Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 14, 2012

Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal

Filed under: Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:35 pm

Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal
to extend the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District

written by Bob Simha, May 14, 2012

The rezoning proposed by Forest City for property owned by MIT and Zevart M. Hollisian, trustee of the Garabed Hollisiian Trust raises a number of issues:

The Forest City proposal would build on a little over one half of the "All Asia" block (50,000 sq. ft.). A 221,000 square foot laboratory building of which 13,000 square feet on the ground floor would be for 3-5 retail stores. The building would be 165 feet in height, almost twice the height of the adjacent Novartis (former Necco Building). It would leave undeveloped the remaining half of the block which is occupied by an MIT dormitory, a gas station, a small luncheonette, a one story fabrication shop and a small apartment house. Forest City has stated that it could not secure agreements from the remaining landowners in order to propose the redevelopment of the entire block.

The development of only a portion of the all Asia Block at a new density and height would result in establishing new and higher values for the remaining diverse properties, lowering the possibility that the remainder of the block would be developed in the near future and would run the risk of requests for even higher densities in the future when some developer, most likely MITIMCO, succeeds in assembling the remaining parcels that it does not own in the block.

The proposal also suggests that the construction of a 145 foot high, 14 story, 130 unit rental housing tower would respond to community demands for more housing in Central Square and is in some way a quid pro quo for the ability to build additional commercial space on Mass. Avenue. This proposal eliminates one of three open spaces in the University Park project and claims that the introduction of a smaller landscaped entry way at Mass. Ave. would suffice to balance the loss of existing open space.

There were no community benefits presented by Forest City/MIT in their proposal. All of the developments proposed are revenue generators for Forest City and their development partners. The community is entitled to demand compensation for this additional private development.

Some thoughts for consideration:

The project exceeds the height of all the adjacent buildings most prominently the Novartis/Necco building and even with set backs will create and overwhelming presence on Mass. Avenue when combined with the new Novartis Building being built on land leased from MIT on the east side of Mass. Ave. The character of Mass. Ave. will become quite overbearing. The height of the building should not exceed the Necco Building and should adhere to the current restriction of 80 feet. The current design shows a lobby/corridor through the building connecting Mass. Ave. and Green Street. The developer should be encouraged to develop a ground floor plan that allows for a gallery/arcade of shops that line a passage between these streets thereby offering more smaller retail opportunities to smaller merchants and at the same time encourage more people to use this path to get to the food market and the existing garage. This may generate more revenue for the developer and reduce the amount of dead common area in the evening.

The treatment of Blanche Street as the site for loading docks for this new development will mean that both sides of Blanche will be dominated by large loading docks and be relatively inhospitable to pedestrians…as it is now.

The construction of both the Novartis and the proposed Forest City project would add almost 3/4 of a million square feet to an area whose transportation infrastructure capacity is already overtaxed.

The height of the proposed residential building was not placed in the context of Central Square. We were not told how the height of this building (14 stories) compares to the Cambridge housing authority building between Green and Franklin Street. No shadow studies were presented. The proposal did not point out the important visual impact that this tower building would have on creating an identifying image for Central Square. Visible from both the Mass. Avenue and the Main Street entrances to the city, the quality of the architecture for this building, if it goes forward, should require a much higher standard of design and the developer should be encouraged to retain design services of the same level of quality that Novartis used in the design of its nearby building.

The housing is presented as a response to the community expression of housing needs and as a pseudo gift. One of the goals for more housing in both the Red Ribbon and Goody/Clancy Central Square report was to provide housing that would be accessible to people who work in the Central Square area and any new housing should offer more affordable ownership opportunities. This proposal appears to be aimed at the high rent market that Forest City serves at their developments at Sidney and Landsdowne Street.

The community may prefer to have more ownership rather than rental housing to help introduce more people with a longer term interest in the square. Coop or condo housing on leased land is a very common practice in many American cities and we have such a project on Pleasant Street in Cambridge developed by Harvard University and occupied by both University and non university people. This type of development does not carry land cost in the unit sales and results in lower prices for housing units.

In addition, there are some outstanding needs in the adjacent neighborhoods that could be satisfied in exchange for any additional development potential that is awarded. For example ,the additional FAR they have requested might be dependent on Forest City and MIT completing the assembly of land on Pacific Street Park between Brookline and Sidney in order to complete the Pacific Street park . If the petitioners assemble and donate that land to complete the park the city could permit them to transfer the development rights to a new building ..This is how the existing park was developed…MIT contributed the land to the park in exchange for the transfer of development rights which were used in the development of the Grad Housing on Pacific and Sidney Streets…The same principal could be applied to the Forest City proposal.

Another point that should be raised concerns the displacement of people now using the park space that is proposed for the new housing project. Where will they go? What will be the impact on other parts of Lafayette and Central Square? More people, more need for active and passive open space. – Bob Simha

See also:
Comments on current Forest City zoning petition – by Bob Simha (June 11, 2012)

April 9, 2012

Well-Appointed – April 9, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,Central Square,Kendall Square — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:30 am

Well-Appointed – April 9, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting features several notable appointments by the City Manager. The first is this:

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Nancy Tauber as the Executive Director of the Cambridge Kids’ Council effective Apr 24, 2012.

