A proposed six-story addition to a Massachusetts Avenue mansion that would hold affordable housing drew critiques Tuesday for not fitting in well with the neighborhood, but the project was overall welcomed by residents and Cambridge’s Planning Board.
The details “look institutional, they look out of character with Mellen Street, which I know to be a really beautiful street,” board member Tom Sieniewicz said.
Unlike most developments under review by the board, this site is within Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay and members can issue only recommendations for it. This meeting was the first of two required meetings for a developer working within that zoning to hear feedback.
The site at 1627 Massachusetts Ave., in the Baldwin neighborhood near Harvard Square, will include 29 permanently affordable units. The developer, Homeowners Rehab Inc., bought the property in August from Lesley University at the encouragement of City Council and city staff, according to Eleni Macrakis of HRI. The purchase was funded by the city’s Affordable Housing Trust. The lot’s latest valuation set its price to just under $4.5 million.
Macrakis noted that while the project is officially at 1627 Massachusetts Ave., the address of the building will become 4 Mellen St.
Preserving a structure
The building, a mansion from 1862, previously served as Lesley’s admission office. HRI plans to add a building over the mansion’s parking lot to hold the bulk of the apartments. At its highest point, the building will stand at six stories but step down five stories facing the Baldwin neighborhood.
As the mansion is recognized as historic, the exterior will remain largely the same, preserving aspects such as the large lawn wrapping around the mansion from Massachusetts Avenue to Mellen Street. The inside will preserve aspects such as the fireplace and wood accents.
The same model was used up the avenue at Frost Terrace, an all-affordable 40-unit residential development at 1791 Massachusetts Ave., near Porter Square. It preserved the street presence of the William Frost house, built in the late 1800s, by putting the bulk of 40 affordable units in a new structure behind it.
Blending in better
Macrakis emphasized that 65 percent of the Mellen Street developments would be fit for families, including two or three bedrooms. Fourteen units would be set aside for those earning 60 percent of the area median income in Cambridge, while 15 units would be adjusted to 30 percent of a particular renter’s income.
The building would include permanent basement bike parking and residents would have the opportunity to get a three-month MBTA pass at no cost. A parking study in 2022 found that the area had enough available parking for the development within a 500-foot radius.
Public comments on the project were generally in favor of creating affordable housing, though some neighbors were concerned about the lack of parking and loading zones provided around Mellen Street and called for a new parking study to be done. Some said the new building – a large, square structure – did not adhere to the character of the neighborhood.
The board agreed, praising the developer for the outcome on affordable units but noting that the design could be improved by being more conscious of the surrounding neighborhood – and “not only in terms of fitting into that neighborhood, but also in relating to the mansion,” chair Mary Flynn said. Several board members commented on the presence of an electrical transformer in front of the building, asking if it could be put underground.
HRI representatives said they were taking notes and would think about the feedback. Macrakis said the company hopes to secure funding in 2024 and begin construction on the project in 2025.
In other developments:
- Cambridge’s Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance on July 13 after a family on Alpine Street, in trying to renovate their home to fit their children and grandparents, accidentally caused the building to collapse. The construction, the BZA chair noted, was as of right; the variance was required only because the accidental demolition fell outside the permit granted by the city. Originally, the family’s project got little support from neighbors, who continued to worry that the new proposed top floor would be too large and fall outside of compliance with the city’s setback codes; but amendments to the project to an as-of-right construction led the board to approve it unanimously.
- The Planning Board unanimously approved a new day care, the Gardener School, at 109 First St. A special permit was required in this case because the property was originally intended for retail; this school use come after the property owner, TR 107 First LLC, said it was unable to find an appropriate retailer to occupy the space.
- SGL Development filed plans for a four-story lab building in Porter Square, BldUp reported July 7. The construction would demolish buildings between 30-44 White St. and replace them with a 42,000-square-foot lab building. The new development will include no additional parking spaces, but there will be 17 bike parking spots.
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.
During a housing shortage that’s imposed punishing rent increases on the two-thirds of Cambridge households who don’t own a home, converting a parking lot – one that Lesley University doesn’t need anymore – into 25 apartments for the lowest-income households in the city seems like a great idea. Even many of the people at the hearing who objected to the work of HRI’s architects said they agreed.
