Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 6, 2013

Cambridge at cross purposes about traffic

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,Fresh Pond,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 10:29 pm

Readers of the newsletter of the Belmont Citizens Forum will find much news there about neighboring North Cambridge. Editor Meg Muckenhoupt’s lead story in the September-October 2013 issue is about major, new housing developments planned for the part of Cambridge west of Alewife Brook Parkway and north of Fresh Pond Park. The article expresses concerns with traffic which is already approaching gridlock and affecting access to the Alewife T station.

Quoting from the story:

The decision document issued by Cambridge’s Planning Board for the 398-unit 160 Cambridgepark Drive, which is predicted to cause 1,324 new trips, states, “The project is expected to have minimal impact on traffic and will not cause congestion, hazard, or substantial change to the established neighborhood character.” Ominously, the decision continues: “It is also noted that the traffic generated by the project is anticipated to be less than that associated with the office/research and development project on 150, 180 and 180R Cambridgepark Drive for which entitlements currently exist under a previously granted special permit.” In short, if the city of Cambridge accepted a potential increase in traffic for a special permit in the past, the city should accept that increase in traffic for all future permits—no matter how much the population has increased in the meantime.

[…]

Concord Avenue and the Alewife Brook Parkway rotary won’t escape traffic woes. Cambridge’s 2005 Concord Alewife Plan included a “critical movement analysis” of the area. Critical movements are conflicting traffic movements. They are the times when vehicles block each other from moving, such as when a car turns left and crosses a lane of oncoming traffic. The Concord Alewife Plan reports that for the area roughly bounded by the Route 2/Route 16 intersection, the Alewife Brook Parkway, and Concord Avenue, service starts to deteriorate when a roadway reaches the “critical sum” of 1,500 vehicles per hour, or 1,800 vehicles per hour for rotaries. Below those numbers, and most motorists can get through an intersection in two or fewer light cycles. Above those thresholds, you’ll wait at that light a long time. As of 2005, the Concord/Route 2 rotary was already operating at 1,880 critical interactions—80 above the threshold—with a total traffic volume of 4,300 trips per day, while Concord Avenue at Blanchard Road had already reached 1,400 “critical sums” per hour, with 2,460 trips per day.

The report also predicted vehicle trips per day for 2024 for the area after Cambridge’s rezoning (which Cambridge enacted in June 2006.) The permitted 70 Fawcett Street development, which will be located between these two intersections, by itself promises to add enough vehicle trips to reach the predicted 2024 buildout trip level by 2014—and there’s plenty more space for apartments and garages alongside between the Concord Avenue rotary and Blanchard Road.

Also:

Of course, some of these buildings’ residents will take the T to work—if they can fit on the T…The Red Line is already “congested” and running at capacity, according to a June 2012 study by the Urban Land Institute titled Hub and Spoke: Core Transit Congestion and the Future of Transit and Development in Greater Boston.

So, Cambridge publishes a plan for the Alewife area which reports that traffic congestion is already a problem, but then it permits several large housing developments which will worsen it. The Belmont Citizens Forum article does report that design study has been funded for a new bridge over the commuter rail tracks west of Alewife Station, connecting it with Concord Avenue. That will relieve some congestion near the Alewife Brook Parkway/Concord Avenue rotary but will have little effect elsewhere. And this is still only a design study.

As a bicycling advocate and repeated critic of Cambridge’s treatment on Concord Avenue — see summary of my comments here — I have found another major inconsistency with the 2005 Concord-Alewife Plan: the recent reconstruction of Concord Avenue so as to maximize the number of conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. The new traffic signal just west of the Concord Avenue/Alewife Brook Parkway rotary backs up traffic into the rotary whenever a bicyclist or pedestrian actuates the signal to cross. The westbound sidewalk bikeway installed on the north side of Concord Avenue crosses a driveway or street on average once every 100 feet, requiring motorists to stop in the only westbound travel lane, blocking traffic, to yield to bicyclists overtaking on their right. Buses traveling both ways on Concord Avenue must stop in the travel lane, where their doors open directly into the bikeway. The conflicting turn movements between motorists and bicyclists, and bus passengers discharged onto the the bikeway, pose serious safety concerns too.

In previous posts on this blog and elsewhere, I recommended a two-way bikeway on the south side of Concord Avenue next to Fresh Pond Park, where there is only one signalized intersection, and maintenance of the previous roadway width and bike lanes.

The 2005 Concord-Alewife Plan contains no mention of the Concord Avenue bikeway — see recommendations for Concord Avenue on page 80 of the report. The plan therefore does not account for the congestion caused by the bikeway, on which construction began only 4 years later.

The overall impression I get is that Cambridge’s planning is disorganized, but also, Cambridge’s bicycle planning occurs in a fantasyland where the well-known conflict situations which cause crashes are greeted with a claim that the goal is to make bicycling more attractive, then, poof, when there are more bicyclists, by magic, bicycling will become safer. I call this the “Pied Piper” approach to bicycle planning. Well, actually, Cambridge is reporting a steady level of bicycle crashes in spite of an increasing volume of bicycle traffic. Some decrease in risk with increasing volume occurs with any mode of transportation as its users gain longer experience. The issue I have is with using this as an excuse for wishful thinking and crap design, and writing off the victims of preventable crashes as expendable. Cambridge has had some gruesome preventable crashes, and has intersections with the highest volumes of bicycle crashes anywhere in Massachusetts.

Another overall impression which I can’t shake is that Cambridge is very selective about reducing traffic congestion. The Concord Avenue project; the residential developments planned for the Alewife area; the Western Avenue roadway narrowing and sidewalk bikeway; and the proposed bikeways along Binney Street increase congestion at the portals to the city. It all strikes me as rather desperate and underhanded way to decrease congestion in the core of the city, but there you have it, as it appears to me.

[Added paragraphs, October 7, 7:40 AM] Residential development close to the urban core is certainly preferable to sprawling suburbs to minimize environmental impacts and traffic congestion, but resolving the traffic problems in the Alewife area would require major investments to increase Red Line and bus service, and disincentives (read: high cost) for single-occupant motor vehicle travel. The public resists all of these. If there is a logic to the City’s approach to these challenges, it is to break down resistance by making the problems so pressing that the pain becomes intolerable.

