Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 22, 2023

Just when you thought things couldn’t get nuttier – May 22, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Just when you thought things couldn’t get nuttier – May 22, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

This week brings a few more pearls of ignorance from Mr. Zondervan. Specifically, in spite of the ongoing Charter Review process, he wants to cut the line and put a ballot question on the November municipal ballot to change the charter specifically to make the Police Review and Advisory Board a popularly elected board. I suppose the Party for Socialism and Liberation kids may be interested in the jobs. I understand that he’s not pleased that his colleagues thought so little of his controversial Order last week that they proposed a more sensible substitute, so this week he’s decided to double down. Let’s not overlook that little QZ pearl from last week’s meeting when he said: “The institution of policing itself is fundamentally broken and we must move away from it as quickly as possible.” Does anyone actually take this guy seriously? Oh yeah, he also has an Order asking for a legal opinion on whether Cambridge could permanently switch to the MWRA water supply, i.e. abandon our state-of-the art water treatment plant at Fresh Pond. The wackiness doesn’t stop there.

Here’s this week’s Whitman Sampler:

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the third annual Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO) Progress Report.
pulled by Toner; comments by PT,DS,QZ,DC,PN,AM; Placed on File 9-0

Cambridge political discourse these days seems to boil down to bike lanes, subsidized housing, and BEUDO. I’m confident that Public Comment will draw the usual suspects suspects eager to take sides on the bike lane issue, and the councillors will surely follow suit in their typically unyielding fashion. I pledge allegiance to the [FILL IN THE BLANK].

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Community Connections Grant, in the amount of $230,070.35, to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account. Funds will contribute to the purchase and installation of Bluebikes bikeshare equipment.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ,BA (who would apparently rather use an e-bike to get to South Station rather than the Red Line); Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant in the amount of $100,000 received from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account. Funds will support the cost of two 19 dock Bluebikes stations and bicycles that were placed at the Kennedy/Longfellow School and Twin City Plaza.
pulled by Carlone (who questioned by gambling $ is being allocated for bikes rather than gambling addiction prevention); Order Adopted 9-0

Even though there is already a BlueBike station across the street from me at the old Longfellow School, the City apparently wants to install another at the Lee Street park around the corner from me even though the two stations will only be a few hundred feet from each other. Gotta spend that grant money. Now I’ll get to hear the crashing sound of unsuccessful attempts to lock up the bikes in “surround sound”.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the proposed Alewife Overlay District: Quadrangle (AOD-Q) Zoning Petition and Design Guidelines. (CM23#147) [Council Memo_Alewife Quad_20230517] [AODQ Height Subdistricts] [CLEAN AOD-Q Zoning Petition – 20230517] [Description of Quadrangle Overlay Boundaries] [New Street Centerlines] [Alewife Design Guidelines_2023.05.15]
pulled by Toner; comments by PT,MM,PN,QZ,DC,BA; Zoning language Adopted as a City Council Zoning Petition, Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 9-0

Alewife Overlay Proposed Zoning

I’m glad to see this getting started again, and I hope that one day a couple of new crossings of the RR tracks will grow out of whatever happens in the Quadrangle – The Final Frontier (queue up Star Trek intro). A pedestrian bridge over the Little River connecting the wetland/stormwater retention ponds area in the Alewife Triangle to the Science Park area adjacent to Acorn Park Drive would also be a welcome addition (though it’s north of the current study area). If it’s a choice between connectivity and cul-de-sacs, I’ll choose connectivity.


Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the relevant departments to establish a policy of releasing the names of officers involved in any use of force incident, up to and including those incidents resulting in injury or death. [Charter Right – Zondervan, May 15, 2023]
It is worth noting that the chronic several dozen protesters from the Party for Socialism and Liberation again dominated Public Comment with comments directed at individual councillors (thanks to recent rules changes); Mayor Siddiqui violated City Council Rules three times by allowing speakers to speak a 2nd time;
Zondervan began with prepared speech quoting Angela Davis and others, referring to Toner substitution as “whitewashing amendments”, and referring to all who disagree with him as showing “cowardice” and “hiding behind ideology” (which is so opposite to reality as to be amusing);
Councillor Nolan exhibited resolve by saying that she would not be changing her support for the Toner amendment and that contrary to the statements of protesters there was no consensus on this issue among city residents (correct), that it was fiction to say that the City Council has not taken any action in response to the Jan 4 incident, that all involved police officer names will be released when the investigation is complete, and that releasing the names today will do nothing for justice (all true);
City Manager Huang provided a limited update on where we now stand in the investigation and related processes, that per court order no information in the inquest is to be shared until complete, and provided a chronology of the wealth of City actions that have taken place since January in response to the incident;
Commissioner Elow provided updates on the cooperation of CPD with PERF;
Mallon aligned with Zondervan and stated that she won’t be supporting the Substitute Order and that she wants officer names released now (“it’s what progressive cities do” – as opposed to enlightened cities);
Simmons agreed that a policy is needed and that she would not align with Zondervan noting that the specific circumstances of the January incident are not yet known and that releasing the names now does not buy justice, closure, or anything else and that she supports a full, fair and thorough investigation;
McGovern suggested that the original two “WHEREAS” clauses were simply factual and should be included, and asked whether if a City Council policy was approved prior to the investigative report would the names of the officers be released (City Manager Huang seemed to indicate that if the policy was established he would follow policy while acknowledging need to work cooperatively with Police Department – noting that they are involved in complex and dangerous work – “What you want is a change in the culture.”);
Carlone offered comments including cryptic references to “rumors”;
Siddiqui double-talked about her comments in the Boston Globe and that she would align with Mallon and Zondervan and oppose the Substitute Order;
Toner made clear that he does not want officer names released until after DA report is released and noted that references to the releasing of names in other cities was done in the context of bodycams being instituted;
Zondervan referred to Toner Substitute as “sloppy and misleading”;
Azeem offered a broader perspective on how he arrived at his current understanding and position – especially the range of changes and initiatives that have been arrived at working cooperatively with the Cambridge Police Department and the City Administration;
McGovern referred to last two weeks of public comment as “powerful” (though manipulative, coercive, and short on facts may be better descriptors);
Simmons motion to amend Toner Substitute by adding first two “WHEREAS” clauses Passes 8-1 (QZ – No);
QZ motion to added phrases “including retroactively” Passes 6-3 (PN,DS,PT – No);
QZ amendment to add at end the phrase “with such a policy and the names of the offers involved in Faisal’s killing” Fails 3-6 (AM,QZ,SS – Yes);
Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 5-4 (BA,DC,MM,PN,DS – Yes; AM,PT,QZ,SS – No)

Order #6. That the City Council go on record favoring the filing of the attached home rule petition, entitled: “AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO INCLUDE A BALLOT QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 7, 2023 MUNICIPAL BALLOT RELATIVE TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER” regarding electing the Police Review and Advisory Board.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Zondervan (who was soundly excoriated by his colleagues); comments by QZ,AM,DS; Order Fails of Adoption 1-8 (QZ – Yes)

Another day in Zondervan’s sandbox. The only questions are whether petulance will result in a recess and/or Zoom alternative, and if any of the other councillors sign on to either of these Orders. Perhaps the best strategy going forward might be to simply move a substitute order completely replacing every word and intention of QZ whenever things like these are introduced.


Resolution #4. Congratulations on the birth of Sabrina Reid Roberts.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons

Congratulations, Jeff and Sylvia!

Order #1. New Green Park at Third And Binney Streets.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order concerns the possibility of MIT purchasing a 6,000 square-foot lot at the corner of Third and Binney Streets that could be joined with an adjacent 8,000 square foot lot to create open space in the area of the redeveloping Volpe site in Kendall Square. There is a notion that some or all of the 131 mature trees that are to be removed from the Volpe site could be relocated to this area. This is a very appealing idea, but it’s questionable whether such expensive tree relocations will actually be successful. I would personally like to see a miniature golf course integrated into the Volpe site. Maybe even a batting cage where tech workers can work out their frustrations with a few line drives.

Order #2. Removing Cuba From The State Sponsors Of Terrorism List.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Azeem; comments by BA,DC; Order Adopted 7-0-1-1 (MM – Absent; PT – Present)

I’m so glad to see the Council back doing what it does best – foreign policy. Hey, the Council spoke and Muammar Gaddafi got his comeuppance.

