Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 21, 2012

Help Shape the Future of Central Square

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 9:07 pm

HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL SQUARE

The Central Square Advisory Committee: 2011/2012 and the City of Cambridge invite you to help plan for the future of Central Square. Learn about the planning process to date and the vision emerging from Advisory Committee discussions informed by the two public meetings held in June 2011 and April 2012.
Please join the discussion – your voice is essential to the success of Central Square!

OPEN HOUSE CHARRETTES:  Hear about the Committee’s work and share your thoughts and priorities for the area.
Light refreshments will be served.  Please join us at any of the venues.

Mid-Cambridge
Thurs, July 12, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Cambridge Public Library (Main Branch) Community Room      
449 Broadway		 Cambridgeport
Mon, July 16, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Morse School – Cafeteria
40 Granite Street
Area Four
Wed, July 18, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Area Four Youth Center
243 Harvard Street		 Riverside
Thurs, July 19, 2012, 6:30–8:30pm
Cambridge Senior Center
806 Mass Avenue

MONDAYS IN THE SQUARE: Staff will be available to hear from you and to discuss the project.
Light refreshments will be served. Please stop by at your convenience.

Jill Brown-Rhone Park
Mon, July 9 & 23, Aug 6 & 20, 2012, 5:30–7:30pm     
Lafayette Square, Main St. & Mass Ave.		 Carl Barron Plaza
Mon, July 16 & 30, Aug 13 & 27, 2012, 5:30–7:30pm
Intersection of Mass Ave. & River St.

Please spread the word to others who might be interested.
All ages are welcome and we encourage you to bring a neighbor or a friend.

For more information or to become involved, please contact Elaine Thorne at ethorne@cambridgema.gov (617-349-4648) or Iram Farooq at ifarooq@cambridgema.gov (617-349-4606).
Visit the K2C2 website at www.cambridgema.gov/k2c2.

Before
Lafayette Square (2002)		 After
Lafayette Square (2009)

June 18, 2012

Ready for Summer Break – June 18 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,Central Square,City Council,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:14 pm

Ready for Summer Break – June 18 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting is the last regular meeting before the City Council takes its summer vacation. There will be a Roundtable meeting next week (June 25) with the School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools on how the City’s Five Year Financial Plan will impact the School District’s building renovation plan. The next voting meetings will be the Midsummer Meeting on July 30 and the Regular Meeting on Sept 10. There are also two potentially consequential committee meetings coming up – (1) Government Operations & Rules this Friday, June 22 at 10:00am "to have an initial discussion with the City Manager to develop a comprehensive short and long term succession plan." (Ackermann Room); and (2) Ordinance Committee on Wed, June 27 at 4:00pm "to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT…" (Sullivan Chamber). [There’s also a Tues, June 19, 8:00pm Planning Board hearing on the Forest City/MIT petition.]

The Gov’t Operations Committee meeting will be the initial meeting on how things may proceed as we look ahead to Bob Healy’s retirement a year from now. There have been no public indications to date about the process or of the inclinations of any individual councillors (though it’s likely that some are already plotting to call the shots).

The Ordinance Committee meeting could bring some excitement as activists respond to real and perceived threats to the "livability" of the greater Central Square area. At least one new ad hoc organization (Cambridge Residents Alliance) has already sprouted in response to the proposed 165 ft. residential tower that had been proposed adjacent to the Central Square fire house. There is a somewhat delicious irony to housing activists being agreeable to the commercial construction and opposed to the housing construction, but I suppose the devil is in the details. The provisions in the proposed zoning amendment that would have permitted the residential tower were taken out at last week’s meeting, but the general alarm has already been rung and the reaction will continue. Perhaps the most significant aspect to the public reaction is the perception that the Forest City/MIT proposal is just the first of a wave of "upzoning" proposals that will steamroll their way from Kendall Square up Main Street and through all of Central Square. The activists are saying that nothing should be approved until the ongoing Goody/Clancy study is completed, but most indications are that the central recommendations from that study will be for density, density, and more density. The activists are also calling for a one-year moratorium on all upzoning petions. Perhaps the activism would be better spent on formulating alternative proposals instead of simply saying NO in every imaginable form.

We learned at last week’s meeting that our Budget Director, David Kale, will be leaving to become Town Manager of Belmont. Not only will Belmont be gaining a great fiscal manager, they’ll also be gaining a great baseball man – one of many on the City Manager’s team. Perhaps Belmont should be required to send us a "player to be named later" to complete the deal.

