Builders reminded commenters that the project is a response to new city zoning, not a solution to the current structure. “You don’t propose to demolish and build new structures only where properties are run-down,” he said. “That’s not how it works.” Project architect Evan Stellman of Khalsa Design noted that finding a property truly in need of demolition for the density that developers propose would be like “finding a needle in a haystack.”

Residents critical of the development raised issues big and small – many basically decided by the multifamily zoning. That conflict was captured in an exchange during the meeting.

“It sounds like they only care about what’s allowed, that Cambridge allows six stories, versus what’s best for the community,” said Nicole Ramkissoon of Cherry Street, referring to the developers. “Demolition is going to cause a huge disruption.”

Tokatlyan replied. “This conversation is going to come up in every single one of these hearings,” he said of the height of the building. “This conversation should have been had and could have been had with the city of Cambridge when they were working through the zoning process.” 

As repeated comments criticized the height and size of the building in a historic neighborhood, commission chair Tony Hsiao also had to remind the group that some were directed at aspects of the development not under the commission’s purview.

The commission considers “the historic and architectural value and significance of the site or structure, the general design arrangement, texture and material of the features involved, and the relation of such features to similar features of the structures in the surrounding area,” preservation administrator Allison Crosbie said. “The commission shall not consider the appropriateness of the size and shape of the structure.”

Relationship with abutters 

In each meeting, developers assured the public they would maintain communication with neighbors and were open to feedback. The commission also asked at a June 9 meeting that the team keep working with abutters at the Ellery Square condos. Frustrations arose at Monday’s meetings over recent communications.

“I’m a little surprised the developer is refusing to talk to us. I find that a little shocking,” said one Ellery Square homeowner. “The commission said that developers must talk with neighbors and abutters. That did not happen,” Lawton said.

“My communication with them will be through the city because they decided to hire an attorney,” Tokatlyan said. “They sent me letters saying ‘We retain our rights, we will be filing claims against you individually.’ That’s not a direction of design, that’s hostility.”

A resident said later that Ellery Square had not threatened lawsuits. During the meeting, Tokatlyan did not mention lawsuits – just that Ellery Square had hired an attorney. He raised the point in public conversation with an Ellery Square resident, who did not object.

Adam Kurth, speaking on behalf of the board for the Ellery Square Homeowners Association, noted that the neighboring properties were historically jointly owned. “The common owner of these properties intended for them to be harmonious and compatible with each other.” Kurth acknowledged that he and another colleague had a recent conversation with the developer, but that homeowners were still concerned with effects to their easement and existing property rights.

Support for the project 

Many speakers supported the updated plans and the addition of housing. “The location around Ellery Street is fantastic – we’re close to the library, parks, school and public transportation,” Mark Keebler said. “It’s just a great opportunity, and I’m fully supportive of this project moving forward.”

“These homes will provide a lifeline for Cambridge residents who desperately need one, given the probability of cuts to federal housing funding coming from the federal Trump administration,” Justin Saif said.

One commenter said that the lack of parking – an ongoing battle around this project and many others – and demolition of the current parking lot will reduce carbon production. Hearing concerns over carbon emissions from tearing down the existing structure, Roy Sistovaris said that older buildings are often environmentally unfriendly, and a replacement could be more sustainable. Stellman confirmed that the project meets passive house structure design principles, which prioritize energy efficiency, but said the development team does not have calculations for carbon dioxide emissions.

The commission’s decision 

Most commission members spoke in favor of the updated plans, particularly the streetscape improvements and relocated entrance. Nan Laird, who voted against the project, said the building’s design was more commercial than residential. “I think it’s incongruous with the neighborhood,” she said.

“We are working with new regulations from the City Council who want to move in that direction,” Katinka Hakuta said. “How do we transition what we are to what the vision of the future is if we only stick with what we currently have?”

The commission voted to approve the project with recommendations for developers to reexamine some key design elements: trim work, facade details, materials and landscape. The developers will meet with an architect subcommittee to review further refinements.

Again, Hsiao clarified that issues of parking, compliance with zoning and construction mitigation are not under the commission’s power. “We’re not in the position to opine about the engagement with the neighbors, but we always encourage it.”

This post was updated Aug. 8, 2025, to note that Adam Kurth was speaking on behalf of the board for the Ellery Square Homeowners Association rather than saying he is on the board; and to add context for a conversation about an association lawyer.

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.

Donate now