The only smart way to do 60-100% affordable imho is to put in lots of 100-120% AMI which is the sort of thing that should pencil in normal conditions for non-trendy n'hoods (like this area).
the city refused to consider doing this in the name of starting faster. meanwhile, it was already supposed to be finished and it has yet to start and the city has a budget crunch.
Perfect example of the perils of "affordable only" --- it's taken ~15 years to build this not very large project, it's not even 6 stories next to the T most places, there's barely any retail, and it looks cheap. Market rate + density bonus for affordable could have given us far more homes far...
It's honestly pretty crazy, rents were high enough for a massive overbuild of both pre-2022 or so. It's an honestly terrible location for jobs (no transit), but somehow the local nimbys are assuaged by promises of jobs that bring traffic not residents who would walk to work, so you have a cycle...
The City totally whiffed here and made the scheme too baroque to succeed. By the time it was put out to bid again last cycle, it would easily have pencilled as market rate alone --- just run an auction for the site then and see who offers the best benefits! But instead, it had to be lab to...
Copley Place will be a mess until they turn it into a modern arcade like the Pru. The only stores that survive are super luxe because it's inimical to foot traffic. It requires major renovations and a focus on pedestrian flows to make it nice and walkable.
Idiotic proposals, held together by Rube Goldberg machine levels of subsidy combination are bound to fail. This is a no brainer at market rate that could help fix the city budget. But they're too ideological and hidebound to accept that.
Unfortunately the triangle where the station was will be an uninteresting park surrounded by traffic fumes + noise. It will not invite people into Cambridge Crossing. Another CRA special: not letting people develop interesting lots and instead putting in parkland that will not get used.