Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

[CantabAmager]

They're redeveloping the Jefferson Park apts. When all is said and done, the new complex will consist of a 6 story midrise, and seven 4 story blocks - that's up from the current four 3-story layout.

Here's the briefing from Cambridge:

HILAPP - JEFFERSON PARK STATE - 104 UNITS
The redevelopment of Jefferson Park State will be undertaken with a combination of $10 million in funding under the Commonwealth’s new High Leverage Asset Preservation Program (HILAPP), a crucial $6.37 million from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, tax credit equity through MassDevelopment and Boston Financial. Construction financing is through Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Long term debt is through Massachusetts Housing Partnership. CHA will provide 104 project-based vouchers to cover a portion of the operating costs and debt service for the new units. It is anticipated that construction will start in the Fall of 2015. Demolition is underway and all residents have been relocated temporarily off-site and will have the opportunity to return after construction is completed.

I don't have any renders though, maybe somebody can chip in with those.

 

[Reznor]

Is this a 1-1 redevelopment or are they increasing units/density? Hopefully the later.

 

[Scalziand]

Cambridge should start considering jacking the height limit up in Kendall. The 250' plateau will permit it without the taller buildings looking out-of-scale, and no one lives there to complain. Start with allowing the Volpe site up to 400' or 500' and see how it goes.

I thought Cambridge had already done that for Kendal.

*research*

Oh, the rezoning two years ago allowed a maximum of 300', not 500'.

 

[CantabAmager]

Is this a 1-1 redevelopment or are they increasing units/density? Hopefully the later.

Increase in units and density. Also tinkering with some of the details like moving away from one common entrance parlor to separate ones for most apts. Cambridge has some goofs in the normal housing market, but they've done some good, if unheralded, work in regards to public housing - granted the mid-century projects are pretty harsh so any improvement is "good", but still credit where credit is due.

 

[Scipio]

Increase in units and density.

Great to hear! Boston missed a great opportunity when they redeveloped Old Colony recently, I think they even lost units.

Putting market-rate housing on-site to cross subsidize more affordable units than existed before should be the way to go throughout the region. I'll post over and over about Yesler Terrace in Seattle, where a pre-WWII housing project is being redeveloped from about 560 low-income units to:

• 561 units affordable @ <30% AMI
• 290 units affordable @ <60% AMI
• 850 units affordable @ <80% AMI
• 3,199 units to be rented or sold at market rates

Now, Alewife isn't exactly the core of the city like Yesler Terrace is, but at least it's something.

 

[kz1000ps]

EF

Broadway and Columbia

603 Concord... I kinda like this thing

Mass Ave near Porter Square

And the new art center at Lesley University

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Mass Ave near Porter Square

This is hideous but I kind of love it. I bet that top floor unit is sick.

 

[Lrfox]

I thought the last photo of 603 Concord was an overly saturated rendering at first. I love it.

 

[resisttheist]

This is hideous but I kind of love it. I bet that top floor unit is sick.

1979 Massachusetts Ave has been there for quite a while of course. The building is a disaster though and I vaguely remember some horror stories about this being the result of a very rocky client-architect relationship. It was done by the otherwise-brilliant Single Speed Design.

This is currently going up next door:

https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media...w/2013/1971massave/lpr_1971massave_plans.ashx

 

[kz1000ps]

I thought the last photo of 603 Concord was an overly saturated rendering at first. I love it.

Nope! Just an overly saturated photo

 

[bigeman312]

603 Concord is perfect for the area and the kind of development we need more of. Now, if only they can redesign some of the roads/sidewalks in the area. Alewife Brook Parkway acts as a barrier to the rest of Cambridge for pedestrians/cyclists/Alewife-bound transit users.

Broadway & Columbia - that setback, smh.

Lesley - great institutional building!

kz - great photos.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

1979 Massachusetts Ave has been there for quite a while of course. The building is a disaster though and I vaguely remember some horror stories about this being the result of a very rocky client-architect relationship. It was done by the otherwise-brilliant Single Speed Design.

I was going to say I thought I remembered this being under construction when I still lived in Arlington.

 

[Brad Plaid]

Design is ok but the ground floor fails completely and the "landscaping" is absurd. This should have gone right to the sidewalk.

A level of sophistication that needs to happen more often. Kind of shipping container-ish, a project I would love to see realized soon somewhere around here.

 

[George_Apley]

This is hideous but I kind of love it. I bet that top floor unit is sick.

I go by there all the time. I may well be wrong, but I don't know that the top unit has ever looked occupied. Unless someone very spartan lives there.

 

[pixelsand8]

I go by there all the time. I may well be wrong, but I don't know that the top unit has ever looked occupied. Unless someone very spartan lives there.

I've never been entirely sure that top room out front with all the windows was even a unit. It has the look of an common atrium, which makes sense seeing how visible it is from the street - the windows don't seem to have any covering leading to zero privacy. In terms of who lives there, I don't know what unit but I believe the site owner/building developer makes his home address in this building. I would assume the top unit.

 

[cozzyd]

Great to hear! Boston missed a great opportunity when they redeveloped Old Colony recently, I think they even lost units.

Putting market-rate housing on-site to cross subsidize more affordable units than existed before should be the way to go throughout the region. I'll post over and over about Yesler Terrace in Seattle, where a pre-WWII housing project is being redeveloped from about 560 low-income units to:

• 561 units affordable @ <30% AMI
• 290 units affordable @ <60% AMI
• 850 units affordable @ <80% AMI
• 3,199 units to be rented or sold at market rates

Now, Alewife isn't exactly the core of the city like Yesler Terrace is, but at least it's something.