Bicycling and walking can make some contribution, but the plans for the new housing developments describe it as small. Quoting again:

To be fair, the developers of these various projects are attempting to make car-free commuting more attractive to their residents. Several of these buildings have extensive bicycle-parking facilities, including the Faces site and 160 Cambridgepark Drive. But the city of Cambridge doesn’t anticipate that those bicycles will get much use. For 398-unit 160 Cambridgepark Drive, for example, the city estimates the residents will make 1,324 daily car trips, and 202 pedestrian trips, but just 98 journeys by bike.

Most of the traffic in the area in any case is to or from more distant locations, or is passing through. Bicycling and walking may serve as feeder modes for these longer trips but don’t compete well with motorized modes to cover the distance.

September 3, 2013

300 Mass. Ave./Forest City project gets final Planning Board approval

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 11:58 pm

Sept 3, 2013 – The Cambridge Planning Board tonight gave its unanimous final approval to the design of the proposed building at 300 Mass. Ave. that had been the subject of multiple iterations of a zoning petition by Forest City/MIT.

300 Mass. Ave. - Proposed Design
300 Mass. Ave. – Proposed Design (June 2013)		 300 Mass. Ave. - Approved Design
300 Mass. Ave. – Approved Design (Sept 2013)

This marks the successful final step of what has been a very long process that began with the initial filing in February 2011 of a zoning petition to extend the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District (CRDD) to include this Mass. Ave. frontage from MIT’s Random Hall up to Blanche Street (commonly referred to as the "All Asia Block"). In a sense, this story really began several decades ago with the original plans for University Park that included this block but which was subsequently excised due to different property ownership. Only in recent years have those other owners been willing to enter into the arrangement that led to the proposal now finally approved and proceeding toward demolition and construction.

The February 2011 zoning petition was eventually withdrawn but was re-filed in March 2012. That zoning petition spawned a backlash when, at the City’s urging, a slender residential tower at Sydney and Green Streets was included in the plans. Amid complaints over excessive shadows and the loss of a small park, the residential component was removed from the proposal in its Ordinance Committee. In a curious twist, many of the same people who objected to the proposed housing morphed into housing activists as they objected to the proposed commercial building. This zoning petition was then allowed to expire in August 2012. It was re-filed in substantially the same form in December 2012 along with a revised memorandum of understanding that reaffirmed a variety of housing commitments and added the promise of new affordable housing units in the future. That zoning amendment eventually passed unanimously in February 2013.

With the new zoning in hand, there was still the design review process required under the zoning. The architects had an initial review before the Central Square Advisory Committee in June followed by the initial Planning Board hearing on July 9. There were some objections from the Board and unresolved issues with an abutter, so another hearing was scheduled for August 6. Rather than get the go-ahead as expected, there were still a few substantial objections remaining – primarily concerning the significant amount of glass on the Mass. Ave. facade, so yet another hearing was scheduled. At the September 3 hearing the architects presented much more aesthetically pleasing plans and the Planning Board gave an enthusiastic and unanimous vote of approval.

In addition to a very good building, the plans include a cooperative plan with the City to transform Blanche Street between Green Street and Mass. Ave. into a "shared street" or woonerf, a Dutch word that means "living street" where pedestrians and cyclists have legal priority over motorists. Two examples of this kind of treatment are Palmer Street and Winthrop Street in Harvard Square. There will also be a significant row of new small-scale retail along the Mass. Ave. frontage.

It has to be noted that, as has happened before in Cambridge, this development proposal left a political vestige – the opposition group that calls itself the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CRA). Their primary activities to date include (1) a zoning proposal that would have preserved in perpetuity the surface parking lots in Central Square and harshly capped all building heights and densities in and around Central Square, (2) a proposed citywide moratorium on most large-scale residential or commercial development, (3) an activist core that presents highly disputable claims of "a tsunami of development" and "crush hour on the Red Line", and (4) the inevitable effort to promote anti-development candidates for City Council in the upcoming election. Another group called "A Better Cambridge" (ABC) was formed that generally supports "smart growth" principles and good urban design but remains apolitical.

The ABC group has been largely supportive of the recommendations that grew out of the 2011-2012 Central Square Advisory Committee and its predecessor Mayor’s Red Ribbon Commission. The CRA has been primarily opposed to any of the recommendations that would permit any substantial new construction or redevelopment in Central Square (and elsewhere in Cambridge). So even as the Forest City/MIT plans for 300 Mass. Ave. proceed toward construction, the seeds have been sown for the latest episode in the never-ending competition of visions for the future of Cambridge and Central Square – just in time for this year’s municipal election season. Indeed, a very good case can be made that the current "Net Zero Petition" (introduced by many of the same activists who have been opposing new construction) is a proxy to stop all new large-scale residential and commercial construction. – Robert Winters

August 18, 2013

A Better Cambridge response to Connolly Net Zero Zoning Petition

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 6:09 pm

A Better Cambridge response to Connolly Net Zero Zoning Petition

The members of A Better Cambridge thank the proponents of the Connolly Net Zero Petition for provoking such an important discussion about climate change adaptation in Cambridge. The Connolly Petition has challenged our community to take a serious look at how we will eliminate consumption of fossil fuels and promote alternative energy use across the city of Cambridge.

A better Cambridge is a net zero Cambridge. Eliminating carbon emissions should be a primary goal in Cambridge. We believe that a viable approach to serious energy efficiency in Cambridge relies on a multi-pronged strategy that addresses what we require of new development and how we adapt existing buildings, with a focus on multi-modal transportation throughout. A key achievement will be that carbon emissions are reduced within our city through construction of better and more efficient buildings, without at the same time exporting emissions to communities outside of our borders.

While taking this serious and long-overdue look at building efficiency in Cambridge we can’t also lose sight of important community development challenges facing our city. The cost of rent continues to rise in Cambridge, and condos here are being sold for hugely inflated prices. Promoting the development of more mixed residential and commercial buildings around Cambridge’s existing transportation hubs is a key strategy in our ability to make housing more affordable for all people in Cambridge. We have serious concerns that the Connolly Petition’s narrow focus on large scale new development will hurt our ability to create the new affordable low- and middle-income housing that is now so desperately needed to keep Cambridge a diverse and sustainable community.

When it comes to housing, most research and practice-based evidence into the feasibility of cost-effective net zero housing applies to low-density, single-family homes in moderate climates like California. This is not the type of new housing we should expect or hope for in Cambridge, and there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about the feasibility of developing net zero multifamily housing here. This places at risk the viability of important projects like housing at the Sullivan Courthouse, for which residents of East Cambridge have been fighting. If the Cambridge Housing Authority development currently planned for Temple Street were subject to the requirements of the Connolly Petition, it almost certainly would not go forward.

In a 2012 study “Think Bigger: Net-Zero Communities” the authors, who represent the Alliance to Save Energy, the Urban Land Institute, and the U.S. Department of Energy, effectively argue that “achieving net-zero energy across an entire building stock requires looking beyond individual buildings and considering net-zero at a community scale.” They state that:

  1. it might not be feasible to achieve net zero energy in every building – this might be more realistic for buildings evaluated together;
  2. Multi-building systems offer opportunities for lower energy use through heat sharing and load diversity; and
  3. drawing a larger perimeter around multiple buildings and adjacent open space allows us to consider “nearby” renewable energy sources thus keeping buildings and urban densities in the net zero mix.

As the study goes on to explain, we need an approach to net-zero that allows for the diversity of building types, uses, and climates and also one that will not dilute urban density in favor of low-rise sprawl. We believe these points are wholly missed in the Connolly Petition’s approach to net zero.

Focusing only on new development, even of substantial square footage, will seriously limit the impact of the Connolly Petition. New construction is small compared to our existing building stock, and anything built after 2010 must comply with Cambridge’s stretch code — energy efficiency standards that are among the toughest in the nation, which have effectively increased the stock of highly energy efficient commercial, residential and institutional buildings in Cambridge without negatively impacting our progress towards key social goods like affordable, multi-family housing.

It would be important to tackle this in a more robust and holistic fashion: require developers to meet “Architecture 2030” goals for new buildings, a program that phases in fossil fuel reductions while, more importantly, targeting our biggest consumers of energy — our existing building stock. For example, this could be accomplished by specifically allocating community benefit funds awarded under new development to support greater energy efficiency conversion subsidies in Cambridge’s existing building stock. Under the Connolly Petition developers could meet net zero requirements by paying for carbon offsets — while missing the opportunity to direct more funding to key community and economic development opportunities.

From a carbon emissions reduction standpoint, Cambridge is a great place to build. Every hundred thousand square feet we add here is a hundred thousand square feet that’s not going up along Routes 128 or 495. Even a net-zero building in a suburban office park is likely to generate a far more negative impact on the climate and the environment than a building in Cambridge that complies with our currently applicable codes and regulations. Suburban construction often involves leveling greenspace and removing acres of carbon-absorbing vegetation. Storm runoff is unlikely to be carried through a separated system, as in much of Cambridge; instead, it is likely to be mixed with sewage, and treated in an emissions-intensive process. Connecting the new structure to roads and utilities generates additional impacts. Workers are far more likely to commute by car, pumping out carbon emissions, and accommodating their vehicles requires additional construction. Of course, no other local town is proposing to require net-zero construction; few even approach Cambridge’s current sustainability standards. The actual choice facing many developers is between meeting Cambridge’s rigorous standards, or taking advantage of the relatively lax rules imposed by most suburban communities. As we work to reduce carbon emissions, it makes sense to keep this broader picture in mind.

Any comprehensive plan to tackle carbon emissions in the Commonwealth would involve incentivizing developers to site their buildings along public transportation networks and proximate to dense residential areas. The Connolly petition, although clearly well-intentioned, seems likely to raise the cost of new development in Cambridge relative to surrounding communities, having the contrary effect. All carbon emissions, whatever their point of origin, have the same impact on our community and our environment. To the extent that this petition moves new construction away from Cambridge, with its high standards on sustainability, and into surrounding areas, it runs a substantial risk of actually raising the very emissions it proposes to contain. We do not believe that this is the outcome the petition seeks, nor do we think it is an outcome that most residents desire.

Focusing on net zero and energy efficiency only neglects the importance of addressing climate change adaptation holistically: in addition to energy efficiency of new buildings and existing buildings, we need to focus on other key climate mitigation strategies such as addressing water resources, resilience planning and mitigation, and innovative and integrated transportation strategies and policies that will effectively move people from their cars into alternative, low- or no-emissions transportation options.

Again, A Better Cambridge thanks the proponents of the Connolly Petition for challenging our community to take this important look at our carbon footprint in Cambridge. Unfortunately, we believe the proposed zoning takes a far too narrow approach that may effectively stall the very type of development we need to actually reduce emissions while addressing key housing/community development needs here in Cambridge.

June 8, 2013

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Six Pivotal Episodes

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,Kendall Square,MIT,planning — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 3:32 pm

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Six Pivotal Episodes

By Thad Tercyak, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, Associate Director, 1968-1990

In 2012, the Cambridge Civic Journal published "Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Initial Years, 1963 to 1982". The following commentary focuses on six pivotal episodes during the 1963-1982 time period which provided the impetus for major development in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project. Successful development of the Kendall Square Project was a major factor in helping to attract high-tech companies to locate in the eastern sector of the City of Cambridge. Today there are over 163 institutional research companies within a 1-mile radius of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project area (Source: Boston Consulting Group, Capital IQ DB, U.S. Census Bureau, National Science Foundation.)

The episodes are described in chronological order.

1. Conceptualization and initiation of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project

In 1963, Mr. Robert F. Rowland, a city planner with extensive urban redevelopment experience, commuted to his job with the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), parking his car in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Kendall Square rapid transit station parking lot. He noticed the area north of the rapid transit station was severely underdeveloped and an urban blight with underutilized, largely vacant and obsolete industrial and warehouse buildings. Because of the extent of urban blight, there did not appear to be any prospects for private development there. As a city planner, he visualized the land as an ideal site for urban redevelopment because of its unique locational advantages, including the rapid transit station, proximity to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), direct subway connections to Harvard and downtown Boston, and easy connection to Logan Airport.

Rowland was aware President John F. Kennedy had assigned the task of sending an American astronaut safely to and from the Moon before the end of the decade to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which was searching for a site in the Boston area for development of its Electronic Research Center.

On their own time, Rowland and two associates sketched out a redevelopment plan for the Kendall Square area which would accommodate NASA and provide land for NASA-related private development. He presented his concept plan to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) which asked him to work with the CRA to move the plan through the redevelopment process. Rowland agreed, left his job with the BRA, was hired by the CRA and in 1964 was appointed CRA Executive Director.