Order #3. Law Department to provide a legal opinion on whether Cambridge could permanently switch to the MWRA water supply.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; QZ explains that this is only asking for a legal opinion on the legality of abandoning the Cambridge water system; other comments by PT,BA,PN,DS,DC; Order Adopted 5-3-1 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS – Yes; AM,DS,PT – No; MM – Absent)

Send Mr. Zondervan some bottled water in glass bottles. The rest of us would prefer to keep our Cambridge water system.

Order #7. That the “Amendments to Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity” be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for discussion and recommendation.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Zondervan; QZ Motion to Refer to Ordinance Committee; Charter Right – Simmons

Order #8. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department to provide a legal opinion on whether the City could fund affordable housing construction through a ($500 Million, at least) bond issue.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ,PN,BA,DC; Amended to add Azeem as co-sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This was an idea floated by Councillor Simmons back in May 2021. This is just another facet of the quest of some councillors to replace as much privately-own housing with “social housing” as possible and to use tax revenue from private-property owners to fund that replacement. – Robert Winters

January 22, 2023

Completing the Square [June 11, 2013]

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:30 pm

[This was originally posted almost ten years ago — June 11, 2013. What has changed? What remains the same?]

Central Square in Cambridge has once again become a focal point for planners, activists, property owners, developers, elected officials, and residents. There is much that can be said, but the primary point of this picture book is to emphasize the opportunities that exist in what may be a narrow window in time to “Complete the Square” in a manner that should satisfy most people. Here are a few images (mostly taken on Monday, June 10, 2013) to help tell this story.

It’s important to understand that Central Square today is just an echo of the days when it was a prime shopping district for the residents of Cambridge and elsewhere. There are proposals today that would encourage a more diverse mix of retail and bring more residents close to the Square. This may require some creative changes in the zoning laws to bring about these positive changes. There’s plenty of room for debate on location, height and density but there are good opportunities now to make some great changes for the better. – RW

Central Square
This was once the site of the Cambridge Athenaeum
which also served for a time as City Hall
Central Square
There seems to be something missing next to the
beautiful facade of the Barron Building.
Cambridge Athenaeum
Central Square
This site at Pearl Street could be so
much more vital than it is today.
Central Square
Another strip of “taxpayers” – one story structures that occupy
space formerly occupied by far more appropriate structures.
Central Square
The rhythm of Mass. Ave. benefits from a mixture of taller
and shorter structures, especially when the sides of the
taller buildings have something to offer visually.
Central Square
This is one of the most deficient parts of the Central Square streetscape
– a site where new retail and residential uses would be a great benefit.
Today the most prominent feature is the graffiti next door.
Central Square
Central Square could be so much better than prominent displays of
vandalism. There should be great buildings all the way to Norfolk St.
Central Square
The site of the Middle East Restaurant today occupies what was a
building with several stories. It could use some upstairs space.
Central Square
Many of us remember this block when you could rent tools in one
location, watch a movie in another, buy clothes at another,
and enjoy some great Chinese food.
Central Square
This block is improving, but we could still do better.
Central Square
One of the blocks that seems to be missing a lot. The Central
Square Cinema and other storefronts once occupied this space.
Central Square
Lafayette Square now hosts Jill Brown-Rhone Park. This end of the
Square can only improve with more residents in proximity.
Central Square
Standing like a lone soldier in what should be a series of great buildings.
Central Square
Miracle of Science at the eastern edge of the Square
Central Square
The park is beautiful and tries to draw attention from the
scene’s most prominent feature – a blank pink wall.
Central Square
This may be the most incomplete corner in all of Central Square.
The decaying billboard on the roof guards the deficit.
Central Square
The U-Haul is convenient for those who are moving, but this stretch
of Main Street would be so much better with residential uses.
Central Square
One of the many Quest sites recently sold which may soon
potentially enhance this area.
Central Square
Another missing tooth. The outline of a former building
is apparent on the blank brick wall.
Central Square
Ideally, the future Central Square would still retain some of its industrial
past, but maybe people could live next door to the chocolate factory.
Central Square
The view from Main Street across Lafayette Square
Central Square
The view toward the hotel at University Park. Ideally, Central Square
should have more of a rhythm of heights and density.
Central Square
Architecturally Lacking – #1
Central Square
Architecturally Lacking – #2
Central Square
This end of Columbia St. would be so much better with more activity.
Central Square
A great Central Square building
Central Square
Central Square Hardware and Tool Rental was once here until a
spectacular fire destroyed the building. It’s now a parking lot.
A view of what this block once looked like is shown at right.
Central Square
Central Square
Another great Central Square building
Central Square
The Odd Fellows Hall (now the Dance Complex)
seems to be missing a neighbor.
Central Square
Vacancies where there was once a very active street
Central Square
Though this site at Pearl Street is just feet from public transit and should
support more height, the existing building seems to be in good shape.
Central Square
The site of the former Manhattan Market has cycled
through multiple commercial tenants in recent years.
Central Square
The old signage on the side of the Barron Building
Central Square
This block could stand to have a lot more character.
Central Square
The Barron Building – another great Central Square building
Central Square
Here’s an example of a good-looking tall building in Central Square.
Central Square
Most of us agree that we don’t want this kind of tall building again.
Central Square
The often-criticized Holmes Building was supposed to have cafes and other
amenities on the ground floor. Instead we got banks and phone stores.
Central Square
With the old pool removed, we get a brief look at the YWCA prior
to new housing construction on Temple Street.
Central Square
Looking across the Temple Street lot toward City Hall
Central Square
The ultimate eyesore – Vail Court still vacant after decades
Central Square
Lost opportunity – Vail Court still vacant on Bishop Allen Drive
Central Square
View from the balcony of the new Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square
View of the Holmes Building from the Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square
View of City Hall from the Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square

