Cambridge’s affordable housing crunch may threaten the future of a longstanding arts organization, as the building that houses the New School of Music was one of the possible conversion sites presented to councillors during Monday’s working meeting of the Cambridge City Council.
The city manager’s office included the New School’s lot on Lowell Street as a site for conversion along with a vacant lot on Bishop Allen Dr. the city acquired by eminent domain in 2016 and transferred to the Affordable Housing Trust, and an open space on Larch Rd. the city has owned since 2020.
The Lowell St. site has been home to the New School for 45 years, and its inclusion in the proposal generated significant debate as among councillors over how to balance Cambridge’s desire to foster the arts with the need for new sources of affordable housing. Residents consistently rank housing as the city’s most pressing concern. The New School of Music, a nonprofit center that offers group and individual lessons in over a dozen instruments for children and adults, had a lease for the first 10 years of its occupancy at the building on Lowell, and has since been a tenant-at-will. The current agreement with the city is that the New School pays eight percent of its tuition, about $20,000 per year, plus the cost of maintaining the building in exchange for occupancy.
Melissa Peters, assistant city manager for community development, suggested the city could sell or continue to lease the Lowell property for its continued use as a nonprofit space. In either case, though, the city would be required to take the best offer available, meaning the New School of Music could still lose its space.
Some councillors wanted to keep space available for the New School. “I feel profoundly that the arts are the highest expression of creativity and our humanity,” said Councillor Cathie Zusy. “I think especially in this crazy, crazy world that we live in, we really need to provide opportunities for self-expression.”
Other councillors cautioned against “tunnel vision” when attempting broad-level planning, though.
“We have all the needs of a major city and are trying to do it within six square miles,” said Councillor Marc McGovern, in reference to Cambridge’s footprint. “We have a lot of things to balance and they’re all valid and they’re all important to somebody and it’s hard.”
Given that New School’s lot would only fit about 20 units, as well new developments coming soon to West Cambridge like 221 Mount Auburn St. Condos, McGovern said that he wasn’t sure refitting the building on Lowell Street for housing would be “worth the tradeoff.”
Even if the council decides not to convert the building into housing, though, the building needs perhaps $12 to $15 million dollars of renovation and maintenance work.
“If you’re on a one-year annual renewal, there’s not really an incentive for a tenant to put in longer-term repairs,” said City Manager Yi-An Huang, acknowledging why the proposed cost of re-leasing the building has gotten so expensive despite the element of the agreement with the New School that requires it to pay for maintenance.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui called the amount, “not insignificant,” indicating that she would prefer “option two” that the city presented of selling the property instead. “I’m more likely to say two makes sense,” Siddiqui said. “If that’s the will of the body, then that’s the will of the body.”
She cautioned advocates of the New School, some of whom attended the meeting in person, that they could not guarantee the building would go to the New School whether the property was sold or leased.
The city council will report back to the city manager’s office with what they want to do with the site going forward sometime this spring.
Larch Street prime social housing spot
The site at Larch St. was identified specifically as a place where the city could build a social housing project, municipally owned affordable units.
Councillor Ayah Al-Zubi, who called for building social housing as a part of her platform during last year’s election, said she was excited for the opportunity to develop there.
“As someone who advocates towards the decommodification of housing and treating it as a human right, it’s great to see that 185 Larch Road is on there as a possible site,” she said. The presentation also explored ways to find new space for the Department of Public Works (DPW), citing a “shortage of operating space,” for offices and storage of equipment according to Watkins. Options include using space that the city leases in Alewife and empty lots the city already owns on Webster Ave. to house the forestry division. Sherman Street might in an opportune position for sewage storage to prevent combined sewer overflow from going into the Charles River and Alewife Brook.
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 city will build housing? Sure!!!!
Its only takes them about 5 years and ongoing to rebuild two squares (Central and Harvard – which is just simply dig up)! The inefficiency and money pit will only result in – “we need to increase the taxes and fees the residents must pay” type of statement.
The headline on this article gives a false impression Of what happened at the meeting. It’s disappointing. You can do better, Cambridge Day.
Tunnel vision is looking at every single parking lot in the city and designating it for sale to one of the large privately owned companies working to claim ownership for as high a % of Cambridge housing as possible (aka: highest bidder). This leverage drives constantly rising “affordable” and “market” housing costs for the city and for people.
There is hundreds of new housing units in West Cambridge now, and a growing vacancy rate. The insatiable appetite for additional housing at any social cost should not be allowed to wreck the city.
Tunnel vision is treating every parking lot or curb space as sacred, instead of seeing the opportunity for much‑needed housing.
Developers are not driving up prices, the shortage of homes is. When a growing number of people compete for too few units, prices rise, which is exactly what happens when housing production falls behind job and population growth.
The current Cambridge rental vacancy rate is roughly 1%, which is still very tight. A “growing vacancy rate” just means we are inching back from an extreme shortage toward something closer to normal. But we are still not even close to normal.
A large body of work shows that adding new units reduces rents relative to what they would have been and increases the number of homes available, especially when you count the ripple effects as people move from older units into new ones. Blocking new construction does not stop higher‑income households from coming. It just ensures they outbid everyone else for the existing stock.
If we refuse to convert any low‑value land uses like surface parking into housing, and we also refuse taller buildings on already‑developed lots, we are effectively saying that protecting the current streetscape matters more than allowing people who work here to live here.
It’s hard to imagine how some look at a severe housing crisis and say, with a straight face, “let’s keep doing exactly what created this mess.”