Capstone and the city seem less concerned with the neighborhood and more interested in making a statement.
That statement might read like this: We want many tall buildings between Harvard Square and Alewife. We want the buildings now, the taller the better, and we’re willing to spend whatever it takes to get them.
Capstone’s tower will be the tallest building on Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Alewife. The very large Henderson Carriage Building across the street is two-and-a-half times shorter.
The tower has a footprint the same size as two mid-Cambridge three-deckers with backyards, but contains 75 apartments.
It occupies the entire lot at 2072, with zero open space at ground level, jamming it up against its neighbors, one of which is the North Cambridge Senior Center.
It provides zero parking spaces.
It has no load in or drop off zone.
It is situated at one of the avenue’s busiest intersections.
It is a ridiculously expensive project, clocking in at about 1 million dollars per unit. That’s about 75 million dollars, a huge percentage coming from the Affordable Housing Trust, which is funded by taxpayers. The taller you build, the higher the cost. A seven-story building is not only easier to build, it’s also less expensive.
The city is working feverishly to compensate for decades of poor housing policy and developers are thrilled. If the city had incentivized gentle-density mid-rise housing, capping it at seven stories on the corridors, developers, councilors, and Cambridge residents would not be shouting at each other.
Capstone needs to revise its design or just build a much-needed pocket park on the corner of Mass. Ave. and Walden.
Federico Muchnik, Richdale Avenue
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.
> The tower has a footprint the same size as two mid-Cambridge three-deckers with backyards, but contains 75 apartments.
Great, more neighbors! Seems like an efficient use of space.
What’s the significance of the building abutting the senior center? That face of the existing building has no windows, so it’s not like it’ll block any access.
A seven story building is easier to build, but take into account the limited land and the high land costs we have in Cambridge. It very likely would be much more expensive to get the same number of units in half the height.
> Capstone needs to […] build a much-needed pocket park
Why should they? They’re not a park developer, they’re a housing developer.
> If the city had incentivized gentle-density mid-rise housing, capping it at seven stories on the corridors, developers, councilors, and Cambridge residents would not be shouting at each other.
I don’t know what you’re basing this on. People routinely protest loudly smaller buildings on those same corridors. Take the development at the Spears site on Western Ave, for example.
If the buildings have no space between them as described the new one would be a fire risk to the existing building. There is supposed to be an alley way between any two buildings that close on the property line. Could someone please investigate the plans and see whether this is an exaggeration of the closeness of the two buildings or a serious mistake that needs to be corrected.
Also has anyone investigated the issue of the potential affects of 75 new units in this location on the water pressure system and the cost to the city for capacity it would use. After several years of droughts, sometimes multiple times in a year, we need to be concerned about the limits of our aging reservoir storage etc. Same with power use in the area and capacity.
Why should we have parks and green spaces? That’s like asking why shouldn’t all food just be grey goo that keeps us alive.
It is about more than having a place to live. It is about having a place this is livable.
75 apartments with absolutely no parking/loading zone and no open space!!
That is bonkers!!! We need to accommodate people to live in Cambridge but not at the cost of ruining it for people around it. We are going to regret decisions like 10 years from now, but by then our councilors would have moved to make another city great again and the developers would be sitting on their private beach. All you will be left with is neighbors bickering over each other for elbow space.
I am sorry that everyone who wants to live in Cambridge cannot afford to live in Cambridge. He is tries to please all will please none.
Capstone’s not “making a statement”. They’re helping fix Cambridge’s housing shortage. Building homes near major transit routes is exactly what the city should be doing.
Yes, it’s tall and dense. That’s the point! Using a small lot for 75 apartments means fewer people priced out, less sprawl, and less traffic due to access to public transport.
The cost argument misses that these units include affordable housing funded for public benefit, not developer profit.
This is exactly the type of development that Cambridge needs. Cambridge has parks. What we don’t have are enough places for people to actually live.
So a nice pocket park for wealthy homeowners but not affordable homes for 75 families? Could this be any more Marie Antoinette?
Parking? Surveys show that somewhere in the range of 35–45% of Cambridge residents either live without a car or use one very rarely, with roughly one‑third in fully car‑free households and an additional people owning but rarely driving. So, lack of parking doesn’t ruin things for half or more of Cambridge residents.
But lack of housing drives up costs for renters, who are 2/3rd of Cambridge residents.
As many urban analysts have argued, too much parking has ruined cities, including by driving up real estate costs.
https://www.routledge.com/The-High-Cost-of-Free-Parking-Updated-Edition/Shoup/p/book/9781932364965
It’s far past time we stop making decisions based on parking.
How about we decide to provide affordable housing for have-nots instead making things easier for people who have?
Since it went unmentioned in the letter:
This is a project filled with 100% affordable units.
It replaces a vacant storefront.
It is a quarter mile from the Red Line and the Porter Square Shopping Center. A bike lane and bus stop are directly adjacent.
@PooBah, nobody asked why we should have parks. I asked why Capstone, a housing developer that paid for that lot with the intent of developing housing, should instead build a pocket park on that lot.
It’s an unserious proposal from someone that I suspect just doesn’t want to see construction on his street. Same reason he opposes the new development at Walden Square.
There are plenty of parks in the area. By my count, there’s 5 parks within a 15 minute walk of that lot, one of which is Danehy.
@Cambridgejoe Fire code allows for adjoining buildings, alleyways are not a requirement. Building an abutting building triggers certain fire wall regulations, but it is not outright banned.
In order to oppose development, some people make up problems that don’t exist. Fire risks? Electric and water capacity?
Building and fire codes already address separation and fire‑resistance when buildings are close or even attached. If the design didn’t meet those standards, it wouldn’t get a permit.
The same is true for water and power: Cambridge plans utility capacity at the system level and can require upgrades when needed. If the grid and water system usage wasn’t within capacity, the project would not get a permit.
Adding homes on a major transit corridor is exactly the kind of growth our infrastructure is meant to support, not a “serious mistake” to be feared.
75 affordable homes. 100% of the units. Near public transit. If you disapprove of this, you don’t want any affordable housing anywhere.
The claim that a “huge percentage” of funds is coming from the Affordable Housing Trust is false, and the author’s lengthy crusade against this and other 100% affordable housing proposals suggests he knows the actual percentage and knows his claim is false.
Why does Cambridge Day keep publishing NIMBY lies?