Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

From the linked article...

For some time, councillors have expressed frustration at their limited meeting space for legislative functions and meetings with constituents, as well as the lack of office space for councillors aside from the mayor and vice-mayor. Seven council aides share a single office divided with cubicles.
Click to expand...
 
HalcyonEra said:
Those poor public servants....the horror.
Click to expand...

If they aren't able to do their jobs, that's a problem. The City needs to fund the functions of a City.

Public servants serve the public. That doesn't mean the public can treat them like servants.
 
Equilibria said:
If they aren't able to do their jobs, that's a problem. The City needs to fund the functions of a City.

Public servants serve the public. That doesn't mean the public can treat them like servants.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a massive amount of the working public work in some form of cubicle. Unless these cubicles are significantly smaller than a traditional cubicle, I don't get what their gripe is.
 
tmac9wr said:
I'm pretty sure a massive amount of the working public work in some form of cubicle. Unless these cubicles are significantly smaller than a traditional cubicle, I don't get what their gripe is.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's a SINGLE OFFICE divided by cubicles. My cubicle is the size of a single office, just without full-height walls.
 
Without knowing how large the office is, speculation is worthless.
 
Cambridge is a city of 110,000 people and growing. It is one of hottest development markets in the country and has probably a $50 billion economy. It isn't so outrageous that City Hall might need a little extra square footage. Jeez.
 
fattony said:
Cambridge is a city of 110,000 people and growing. It is one of hottest development markets in the country and has probably a $50 billion economy. It isn't so outrageous that City Hall might need a little extra square footage. Jeez.
Click to expand...

Fattony -- Yes it absolutely is outrageous

Cambridge has been larger twice before --- on the original way up circa 1920 and on the way down circa 1950.

Since the original 110k -- telephone service improved some, faxes came and went, and typewriter pools of male clerks became typewriter pools of women, and now just world processing and other computer stuff

Oh yea something now called the Mobile Internet was born and grew up some-- a lot of it developed in surprise Cambridge

GE a somewhat bigger enterprise by all measures has slimmed down its HQ operation -- companies of all sizes are slimming and becoming more efficient only government in all its manifestations continues to grow and get less and less capable

AND most offensively our so-called public Servants become less and less servants of their constituencies and more and more like Roman Senators
 
Little known historical fact: Caesar was killed simply for asking the Senate for a little extra space for his staff. Shakespeare punched it up a bit.
 
Wow, this thread really tanked. Increasing federal gridlock has made local government ever more important to be effective. If you're so disillusioned about their effectiveness or their need for the space, why don't you try having a meeting with the councilors yourself.
 
Whigh, you said the same exact thing on the last page, and it's still ineffective on this page.

There's more to a city than housing - as someone who points out the magnificent expansion of Kendall Square every other post, why don't you talk about it here? Cambridge has twice as many employees in the city in twice as many companies as it did I half a century ago - don't those companies and workers need phone lines, water, and public services, too?

As you point out, the population fell (though is now rising) - but due to smaller household sizes, not fewer houses. The city didn't physically get smaller over the last half century - still gotta provide services throughout to all households, even if they have fewer people in them.

The City also provides more services than half a century ago, like actually giving a shit about infrastructure and public safety, which provides a massive return on investment due to increased livability and desirability.

Lastly, if you'd read the article linked (twice!) on the last page, you'd know the city needs more space for its growing Information Technology Department. Yes, we live in the age of data, but somebody has to do something with the data, and the City of Cambridge is an innovator in municipal data application. Plus, data has to physically be somewhere, so they need more room for servers (and generators for redundancy).

Cambridge is a successful, effective city with lots of revenue. Expanding revenue-enhancing services is a smart business move.
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Wow, this thread really tanked. Increasing federal gridlock has made local government ever more important to be effective. If you're so disillusioned about their effectiveness or their need for the space, why don't you try having a meeting with the councilors yourself.
Click to expand...

I am certain that if this was such an important issue severely impacting their "work" that they could have leased some satellite space close by at some point or shuffled some nonessential groups to other municipal space over the past 20 years. Space planning is not all that difficult. But hey, lets use eminent domain instead.
 
HalcyonEra said:
I am certain that if this was such an important issue severely impacting their "work" that they could have leased some satellite space close by at some point or shuffled some nonessential groups to other municipal space over the past 20 years. Space planning is not all that difficult. But hey, lets use eminent domain instead.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. The article is explicit about this essentially being a negotiated purchase. They didn't seize the building - the Chamber approached them. In any case, affordable housing would have required that they buy the building also.

Are you proposing that City departments pay Central Square office rents? I'm curious how the cost comparison would shake out.
 
Equilibria said:
Oh come on. The article is explicit about this essentially being a negotiated purchase. They didn't seize the building - the Chamber approached them. In any case, affordable housing would have required that they buy the building also.

Are you proposing that City departments pay Central Square office rents? I'm curious how the cost comparison would shake out.
Click to expand...

I am saying that I find it hard to believe that the city had no excess space over the past two decades where they could have relocated certain departments to, some of which are not required to be centrally located. I am not a big fan of taking private properties off of the tax roles either (although the Chamber of Commerce is probably a non-profit, they would still be subject to property tax). Undoubtedly, this building will likely need significant renovations which at the end of the day will probably exceed the purchase price.

Also, like most municipalities when approving large projects Cambridge could have easily mandated set asides or dedicated space as municipal office as part of the mitigation payments.
 
