The article All-affordable tower could break ground in 2027 on Mass. Ave describes a new design to nearly double the number of units (49 to 73) and provide for NO parking. Left out is the fact that low-income people want, use and often own cars.
More units and no parking spaces mean more developer profits, and the developer (Capstone Communities) is a large for-profit developer. The North Cambridge area involved is not a neighborhood of the well-to-do with ample off-street parking (and many garages). Residents will now be fighting with the new residents over the same on-street parking spaces. I support affordable housing and for many years was on the board (and once board president) of the non-profit and justly much-admired affordable housing developer Just-A-Start Corporation (with HRI, one of only two such developers in Cambridge). Seventy-three units with zero parking places should not be acceptable.
John H. Henn, Neighborhood 9
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.
What you are saying is you want this all-affordable project to cost more to build, and you want the developer to subsidize existing residents’ access to easy street parking.
Data from the Cambridge Housing Authority shows that, of the over 21,000 waitlisted applicants for low-income housing, thousands live and work in Cambridge already. Demanding the inclusion of parking spaces, when many potential residents won’t actually need them, simply reinforces car-dependency and only helps the large for-profit car companies.
Submitting letters like this should come with a requirement to back up assertions about the need for parking. I don’t know John, nor do I live in this area of Cambridge but I’m being asked to accept his words at face value.
Anecdotally I have never had a problem finding a space in this area, and I know plenty of individuals who don’t own a car in Cambridge. As such I’m predisposed not to take this argument seriously.
Data and evidence next time, please.
This comment is out of touch. First of all, many low-income people cannot afford cars. Affordable housing residents in Cambridge overwhelmingly rely on transit, not private vehicles, and the site is steps from the Red Line.
Second, a parking requirement was removed by the city because it drives up housing costs.
Capstone isn’t “profiting” off parking cuts. It’s using limited land and funding to house more *people* rather than giving free storage to unused cars.
Demanding parking for every unit would waste millions of public dollars and kill affordable homes our city desperately needs.
Pretending to “support affordable housing” while opposing the projects that actually provide it is exactly why Cambridge’s rents are sky-high today.
While it is true that many people own cars, many do not. This building doesn’t need to be suitable for all people, only for the 73 households who will live there.
I assure you, there are at least 73 car-free households on the affordable housing wait-list.
As to the concern that a developer might profit from construction of new housing: does John plan to build these homes for free? Can he find a builder who will do it for free? I didn’t think so. Things cost money. If you want homes built, someone’s gotta get paid to build them. It’s not a sin to make money providing a useful service that people want!
I would suggest the author of this letter read the excellent “The High Cost of Free Parking” book by Donald Shoup. Parking is expensive, and we all, even people without cars (almost 40% of Cambridge households have no cars), have to pay its direct and indirect costs. Please do not force us to pay for your private vehicle storage. Thank you.
Totally agree with this. There is no fairy that will make automatically find parking for these new residents. Adding 73 units without planning for parking is not just bad planning, it is horrible planning!
And saying that these residents will not or do not need cars is a cop out answer and you know it. Thanks city council for making Cambridge great again.
More units and no parking spaces mean more housing for more people who badly need housing. Reducing the number of units to make parking easier for the neighbors should not be acceptable.
No one is forcing anyone to live there if they want parking.
A large chunk of Cambridge households already don’t own cars, and lower income people are less likely to own a car than wealthier people. Applicants are free to decline the unit if they do need parking.
I’d rather have more homes for families than storage for cars, this is not a problem for me whatsoever.
Housing for people is more important than housing for cars.
People that build houses should be able to make a profit commensurate with the amount and quality of housing they create.
Being pro-housing also means pro-housing when it’s close to where your own house is.
Housing for people, not cars, indeed. Lower income people that qualify for affordable housing are more likely to not own cars and use public transit, which is nearby.
If you can’t support this housing project, you cannot say you support affordable housing. This one is a no-brainer.
why is it that when someone expresses concerns about a project that they are labeled as being NIMBY or anti-housing? that is not fair nor accurate. many people are actually property rich and cash poor, meaning they can’t move, or continue to get huge offers to the point that if they do sell, the naturally affordable housing in their multi-family will be lost for a market-rate building. This has not been thought out. But the train has left the station.
Trust me…you won’t want to own a car living there. Good luck getting out onto Walden St at that intersection!
The problem goes away if the residents of these new high-rise towers are not allowed to receive parking permits. It’s a win-win — only those without need of a car will live there (which is what the city and all these commenters want anyway), and then these projects will not impact the grandfathered parking needs of existing residents.