Another big news item in Central Square was the announcement that the Korean grocery chain H Mart will be opening an 18,000 sq. ft. grocery market in Central Square in the space previously occupied by The Harvest (14,500 sq. ft.) plus an additional 3,500 sq. ft. next door. I’ve been advocating for a Super 88 store for this location, so this is a very good move, in my opinion. It is probable that this will be a relatively affordable grocery store in contrast to the Whole Foods trend of overpriced food which has sent many a Cantabrigian over the Somerville line to Market Basket. The property owner (Morris Naggar and 3MJ Realty) may have earned some serious good will with this lease. The new grocery store is expected to open early next year after extensive renovations.

For tonight’s City Council meeting, here are a few items of interest:

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the City Council Petition to Modify Zoning Requirements for Municipal K-8 School Sites (Proposed Section 5.54).

This zoning change will facilitate the renovation/reconstruction of the proposed middle schools (grades 6-8) that are at the center of the "Innovation Agenda". The Planning Board recommends the zoning change with the caveat that language be inserted to ensure the retention of publicly enjoyable open space. The zoning petition will presumably be moved to a 2nd Reading and be eligible for Ordination at the July 30 Midsummer meeting (when several zoning petitions may come to a vote).

Manager’s Agenda #12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the CJUF III Northpoint LLC Zoning Petition to Amend Section 13.700.

The Planning Board recommends adoption as proposed, saying "the proposed changes have been carefully crafted and developed in close consultation with neighbors and City officials, and the Board believes that these changes will only further improve the final development from what was previously proposed." The North Point development may actually start to take shape in the next few years.

Lincoln watershed landCharter Right #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the purchase of 53.6 acres of watershed land in Lincoln, MA, for $1,152,247 from Community Preservation Act Open Space Reserve Fund, for the purposes of drinking water supply protection and land conservation.

The land in question is a combination of wetland and buildable land along Route 2 in proximity with the Hobbs Brook – a principal water source for Cambridge. The brook flows into the Hobbs Brook Reservoir (near the intersection of Route 2 and Route 128) which then joins the Stony Brook before flowing into the Stony Brook Basin not far from Brandeis University. The water supply then travels via aqueduct to Fresh Pond. The argument is made annualy that Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds should only be used for open space acquisition within Cambridge city limits, but if watershed protection is not part of the preservation of community then I don’t know what is. The money can come either from CPA funds or from the water ratepayers, but these are just two different pockets. Nothing prevents the City from acquiring other open space as part of the regular budget process.

Charter Right #2. That a Task Force be formed to review Cambridge’s current program to creatively encourage and maximize participation in PILOT agreements with the City, and to evaluate the possibilities of implementing SILOT (Services In Lieu of Payment) and/or GILOT (Grants In Lieu of Payment) programs.

This matter was discussed briefly last week. There are certainly some possibilities here, but efforts to compel tax-exempt property owners to contribute additional money and/or services to the City opens a rather large can of worms. Should churches be compelled to contribute the "the state"? The intended target may be hospitals and other technically nonprofit institutions such as Mount Auburn Hospital, but ultimately this is something that might best be accomplished via good will rather than ordinance.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of what processes and procedures have been instituted to help ensure that discrimination and wrongful termination complaints do not arise in the future.   Councillor Kelley

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 11, 2012 to discuss an appropriation of $11,917,462 from Free Cash to the General Fund Law Department Travel and Training (Judgment and Damages) account which appeared as Agenda Item Number Fifteen of Apr 23, 2012.

This is an example of the worst kind of "faux righteousness." For better or worse, the Monteiro case and other claims have been settled and the litigants have received their ransoms – significantly more than their continued employment would have generated. The City administration has repeatedly made clear that policies are now in place to prevent the kinds of problems alleged in those lawsuits. Councillor Kelley wishes that the City Council and the City administration should now profusely apologize for infractions real or imagined in addition to the settlements – even though most settlements like these include provisions that both parties do not acknowledge wrongdoing. It’s difficult to understand what exactly Kelley is trying to accomplish. The matter has been settled and little is to be gained from continuing to stir the pot.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff, to include the City Clerk’s Office, to determine how best to put direct communications to the City Council on the City Council’s website to make the information contained in them readily available to the public even though it does not become part of a particular City Council agenda.   Councillor Kelley

This specifically refers to communications from the City administration in response to City Council requests for information. Other than simple informal requests, one might have been led to believe that this information is always part of the City Manager’s Agenda, but apparently this is not the case. It seems that any request for information passed by majority vote at a public meeting should have a response that is also included in the proceedings of a public meeting of the same body, or at least be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office. There are many communications that don’t properly belong in the public arena, but this should not include a response to a request voted at a public meeting as long as it is practicable to do so.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.   Mayor Davis

Nanny government at its very worst. Note that our good Mayor is proposing a BAN, not just a limitation. Does the Mayor know that chocolate cake also contains sugar? Shall we ban chocolate cake? Will Mayor Davis lead a march on Toscannini’s to demand that ice cream be driven out of Cambridge with the same zeal that St. Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland?