I cannot imagine a better choice to head this agency. I have often wondered what exactly the Kids’ Council does – primarily because most of what I think it should do is already managed in the Dept. of Human Services Programs, the School Department, and elsewhere. If the theory is that all this child-centered programming should be coordinated within the Kids’ Council, then there’s been a big gap between theory and reality. The addition of Nancy Tauber as Executive Director is a great step forward to realizing what this agency is supposed to be about.

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, requesting City Council confirmation of members of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board in accordance with Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws.

Though any complaints about the delay in making these appointments are entirely valid, the quality of the four appointments to the CRA certainly make up for this. Joining state appointee Barry Zevin will be (pending City Council approval) Margaret Drury, Kathleen Born, Chris Bator, and Conrad Crawford. Recently retired City Clerk Margaret Drury and former City Councillor and current architect Kathleen Born are stunningly good choices. Based on the credentials of the other two gentlemen, they also seem to be excellent choices.

April 9, 2012
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In accordance with Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws, I am submitting the following names for City Council confirmation as members of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board.

D. Margaret Drury, 1-year term to expire April 12, 2013:
Margaret is the recently retired City Clerk, former Executive Director of the Cambridge Rent Control Board and an Attorney.

Chris Bator, 3-year term to expire April 12, 2015:
Chris is an Assistant United States Attorney serving in that role since 1990. Prior to that, he served as the Assistant to the Commissioner of Health and Hospitals in Boston and as Executive Assistant to Mayor Kevin White.

Conrad Crawford, 4-year term to expire April 12, 2016:
Conrad is presently the Director of Partnerships for the Department of Conservation and Recreation and has experience in energy efficient transportation products. He is a resident of East Cambridge.

Kathleen Born, 5-year term to expire April 12, 2017:
Kathy is an Architect and former Cambridge City Councillor. She co-chaired the Ordinance Committee, and is thus very familiar with the zoning process. The State appointment term expiration would occur in 2014.

Since this recommendation results in a reconstruction of the Board, my recommendation results in staggered terms with one member’s term expiring in each of the five years. Subsequent appointments would be for 5-year terms.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

Though the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is most known for the redevelopment of the Kendall Square MXD district, the CRA in the past played a major role in housing development in the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood and elsewhere. It is certainly possible that the CRA could again take on that role elsewhere in the city.

Applications & Petitions #2. An application was received from Cambridge Housing Authority requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 7 Temple Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association.

This is the first sign in a long time that the proposed Cambridge Housing Authority residential project on the site of the long-abandoned YWCA pool on Temple Street may at last be moving forward.

Order #2. Urge greater cooperation from the Cambridge Housing Authority to better serve the people of Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Simmons and Councillor Cheung

This is a very long-winded Order that on the one hand could be interpreted as a statement of exasperation by city councillors at the nonresponsiveness of personnel at the CHA. On the other hand, the age-old practice of elected officials delivering CHA housing to constituents could be the basis of this Order. Should elected officials be actively placing individuals in public housing? Considering the political implications of providing such an economic benefit to potential voters, one might argue that all housing placements should be done objectively without any political influence. It’s very hard to read between the lines of this Order to discern its real intent.

Order #3. That the petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add to the Special Dimensional Regulations a Special Regulation for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools be referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee for a hearing and report.   Councillor Maher

This matter was introduced at the end of the last Council term as a necessary step in the planning for future school reconstruction. The delay in choosing a mayor and in appointing the Council subcommittees pushed this matter back, but it will now move forward with Ordinance Committee and Planning Board hearings.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and other relevant departments in order to present to the City Council a map of Cambridge that shows, by location and by date, all of the areas where construction is and will be taking place over the coming decade.   Vice Mayor Simmons

An initial read of this Order suggests some kind of mystical powers within CDD to peer into the future. Some projects are definitely in the planning stage, but it’s doubtful whether CDD could accurately state where and what will be built more than a couple of years into the future. Even the dense-pack proposals now being crafted by Goody Clancy as part of the Kendall Square/Central Square (K2C2) Study may not be realized anytime soon, if ever.

Order #8. That a one-time suspension of Council Rule 23B be allowed, for the broadcast of the Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 4:00pm Cambridge City Council Roundtable Meeting (a meeting to receive an update from Goody Clancy and the Community Development Department on the Kendall Central Study.)   Councillor vanBeuzekom

None of the recent Kendall Square and Central Square studies and its related committee meetings, with and without the red ribbons, have involved much in the way of community participation. Indeed, the Red Ribbon report from last year seemed disconnected from much of the discussion that took place at the various minimally publicized meetings leading up to the report. It’s doubtful that broadcasting the April 25 Roundtable meeting (no public comment allowed) will do much for either public awareness or involvement.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor’s Office, the City Auditor and the Community Development Department to explore the City of Cambridge’s relationship with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and any of its current and future development projects.   Councillor vanBeuzekom and Vice Mayor Simmons

The time is certainly right for evaluating the past, present, and possible future role of the CRA. This should not, however, delay the City Council from approving the four persons appointed by the City Manager. After the newly reconstituted CRA Board meets and gets organized, it might be a good time to have a City Council Roundtable meeting with the CRA Board and its Executive Director. – Robert Winters

April 2, 2012

Apr 2, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights and other News from the People’s Republic

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,Kendall Square — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:20 pm

Apr 2, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights and other News from the People’s Republic

There’s not much to say about the meeting itself, but the agenda items do bring a few other things to mind.Bike Post

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the supplemental appropriation of a Metropolitan Area Planning Council Regional Bike Parking Program Grant in the amount of $24,948 to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account to purchase bicycle parking racks.

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a $2,000 grant received form the Cambridge Health Department to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Salary and Wages account to pay for an intern who will work with city staff to promote cycling and to research and plan for bicycle parking in numerous locations around Cambridge.

This is all well and good, but there are a few things about all these bike posts sprouting through the sidewalks of Cambridge that need to be said. First, it’s incredible how many abandoned bikes are clogging up these posts. The fact that the DPW guy in charge of wrangling bikes was arrested for stealing bicycles may be a factor, but I’d love to hear a truck making the rounds announcing "Bike rack cleaning. No parking on the odd side of the street or your bike will be tagged and towed. Bike rack cleaning…."

Another curious fact of these bike racks is that the responsibility of property owners to provide space for bikes for their residential and commercial tenants is being transferred to the City. On my block, my tenants store their bikes in the basement or behind the house but other property owners provide no space at all on premises for bicycles. The plan is apparently to transfer this responsibility entirely to the City by installing bike racks on the sidewalk – even though the primary users are not customers but tenants of the buildings. One commercial building with plentiful basement space and four commercial parking spaces behind the building now has no parking on premises for either bikes or motor vehicles. The parking spaces were given to an abutting residential condo building, and the City will be providing bike parking on the sidewalk. I wish I could externalize all my responsibilities like that.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-34, regarding a report on designated open space within the MXD District. [attachment]

This report really should have been provided a month ago when the controversy over the Kendall Square rooftop garden first arose. Better late than never, I suppose. It would be more informative if there was an accompanying document showing the whole range of current and planned open space in the wider area, especially the new open space that came out of the Alexandria rezoning process.

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the North Massachusetts Avenue Rezoning Petition received from the Planning Board. [attachment]

This petition concerns the part of Mass. Ave. from Porter Square to the Arlington line. As the report states, the principal elements of the proposed zoning are maintaining ground floor retail (non·residential uses on the ground floor would be required), protecting historic structures, facilitating outdoor seating, and adjusting the Business A2 (BA2) district boundaries. The closing sentence states, "The Planning Board feels that the proposed zoning changes reflect key opportunities to allow North Massachusetts Avenue to continue to evolve into an inviting, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use street with active ground floors."

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a request that the City Council authorize the City Manager to seek approval from the Office of the Inspector General to utilize "Construction Manager-at-Risk" as the contracting method for the Martin Luther King School Renovation Project.

I don’t profess to understand what advantages this may have, but anything that may potentially limit costs is welcome. We’ve spent a lot of money in recent years on the Library, the Police Station, and the High School, and much more will be spent during the next decade in reconstructing buildings that will house the new middle school programs.

Order #1. That the City Council schedule a Roundtable Meeting for Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:00pm to receive an update from Goody Clancy and the Community Development Department on the Kendall Central Study.   Mayor Davis

This is one of MANY meetings coming up regarding possible plans for both Kendall Square and Central Square. One criticism I would express about the Goody Clancy role in this is the strong sense that their primary goal even before entering into this was to dramatically increase the residential and commercial density everywhere possible between Kendall Square and Central Square. Some of this is good, but the whole process feels like a juggernaut with the various advisory committees simply receiving the "vision" of the planners and not the other way around. Perhaps the upcoming meetings on Apr 4 (Central), Apr 5 (Kendall), Apr 6 (Kendall), Apr 10 (Kendall), Apr 11 (Central), Apr 12 (Kendall), Apr 25 (Goody Clancy at the City Council), and Apr 26 (Kendall) will bring out some more residents – few of whom have attended any of the previous meetings.

So many of the people who will be affected by proposals for Central Square have had little or no input into these ongoing discussions. This includes the Red Ribbon stuff of the last two years. The first news for some will be when places like the Clear Conscience Café and the Harvest Market are hustled out of their spaces to make room for other things. Other favorite places will be priced out of Central Square as it continues its transformation toward upscale restaurants as basic retail outlets pass into history. It’s popular to talk about buying local, but we are swiftly moving toward a future where a trip to Somerville or Everett will be necessary for anyone seeking affordable groceries, clothing, and other basic needs.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the Council on the legal requirements for public notice and meetings including issues on legibility, regulatory framework and definition and public comment at said meeting or hearing.   Councillor Kelley

The impetus for this Order is the proposed Dunkin Donuts next to the Evergood Market at Mass. Ave. and Shepard St. It’s doubtful whether there would have been such outrage if the Dunkin Donuts was proposed to open on Broadway or in East Cambridge or Central Square. Alas, not all neighborhoods have a Master Plan. – Robert Winters

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress