Developers of an all-affordable tower at 2070 Massachusetts Ave. defended its height and innovative building materials at an Oct. 7 meeting of the Planning Board.
Original plans faced resistance at nine stories, and the increase to 12 stories, some said, is out of scale with the area and will cast shadows on surrounding buildings. “Twelve stories is an extremely tall building for this area, and I do think that the rendered images are a little bit deceiving,” said one of the wary neighbors, Sean Smeland of Massachusetts Avenue. “At that height, it would be a bit of an eyesore.”
Developers said they increased the height to provide more housing for a city in crisis: The previous design, withdrawn in August 2021, included 49 units compared with the taller building’s 73.
If all goes smoothly, developers said, construction could begin in mid-2027 and residents might move in around mid-2029.
Many community and board members expressed excitement about the implementation of more affordable housing. Several local residents who spoke at the meeting reacted positively to the building’s replacement of what they described as an otherwise underused parcel – until recently, the Darul Kabab restaurant and a surrounding parking lot.
“We do have a very serious shortage in affordable housing in Cambridge, and I see a lot of knock-on effects of that,” said David Halperin, a neighbor of the site on Walden Street. “I would love to have this property in my backyard.”
Affordable housing
The 73 units are planned with a mix of family-size two- and three-bedroom apartments. The housing will be 100 percent affordable, with 12 units earmarked for extremely low-income households at 30 percent of the local average median income and the remainder at or below 60 percent.
“Every time in the previous iteration that we started cutting out apartments, we all said to ourselves, that’s one less family that’s going to have affordable housing,” said Jason Korb, principal of Capstone Communities, one of the project’s developers.
Criticism that height decisions are profit-motivated are incorrect, Korb said.
“We’re really trying to do something significant here that makes a dent in the housing crisis, especially in Cambridge, which is one of the most expensive cities in the country,” Korb said. “That’s the truth – absolutely the truth.”
It is also somewhat academic: 100 percent affordable housing buildings are allowed by right to reach 12 stories along major Cambridge corridors since changes to the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning, and the board hearing was billed as simply an “advisory consultation.”
Building materials
Other residents raised concerns about the presence of formaldehyde in the project’s building materials. The project design prioritizes sustainability through all-electric systems and low-carbon materials and is Passive House certified. Part of the materials include mass timber, a renewable material made by layering and bonding wood to form strong structural components that can replace steel or concrete. The material has drawn concern about the formaldehyde associated with some adhesives used to bond the wood layers.
“Since this technology is new to Cambridge, I think we have to be very careful in investigating it,” resident Helen Walker said. “There are reports coming in from Asia of sick building syndrome from this product, unless the 100 percent no-formaldehyde glue is specified.”
Walker also noted that standard tests for air quality safety look to a dataset of “healthy males of working age.” This standard isn’t sufficient for all residents, particularly children, the elderly and people with conditions that make them sensitive to poor indoor air quality, she said.
Jason Forney, an architect on the project, said his team takes the issue seriously, but most building materials contain formaldehyde and other compounds – something that is “just unavoidable.”
The level of formaldehyde in the mass timber is low, though – 7.3 parts per billion – and during construction, workers will flush out the building to remove lingering chemicals from the air, he said.
“We’re trying to do something innovative here,” Forney said. “We could build a steel building, but it would take four months longer, require twice as many piles that would have to go significantly deeper and cause more disruption to the neighborhood.”
Traffic, parking and other issues
The initial design included parking spaces; developers removed them to make room for more amenities and residential units and are instead ensuring there is drop-off and pickup space; complications with entering and exiting onto busy Walden Street are being addressed with a widening of Walden to 10 feet from 8, made possible through a reduction of the structure’s footprint, developers said.
It remains unclear whether the additional construction on Walden Street will occur during the building’s construction. Developers assured the community that they will schedule construction to minimize difficulties for the area.
A rooftop garden space is proposed, and discussions continue around the location of building services such as trash and bike rooms, and design of the ground-floor façade. Developers acknowledged concerns and said they will consider them as the design continues. They explained that current designs are at a schematic level, and there is progress to come.
The meeting concluded with a motion requiring a report summarizing committee and community feedback to be submitted to developers for continued consideration. The proposal still needs funding approval – including about $14 million from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust – and formal certification that it meets city affordable housing requirements.
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 is one of the properties that highlights the issues with the AHO.