In 1964, the CRA presented the concept plan to the Cambridge City Council. The Council voted to have the CRA prepare a redevelopment plan for the Kendall Square area with two objectives: (1) to provide land for both NASA and private development which would generate needed tax revenues for the City of Cambridge and employment opportunities; and (2) to secure maximum federal funds to help alleviate concerns about Cambridge’s ability to finance its share of the cost to carry out the project.

With respect to the first objective, the City of Cambridge, with support from local and congressional representatives, convinced NASA officials of the advantages of a Kendall Square location. After discussions and consultations among the CRA, NASA, Cambridge representatives and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), it was determined that development could be expedited by using the urban renewal process.

2. Financing Cambridge’s $6.5-million share of the project cost

With respect to the second objective, the CRA advised Cambridge officials to take advantage of a complex urban renewal financing formula which could be used to "secure maximum federal funds" to finance Cambridge’s share of the cost to carry out the project.. The formula, based on Section 112 of the Housing Act of 1949, provided that expenditures by educational institutions and hospitals on facilities located within a mile of an urban renewal project that contributed to the objectives of the urban renewal project can be used as credits ("Section 112 credits") to cover the local share of the project cost.

The CRA took the lead in coordinating the efforts of Cambridge, MIT officials and congressional representatives to work out the details required to secure federal approval of the Section 112 credits financing plan. The City and MIT entered into an agreement which provided that MIT prepare a Development Plan which included MIT property located within a mile of the redevelopment area to be used for educational purposes. After the City’s review and approval of the plan, the expenditures incurred by MIT to acquire land and construct buildings in accordance with the plan could be used as Section 112 credits. Subsequently, when the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project was approved, MIT provided $6.5-million dollars in Section 112 credits to cover the City of Cambridge’s entire share of the project cost.

3. NASA Quits. CRA amends Kendall Square redevelopment plan and objectives

The original Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan covered 43 acres of land and designated 29 acres for use by NASA and 14 acres for NASA-related private development. The initial four years of the project were executed expeditiously. The CRA transferred 19 acres of vacant land to NASA for construction of a 14-story office tower and five low-rise buildings, and prepared an additional 10 acres of vacant land for future development by NASA. In 1970, without warning, NASA decided to abandon its operations in the project. It indicated it did not need the 10-acre site of vacant land designated for its development, and was transferring its interests in the project to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT established the National Transportation System Center on the site formerly occupied by NASA and named it after John A. Volpe, Secretary of DOT and former governor of Massachusetts

Cognizant that the 10-acre site originally designated for NASA’s use under the terms of the original Kendall square Urban Renewal Plan was still undeveloped and in CRA possession, the CRA recognized an opportunity to expand the area of land which could be developed for private uses which would benefit Cambridge more than if the land was developed by the federal government. The CRA decided to amend the Kendall Square Plan to designate new reuses for the undeveloped land even though that meant starting again the complicated and time consuming process of preparing a second Kendall Square Plan.

The CRA commenced negotiations with DOT Secretary Volpe, making the case that DOT should relinquish its rights to Parcel 2 because NASA’s withdrawal from the project was a breach of its contractual obligation with the CRA; a flagrant disregard of its commitment to the community; and had undermined the City’s program to market the project area for private development. After 2 years of prolonged negotiations among the CRA, DOT, U.S. General Services Administration, and HUD, Secretary Volpe released DOT’s rights to Parcel 2 to the CRA.

When NASA decided to withdraw from the Kendall Square area, the feeling in the City of Cambridge was that the project had been delivered a tremendous setback because it had lost its major developer. As it turned out, despite the years of development delays caused by NASA’s the withdrawal, it was a blessing in disguise because the additional 10-acres of land plus the 14 acres already designated for private development became a 24-acre site large enough to create a critical mass for high-tech development in the Kendall Square Project which eventually helped to attract additional high-tech development in the eastern sector of Cambridge.

4. Urban Land Institute Advisory Services engaged to help break planning deadlock.

Cambridge was unprepared for carrying out the difficult and complicated tasks involved in overhauling the original plan and replacing it with an entirely new plan. Cambridge City Council created a task force comprised of representatives from a cross-section of Cambridge organizations and the Cambridge Planning Department to work with the CRA in the re-planning effort. A number of plans were developed, including proposals with contradictory project objectives, including "quick-fix" land uses, such as a beer distribution warehouse, a soccer field, open space, even restoring the Broad Canal, but the City could not arrive at a consensus.

Over time, a cloud descended over the project’s development potential and grumbles concerning the apparent lack of progress in redeveloping the site began to be heard, even mockery about changing the name of Kendall Square to "Nowhere Square".

To help break the planning deadlock, the CRA retained the advisory panel services of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to review the Kendall Square Project and propose ways to move the project in the right direction. In carrying out the assignment for the CRA, panel members first spent two days reviewing comprehensive briefing materials prepared by the CRA staff and touring the project and surrounding area. Then individual panelists and teams conferred with nearly 100 community spokespersons, citizens, business persons, government officials, members of the local real estate community, and others interested and concerned with the future revitalization of the Kendall Square area.

The ULI panel concluded that only a few properties in the country had a broader array of locational advantages as the Kendall Square area and the opportunities associated with the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: "Cambridge Center is a unique opportunity area, one that should be reserved to maximize its locational advantages". The ULI panel presented a point of view that the Kendall Square Project was a valuable asset that has the potential to produce great benefits to the City of Cambridge; and that the CRA and Cambridge City Council should resist the impulse to dispose of the land to take advantage of its short term marketability in response to concerns being expressed about development delays. The panel urged the CRA and City to be patient and adopt an optimal type of development that reflected the highest and best use for the land which would bring the greatest long range benefit to the Cambridge community. The panel proposed a long-term, sophisticated, large-scale, mixed-use optimal type of development.

The ULI panel’s professionalism and diligence in carrying out its mission impressed and gained the confidence of the CRA and Cambridge City Council which endorsed the panel’s recommendations and approved a Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan for a mixed-use development, with the general objectives of generating tax revenues and jobs.

The ULI panel also warned that attracting developers would not be easy: "Citizen concerns, political pressures, economic uncertainty, and the absence of a united and strong development process have combined to create a credibility problem with the real estate development community". The Panel advised the CRA could overcome developer skepticism about the development climate in Cambridge by establishing a record for getting things done.

The CRA responded by removing all legal and technical impediments to development; completing an Environmental Impact Statement; securing plan and zoning amendments; and carrying out a $7-million public improvements program, including construction of infrastructure and execution of traffic circulation plans.