Something of that scale would be appropriate at Newtowne Court and Washington Elms (perhaps also including student housing).

 

[GDX163]

Increase in units and density. Also tinkering with some of the details like moving away from one common entrance parlor to separate ones for most apts. Cambridge has some goofs in the normal housing market, but they've done some good, if unheralded, work in regards to public housing - granted the mid-century projects are pretty harsh so any improvement is "good", but still credit where credit is due.

I think this construction project is Jefferson Park State and will actually result in a reduction of units, though there are some conflicting data on how many there will actually be.

This CHA documents says there will be a reduction from 108 to 98 units:
"Jefferson Park State. This is the last remaining state public housing site in
Cambridge that is reliant on state operating subsidy.This site will be demolished and re-built into 98 units using project-based vouchers. Construction is planned
for Fall/Winter 2014. "

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=CAMBRIDGEFY15PLAN.pdf

But this city council committee hearing from January suggests the number will actually be 94:
"Mr. Russ then stated that there will be a unit reduction at Jefferson Park State and when completed there will be 94 units."

http://rwinters.com/council/010515.htm

The ownership structure at Jefferson Park is weird. As I understand it, the state owns (or did own) the four buildings in the northwest corner of the plot while the other seven buildings along Jackson Place are federally-owned (you'll often find references to Jefferson Park State vs. Jefferson Park Federal in city documents). The state buildings are the ones currently up for currently up for construction and the federal buildings will undergo redevelopment starting next year.

I think part of the reason for the reduction in units at Jefferson Park State was to allow for more family units. I'm not sure that an increase in units is planned at Jefferson Park Federal (or what sort of planning has been done for that site--perhaps you know more, Cantab?), but there will be an increase in units at the Manning Apartments on Franklin St in Central Sq.

 

[CantabAmager]

perhaps you know more, Cantab?

I wish, Cambridge doesn't make it easy to understand. You could very well be right about the Jeff Park Federal vs State redev plans, the fact sheet from the CHA I saw has 104 units listed...if that helps.

For the broader picture of public housing in Cambridge, for you and for some of the other comments on this thread, here's what I understand at the very least - which might right, a little right, or entirely wrong. Grain of salt:

HUD public housing funding has been declining for years to the point where the CHA is starting to explore different financing options. Scipio mentioned early the OC projects, my understanding is that was a HOPE VI project which comes with stricter redevelopment guidelines (as well as being a competitive grant - and there's lots of competition) which Cambridge isn't interested in. So back around 2012, the CHA started floating the idea of switching from tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers. The difference is two fold (as I understand) tbv's are, as their name would imply, connected to the tenant, not the apt. Pbv's are the opposite, the subsidy is connected to the apt and not the tenant. Cambridge's desire to move to pbv's (and this is where it gets hazy for me), is that there are better financing/transfer mechanisms for pbv's than there are for tbv's and with dwindling HUD funds, Cambridge needs to adapt. Pbv's also, as I understand allow for market-rate development on the CHA lots so long as the pbv-pledged apts are included in any new builds. To move from one system to the other, Cambridge has to/had to get HUD approval for "disposition", basically transferring ownership of the housing from one entity to another (I assume to make use of different financing mechanism) and depended on HUD willingness to fund the new pbv's (as the old partially-HUD subsidized tbv would cease to exist).

Cambridge was able to negotiate HUD funding through the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, basically performing the switch form tradition tbv to newer, differently financed pbv. So Cambridge is now executing RAD modernization projects in two phases: Phase I is Newtowne, Putnam, Wash Elms, WW Court, and Manning (I believe, CHA's page for this project is in Latin...no seriously, "Relocation: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet," Phase II is Corcoran, Jeff Federal (you're right!), DF Burns, Truman, Russell Apts, Roosevelt Towers. LBJ, Jackson Gardens, and Lincoln were updated from ARRA funds, Miller's River will be "disposed", I imagine in prep for RAD. How the overlapping municipal, state, and federal "ownership" plays into this dynamic, I do not know.

None of the RAD modernization projects are adding any units, but I do believe that the new pbv's has at least endowed CHA with more flexibility in any future developments on its sites. I know when they were kicking the initial idea around, there were some ideas tabled for redeveloping Newtowne in partnership with an institution, developer, etc...

Needless to say, watch this space!

 

[DZH22]

EF


603 Concord... I kinda like this thing

The green front is awful but the rest of it is fantastic.

 

[underground]

Cambridge's desire to move to pbv's (and this is where it gets hazy for me), is that there are better financing/transfer mechanisms for pbv's than there are for tbv's and with dwindling HUD funds, Cambridge needs to adapt.

You're real close. Tenant Based Vouchers are your standard Section 8. Project Based Vouchers (PBVs) are in fact connected to the unit, not the tenant. The benefit for a public housing authority is that they can have a private developer and/or manager come in and either redevelop an existing public housing project or construct a new development to operate. Then the PHA is only handling the subsidy, not the construction or building management. It's one of the public/private partnerships that's actually been pretty successful. The one thing about S8 vouchers is that they aren't really useful for PHAs looking to actually develop units. PBVs give PHAs a way to influence unit development, but avoids a lot of the issues PHAs ran into building housing projects.

That's the short version at least.