The design objectors seem not to have considered that (a) we have a housing shortage not a design shortage, (b) it’s often easier to critique the appearance of another person’s home than it is to hear other people critique yours, and (c) the AHO design standards were made advisory largely because objections to the outward appearance of buildings have often had the effect of delaying, reducing or blocking housing for low-come households, immigrant households and Black or other people-of-color households.
It seems that our affordable housing permit procedures need less design review and more humane review.
The AHO is great, no need to listen to NIMBY complaints. The building looks great and Cambridge doesn’t have parking minimums so no issue there either.
It’s all good. Public transportation is good, too. (Except for anyone who actually takes it.)
p.s. SGL “withdrew” their application for a special permit for a five-story “lab-tech” building on White Street on the Porter Square Mall “without prejudice” tonight at the Somerville Planning Board. Hopefully this means they’re considering a better use for these properties. Housing, with ground floor retail, would be ideal in this location.
The Planning Board said it all: with costs at $1,000,000 a unit, the residents, the neighbors, and the city taxpayers deserve an excellent building, one conveying the features of good design. This one does not. As one of the board members noted, it looks like they are trying to keep something in their pocket. Market rate housing costs far less than this to build. Who gets hurt? Taxpayers, neighbors, residents of these units. As the CDD’s own design team wrote, this design does not even meet the minimal criteria of AHO 1.0. There is lots of time needed on this to get the funding and more. During this time, they need to come up with a far better design than a cheap looking cube-like box without much articulation, one whose design can be seen around the country in “affordable housing” developments. The AHO guidelines require these structures to fit into the neighborhoods in terms of design. This one does not. As to the NIMBY nonsense that the pro-builders’ group throws at everyone else, lets help correct this term to read: NIMBI – Not in More Builders Incomes. Enough with the profit driven motive to housing. We need a citywide and areawide plan. We also need to elect a far more responsible and responsive government that cares about residents and neighborhoods.
If we were building affordable housing on the moon we could do whatever we want. But we live in an old complex city with predetermined fabric- including our historical identity and homeowning families who have been here 40-100 yrs and have their own financial constraints. Why don’t their voices count? They just want to be acknowledged and considered in this new coexistence. Ironically, some of the most vocal and disruptive proponents have since moved out of town and others have graduated or moved for jobs elsewhere. Stir the pot, fan the flames and leave. Where is their commitment to this municipality other than wanting instant gratification without analysis?.
Also contributing to skyrocketing rentals is the influx of bio-tech and commercial industries needing to house their employees. Housing does not happen in a vacuum or bubble. Nor does the panic command an ugly building at any cost. Design matters. This AHO building WILL happen.
Same with Walden Sq apartments who want the better designed townhouses and human scale rather than a big slab of a warehouse (and better maintenance by its owner) dwarfing the area. (with the same number of units). Design contributes to quality of life.
It takes Urban Planning, something CDD tends to be short on. YET their design committee affirmed that this new AHO building is short on conforming details agreed to in the original AHO and needs detail work. This project also needs to find funding and is projected to be in play in 2025. There is time to get it right. People in need deserve a nice place to live. It is the difference between an iconic building worth saving or an eyesoar branding its tenants. The location of this AHO is amidst a cluster of historical houses and can find a way to fit in better, creating pride in those new tenants.
BTW- Not one commenter was against this being an AHO building- indeed, they actually encouraged it. Labeling people NIMBYs continues to be a shallow, ignorant call by the shallow and ignorant. The ongoing question on any big plan is HOW-the nuts and bolts, not the wave of the hand or ideology. It is practical hard work.
The stupidest thing I have heard is “we have a housing shortage not a design shortage”. The two are not mutually exclusive and design is important. why do people pick one car over another? one pair of jeans over another? Modern over Colonial? Design, function and fit all contribute. Of course, if you are stark naked, a burlap gunny sake would be welcome. But given a choice, design matters and EVERYTHING right down to fire hydrants have to be designed.. I am not making light of the housing shortage, but a well-designed building- especially when there is time, contributes to quality of life.
This call for housing without responsibility will only get worse with the pending AHO 2.0 with 12 story buildings on corridors and 15 stories in Harvard, Central and Porter sq– two of the three being bottle necks for working, transport and service activity. the big/ tall buildings used as prime existing examples are actually a block OFF or BEHIND the main drag, leaving more open space on boulevards (Mass Ave) and spreads out density. For the most part, they are not noticed. But no. It is irresponsible that proponents- 6 of 9 on the stacked city council – haven’t considered the synergistic effects of the 5 or so conflicting policy orders including 100% electric, sewage, infrastructure, net zero etc and location of mechanicals if those tall buildings are lot line to lot line. Where are transformers going to go? It will also come to pass that eliminating ALL off street parking, green space and setbacks will raise their collective ugly heads as a massive problem. None of the details have been worked out.