Note: This Order was amended at the meeting to better reflect Mayor Davis’ intention:
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to refer the matter of a ban on to limit the size of soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.   Mayor Davis
Amended; Referred to Community Health Committee – Decker

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Assistant City Manager for Community Development to have a 3-D model created of all potential development projects resulting from zoning petitions.   Councillor Decker

Isn’t this the same as Councillor Decker’s Feb 13 Order #12 that received this very reasonable response last week? Pay attention, kids.

Committee Report #1. 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 hearing held on June 5, 2012 to review the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority’s (CRA) relationship with the city, how the CRA was set up and who is the CRA’s governing body.

This was an informative meeting with plenty of history and perspective. The newly reconstituted CRA Board is a great group with a skilled executive director and legal counsel. It will be interesting to see what role the CRA plays in future plans in and around Kendall Square. Still unknown is whether the CRA will settle solely into a maintenance role and eventually phase itself out, or possibly find a new role to play either in the Kendall Square area or elsewhere in the city. – Robert Winters

June 14, 2012

Comments on current Forest City zoning petition – by Bob Simha

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:48 pm

Comments on current Forest City zoning petition

written by Bob Simha, June 11, 2012

The Cambridge Planning Board
City Hall Annex
344 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Members of the Planning Board,

I would like to submit objections to the rezoning proposal submitted by Forest City Enterprises et al for a portion of the block between Landsdowne Street, Green Street, Massachusetts Avenue and Blanche Street. I would also like to add an objection to the elimination of and use of the existing green space adjacent to the Fire House as a site for a 14 story apartment house.

The objections I share with you are based on my long association with the University Park project including a central role the in the development of the original design guidelines for the University Park project prior to Forest City’s selection, a continuing role its development after their selection and a continuing interest in ensuring that the project will in all its elements – physical, social and economic – enhance the quality of life in Cambridge and in particular the vital connection between the neighborhoods that make up Central Square, University Park and the MIT community.

From the outset, the design guidelines that MIT published for the University Park project and that were subsequently enshrined in the special district zoning were clear about holding an 80 to 85 foot height limit along Massachusetts Avenue. The current proposals violate this very important principal proposing a building almost twice that height. The impact of such a building would undermine not only the relationship with adjacent buildings but will certainly have a negative effect on the more respectful scale of the new Novartis Buildings across the street. The Planning Board should not permit this principal to be compromised.

From the outset, all of the planning for University Park anticipated a generous and green opening from Massachusetts Ave into the center of the University Park project welcoming the public as well as tenant populations into the interior of the project. The original plan called for a market building just beyond this entry portal which would have helped to anchor and revive retail offerings in Central Square. One has to wonder how much more congenial the area would have been if Forest City had pressed forward to develop the market building instead of filling the space with a visually unsettling apartment house that offers little in the way of the ground floor space for new retail activity.

To now exacerbate that mistake by filling in this portal area next to the Fire house with a 14 story tower apartment house made up of very small market rate rental units is to add insult to injury. The elimination of one of the painfully few usable open spaces in University Park should not be tolerated. The shadow studies produced by Forest City’s architects only demonstrates how during much of the year the plaza-apron area between the proposed tower and Mass. Ave. would be in shadow for most of the year.

And, more seriously, it would negatively impact the major investment in one of the few new parks in this part of the city. Casting its shadow over Jill Brown-Rhone Park it would be a constant reminder of the callous response Forest City has presented to the objections of its first proposal, namely to consider adding to the housing resources of the area. To both take away an existing dedicated open space and to diminish another would bring new meaning to corporate hubris.

As MIT’s Director of Planning during the period of the evolution of the planning and through much of the development period for University Park we had always planned that the block between Landsdowne and Blanche Street would ultimately be developed as a useful and attractive adjunct to the University Park. As one of the major land owners in this block we knew that it would be in MIT, Forest City and the abutting Cambridge neighborhoods’ interests to develop this part of Mass Ave. with activities that would add new retail services, additional housing and activities that would animate the area and make more safe this dead zone between MIT and Central Square. The expectation was that, notwithstanding the impediments of multiple ownerships it would be possible to come to terms with other owners, and redevelop the entire block as a multipurpose building. The argument that was put forward, at one of the recent presentations made by Forest City that it had not been able to accomplish this goal, only suggests that they did not work hard enough. MIT has planned for many years to relocate the Random House dormitory that occupies a major part of the block in question. The other 4 owners should, with sufficient creativity, be accommodated elsewhere. When the University Park project hung in the balance because MIT needed to resolve the traffic plan the City required, but was held up by the California Paint Company, creative efforts were made to relocate California Paint so that the overall project could go forward. One can only assume that what was done before, can be done again. The advantage to the city of a single redevelopment instead of two or three must be apparent. A more unified multipurpose development that responds to both economic and social goals would be possible. In addition, the increase in value that the current proposal would create would only tend to exacerbate the expectations of current landowners for even a greater return and, thereby, make the next developer ask for even more density and more height.

The development of this site for residential and retail purposes would be a major benefit to the community and based on the success of Forest City’s market rate housing it would generate a reliable and steady revenue stream for both the developer and the City. A quick look at the 203 units Forest City built at 100 Landsdowne Street demonstrates this point vividly. It carries an assessed value of $53,800,000 and is taxed at commercial rates. A comparable development on Mass. Ave. for 300 units plus retail services could add $75 million in value. Something to think about. Finally, this proposal appears to have ignored both the Red Commission’s recommendations for Central Square and appears to ignore the forthcoming results of the Central Square study. For these reasons, as well as those mentioned above, I would respectfully submit that the Planning Board reject this zoning petition.

O. R. Simha
Six Blanchard Road
Cambridge, MA 02138

Note: The zoning petition was amended by the City Council at its June 11 meeting to exclude all parts relating to the residential tower that had been proposed to be built adjacent to the firehouse. The petition, as amended, will be before the Planning Board on June 19.

See also:
Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal (May 14, 2012)

June 11, 2012

On the Agenda – Highlights of the June 11, 2012 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,planning — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:45 am

On the Agenda – Highlights of the June 11, 2012 Cambridge City Council meeting

There are several substantial items on the agenda this week. Among them:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-33, regarding a report on a plan for implementing separate trash or recycling curbside pickup for small businesses along existing curbside pickup routes. ["Please be advised that I am not recommending the implementation of such a program given the cost impacts to the City."]

This responds to an Order that grew, at least in part, out of East Cambridge traffic congestion problems caused by multiple collection vehicles. Needless to say, the suggestion that the City should take over all collection did not resonate with these multiple waste haulers. The real deal-breaker is the very substantial additional cost.

City Manager’s Agenda #28. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the purchase of 53.6 acres of watershed land in Lincoln, MA, for $1,152,247 from Community Preservation Act Open Space Reserve Fund, for the purposes of drinking water supply protection and land conservation.

This watershed land is located on the north side of Route 2 in Lincoln just east of Bedford Road. The City has in recent years acquired numerous parcels through which the Hobbs Brook flows en route to the Cambridge Reservoir (Hobbs Basin) in the vicinity of Route 2 and Route 128. Some may argue that Community Preservation Act open space funds should be spent exclusively within the city limits, but watershed protection is generally a very good investment.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Police Commissioner, the Superintendent of Schools, and other appropriate personnel to organize a youth-focused community forum to discuss issues related to the shooting at Willow Street on June 3, 2012, to allow our young people a chance to openly communicate their concerns, grievances, and ideas directly with City officials and administrators.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Police Commissioner and to urge him to reach out to the various stake holders in the community, including building managers, property owners, and local business owners, in an attempt to proactively address the summer violence before it has a chance to begin.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Though the law enforcement aspects of the shooting near Donnelly Field are appropriately in the hands of the Cambridge Police and the District Attorney, it is appropriate that Vice Mayor Denise Simmons should take a leadership role in the many other necessary responses to this incident that hit uncomfortably close to home. The greatest opportunity for leadership lies among the young people who know the victims and who may be able to help in the resolution of the case and in the prevention of future violence.

Order #4. That a Task Force be formed to review Cambridge’s current program to creatively encourage and maximize participation in PILOT agreements with the City, and to evaluate the possibilities of implementing SILOT (Services In Lieu of Payment) and/or GILOT (Grants In Lieu of Payment) programs.   Councillor vanBeuzekom and Councillor Cheung

The motivation of this Order appears to be a comparable program by the City of Boston that has achieved some success in generating addition revenue from tax-exempt institutions. Though the prospects are not great for additional payments in lieu of taxes, there is clearly plenty of opportunity for non-profit and educational institutions to offer services in lieu of taxes. The major colleges already provide many such services and could probably do more with some facilitation.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City and Harvard staff to determine who is doing what on the Cambridge Street Overpass, how through passage is being safely managed, how signage has been displayed, what the overall plans for this project are and the timing of the work and its expected completion date.   Councillor Kelley

There was a very comprehensive presentation about this made at a recent meeting of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association. Though substantial work is planned, the disruption both to the tunnel and the plaza above should be acceptable. The redesigned plaza will no longer have its familar grassy areas, but it will have the potential to become an important new public space for both Harvard and the City. [Details on the project (DPW) – Check out all the tabs.] I just hope the Harvard planners have an alternative for driving stakes into the ground when they want to install a tent. It’s not so easy to drive stakes into concreate pavers.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of how the City plans to maintain grade separated bikeways and keep them as free from sand, branches and other debris as the adjacent streets.   Councillor Kelley

The larger issue is the grade-separated facilties themselves. While City officials and the public continually frown upon bicycling on sidewalks, they are simultaneously designing it into the Western Avenue project commencing later this year. To those of us who choose to ride in the street with all other vehicles, the City proposal will be less safe for us and slower for the cyclists who use the sidewalk track. It is very unlikely that the sidewalk track will be kept free of snow and ice in the winter. [“Cycle track”: a sidewalk by another name]

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of how the locations for the three bike corrals currently in place in Cambridge were determined.   Councillor Kelley

Good question. One of these corrals appeared recently in front of the Broadway Bicycle School. It’s empty basically all the time. [Correction: On Monday there were 8 bikes locked up there, probably related to the City Hall Annex.] Cyclists coming to the Broadway Bicycle School generally bring their bikes inside to work on them. Meanwhile in places all over Cambridge there are derelict bikes chained up for months at a time taking up many of the available locations for locking up a bike.

Order #14. That the City Manager confer with the appropriate departments to discuss the potential of installing security cameras in the Donnelly Field area and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

The recent shooting at Donnelly Field does not in and of itself justify the installation of such cameras, but their presence could very well have resolved this case in short order. Though the government conspiracy theorists may feel otherwise, their arguments against these cameras remain weak. Public spaces are public and cameras strategically located along roads and on public buildings can and do help in solving crimes.

Committee Report #1. 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 hearing held on May 15, 2012 to discuss the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

A few thoughts on this (more to follow in the coming weeks as the various advisory committees complete their efforts):

Though the proposal for the All-Asia block is similar to what MIT/Forest City proposed last year, the proposal for a 165-foot residential tower next to the Lafayette Square fire house apparently came out of the Community Development Department. Forest City was receptive to the idea, but it wasn’t their idea. A more human-scale residential building next to the firehouse might be more acceptable as long as an equivalent amount of open space is relocated to a site people would actually use. MIT/Forest City’s primary motivation is the development of the All-Asia block – something they would have done 20 years ago if they had sufficient control of the property. Significant height (about 140 ft.) and density is also proposed there. Of great concern to some MIT faculty is the current trend of MIT sacrificing properties close to the core campus to private development (e.g., Pfizer, Novartis) that might otherwise have supported the academic mission of the Institute.

I would caution people against taking an either-or view of this or any of the other proposals that will soon appear for future development in the greater Central Square area. Some will be opposed to any additional height or density and others will be receptive to any and all additional height or density. I find both of these points of view to be lacking. Surely there is room for people to express their own "vision" for what they want the future of Central Square to be – as opposed to simply reacting to the proposals of others. It’s ironic that the City Council has a Neighborhood & Long-term Planning Committee, yet two things the committee apparently doesn’t do are neighborhood and long-term planning.

I would much rather see the emphasis be on increasing density within the envelope currently prescribed by the zoning code with some strategic modification to induce good uses. The zoning is actually pretty generous already and there are many underbuilt sites in the area – including the All-Asia block. My "vision" for Central Square primarily consists of replacing the one-story and two-story "taxpayer" buildings with buildings that rise 3 to 5 stories at Mass. Ave. and possibly step back an additional story or two. I feel that a good-looking ten-story building like the Central Square Building at Mass. Ave. and Western Ave. should be the (anomalous) upper limit for height. I might be convinced that one other such building should be built, but this should not be the norm. Central Square is not Kendall Square, and it should not be redeveloped in the manner of Kendall Square. The Central Square neighborhood is already somewhat dense and can afford to be more dense if the gaps along Mass. Ave. are better developed and if some of the back lots see new construction. If housing in new buildings close to work is what is needed, I would suggest that the best place for new housing would be in Kendall Square, in the area between Main Street and Mass. Ave. replacing some of the old industrial properties, and on some (not all) of the parking lots.

Regarding the issue of shadows cast by taller buildings, I’ve always felt this to be primarily a naysayer strategy transparently intended to block a given proposal. In Jill Brown-Rhone Park (Lafayette Square), the City has installed umbrellas in that area because of the excess sunniness. I would prefer to see a shorter building than the 165 foot tower currently proposed, but I don’t really care about the shadows. I simply prefer a more human scale in an area that is primarily oriented toward neighborhood people rather than trans-national industries. We have Kendall Square and downtown Boston for that sort of thing.

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 hearing held on May 23, 2012 to discuss a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools.

This is largely a formality despite some of the scary and dishonest e-mail alerts distributed by some activists with nothing better to do than spread false rumors about unlimited heights, unlimited parking, exemption from all zoning, and the consolidation of all middle school programs into a single "supersized" building. False, false, false, and false. – Robert Winters

May 14, 2012

Some observations for consideration regarding the Forest City proposal

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

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

written by Bob Simha, May 14, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts for consideration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 7, 2012

East Cambridge Community Meeting on status of the Edward Sullivan Courthouse

Filed under: Cambridge,East Cambridge,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 11:53 am

East Cambridge Planning TeamThe East Cambridge Planning Team invites you to a community meeting

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The East End House
105 Spring Street

7:00-7:15pm — Announcements (Board)

7:15-8:30pm — The Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse
What to do with it ….
Who is looking at it ….. What do you think they should do
(Joe Rull, Director of Legislative Affairs, Capital Asset Management)

8:30-9:00pm — Q & A

The State is trying to sell the Edward Sullivan Courthouse. Please come to hear the Director of Legislative Affairs talk about how the process is going and to hear the thoughts of the community. While some of you are regular members of the East Cambridge Planning Team, we need your help in reaching out to neighbors who do not regularly attend our meetings. This is an important issue for our neighborhood and what happens affects us all.

December 5, 2011

Winding Down – Dec 5, 2011 Cambridge City Council Meeting

Filed under: campaign finance,City Council,East Cambridge,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:27 am

Winding Down – Dec 5, 2011 Cambridge City Council Meeting

This is the home stretch of the 2010-2011 City Council term – a time to finish up tasks and jockey for position in the never-pleasant business of choosing the next mayor. Here are a few notable items on the agenda:

5:30pm   Special Presentation by the Oral History Project of the Longfellow Neighborhood Council to receive their new publication "From the Heart of Cambridge".

The idea for this book was conceived in 2004 by Penelope Kleespies and the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School. The book was edited by Paula Lovejoy with the assistance of a constellation of others including Sarah Boyer of the Cambridge Historical Commission who has edited numerous other Cambridge oral history projects. The book tells the stories of 90 Mid-Cambridge people and their families and friends. It is available for sale at Porter Square Books, the Harvard Book Store, The Coop, Rodney’s Bookstore, and directly from the Longfellow Neighborhood Council. All profits go to support the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School.

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Home Rule Petition providing the City of Cambridge with the authority to impose and increase certain motor vehicle fines in the City of Cambridge in order to improve driving.

Time will tell whether the increased fines actually improve driving in a world where texting and other distractions routinely focus the brains of drivers on everything other than their surroundings. This is just the text for a Home Rule Petition to the state legislature to allow the increased penalties. It does not yet raise any of these fines.

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to language prepared by staff in anticipation of the process of reconstruction or renovation of K-8 school buildings in City.

As near as I can tell, this proposed zoning change is primarily intended to ensure that once an existing school building or part of a school building is demolished, any new building may be built to the same height and density. The proposed regulation would, however, allow the Planning Board, by Special Permit, to waive any dimensional or other zoning requirements as long as the Floor/Area Ratio (FAR) does not exceed 1.25 and the height does not exceed 55 feet, plus several other restrictions. It is expected that a number of school buildings will be reconstructed over the next decade most likely starting with the King School on Putnam Ave. The plan is to use the old Longfellow School as "swing space" for each school during reconstruction.

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-170, regarding a report on an opinion on the issue of spot zoning on the Runkel petition.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 13, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Laura Runkel et al. to rezone 41 Bellis Circle, an area abutting the northern block of Bellis Circle, bordered on the north by the commuter rail tracks, on the south by Bellis Circle and on the east side by Sherman Street, from Residence C-1A to Residence C. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 14, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

These two related items concern the Runkel et al. Zoning Petition that would affect a single large parcel at Sherman St. and the RR tracks. The Planning Board report did not recommend approval of the petition arguing that it "does not find it appropriate to consider only this single site for potential rezoning when there are adjacent sites that remain zoned Residence C-1A". The possibility that this might be "spot zoning" or "reverse spot zoning" was discussed at the Nov 21 City Council meeting and an Order was passed asking for a legal opinion on the matter. City Solicitor Don Drisdell’s report indicates that it is unlikely that a court would rule against this proposed zoning change.

Unfinished Business #11. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 14, 2011 and a follow-up public meeting on Oct 25, 2011 to consider a re-filed petition to amend the zoning ordinance filed by Chestnut Hill Realty. The petition would allow creation by special permit of rental apartment units in basement units of existing multifamily residential buildings in Residence C Districts which meet the special permit criteria. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 28, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 6, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

As has been stated here before, this is The Petition That Will Not Die – twice disapproved by the Planning Board with numerous questions raised by the City Engineer. The fact that the petitioners, Chestnut Hill Realty, have contributed mightily to the campaign accounts of several city councillors raises questions of conflict of interest and whether zoning relief can be purchased via campaign contributions. This perception, of course, is not limited to this petition. In fact, the scale of political contributions by parties with business before the City Council has skyrocketed in recent years.