Central Square Central Square Central Square
Central Square Central Square Central Square

July 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 557-558: July 19, 2022

Episode 557 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 19, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 19, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Sounding the alarm on BEUDO, perverse incentives, and bad design; Linkage and Incentive Zoning w/o incentives; thinking creatively. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 558 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 19, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 19, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: BEUDO, condos, and older buildings; Cambridge is not Ithaca; carrot vs. stick; non-inclusive process – policy-making in isolation; ARPA misspending; Cambridge policies, inequality by design, and market distortion; re-creating Central Square; new city management and departmental restructuring; Charter review update. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 7, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 551-552: June 7, 2022

Episode 551 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 7, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 7, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: City Council appoints Yi-An Huang as new City Manager; review of process; public perceptions and misunderstandings; born and raised in Cambridge treated as a liability; role of Deputy City Manager; all 3 appointments completed with commendable results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 552 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 7, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 7, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Graduations, commencements, festivals, students moving out, road closures – perfect storm for Covid and traffic; Bikes Lanes, Memorial Drive closure and subtext of anti-car movement, class distinctions, ageism; Alewife Moratorium ordained without Triangle; fading Envision with shifting politics; trash toter rollout; communication breakdowns; BEUDO proposals unknown to stakeholders. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 16, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 541-542: March 15, 2022

Episode 541 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Ides of March; Spring Training Baseball; Covid status; City Manager search & interim possibilities; Council complaints & light workload; Board appointments – “apply at your own risk”; misunderstanding the Charter and roles of councillors vs. manager. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 542 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: “Moving Forward Together” w/o most involved councillor; Planning Board discussions re: single-family zoning, evolving roles as planners vs. petition reviewers; building the tax base; some history of Kendall Square, University Park, NorthPoint, Alewife Triangle, Alewife Quadrangle; planning before and after demise of rent control; Blurred Envision; real routes to affordability requires transit and not unilateralism; flexibility in residential uses. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 525-526: November 16, 2021

Episode 525 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Final Election process; reprecincting; Boncore vacancy; non-implementation of planning efforts in Alewife and Central Square; Alewife and Envision chronology; failure of well-paid councillors to show up for work; deep pockets and the means to achieve good results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 526 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Detailed election results and analysis; the dominance of incumbency; political spin in the absence of mandates; importance of establishing a loyal political base vs. “movement” candidates; winners & feeders; slate voting results; Siddiqui’s margin of victory and dissatisfaction with other candidates; the Cincinnati problem; ballot transfers, #2 votes, alternate measures of popularity; School Committee campaign finance. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 7, 2021

