There are many examples of public housing designed with attention and care towards future occupants, neighbors, and the surrounding area. Success stories work in tandem with a lot’s capacity to accommodate the new building. Nothing overwhelms, not like Capstone’s tower will overwhelm when squeezed onto the lot at the corner of Mass. Ave. and Walden Street.
What could Capstone build that works for future occupants, the neighbors, and the overall neighborhood?
How about a family-centered building with a courtyard and defensible space connected to the Senior Center’s patio area next door? For an idea on design, search for aerial photos of Berlin’s, or Madrid’s courtyard-style housing. Note the communal outdoor space with benches, green space, and a playground. That’s what we see at Lincoln Way, Roosevelt Towers, and Jefferson Federal. That’s public housing done right.
Regarding cost, former Councillor Dennis Carlone has shown that tall buildings containing dozens of units are tough to fund (relevant section starts at 4:46). Federal, state, and city dollars looking at a project like Capstone’s 12-story tower will have a problem with the estimated $70 million price tag.
Describing the new zoning laws that permit the Capstone project, Carlone uses the term “Russian Roulette“. When residents no longer have a reasonable expectation of what will go up on any street they get skittish about laying down roots.
Our city government is deregulating development at a city-wide level. It is abdicating control over land it has been stewarding on behalf of the people who live here, vote, and pay taxes. Now our government’s default position is to build high, fast, dense, at any cost, and right away. Incentivizing and increasing the development of mid-rise structures along the corridors and in the squares is a better plan that works for municipal, state and federal funders, developers, contractors, business owners and residents alike.
The writer is a filmmaker in Cambridge.
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.
I am sorry, what? “When residents no longer have a reasonable expectation of what will go up on any street they get skittish about laying down roots.” If there is one thing that is stopping potential residents from “laying down roots”, it is the high cost of housing, not some abstract “I don’t know if there will be a taller building on the same street”.
The courtyards you see in Berlin and Madrid are usually larger than the plot of land in question here. If that was enforced, we’d end up with a worse building with poor, tiny “open” space at the expense of housing fewer people. If the project was built at the same density as Lincoln Way, it could only fit maybe 5 units as opposed to the 70+ that is proposed.
Good thing Dennis Carlone’s no longer on the city council.
The letter writer opposes replacing an ugly building with 100% affordable housing because they prefer an impossible alternative for that lot. It would be more honest to say: ‘I oppose any new buildings, period.’
You can’t say that you support affordable housing if you any effort to build new housing, especially a no brainer like this project. It is 100% affordable housing on a major corridor near public transit. It is exactly what we should be doing!
Instead of building 70+ affordable housing units, Frederico proposes a large open courtyard, reducing the number of units to a fraction of what was planned.
If you oppose affordable housing, just say so.
The claim that people won’t lay down roots because a tall building might go up nearby is absurd. Many people build lasting lives in cities with tall buildings. It also ignores the strong demand for housing and the fact that Cambridge residents have repeatedly supported affordable housing projects, including in the recent election.
And to state the obvious, the main reason people can’t lay down roots here is the lack of affordable options.
Whether you are for or against this specific project, the financials for an all-affordable project may simply not work. If the developers had secured financing, they would been very public about that. I doubt an all-affordable project is possible without very significant public sector financing, and I’d like to see the City Council pay more attention to that aspect.