We need a more responsive and responsible council who REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS not special interests and lobbyists. BTW- the “21,000” people on the waiting list also include those who have signed up across the country wanting to live in Cambridge if they had their druthers. There are 3500 or so on the CDD wait list and 7000 on a list including those who work in Cambridge. Let’s break down the numbers and not use scare tactics.
It might be interesting to those becoming single-issue proponents to listen to the whole design review. Listening to deliberation is an education in itself. More people should do it for ANY issue if they are truly engaged. there are such things as cause and effect, unintended consequences, and poor choices.
(planning board July 18th)
https://cambridgema.granicus.com/player/clip/546?view_id=1&redirect=true&h=1d3d30e2177116ed1338df1ffd548e01
The review is advisory only. The developer can proceed as planned. Good, bad, ugly it is what it is. I’d like to see under the hood on the $1M/unit calc. Even with costs where they are that number is really screwed up.
“BTW- the “21,000” people on the waiting list also include those who have signed up across the country wanting to live in Cambridge if they had their druthers.”
This is CCC nonsense. They’ve heard it debunked, but they keep repeating it anyway. I used to refer to it as an inaccurate claim, then a misleading claim – now I just call it a lie. That’s what it is when you keep repeating the same thing that simply isn’t true, after you’ve been repeatedly shown it isn’t true: a lie.
It *is* true that there are people on the list that don’t currently live or work in Cambridge, but they’re not from “all over the country” and they often *do* have a connection to Cambridge. Should a family who lived here for a decade before being priced out, but who would love to return count? Not according to the CCC! To the CCC, they’re just outsiders “from all over the country.”
Most people on the list are MA residents who live in surrounding communities. Do you think of Somervillians or Bostonians as neighbors? I do. CCC doesn’t. To them, they’re just outsiders “from all over the country.”
People who do currently live and/or work in Cambridge are also on waitlists for affordable housing in other cities! Does the CCC ever mention this? No, they do not.
But there are good reasons the lists work like this! For one, a lot of affordable housing receives state money. People from such faraway lands as Waltham, MA help fund affordable housing right here in Cambridge through their taxes.
For another, Cambridge isn’t a remote island. We’re not on some isolated mountaintop. We’re a city whose economy, job market, housing market, cultural scene, environmental concerns, and a host of other vital interests are deeply entwined with those of surrounding cities. This is a strength, not a weakness. The “Cambridge for Cantebrigians” story CCC peddles is no better than “America first” isolationism. They’re both mean-spirited, short-sighted, and foolish philosophies.
We’re better than that. Tell the CCC propagandists to stop with these lies already. No one who doesn’t already agree with them is buying it.
This is what is needed more of everywhere. If people of different economic, ethnic, racial and educational backgrounds live in closer proximity to one another – or are neighbors, we’ll have a healthier and safer community.
would it make any difference if the comment was people living outside the state (NY, etc) but definitely outside of Cambridge? There have also been cases where people from away jump the line. The principle is still there and was confirmed by one of the advocating councilors who tried to break down the 21,000. the point is there is no way to accommodate the vast number without the domino affect of problems with infrastructure, materials, funding, electricity, service etc. this cannot be a free for all and no one seems to look at data. If we can get the same amount of units with a better design I’m all for it.
No, that would not be better. You’re still just making stuff up.
I don’t even know what you mean by “jump the line.” Yes, there are categories of people who get preference or priority, and for good reason. That *includes* current Cambridge residents, by the way! It also incudes veterans, elderly people, people fleeing domestic violence, and so on. So which groups seem least sympathetic to you? Who do you think shouldn’t get housing? An 80-year-old vet? A family whose other options are abuse or homelessness? Who do you wanna cut? Be specific.
You say we need data, but you’re either ignorant of how affordable housing lists work, or else being purposely vague about “jumping the line” because you know perfectly well that if you named specific kinds of people you want to bump from the list, it’d sound horrible.
That’s because it is horrible.
Yea the new style of apartment buildings is just ugly.