Post-Election Mayoral Arm-Twisting Season Begins – November 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Post-Election Mayoral Arm-Twisting Season Begins – November 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Mayor Al VellucciThe Election is over save for the overseas votes, and it’s pretty much a wash. We replaced the retiring Tim Toomey with Paul Toner, and, for the kids, Sobrinho-Wheeler with Burhan Azeem. All of the incumbents were reelected to the School Committee and we added the lavishly well-funded Akriti Bhambi to fill the soon-to-be vacated seat. It’s always interesting to see how people associated with the various slates view these elections entirely through the lens of their respective slates and agendas with barely any acknowledgment of the fact that almost all of the incumbents were reelected based on their individual campaigns.City Hall coin

Now begins the season of phone calls and private meetings during which the various mayoral hopefuls try to make their case to be the next all-powerful weak mayor. Needless to say, Mayor Siddiqui’s 4121 #1 Votes gives her an edge (if she wants it), but I’m sure others will make the case in the name of “equity” and “whose turn it is” to ascend to the hallowed throne. Meanwhile, has anyone heard anything at all about where we stand on the rather important matter of selecting the next City Manager? Oops, I guess they must have forgotten.

As for the business of city councilling, here’s a sampler of what’s up for discussion/action/inaction this week:

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-84 regarding BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) proposed amendments. [CDD Memo] [current draft] [City Solicitor opinion]
Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

Covered under the proposed amendments are: (1) municipal property with one or more buildings with 10,000 sq ft or more; (2) one or more non-residential building(s) where such building(s) singly or together contain 25,000 to 49,999 sq ft); and (3) one or more residential building(s) that singly or together contain 50 or more residential dwelling units – rental or condos. So my electric and gas bills can stay safely in my bottom drawer – for now. Some councillors are already looking ahead to the day when they can drop the bar down to cottages or people living in a van down by the river.

Unfinished Business #5. Ordinance #2021-24 (Oct 25, 2021 Order #3) That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate staff to review the language of this proposed ordinance amendment and to report back to the City Council in advance of the next City Council meeting. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Oct 25, 2021; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 8, 2021]
Ordained as Amended 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)

How Dare You!This will pass 9-0 unless one of the councillors casts a protest vote because the proposal to label gas pumps doesn’t go far enough. Maybe the next step will be stenciling city roads with “How Dare You!” and a little Greta image.

Order #1. That the City Council go on record requesting that the forthcoming new Universal Design Playground located in Danehy Park be named the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey
Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler (don’t let the door hit you on the way out, councillor)

There are some who choose to protest the naming of public facilities after people who are either still living or still working for the city. Just a reminder that we’re not issuing postage stamps or minting coins (well, except for perhaps Al Vellucci). So here’s to Thomas W. Danehy Park, the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility, the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Building, and Timothy J. Toomey Park, and the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground. My ideal is a bit different, courtesy of the late, great John Prine.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments, as well as the Commission of Persons with Disabilities and the Special Education Parents Advisory Council, to develop a plan to install fully accessible equipment in every playground throughout the city.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This would be great, but presumably it means “in addition to the existing playground equipment” as opposed to “replace all playground equipment”. I doubt if monkey bars and skate parks can be made fully accessible.

Envision AlewifeOrder #4. That Article 20.90- Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3 – Temporarily prohibited uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Toomey

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee met on June 2, 2021 to conduct a public hearing to discuss the Alewife Envision Plan.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I’m all for coming up with a grand vision for this area with multiple bridges crossing the tracks and all sorts of fun, new additions. That said, don’t you think all this grand visionary stuff should have been put in place long before parcels were sold with the presumption that they could be built out under existing zoning? Parcels in this area were apparently only very recently sold for a sum in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars. If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision. By the way, the order contains one of the more interesting maps from the 1979 Alewife Revitalization study, a.k.a. “The Fishbook”.

Order #5. Upper Mass. Ave. Bike Lane Improvements.   Councillor Nolan
Amended 7-2 (DS,TT – NO); Charter Right – Simmons

The latest installment in the ongoing turf wars over roadway allocation where politicians deftly try to please all of the people all of the time. The problem here is, of course, that these things should never have been enshrined into an ordinance with inflexible mandates. But hey, don’t forget to sign The Pledge. Meanwhile, Cambridge roads are starting to feel more like a Habitrail for hamsters – overly prescriptive and thoroughly inflexible.

Committee Report #3. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee met on Aug 24, 2021 to conduct a joint follow-up hearing to continue the discussion on the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0An Even Better (Bigger) Cambridge

Now that the election has passed it will be interesting to see how fast The Densifiers try to rush through their Big Plans. I do like the idea of relaxing some of the restrictions to allow more multi-family homes, but I would prefer to see housing growth based more on available opportunities than on wholesale revision and density doubling densification based on a transient and trendy philosophy and historical revisionism. We have been down that road before.

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 20, 2021 to conduct a hearing on an ordinance amendment to reduce or limit campaign donations.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)

Policy Order/Home Rule Petition: That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption.   Councillor Carlone
Order and Home Rule Petition Tabled 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)

Late Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide a legal opinion regarding the effect of the proposed Ordinance to Limit and monitor campaign donations on the petitioners of a Citizens’ Petition and the Owners, Board members and employees of an organization seeking financial assistance from the City of Cambridge; and to draft enforcement language and to draft language exempting labor unions from the Ordinance and to provide an opinion about whether Somerville’s Ordinance regarding campaign donations would survive a legal challenge.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

While I may agree with the general idea of this proposal, the devil may lie in the details. It’s not always so clear which donors to campaigns are seeking or will eventually receive financial reward. For example, if someone contributes either money or labor toward a political campaign and is currently hired or is later hired as a City Council Aide, would that be a violation? Or is political patronage not covered under the proposed ordinance? – Robert Winters

February 16, 2021

A few observations on density

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:44 pm

A few observations on density

Feb 16, 2021 (w/Feb 17 addition of S. Normandy Ave.) – Several years ago I was thinking about the past, present, and future of Central Square and decided to simply take a walk through the Square with a camera with as objective an eye as I could manage. The result of that walk was something I called "Completing the Square" – a little math joke tied to the main observation that regardless of any opinions about how tall or dense Central Square may be or should be, there were lots of missing teeth and locations which could be improved by the presence of some new or enhanced buildings. That was before the new Mass & Main complex (now Market Central) was built.

In a similar vein, a couple of days ago I had the notion to do something of a virtual walk (in my head) along some streets with which I am quite familiar just to imagine how they might change under the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal. In my opinion, most of these streets function pretty well as they are and many of them (in particular those now zoned as Res C-1) would be considered pretty dense by any reasonable standard. I downloaded the City’s Assessors Database (thank you Open Data Portal!) and painstakingly reassembled all the living area information from the many condominiums in order to recreate the total living area to go with the total land area for each respective lot. (This was like reassembling puzzle pieces in some cases.) I then calculated the FAR (floor-area-ratio) for all lots on 28 representative streets (somewhat alphabetically biased as I went through them).

Prior to calculating some statistics on each of these streets I decided to exclude a few anomalies such as parks (no housing will be going there under any zoning revisions), municipal parking lots, City buildings (like City Hall, the Annex, DPW, etc.) as well as some lots that are in zoning districts unaffected by the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal, e.g. the Central Square BB district.
[You can view the data for each of these streets here.]

The summary sheet is below. Since there are already some nonconforming lots with FAR even greater than what is proposed in the petition, the increases noted below actually understate the increases under full build-out. On the other hand, it’s not likely that anything close to full build-out would happen any time soon (if the petition were to prevail), so this should be viewed more as a measure of what could eventually happen as opposed to what will happen in the near future.

Note that even a relatively dense C-1 street like Cherry Street in The Port could see a 66% increase in density. Chalk Street (Res C) could see a 72% increase. Cornelius Way could have a 175% increase (that’s 2.75 times the current density). Near me, Antrim Street could go up 47%, Maple Ave. could go up 84%, and Lee Street could go up 50%. In the leafy western "suburbs", a Res B street like Appleton St. could go up 137% (2.37 times the current density) and Lakeview Ave. (a mix of Res A-1 and Res B) would nearly triple in density. In contrast, Berkshire St. in Wellington-Harrington might only rise 2%, so I suppose this is the ideal street by the "Missing Middle" standard.