The city gave the developer a grant of $3.8m for the land back in 2018. There was never a traffic study done, and it was originally submitted under 40b regs seeking 25 variances instead of the AHO. Everyone encouraged Capstone to resubmit under the AHO, in which case the building would be finished by now.
Mr Forb recently told the Globe
“Financially, we probably could have made the tax credits and everything work at six stories”
Instead, this for-profit developer is now submitting for a high rise, which he has no experience ever building.
Ten years after the land purchase.
And he has the nerve to say “Criticism that height decisions are profit-motivated are incorrect”
Clearly it pays to have connections to a City Councilor.
Exciting! Happy to see more homes coming to porter. The render looks like a perfectly normal twelve-story building to me.
Opposing housing over a few shadows or personal taste is selfish and callous. People need homes, and this project is 100% affordable. As for “eyesore,” is the fast-food joint it replaces really beautiful? The NIMBY crowd is veering into self-parody.
And remember when they claimed pro-housing policies would lead to McMansions and luxury condos? Projects like this prove them wrong.
73 units where there were none. 73 units that have no parking. 73 units building with no open space requirements. Welcome to the area of chaos. Where are these residents going to park?
The formula to jam as many units as you possibly can into every square inch of land with complete disregard to parking and open space is not a very good one. Where does that end? Should we build on kids play parks and any open land….because…you know….people want to live in Cambridge…. and their wish must be granted?
This is not NIMBY saying the run down restaurant is better. This is a sensible person saying if you want to build 73 units, you need better planning with parking, access, open space, neighborhood fit etc. Otherwise you are just trading one set of problems for even larger ones.
@kdolan are you saying that the problem with the AHO is that the proposed project got bigger? If so, that’s the explicit purpose of the AHO, to build more affordable housing.
If you’re saying the problem with the AHO is that it delayed this project, that’s not really the AHO’s fault, that’s the fault of the fact that the zoning changed. A developer proposing a similar project now wouldn’t run into a similar issue, because the AHO is already law.
The fact that the law that allows 12 stories of affordable housing is resulting in a 12-story affordable apartment building is a good thing, in my view
Typical Cambridge performance. Build a building with poisonous materials because no well to do person will never live there. Why are we always crapping on those who have no alternatives.
Trying to block the building because of the materials seems a bit like a smokescreen for simply not wanting to see a 12-story tower there at all. (Helen Walker, for example, has previously publicly opposed both the Multifamily Zoning Ordinance and AHO 2.0).
There are other things we fill our homes with that are worse offenders when it comes to formaldehyde, like MDF used in furniture and cabinetry.
“Poisonous materials”, where does that come from? Please be serious.
@kdolan
This project shows the AHO working as intended. It is producing affordable housing where it’s most needed.
The city’s 2018 grant was routine, not a favor.
Delays came from state financing, not shortcuts or special treatment.
The extra height makes the homes financially viable and more deeply affordable, not more profitable.
The “connections” claim is totally baseless.
What matters is that this site will finally deliver real affordable housing instead of endless obstruction.
No parking?? Seriously? All of the current city councilors should be required to drive down Mass Ave every night to attend a 6:15 meeting near the Arlington border to see how they have improved the well-being of Cambridge residents – NOT!!!
To CWEC- what would you say if someone found traces of lead in water? People need water to live. Water is more important?. To a whole section of the population including my sister who is desperately environmentally ill, modern materials used to make things quicker and easier usually have hazardous side effects to those people. there is such a thing as “sick buildings”. Ms. Walker is absolutely correct to question chemicals in modern materials which can make people sick. My sister can tell you about formaldehyde in carpets, and yes, you are right about it being in chipboard furniture. By saying chemicals are ‘unavoidable”, the architect acknowledged it. I do not read any statement that Ms. Walker is against housing, but rather- bringing attention to yet another issue to be aware of. These kinds of chemicals are also related to asthma and respiratory issues. Again, not against housing but meant to educate both the public and developers.
@pete If someone found traces of lead in water but they were also giving their children lead-painted toys, I’d say their focus is in the wrong place.
My point is that even if this building were built out of steel (at greater cost, time, and disruption), it very likely would have sources of formaldehyde that are found in any other type of building throughout the city. The perceived problem would still be there, but the outrage goes away.
As for SBS itself, I’m willing to bet that you’re more likely to get it from a triple decker built a century and a half ago than a new mass timber building. Mold, dust, etc are going to be worse in the housing stock that we already have, because they were built before most modern building techniques were invented.