It may be time for the Cambridge City Council to consider an Ordinance prohibiting campaign contributions by any party with business before the City Council (or the representatives of any such party) for a period of one or two years before and after the matter is voted by the City Council. In these days of Citizens United, it is unclear what such limits may legally be imposed, but it would be a welcome initiative by any city councillor willing to propose such an ordinance.

Unfinished Business #12. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 14, 2011 to consider a petition by Matthew Bagedonow et al. to amend Section 5.24.4 Paragraph(4) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "For Residence Zoning District C-1, in no case shall side yards be less than 7′-6". This shall apply to any plane or projection from the plane of the building." The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 28, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

The Bagedonow et al. petition received a positive report from the Planning Board with a minor revision. This will likely be ordained as amended.

Resolution #10. Resolution on the death of Paul Kurt Ackermann.   Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher

Paul Ackermann was the husband of former City Councillor and former Mayor Barbara Ackermann. Paul was 92 years old.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to provide monetary information regarding the Monteiro and related cases.   Councillor Reeves, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Simmons

Though I agree in principle that a general idea of the scale of these settlements should be made public, the politicizing of this matter remains disturbing. Having witnessed the same people celebrating the financial hit taken by the City and then bemoaning its effect of taxpayers makes one wonder about the motivations of these citizen activists.

Order #5. That the City Clerk is requested to list mayoral commission meetings on the City Council Hearing Schedule in addition to the City Calendar in order to reach as many interested members of the public as possible.   Vice Mayor Davis

It seems odd that there should even have to be a City Council Order asking that these public meetings be included in the City Calendar. Unfortunately, the truth is that none of the "Red Ribbon" meetings on Central Square over the last year or so were ever advertised. Though no one who showed up was ever turned away, the meetings were by invitation only and this calls into question whether the whole enterprise may be properly characterized as a public process. The same criticism applies to the "Silver Ribbon" commission on housing options for older people, and the "Blue Ribbon" commission on early childhood education.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to ascertain data previously requested regarding the Andrews Petition.   Councillor Cheung

The Andrews et al. Petition received a negative report from the Planning Board. The proposal would have amended the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the density bonus that forms the economic basis of the ordinance.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Personnel Department to look into the disability makeup of the City’s workforce by level and department and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Councillor Cheung

This Order comes in the wake of a previous Order and report on the racial/ethnic composition of City employees. While almost everyone agrees that nondiscrimination should be the general rule for City employment, these Orders do suggest that employment quotas for various racial/ethnic/gender/disability criteria may still be the mindset of some elected officials.

Order #11. That this City Council urge the United States Government to sign and ratify the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families and to similarly recognize Dec 18, 2011, and annually thereafter, as International Migrants Day.   Councillor Decker

The following Wikipedia excerpts may be relevant: "So far, countries that have ratified the Convention are primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines). For these countries, the Convention is an important vehicle to protect their citizens living abroad."… "No migrant-receiving State in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention either." [Full text of the convention]

Cambridge just wouldn’t be Cambridge without the occasional excursion into foreign affairs.

Order #12. That the City Manager report back to the City Council with the required changes to city council rules, city zoning code and/or municipal ordinance to achieve the Community Benefits Mitigation Fee.   Councillor Seidel

This Order is the culmination of a process that has been going on for the past year having to do with extracting "community benefits" in exchange for granting significant upzoning to developers. While it would be hard to find anyone opposed to financial benefits (in addition to new real estate taxes) growing out of new development, there remains a significant question regarding whether this may amount to a de facto "upzoning for sale" situation. Would a City Council ever vote against a major development if it meant turning down millions of dollars for nonprofit agencies, affordable housing ,etc.?

Messages circulated over the weekend by members of the East Cambridge Planning Team point out another problematic aspect of the proposed "Community Benefits Mitigation Fee" structure. Specifically: "The successful negotiation with Alexandria whereby the City and East Cambridge will receive: a 2.5 acre park; a triangle park; $9.5 million to design and build the parks; an approximately 30,000 square foot building, and up to $6,000,000 for the East Cambridge Open Space Fund, would not be possible under the approach contained in this Order as the 1.7 million square foot project would have been limited to a total of $17 million in community benefits. So we have an Order covering mitigation potentially implementing a process whereby a very successful mitigation effort, Alexandria, could not be achieved under the Order’s proposed methodology."