It’s also worth noting that there’s really nothing in the petition that would in any way ensure that the chief beneficiaries would be middle class residents. The petition is primarily a vehicle for increasing densities and this could just as easily translate into larger homes for those who can afford them or the freedom to add on significant additions to existing homes. In other words, the "middle" part of the "missing middle" petition is missing.- RW

Street zoning on street total
land area
total
living area
gross
FAR
median
FAR
max
FAR
min
FAR
MM
factor
MM
increase
Amory St. C-1 166187 146798 0.88 0.89 2.25 0.00 1.40 40%
Andrew St. C-1 39671 36841 0.93 0.94 1.46 0.44 1.33 33%
Antrim St. C-1 215140 182351 0.85 0.85 1.59 0.45 1.47 47%
Appleton St. B 362349 167623 0.46 0.53 1.11 0.00 2.37 137%
Arlington St. A-2,B,C-2 162551 82694 0.51 0.51 0.94 0.31 2.45 145%
Avon Hill St. A-2,B 159726 86824 0.54 0.64 1.04 0.25 1.95 95%
Bellis Circle B,C-1A 134257 86705 0.65 0.69 1.24 0.36 1.80 80%
Berkeley St. & Pl. A-2 335663 147702 0.44 0.44 1.08 0.18 2.87 187%
Berkshire St. & Pl. C-1 142900 162073 1.13 1.22 2.42 0.00 1.02 2%
Bigelow St. C-1 98544 99178 1.68 0.99 2.48 0.55 1.27 27%
Bristol St. C-1 105743 98448 0.93 0.89 2.09 0.34 1.40 40%
Brookline St. B,C,BA-1,C-1,BB,SD9 462788 420848 0.91 0.88 2.59 0.00 1.41 41%
Buena Vista Pk. C-1 58147 42787 0.74 0.75 1.05 0.46 1.67 67%
Centre St. C-1 112030 118881 1.06 0.86 1.81 0.58 1.46 46%
Chalk St. C-1 59707 40178 0.67 0.73 1.35 0.30 1.72 72%
Chatham St. C-1 45415 43055 0.95 0.87 1.73 0.61 1.44 44%
Cherry St. C-1 140624 83033 0.59 0.75 1.26 0.00 1.66 66%
Columbia St. C1,BA,BB-CSQ 419529 435148 1.04 1.01 3.33 0.00 1.24 24%
Coolidge Hill Rd. A-2,A-1 155629 65633 0.42 0.55 1.85 0.00 2.26 126%
Cornelius Way C-1 67640 31196 0.46 0.45 0.83 0.30 2.75 175%
Dudley St. B 162444 135259 0.83 0.83 1.48 0.24 1.51 51%
Hurley St. C-1 185549 196004 1.06 1.09 2.45 0.42 1.15 15%
Inman St. C-1 386571 347610 0.90 0.88 2.36 0.34 1.41 41%
Lakeview Ave. A-1,B 717287 299854 0.42 0.42 1.07 0.15 2.99 199%
Lee St. C-1 184726 167663 0.91 0.83 2.17 0.48 1.50 50%
Maple Ave. B,C-1 198500 132455 0.67 0.68 1.57 0.36 1.84 84%
Norfolk St. C-1,B,BA 445240 445634 1.00 0.88 3.31 0.00 1.41 41%
Pleasant St. C,C-1,BA-3 387351 425992 1.10 0.93 2.27 0.36 1.34 34%
S. Normandy Ave. B 69538 24909 0.36 0.38 0.51 0.19 3.26 226%
all sample streets   6181446 4753376 0.77          

gross FAR = total living area divided by total land area
median FAR = median FAR of all lots on the street
max FAR = largest FAR for all lots on the street
min FAR = smallest FAR for all lots on the street (note that there may be vacant lots with FAR of 0)
MM factor = ratio of proposed "Missing Middle" FAR of 1.25 to current median FAR for street
MM increase = percent increase in FAR from current median FAR under full build-out

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress