A packed meeting of the Porter Square Neighbors Association heard Thursday about concepts for two apartment buildings that would include as many as 100 affordable units.
The apartment buildings will replace two little-used parking lots at 1826 and 1840 Massachusetts Ave.
“Our goal is to add a significant amount of housing. We’re trying to get around 100 units for families to live here,” said Madeline Lee, a project manager with nonprofit developer Just A Start, which bought the lots in November 2024 from Lesley University. Lee noted average rent across Cambridge is now $3,274 a month, requiring a $130,000 household salary to avoid being considered rent-burdened.
Just A Start, which owns more than 600 units of affordable housing in more than 50 buildings across Cambridge, is using the City Council-approved Affordable Housing Overlay zoning passed in 2020 specifically to make construction of affordable homes easier. Lee said it had more than 2,000 applicants for the lottery for the 106 units in its recently opened 52 New St. building in Neighborhood 9.
At the meeting, officials from Just A Start said they hoped to break ground two years from now, and start renting units in 2029. They also said they want plenty of feedback from residents to help shape their designs. Noah Sawyer, director of real estate for the nonprofit, said its architect, Rode, has delivered 14 ideas for consideration. He said Just A Start wants people to get used to the idea that there could be 15-story buildings on each side of Mount Vernon Street.
Fifteen stories “is a scary concept to me,” one attendee said, “but I’m ready to get used to it.”
Lee said that while allowed 15 stories by right, “that is not necessarily how tall we are going to develop. We’re considering a range of heights between around seven and 15 stories.”
Sawyer asked attendees to consider that “the shorter the buildings we build, they take up more of the site and leave less for other other uses and less for open space.”
Interested neighbors
The meeting filled a lecture hall at a Lesley University building across from the lots and had more people watching online. Some in attendance welcomed the development. One nearby longtime condo owner said he was “very happy to see these lots finally being developed.”
But a litany of concerns was raised by others: shade, wind, traffic and that the project’s size would be out of scale with the neighborhood. Jeff Peterson, an architect who lives in the Baldwin neighborhood, said he looked at Just A Start’s presentation and was “appalled and disappointed that we’re basically going to ignore that context,” with too much height and formulaic designs that are “going to look terrible in 15 years.”
One woman simply asked, “What other communities and towns have been attacked with this affordable housing idea? Does everybody always have to live in Cambridge?”
A wish list for the buildings
The buildings near Porter Square are expected to be all-electric, with a high standard for energy efficiency and a likely mix of the one-, two- and three-bedroom units that Just A Start typically builds, Lee said. The nonprofit wants an active ground floor, likely with retail, and possibly even underground parking, though the zoning doesn’t require it. “It could be up to 22-ish parking spaces per level below grade. We’re kind of figuring out what the cost of that would be and if it would be prohibitive,” Lee said.
There’s a lot to be balanced on the sites, with the constant being the number of homes that will secure financing and “the opportunity of a place where housing can be brought to Cambridge,” Lee said. “A hundred units is feasible here.”
Uses imagined for the ground floor included a community kitchen, public meeting space and small shops for new businesses, and Lee wanted people also to think about how the parking lots could be used before construction starts, such as for container gardening or a pop-up market.
“We can’t achieve everything in a project, and we want to be really clear about what we can and cannot realistically do,” Lee said told the people at the meeting. “We’re in a pretty early stage and want to hear what’s important to you.”
The Planning Board will hold a hearing this summer followed by requests for state and city financing in the fall.
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.
These are such obviously good ideas, it’s upsetting that we have to debate, yet again, whether it’s pretty.
You know what doesn’t support the neighborhood character? You know what destroys community? Displacement, rising prices, and increased homelessness caused by our regional housing shortage. A shortage made deeper by the endless process that will never satisfy people who hate change and think their incumbent ownership gives them the right to block others from having a place to stay.
We just need to figure out which concessions to developers will finally solve this zero sum housing stock problem we have that’s totally just about supply and will totally reverse itself without anyone strictly controlling rents.
“Lee said it had more than 2,000 applicants for the lottery for the 106 units in its recently opened 52 New St. building in Neighborhood 9.”
Why is Cambridge permitting lotteries for affordable housing? Are people in the lottery current Cambridge residents? Why aren’t Cambridge teachers, firefighters, police officers and Cambridge administrators put at the top of the list. Isn’t that group what affordable should be for?
Here’s hoping that the City Height Limits remain within the capability of our Fire Department to deal with problems in high rise buildings as they go up, considering the tragedy over this week in Honk Kong that killed so many people and costs many hundreds of people their living spaces.
I do not know how they will handle 12, 15 or more stories on a housing property, or if they are even able to handle some of the buildings we have now that are of such sizes.
Is this really “out of character” for the neighborhood, but a giant empty parking lot is not? People need homes more than they need asphalt.
Worried about traffic? Adding homes near transit actually cuts car dependence and reduces driving overall.
Shade from a building on an empty lot is not a serious standard; if shade were disqualifying, nothing would ever get built.
Wind? That is grasping at straws.
The objections keep changing, but the goal is always the same: to block any change at all.
So long as world, US, and Massachusetts populations continue to increase, more people will need new housing. Where to put it? In isolated, pristine rural areas? In struggling, near-bankrupt towns? Near toxic waste dumps? Or: Is it time to set a ceiling on our Massachusetts population?
Or: What about adding new housing to successful urban areas? Ones with robust public services but low residential property taxes? With job opportunities (demand for labor) and stable governance? With the built-in efficiencies of multi-family zoning, short trips to everything, and plentiful transportation alternatives? Sounds like Cambridge to me.
Affordable housing is essential to a just, healthy, and vibrant Cambridge. With more than 2,000 applicants competing for just over 100 new affordable units, the need is urgent.
Recent zoning along Massachusetts Avenue and other corridors allows 8–15 story buildings because they are a common, manageable building type in U.S. cities, not extreme “supertalls”, and they must meet all safety requirements.
Using a tragic fire abroad to oppose these heights ignores differences in enforcement, maintenance, and construction practices. The right response is to maintain strong safety standards here, not block needed homes near transit and jobs.
Well-designed mid- and high-rise affordable housing can safely add hundreds of homes on a small footprint, reducing displacement and long commutes.
@Cambridgejoe Really? Using the Hong Kong fire as an excuse not to build housing here? That fire was caused by bamboo scaffolding. something we don’t use. Do you realize that we already have tall buildings along with fire and safety codes?
Invoking that tragedy to oppose housing is shameful. I am surprised that your post was not flagged as inappropriate.
When will enough be enough without imposing the guilt of responsibility to provide housing for every person who wants to live in Cambridge? 15 stories is too much – we just do not have the infrastructure in place to support this level of development. 15 stories is more appropriate for a city the size of NYC.
When will enough be enough? You hit on the key question.
For some in Cambridge, and at the City Council, there will never be enough. Their thought is to bring more people to Cambridge.
Cambridge is dense. Cambridge is highly diversified. Cambridge has schools that don’t appear to educate a large segment of schoolchildren.
Cambridge should be spending the AH funds for tutoring the students who need help. If not, we’ll have another large number of CRLS graduates who will not be able to function is a society that is going to demand the ability to understand more complex things than is currently the norm.
We do not need more people coming to live in Cambridge. 130,000 or so is enough.
The City Council isn’t “bringing people to Cambridge.” Jobs are. When a city adds jobs but not housing, a housing crisis is inevitable.
Fifteen stories “too tall”? Many cities build much higher. Cities must adapt to growing populations. If we refuse to build enough homes, Cambridge becomes affordable only to the wealthy and traffic worsens as more people drive in because they can’t afford to live here.
If someone opposes building housing on an empty parking lot near public transportation, they oppose any effort to build housing. Housing should be a right not a privilege for the wealthy.
Cambridge should at least make it possible to build enough housing for the jobs that it creates. Over the past few decades, we’ve added 50k+ jobs and only a fraction as many homes. We as a city are major contributors to the regional housing crisis, I’d like instead to be a part of the solution.
Dear @Ruby and @Old Boy
We have huge housing shortage for people who already live here in bad conditions, are homeless, and / or work in Cambridge. I have a modest proposal: let us build more housing for all who need it. 15 stories, 20 stories, whatever. That’s it. You can still live in Cambridge or move someplace more to your liking, makes no difference. Sounds good to me. You have nothing affecting you, but many people have a better living situation and maybe don’t have to move out because Cambridge is unaffordable.
cwec makes the key point. Where were are these devoted city preservationists when Cambridge created 30,000 + highly paid jobs in Kendall Square? Did they imagine everything else in Cambridge would be unaffected? The city is going to change, it’s simply a question of how it’s going to change. The preservationists have a billion arguments against every proposal for housing (wind! shade! traffic! trees! parking! history! more study! more planning! what about! those people! not nice enough! too nice! too tall! setbacks! blah!) and if we follow their lead the path is clear: we will become Palo Alto, where aside from a few public housing projects, you have to be rich to live there. Or we can acknowledge that change is necessary, and build, especially along corridors with mass transit and lots of retail nearby. That’s the option that improves the environment, keeps Cambridge the diverse and fascinating place it is, and provides opportunities for the young and non-rich to live here.