5. Boston Properties selected to develop Cambridge Center

For marketing purposes the name Cambridge Center was adopted to refer to the 24 acres in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project outside of the land occupied by DOT. In 1978, the CRA invited proposals to develop Cambridge Center. Four well qualified developers were selected as finalists, including Boston Properties which was not as well known in the Boston area as the other developers. After exhaustive interviews with each developer and analysis of each development proposal, the CRA designated Boston Properties as developer for Cambridge Center because it had two significant advantages over its competition:

1. Boston Properties’ two principals had worked as a team for many years producing a number of successful well-designed real estate developments nationwide. In contrast, the other finalists had undergone changes or formed new teams, making evaluations of future performance difficult.

2. Boston Properties’ financial capabilities were impressive. It was well capitalized and had a net worth adequate to sustain a large and complex development such as Cambridge Center. It had current assets sufficient to fund first-rate design and site planning; a cash flow arising from a broad, geographically diverse base of real estate investments that could support substantial start-up costs and sustain development during difficult economic times; and a proven ability to manage investment property effectively and efficiently.

Boston Properties turned out to be the right choice because it had the background, experience, resources and patience to attract the type of users that met the standards proposed in the ULI recommendations, that of promoting land development to its highest and best uses. Subsequently, the development of Cambridge Center benefitted the City of Cambridge by achieving goals for the amended Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan set by the Cambridge City Council: generating $15-million in annual property tax revenues and 7,500 jobs.

6. High-tech development

The combination of (a) the presence of MIT, an international leader in high-tech research and innovation; (b) Polaroid’s decision to locate in Technology Square, a real estate development started in the 1960’s by Cabot, Cabot and Forbes in partnership with MIT that also included Rogers Block, a CRA urban renewal project adjacent to the Kendall Square Project; (c) the presence of Draper Laboratories in the immediate neighborhood; and (d) decisions by the Whitehead Institute and Biogen in 1982 to locate in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project area were key elements leading to the emergence of high-tech development in the Kendall Square Project, and helping to attract major technology and biotechnology development in the eastern sector of Cambridge. Today there are over 163 institutional research companies within a 1-mile radius of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project area.

P.S. Robert F. Rowland was CRA Executive Director during all the episodes from 1963 to 1982.

As CRA Associate Director, Thad Tercyak participated directly in the episodes from 1968 to 1990.

April 10, 2013

“A Better Future for A Better Cambridge” – updated

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 2:45 pm

How can we plan for urban growth in Cambridge to promote a more diverse, livable, and sustainable city for all residents?

An esteemed panel will address the coming demographic shifts that will put further pressure on the Cambridge’s housing market and our transportation systems, and talk about solutions that can make Cambridge a leader in defining a new urban America in the age of climate change.

  • Frederick P. Salvucci, Former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation and current MIT Professor of Civil Engineering
  • Barry Bluestone, Founding director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University
  • Amy Cotter, Director of Regional Plan Implementation for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)

Moderated by Renee Loth, Editor at ArchitectureBoston and former Editorial Page Editor for the Boston Globe.

Thursday, April 11th
7:00PM
Cambridge College
1000 Massachusetts Ave.

All are welcome! Please register online to let us know you’ll be participating in the discussion: http://abettercambridge.org/register-forum

Sponsored by A Better Cambridge | Working to build a more diverse and dynamic Cambridge on the path toward sustainable growth.

Web: http://abettercambridge.com | Facebook: http://facebook.com/ABetterCambridge | Twitter: @ABetterCambMA

March 18, 2013

Evacuation Day at City Hall – March 18 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:57 am

Evacuation Day at City Hall – March 18 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Here are what seem to be the highlights for this Monday’s City Council meeting grouped by topic:

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Planning Board for 3-year terms effective Mar 13, 2013:
Tom Sieniewicz (Full Member)
Steven Cohen (Full Member)
Catherine Preston Connolly (Associate Member)

Resolution #15. Thanks to Thomas W. Anninger for his years of service as a member of the Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Maher

Though the Planning Board has been short a few members lately, it’s been functioning like a well-oiled machine. Tom Anninger’s exit from the Board is a real loss, but the newly appointed members appear to be very qualified and should prove to be excellent additions. They’ll arrive just in time for some serious discussions about possible plans for Central Square and other areas that were part of the recent K2C2 study. It is noteworthy that the recent January 7 Order #4 strongly urged the City Manager to fill the two vacancies on the Planning Board with people "who have a background in, or association with, the skilled labor and building trades." None of the three appointees seem to fit that description, and that’s probably a good thing.

Manager’s Agenda #16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

City Manager Order
Agenda Item No. 16A     Mar 18, 2013
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

  Annual Consumption* FY13
Water Rate		 FY14 Proposed
Water Rate		 FY13
Sewer Rate		 FY14 Proposed
Sewer Rate
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF $3.02 $3.02 $7.86 $8.19
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF $3.24 $3.24 $8.32 $8.67
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF $3.44 $3.44 $8.93 $9.31
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF $3.65 $3.65 $9.62 $10.02
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF $3.96 $3.96 $10.23 $10.66

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further

This marks the 4th straight year for these water rates, i.e. no increases for three years from the level set for FY11. This is the first increase in the sewer rate after two consecutive years of no increases.

Manager’s Agenda #17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the MIT-Kendall Square Zoning Petition.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 26, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss the built form, including FAR, Height, Footplates, Open Space and Parking.

Committee Report #6. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Mar 7, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss Uses, Incentive Zoning, Community Fund, Housing and Sustainability. A presentation will be made by the Executive Director of Historical Commission on historic building.

Order #11. That a one-time suspension of Council Rule 23B be allowed, for the broadcast of the Fri, Mar 22nd, 9:30am Ordinance Committee Meeting (a meeting to discuss issues relating to the MIT PUD-5 zoning petition).   Councillor vanBeuzekom

As a group, these are probably the most significant items on the agenda. The Council will most likely pass the MIT/Kendall petition to a 2nd Reading in order to get it in the queue for possible ordination in a few weeks. The Ordinance Committee is still deliberating the issue, and it will surprise no one if there are additional tweaks to the zoning language before the matter comes to a final vote.

One yet unresolved issue is the matter of how MIT will respond to demands for additional on-campus and near-campus housing for graduate students and post-docs. It’s a legitimate question, and the MIT administration is seriously analyzing this now. The question of whether this housing should be intertwined with the zoning petition is somewhat unclear, especially since MIT has numerous other options for where such housing could be constructed if their analysis proves the need. It’s unfortunate that this issue has been latched onto by at least one new Council candidate who has about as much familiarity with MIT as a fish has with a bicycle.

Applications & Petitions #6. A zoning petition has been received from Charles D. Teague, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify existing law so that said law can be enforced by inserting text after Section 7.20 Illumination, with the existing text to be retained and labeled as Section 7.23 Lighting Restrictions for Residential Districts.

Yup, another zoning petition, and a pretty anticlimactic one after the Forest City petition and the MIT/Kendall petitions that some have used to define their political campaigns.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council and the Cambridge community on the current status, to the extent that it is possible, of the investigation into the June 3, 2012 murder of Charlene Holmes.   Vice Mayor Simmons

I am grateful to Vice Mayor Simmons for bringing this issue back into public view. It is incredibly disturbing to think that this cold-blooded murder in front of witnesses is still unresolved almost a year later.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works as to the feasibility of installing fiber-optic conduits when doing sewer reconstruction and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

The fact is that these fiber-optic conduits are sometimes run inside the sewers. Don’t worry, you won’t see that stuff and it won’t get all over your data.

Order #9. That the conversion of further soccer fields at Danehy Park to artificial turf be delayed until further study of the impact of artificial turf on player’s health be completed along with a report which quantifies the decreased use of the more fragile grass playing fields throughout the city as a result of the installation of artificial turf playing fields be prepared by the Recreation Department.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 5, 2013 to discuss the long-term impact of grass versus artificial turf at Danehy Park.

Though I have not been following this issue, the committee report makes clear that this is a Big Issue for a lot of people – especially the soccer crowd. It does seem a bit weird that Councillor vanBeuzekom is bringing up the concern that "this infill material may contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, benzene, benzothiazole and other toxic derivatives that may present a health risk to residents" as justification for delaying the installation. Is this out of concern for health risks or just opposition to replacing natural grass with artificial turf? I’ll go with the majority of soccer players. If they’re OK with it, then go for it.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to offer City of Cambridge engineering expertise to the City of Belmont so that both cities may work together to ensure that the residents of Cambridge, Belmont and Arlington be protected from the impacts of flooding in Alewife SubWatershed and report back to the City Council.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

On the surface, this certainly seems like a good idea. I always wonder whether the real intention of Orders like this is to delay development proposals or whether there are serious environmental concerns. In matters such as this we also get a clear view of how lacking the regional planning can sometimes be in these parts. Instead, we talk about loaning our expertise to neighboring towns.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 6, 2013 to receive a briefing on the recommendations of the C2 Report.

There’s also a Roundtable City Council meeting coming up on Wed, Mar 27 at 5:30pm on the report of the Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012. This is pretty important stuff. Some choose to see only danger and fear of change; while others see opportunity. I count myself in the latter group. The actual zoning recommendations yet to come out of CDD are eagerly awaited. – Robert Winters

Quick Notes on what went down at the Mar 18 City Council meeting:

1) Many people showed up to protest the impending termination of the Longy School’s Preparatory and Continuing Studies program. The City Council’s University Relations Committee will address this at a meeting on Wed, Mar 20 at 2:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber of City Hall.

2) Throngs of soccer players, parents, and coaches came out to question Councillor vanBeuzekom’s Order #9 that recommended delaying the installation of artificial turf on soccer fields at Danehy Park. The Order was subsequently withdrawn. (It would likely have been defeated.)

3) Open Houses on the MIT/Kendall Square Initiative (zoning petition) are scheduled for Sat, Mar 23 from 10:00am to noon and Tues, Mar 26 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at One Broadway, 1st Floor, next to Firebrand Saints. Look for the blue windows.

MIT/Kendall Open House

4) There was a somewhat disjointed discussion on the appropriateness of a proposed Ordinance Committee roundtable meeting this Fri, Mar 22 at 9:30am to discuss the details of the MIT/Kendall petition. The debate centered on whether it should be televised and whether public comment should be permitted. The procedural compromise was to change this to a City Council roundtable meeting (which are not televised and where public comment is not permitted). Ordinance Committee Chair David Maher promised that there would be another Ordinance Committee meeting on this topic prior to a final vote on ordination. It was also stated that this petition will expire on April 15 rather than April 24 as previously established. Apparently even though state law sets the deadline at 90 days after its first Ordinance Committee hearing, section 1.52 of the City’s zoning ordinance sets the deadline at 90 days after its initial Planning Board hearing (who knew?). The Law Dept. recommended the Apr 15 deadline. After the discussion the City Council passed the petition to a 2nd Reading. This puts it in the queue to be voted for ordination after Mar 28 and before the Apr 15 expiration date.

5) Councillor Decker announced that the state has designated Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI) as the agency to negotiate the sale of the 2 Mt. Auburn St. housing currently owned and managed by Harvard University. She indicated some hope that good news may follow regarding the long-term affordability for tenants of this building. – RW (additions and corrections welcome)

February 10, 2013

Housing and the Kendall Square/MIT Petition

Filed under: Cambridge,Kendall Square,MIT,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:19 pm

Housing and the Kendall Square/MIT Petition

There was a forum at MIT on Wed, Feb 6 hosted by the MIT Graduate Student Council that addressed some of the issues associated with the current MIT/Kendall Sq. zoning petition now before the Cambridge Planning Board and the Cambridge City Council. This forum was intended for an MIT audience, and only MIT affiliates were invited. It was an honor to have been asked to be a panelist at this forum. The forum was very well attended and required an overflow room to accommodate all the graduate students, undergraduates, post-docs, faculty, staff and administration who came to hear the plans and ask questions.

The good folks of the MIT GSC know how to run a very good meeting that showcases multiple viewpoints while refraining from advocacy. Special acknowledgement goes to GSC President Brian Spatocco who deserves to one day be the mayor or governor of somewhere, somehow, based on his ability to be so informative, fair, and objective.

After the introductions, the forum opened with Israel Ruiz (MIT Executive Vice-President & Treasurer) and Steve Marsh (Managing Director of Real Estate, MIT Investment Management Corporation – MITIMCo) explaining the elements of the zoning petition and its purpose. The panelists were Martin Schmidt (Associate Provost & Prof. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science), Linda Patton (Asst. Director of Off-Campus Housing), Bob Simha (Director of Campus Planning, 1960-2001 and DUSP Lecturer), Jonathan King (Prof. of Biology), Robert Winters (mathematics lecturer, editor of Cambridge Civic Journal), Ruth Perry (Prof. of Literature), and Thomas Kochan (2030 Faculty Task Force & Professor of Management).

Though the organizers were aware of which panelists might speak favorably or unfavorably about the zoning petition (so that they could provide balance), there were no conditions on what specific topics each panelist could address. I chose to focus on the context of housing for graduate students and on the affordability of housing in general. I tried to look at things from my point of view as someone who was an MIT graduate student starting in 1978 and who bought a three-family house in 1985 where I continue to live today. Though I may have skipped a point or two, here are the points I tried to make during my presentation:

The situation as it used to be (circa 1978):

1) There was a significant supply of multi-family housing stock in Cambridge.

2) Rent control was the law for much of the housing stock.

3) The great majority of graduate students preferred to live off-campus rather than in MIT dormitories.

4) Most graduate students were content to live in housemate situations, often with 3 or 4 or more to an apartment. Luxury accommodations were not in demand.

5) There were relatively few post-docs.

6) Kendall Square as a job generator did not really exist.

What happened? (the perfect storm)

1) Rent control ended as a result of a 1994 statewide initiative petition.

2) Much of the multi-family housing stock was converted to (high-end) condominiums.

3) Kendall Square and elsewhere was developed without concurrent housing – greatly increasing the pressure on existing local housing stock for both rental and ownership opportunities.

4) There was a significant increase in post-doc opportunities (in lieu of tenure-track faculty opportunities) – significantly increasing the grad/post-doc pool of people competing for housing.

5) Changing expectations – grad students/post-docs are demanding much higher quality housing, often shunning housemate situations.

6) Among some grads/post-docs, there is a greater need to be close to their labs.

7) There has been a national shift toward people preferring to live in urban environments, reversing the earlier pro-suburban movement among faculty, professional people, and seniors.

8) Any new housing built in and around Kendall Square will also be occupied by people who work in Boston and elsewhere.

The Net Effect:

All of these factors (and more) affect the availability and affordability of housing in and around Cambridge – not just for graduate students but for everyone. The problem is pervasive and is compounded by the resistance by many existing residents toward the construction of new housing in Cambridge and elsewhere. The isolated construction of a limited amount of housing anywhere in Cambridge will have a negligible effect on the overall housing problem. Indeed, it can even paradoxically have the opposite effect by attracting people toward this limited supply of new units who will then bid up the price to create a local "bubble" in the price of housing.

Indeed, the only way to reverse this "perfect storm" is to advocate for significant amounts of new housing in Cambridge, in Somerville, in Allston, in Charlestown, and elsewhere in the greater Boston area. Only when there is a range of housing choices at various rents and locations will any kind of rental housing market be restored in which people can make rational economic choices such as living a little further away or in less luxury in exchange for paying less rent. Trying to create a smattering of "affordable housing" units via inclusionary zoning or government subsidy will never have more than a limited effect on the essential problem. There are just too many factors conspiring to make housing unaffordable. If graduate students really want affordable housing, they should be clamoring for many thousands of housing units to be built everywhere in the area – and not just in Kendall Square and Cambridge.

Locally, it may well be that condominium conversion has had the greatest impact on this loss of affordability. Where once there were streets lined with two-family houses and triple-deckers that provided affordable housing for a resident owner AND for the other tenants in a building (including many graduate students), there are now luxury condominiums where the prices have been bid up to the point of unaffordability except for those in the upper income echelons. The only "working class" residents remaining are those who bought their housing long ago, inherited it, married well, or those with some expertise in benefiting from government-subsidized housing and related programs.

There are also people like me who bought their homes and continued to rent apartments to graduate students, post-docs, and others and who managed to pay off their mortgages without ever excessively raising rents. My affordable housing continues to provide the affordable housing for two other families who were graduate students when they first arrived. Cambridge would be a better place today if more of its two- and three-family homes had never been turned into luxury condominiums. Failure to put some limits on that condominium conversion may be the single greatest reason why MIT graduate students can no longer find affordable housing opportunities in Cambridge. This is also one of the greatest public policy failures by Cambridge elected officials who put all their faith in rent control. Building "affordable housing" today really is like closing the stable doors long after the horses have run away.

The MIT/Kendall Petition

This petition basically redefines the upper limits (heights, density) of what might be constructed in the area east of Ames Street, south of Main Street (plus the area around One Broadway to Broad Canal), and down to Memorial Drive. This petition is both timely and appropriate. This area has always had a mix of uses, including industrial uses. It’s also located at a major Red Line T station, and virtually all planning professionals agree that it’s best to concentrate density close to public transportation. The petition would only define the envelope of what could be built and not precisely what will be built.

Any debate regarding the appropriateness of commercial buildings vs. academic buildings vs. residential buildings in the petition area should really not be taking place before the Cambridge Planning Board or the Cambridge City Council (though this may affect how the petition is received by these respective bodies). This debate is properly one that must occur within the MIT community – administration, real estate investment people, faculty, staff, and students – and preferably also among those who live and work in the surrounding area.

MIT/Kendall plan - courtesy of Israel Ruiz
photo from MIT’s The Tech

Text of MIT/Kendall Petition

Jan 11, 2013 Memo from Community Development Dept. (CDD)

Regarding the graduate student housing issue

MIT can provide a good "Plan B" option for graduate students and post-docs by having ample on-campus and near-campus MIT-owned residential properties (especially for those who need to be close to labs, etc.), but this will barely make a dent in the larger problem. Many, perhaps most, graduate students and post-docs will continue to seek housing options off-campus – preferably within walking or bicycling distance. The focus has to be on increasing housing options within a reasonable distance of the MIT campus and not just on building housing within the MIT campus. Unfortunately, this is not something that MIT can unilaterally accomplish. It also requires action by local and state government AND by the developers who will ultimately build sufficient housing to restore some kind of viable housing market. Building "affordable housing" is fundamentally just politically expedient window-dressing.

A note on transportation

People really are choosing to be less reliant on automobiles, so public transportation infrastructure has to grow and to provide more frequent service and more reliable connections, and the entire system has to evolve from a hub-and-spokes model to more of a regional network. Otherwise we will be forever limited by the capacity of the hub in Boston. In the coming decades it will be very advantageous if a variety of new transit lines can be developed that do not require passing through the hub of Boston.

Etcetera

Whatever comes of the MIT/Kendall petition and of future plans for the petition area, it is essential that the results should not be boring. There really is a place for food trucks, diners, bumper cars, miniature golf, and other things that will have great appeal to many people – especially to MIT affiliates who have always had a love for things eclectic, entertaining, and affordable. There’s a reason why those food trucks are so popular. Those whose memories go back several decades understand that those food trucks are modern versions of the old F&T Diner. There has to be a place in the future East Campus where modern-day memories will be created – the 21st Century incarnations of the F&T, Pritchett Lounge, and the Muddy Charles Pub. People can reasonably debate the relative merits of housing vs. academic buildings vs. commercial buildings that will help finance long-overdue renovations of existing MIT buildings. However, if the future is boring and pathetically predictable, that will be unforgivable. – Robert Winters

Comments?

F&T 1

F&T 2

F&T 3

January 7, 2013

A Sampler from the Jan 7, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:40 am

A Sampler from the Jan 7, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The 2013 City Council season opens this Monday with little at bat and a lot on deck. Here is a sampler of some interesting agenda items:

Communications #4. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman transmitting a copy of a letter to Ms. Amy Nable of the MA Attorney General’s Office in response to his Open Meeting Law Complaint.

This is an interesting interpretation of the Open Meeting Law. It seems to suggest that the only legitimate legislative actions the City Council or any public body can propose is the kind that’s dreamt up in a vacuum by an individual or that emerges spontaneously on the floor of the City Council. I don’t think ANY legislative body works this way nor do I think any effective organization or group of individuals works this way. People talk to each other. Elected officials talk to each other (or at least we hope this is the case). Sometimes a consensus around a good idea develops before the whole group gets together. The public gets a chance to chime in, discussion ensues, and a vote is taken. What is to be gained by turning elected officials into robots in straitjackets? What is so offensive about the practice of allowing councillors to individually sign on as sponsors of a City Council Order prior to voting on the record in favor of the Order? If you are unhappy about the decision to hire Rich Rossi as City Manager for a few years, so be it, but why make such a whine out of sour grapes?

Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of Karen Klinger.   Councillor Cheung

Karen Klinger, photo from CCTVWhen I receive email messages from Cambridge people, I confess to classifying the senders mainly into three categories: Friends, Civics, and Politics. Only my real friends are classified as Friends. I lump much of the mail I receive into the Politics category and, quite frankly, I don’t put a lot of weight in that stuff. The special category is Civics – for people who are really trying to do all the best things a citizen should do. These are the constructive people, the thoughtful people, and many of them I eventually call Friends. Karen Klinger was a Civic person, well on her way to being a Friend – a constructive and thoughtful citizen who did not participate in civic life merely to inflate her ego or to obstruct whatever comes along. Karen and I would often ride together on the bike rides sponsored twice per year by the Cambridge Bicycle Committee and we would catch up on things as we rode through the streets of Cambridge.

When I heard that Karen had died after an extended illness, I looked back at some of the messages we had exchanged over the last few years. Just two years ago when fellow cyclist Henry Lewis died suddenly, Karen wrote these haunting words: "That’s so sad about Henry Lewis. What happened? He looked to be the picture of health on the Bow Tie Ride. A very enthusiastic, charismatic guy. I always find it especially shocking when seemingly healthy people who are surely younger than I am suddenly die. I can’t get the image of him, enthusing about the ride and the one coming up next spring–with a music theme–out of my head." Karen was also a very enthusiastic, charismatic gal and I will especially miss her when riding in the next Cambridge Bike Tour on May 13.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate city staff to provide a report to the City Council explaining the SOV target rate that has been established for the City of Cambridge; data that explains how the City of Cambridge is doing in relation to meeting its SOV target rate; and future plans to reduce the actual SOV rate including barriers to achieving as low a rate as is possible.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Nothing unusual in this Order. It’s highlighted primarily to note how certain issues and language seem to rise and fall in importance over the years. It wasn’t so long ago that the City Council often referred to the problem of "single occupancy vehicles." Much of those concerns were incorporated into the City’s Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordiance that effectively replaced the old Interim Parking Freeze. That ordinance drives much of City policy today. We don’t really hear the phrase "single occupancy vehicle" any more. The language today tends to focus on larger themes like energy efficiency, climate change, LEED standards, smart growth, and transit-oriented development. I remember a day 24 years ago when recycling was the new wave. We really have come a long way since then.

Order #4. That the City Council go on record strongly urging the City Manager to fill the two vacancies on the Planning Board with people who have a background in, or association with, the skilled labor and building trades.   Vice Mayor Simmons and Councillor Cheung

I beg to differ. The Planning Board ideally consists of objective, fair-minded people who bring a range of relevant skills to the business of planning the future of the city and its urban design. What exactly is the value added by insisting on having skilled labor and building trades represented on the Planning Board? Will there be another Order forthcoming urging that representatives from the life sciences be appointed to the Planning Board in recognition of their major presence in Kendall Square and elsewhere? Why not have representatives from the universities in recognition of the dominant role they play in Cambridge? Those vacancies should be filled as soon as possible, but the pool should not be restricted to any specific interest group.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, for a public hearing held on Dec 12, 2012 to receive an update on the long-term vision for Kendall Square.

There’s not much to add other than to highlight all the potential activity that is now on deck. New buildings are under construction in Kendall Square and there may be other significant changes there from whatever emerges from the recently re-filed MIT Kendall Square zoning petition and the concurrent planning process now underway. Meanwhile, at the other end of Main Street, the Fennell properties – all 15 of them in the Lafayette Square area – recently sold for $32 million to New Jersey’s Normandy Real Estate Partners which is teaming up with Twining Properties, the New York firm that brought the Watermark apartment towers along with new retail and restaurant offerings to Kendall Square. Great things (or horrible things) could come of all this, but it’s guaranteed to not set well with many activists. It should keep things peppered up around here for the next few years.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Dec 19, 2012 to introduce Attorney Elizabeth Valerio, who will represent the City Council, in negotiations with the next City Manager, Richard Rossi.

The specifics of the proposed contract with our next City Manager Richard Rossi are due to appear sometime this month.

Miscellaneous #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012.

There are a few City publications that are worth perusing, and this is one of them. If you really have time to waste, you can also check out the City’s annual line item budget at the Cambridge Public Library. That’s the one that gives the names and salaries and benefits of all the City’s full-time employees. Or you could go hiking. I’ll choose the latter.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress