In a recent letter, (“A park would be better than Capstone building,” March 11, 2026), the writer aired his preference for smaller buildings, but failed to address the harmful impacts on many Cambridge residents that a cancellation of 74 affordable apartments would have.
Apartments for 2072 Mass Ave have been on the drawing board for about 8 years — since before the City Council began changing what the writer acknowledges was “decades of poor housing policy.” During that dark period, change-resistant residents were frequently allowed to block multifamily housing that would help their neighbors stay in Cambridge. Such exclusionary policies have led to increases in displacement and homelessness, impacting more than just the lowest-income households.
The earlier writer expressed concern about this building’s costs, inaccurately describing the “huge percentage [of the total budget] coming from the Affordable Housing Trust, which is funded by taxpayers.” The AHT’s funds come from fees paid by commercial developers as well as from city revenue, and the $240,000 per apartment that AHT is spending on this building is near the average for such developments.
Our park-preferring neighbor seems convinced that his wished-for height cap on residential buildings will end noisy debates over housing restrictions. But at recent public meetings—held well after zoning reforms reduced the self-assigned influence of local housing naysayers — we find that every neighborhood has a few residents who continue to insist on lower heights after every smaller design iteration. And that, after all, is the story behind the eight-year delay for 2072 Mass Ave, and the fate of too many other housing plans during the preceding decades.
James Zall, Pemberton Street
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.
Cancelling 74 affordable homes at 2072 Mass Ave after eight years of process would be a gift to displacement, not to our neighborhoods. Parks are great, but they don’t keep teachers, caregivers and longtime residents in Cambridge. Apartments do, and the Affordable Housing Trust’s per-unit support here is right in line with other projects.
If we’re serious about fixing decades of exclusionary policy, we have to stop moving the goalposts every time a well-designed building finally gets close to the finish line. We don’t need more parks for wealthy residents while displacing those of lesser means.
The lot at 2072 Massachusetts Avenue is too small to accommodate a 12-story tower. It’s simple math, folks: the lot’s footprint relative to to height and density. Capstone wants to put up a building 2.5 times taller than the Henderson Carriage Building across the street. Moreover, the six-story North Cambridge Senior Center, next to Capstone’s lot, will bear the brunt of the pain, with zero separation between the Center’s backyard patio and Capstone’s tower. In other words: no light, no sun, no desire to step outside anymore. Want to talk about wind tunnels the tower will inevitably bring? How about the lack of defensible space for the families in the tower?
There are great public housing projects like 52 New Street, Jefferson Federal, the proposed project on Blanchard Road, and I champion them all. Any dumb cluck can see those projects are in synch with their neighborhood, enjoy public support, and will attract long term residents, as is the case, for example, at Lincoln Way but not the case at 21 Walden Square Road, whose residents want to move away and into something more human-scaled before Winn starts its awful Slab-and-Tunnel project.
Capstone’s Tower is a case of a developer and the city hoping to “make a statement”, and any building that looms high over the avenue, no matter how small the footprint, is fine by them.
Gentle-density mid-rise projects multiplied over as much of the avenue as you like (ex: the proposal on the corner of Mass. Ave. and Linnean is a fine and welcome addition, and it’s in harmony with the neighboring structures) are fine and should have been legislated, made mandatory, and financially incentivized by the city decades ago. The width of Mass. Ave. allows for seven stories – that’s pretty much the limit before a building starts to look out of proportion relative to the avenue’s width and reminds us of Trump’s plan for the East Wing.
So, again: more public housing, fewer towers, more cooperation with the neighbors who, incidentally, have spent decades building community (as any visit to the Thistle and Shamrock shows).
Oh, and instead of seeking 75 million dollars for a 12-story tower, an impossible goal in times like these, doesn’t it make more sense to build seven stories with money that can actually be had? Capstone’s vision is a bridge too far, it is folly, it is irrational, and please don’t think that by vision I mean visionary. I mean Fitzcarraldo-style vision, like hauling a boat over a mountain, as in the Werner Herzog movie. A project destined to hurt lots of people and one that shouldn’t be undertaken “because it’s there”.
I support the 2072 Mass Ave. development, but Avg Joe is wrong to hint that “more parks [are] for wealthy residents.” Less affluent residents need parks and playgrounds even more than wealthy residents.
@Federico Muchnik, simple math how? There’s no hard rule for what is too much for a lot to accommodate. This is just your opinion, not some mathematical rule.
The patio at the Senior Center is placed about 10 feet away from the lot line, it’ll be fine. The new tower is to the northwest of the patio—the vast majority of the day, sun will still shine on that patio.
“The width of Mass Ave allows for seven stories” according to whom?
And how is the $75 million an impossible goal? From what I can tell, they’ve already secured the funding.
You’ve failed to make any convincing argument that the building will “hurt lots of people”. By my measure, that’s 73 families able to live in Cambridge that couldn’t before.
” ‘The width of Mass Ave allows for seven stories’ according to whom?”
According to the urban design principle that the height of a building should not be greater than the width of the street, at least at the property line. Taller buildings can be built without degrading the neighboring properties or the public realm if the taller section is stepped back from the property line, but this requires a larger lot.