Has anyone commenting on this ever been inside Cambridge City Hall and been able to see the working space with their own eyes? It's a very old building built 1888 with all the layout and space inefficiencies endemic to very old buildings of that vintage that still retain their original layouts. I've done multiple stints living in Cambridge encompassing about four-fifths of the last 15 years, and watched way too many CCTV re-runs of City Council meetings at 3:46am during bouts of insomnia. This has been a front-burner issue since at least 2001 if not earlier...several total overchurns ago in elected and appointed official ranks. It's not any sort of recent development rammed through by the current elected regime. If anything the notoriously slow-moving Council spent far too many years debating it before sussing up the unity to actually do something about it.

Sudden outbreak of outrage is hyperbole a little too-little, too-late for those who may not have been paying attention the last 15 years. That impassioned debate already took place 10 times over intra-city and reached its logical conclusion. No surprises whatsoever.
 
Yes but we have computers now so clearly the business of running the city of Cambridge can be done by one, at most two people working on laptops in a Starbucks.
 
34f34f said:
Whigh, you said the same exact thing on the last page, and it's still ineffective on this page.

There's more to a city than housing - as someone who points out the magnificent expansion of Kendall Square every other post, why don't you talk about it here? Cambridge has twice as many employees in the city in twice as many companies as it did I half a century ago - don't those companies and workers need phone lines, water, and public services, too?

As you point out, the population fell (though is now rising) - but due to smaller household sizes, not fewer houses. The city didn't physically get smaller over the last half century - still gotta provide services throughout to all households, even if they have fewer people in them.

The City also provides more services than half a century ago, like actually giving a shit about infrastructure and public safety, which provides a massive return on investment due to increased livability and desirability.

Lastly, if you'd read the article linked (twice!) on the last page, you'd know the city needs more space for its growing Information Technology Department. Yes, we live in the age of data, but somebody has to do something with the data, and the City of Cambridge is an innovator in municipal data application. Plus, data has to physically be somewhere, so they need more room for servers (and generators for redundancy).

Cambridge is a successful, effective city with lots of revenue. Expanding revenue-enhancing services is a smart business move.
Click to expand...

34f -- I don't know where you got your employment figures from -- but there's a problem with them -- Cambridge was a major industrial city -- Kendall square almost certainly employed many more people in its heyday that it does even today

Actually -- the number of housing units in Boston declined when the population was in its steepest phase of its decline [circa 1970] -- can't say the same is true for Cambridge but the other trends were similar between Boston and Cambridge

Once again -- on the Information Tech side -- you can package a whole whole lot of data into a few ordinary book sized drives -- tens of terabytes -- you can also put all the old stuff that you don't need to access in a nanosecond up on the Cloud --access will be in microseconds

No -- I don't buy that argument at all -- its driven by the desire of the Council to have more space for themselves and for their empire of sycophants who insure their reelection
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Has anyone commenting on this ever been inside Cambridge City Hall and been able to see the working space with their own eyes? It's a very old building built 1888 with all the layout and space inefficiencies endemic to very old buildings of that vintage that still retain their original layouts. I've done multiple stints living in Cambridge encompassing about four-fifths of the last 15 years, and watched way too many CCTV re-runs of City Council meetings at 3:46am during bouts of insomnia. This has been a front-burner issue since at least 2001 if not earlier...several total overchurns ago in elected and appointed official ranks. It's not any sort of recent development rammed through by the current elected regime. If anything the notoriously slow-moving Council spent far too many years debating it before sussing up the unity to actually do something about it.

Sudden outbreak of outrage is hyperbole a little too-little, too-late for those who may not have been paying attention the last 15 years. That impassioned debate already took place 10 times over intra-city and reached its logical conclusion. No surprises whatsoever.
Click to expand...

F-Line yes I have been inside several times

They also have an annex [circa 1950's?] as well as a brand new Police HQ -- so its not as if Cambridge has been forced to do all its functions inside one old and quite [antiquated] building
 
whighlander said:
F-Line yes I have been inside several times

They also have an annex [circa 1950's?] as well as a brand new Police HQ -- so its not as if Cambridge has been forced to do all its functions inside one old and quite [antiquated] building
Click to expand...

And have you been paying attention to the 15 years worth of intense intra-Cambridge debate on this point, Mr. Lexington, to be able to comment with specificity on the stated issue? 1 page's worth of wikipasta diarrheal diversions on the history of second-half 20th century telecommuting technology suggests strongly otherwise. Another page's worth on the architectural history of that building would do no better.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
And have you been paying attention to the 15 years worth of intense intra-Cambridge debate on this point, Mr. Lexington, to be able to comment with specificity on the stated issue? 1 page's worth of wikipasta diarrheal diversions on the history of second-half 20th century telecommuting technology suggests strongly otherwise. Another page's worth on the architectural history of that building would do no better.
Click to expand...

F-Line its not a Cambridge specific disease -- all governments want to look and feel like Washigton DC -- or perhaps they really want London and Buckingham Palace

In Lexington a few years ago the Public Works Department proposed and won an override to build a palace for their trucks and miscellaneous bureaucratic needs -- this facility featuring heated garages priced out at nearly $1000 per square foot

No the lure of the Edifus Rex Complex to a bureaucrat is like Odysseus & the Sirens -- tie him to a mast and let him hear the enchanting sound -- just stop at that point ;)

so let the council debate this one endlessly -- just don't give them the money :p

cdzmod26.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top