Charles Marquardt’s estimates are that the total mitigation value received from the Alexandria zoning relief was $43 million; and that under the proposal the value would have been only $17.5 million. That’s a difference of $25.5 million. Of course, there’s nothing in the proposal that says that Alexandria could not have voluntarily contributed the difference, but this seems an unlikely outcome if the financial arrangements were so explicitly codified in advance of granting the zoning relief. – Robert Winters

September 15, 2011

Concord Avenue, Under Construction

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,Fresh Pond,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:33 pm

I just rode Concord Avenue last Sunday to see what was happening there.

I had thought that the construction project would have been completed by now, but it isn’t.

The image below is of the east end of the section under construction. I find a bit of irony here in that the “Bikes May Use Full Lane” sign is placed at the start of a project which intends to get bicycles off the road, and also it is nonstandard — diamond-shaped like a warning sign which is supposed to be yellow, but white like a regulatory sign, which is supposed to be rectangular (as with speed-limit and no parking signs). The message is a regulatory message: it is law.

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Construction barrels divide the narrowed roadway into two lanes, rather than the three planned for when construction is complete. As the westbound bikeway is incomplete, I rode west on the roadway. Motorists still were able to overtake me without leaving their lane, as they were when the roadway was wider, with three travel lanes and a bike lane on either side. I was passed by a number of cars, no problem. I had one conflict with a driver who moved out of a side street into my path. Such conflicts will be much more common when bicyclists are riding in sidewalk space.

The road surface was very bumpy because the street has not yet been repaved. The effort is going into construction of the bicycle sidepaths at this time.

I shot video of my rides. It’s HD video and you will want to view it full screen to get all the details. This is the link to the video of my westbound ride. And here is my eastbound ride.

One other thing I hadn’t expected is that the south-side (eastbound) path was almost completely empty, except for me, though it was nearly finished, and unobstructed — on a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon when there was heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic in Fresh Pond Park and on the Minuteman path.

I can say that if much traffic does appear on the south-side path, the situation will be very confused. There is no buffer between the 5′ wide bikeway (closer to the curb) and the wider walkway away from the curb. There was supposed to be a 2-foot-wide buffer, as I recall. Also, the concrete pavement of the pedestrian section, farther from the curb, is smoother. The bumpier asphalt pavement adjacent to the curb is supposed to be for eastbound bicyclists, in defiance of AASHTO guidelines, which require a 5′ spacing or a barrier, and also in defiance of normal path and road rules, which require riding on the right side. The City’s scheme would have eastbound bicyclists riding on the left side of the combined bikeway and walkway. Meanwhile, there also will be westbound bicyclists using this path to avoid the much worse path on the other side of the street, and probably keeping to the right as is usual.

As the path is behind a high curb, bicyclists who want to cross Concord Avenue will have to wait at the crosswalks rather than to merge into the roadway. At the few crosswalks, there is no waiting area (for example, at 1:24 in the eastbound video). Because the bikeway is between the walkway and the street, bicyclists and pedestrians who are waiting to cross the street will block the bikeway, and other bicyclists will have to divert onto the walkway.

As the concrete pavers of the pedestrian section and the asphalt of the bicycle section age and settle, a step could develop between them, just as on the parts of the Charles River paths, widened with asphalt next to the old stone retaining wall along the riverfront. Many bicyclists have gone down as a result.

Many aspects of the Cambridge bicycle program can be described as ideologically driven, and defying national and state design standards. Placing a longitudinal seam along a bikeway, and directing traffic to keep left, are merely incompetent.

Other than what I have described in this post, the project looks as though it will turn out as I expected, with the foreseeable problems I’ve already described in my earlier post; the right hook and left cross conflicts, inability to cross to the south side at most locations without dismounting in the street to lift the bicycle over a curb; resulting wrong-way riding on the north side, etc.

The party line about the Concord Avenue project, which I have in writing from two City employees (here and here) and verbally from a member of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee, is that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now.” This statement turns a blind eye to the encouragement of wrong-way riding, and the keep right/keep left confusion. It ignores bicyclists’ crossing and turning maneuvers, and motorists’ being trapped by the curbs and forced to turn across the path of bicyclists; it denies that motorists block sidepaths so they can see approaching traffic in the street. Saying that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now” is like saying that a bird in a cage, hanging in a tree, is in exactly in the same place as a bird sitting in that tree and free to fly off.

What really burns me up is that the City employees designing bicycle facilities appear to have no concept of how bicyclists actually are going to use them, or of the potential hazards. It’s all about “build it and they will come” and that means, build just anything they think will attract novice cyclists and children, and to hell with design standards and safety research. I see shoddy and incompetent mimicry of European designs, and astonishing hubris. So far, the Concord Avenue bikeway is half built with one side completely open, and very few bicyclists have come, except for me, and I was there on a discovery tour.

Save

Save

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress