Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

http://centralsquare.com/blog/

Zoning proposal for new Central Square could go to council within four months
written by David - April 2nd, 2013
By Marc Levy Cambridge Day





The zoning proposal remaking Central Square with taller buildings, more people and a modified mix of public spaces and businesses could be presented “prior to the summer meeting” of the City Council, said Iram Farooq, a planner with the Cambridge Development Department.

That gives the start of a likely zoning battle – given tensions over recent zoning discussions in the square and resulting creations of two citizens groups – a roughly four-month window.

The council meets roughly every Monday through June and picks up its regular schedule on the second Monday in September. What is meant to be its sole summer meeting was held July 30 last year.

Three years in two hours

Farooq gave the estimate Wednesday at a roundtable held by the council’s Ordinance Committee to hear a plan presented by Goody Clancy, the consultant hired in April 2011. The plan was crafted by Goody Clancy with participation by the 21-member Central Square Advisory Committee and the Mayor’s Red Ribbon Commission on the Delights and Concerns of Central Square, which began its work August 2010.

“We’ve started to talk to the Planning Board about the zoning recommendations that have emerged here and will be working with them over the next few months,” Farooq said.

The suggestions that don’t include zoning – programming such as bringing in festivals, encouraging buskers and creating public art and interactive installations – are being worked on already in conversation with the city manager’s office, city arts council, departments of Public Works and Human Services, other departments and business organizations, she said, offering to come back to the council with reports if it was wanted.

Roundtables are intended to give councillors in-depth understanding of complex topics through frank discussion and dialogue with experts. Under council rules, they don’t take public comments or allow votes and are not televised by the city. The roundtable was filmed by The Tech and Cambridge Day and posted on YouTube by The Tech’s John Hawkinson:



It was kept to a tidy two hours, after a Kendall Square roundtable held Friday ran to more than three. Roughly three-quarters of the Wednesday roundtable was spent going through Goody Clancy’s report, “Central Square: Nurturing culture and community in Cambridge’s downtown.”

More housing

Among other things, the report urges more mixed-income housing that would be made possible by raising heights in some parts of the square to up to 160 feet from the current 80. Along Massachusetts Avenue, though, facade heights would by limited to up to 60 feet to avoid giving the avenue a canyonlike feel. Some of the new residential units could come by building atop what are now city parking lots, as well as a change to the rule that there must be one parking space for each housing unit built.

David Dixon, principal-in-charge for Goody Clancy’s planning and urban design practice, described a model used in other cities in which the consultants have worked: a half-space per unit so long as they are within walking distance of mass transit.

If a Central Square reimagined with new amenities and more retail is to succeed, there would have to be between 1,000 and 2,000 housing units built within the next five to 10 years, Dixon said, with “probably closer to 2,000 feeling right for many of the things the committee supported.”

“From Red Ribbon to C2 have come the real new idea [of] middle-class housing you can have today. Post-rent control, I didn’t think we could ever have it,” said councillor Ken Reeves, who launched and led the so-called K2C2 process for rebooting Kendall and Central squares. “But we have to spend a lot more time on the idea” and bring in the right experts and academics to make it happen.

Dixon confirmed that the new units would be ideally within a five-minute walk of Central Square. In Kendall Square, city planners looked to areas within a 15-minute walk for supporting new retail and amenities there, and a current Massachusetts Institute of Technology plan – the only proposal on the table there – includes only 300 units. “Five-minute walk, less [with] a 10-minute walk, very little beyond that is where you can really make a difference with housing,” Dixon said.

New housing could also be possible through “in-fill” of spaces along Massachusetts Avenue, Farooq said. In turn, Dixon said, the city’s parking lots could become public open spaces. He talked at some length about improving and expanding the look, feel and programming of the square’s open spaces, including Carl Barron Plaza, University Park Plaza and Jill Brown-Rhone Park.

Retail and services, meanwhile, could be expected to become smaller and begin creeping down side streets away from the avenue as a way to enliven them and serve as a link to nearby residential neighborhoods. A cap on fast food could be lifted and “market stalls” created to encourage more small eateries and merchants, while zoning against “formula retail” would discourage chain stores from coming to the area.
 
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2013/04/02/mit-sweetens-the-deal-as-kendall-square-vote-nears/

MIT sweetens the deal as Kendall Square vote nears

By Marc Levy
April 2, 2013

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s vision for Kendall Square includes new offices. stores and homes.
The amount of proposed “innovation space” for startup firms has doubled, affordable housing has risen to a proposed 18 percent of units from 15 percent, a decaying parking lot will finally be turned over to someone who will use it and a community benefits payment will rise to $14 million from $10 million, Massachusetts Institute of Technology officials said Tuesday at a hearing about their plan to redevelop 26 acres in Kendall Square.

These and other sweeteners offered to the city in exchange for yea votes on the so-called MIT PUD-5 zoning petition are only the latest steps taken by the institute to get up to 980,000 square feet of commercial space, 800,000 square feet of academic space, 240,000 square feet of housing and 65,000 square feet of retail.

City councillors at the Ordinance Committee hearing seemed pleased by the several changes described by Steve Marsh, managing director of real estate with the MIT Investment Management Co., as being added to the zoning petition itself and a letter of commitment describing the plan’s benefits to the community.

“It continues to be a work in progress,” councillor Marjorie Decker said, expressing appreciation that the changes were being proposed six days before a vote, which is itself a week before the petition expires. “I said I didn’t want [changes] to come back to me the night of the vote.”

Like incentives offered by other developers, the institute’s changes have been introduced meeting by meeting as officials hear demands and suggestions from councillors and residents. The Forest City zoning passed in February for land near Central Square saw an offer to preserve affordable housing come up so abruptly last summer that councillors first added a meeting to their summer schedule to deal with it, then let the petition expire; when the petition returned, the developer tweaked its proposal substantially at a meeting a month before a vote and then, as Decker hinted, the night it took place. The zoning was accepted despite two councillors warning of a “loophole,” and councillor David Maher actually asked Forest City for clarification about their intentions after the plan was adopted.

The institute’s plan for Kendall Square now includes:

Up to $500,000 for a community path, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, by the Grand Junction railroad and trail (and a study of how the institute can offer the city and residents easements to more adjacent land).

The vacant lot at 35 Cherry St., as demanded by councillor Denise Simmons in a complaint about its long-term blighting of the Area IV neighborhood, to be used “in perpetuity” for uses that benefit residents. Some terms and conditions have yet to be set. Simmons wanted the lot to be turned over by the institute earlier than Marsh envisioned, arguing, “MIT left it to be an eyesore in the community, so I don’t think we should have to do anything.”

The use of union labor during construction; contributions of up to $20,000 annually for 10 years to an apprentice Pathways Program for Cambridge residents – yet to be created – equalling funding for at least 15 new apprentice opportunities a year.; and an agreement that tenants in its commercial space have to tell the city’s Office of Workforce Development of all job opportunities as they become available. The plan is expected to create 1,300 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.

Up to half new retail space being set aside for small retailers, with the cutoff point being ownership and management of five locations elsewhere in the state. Simmons wasn’t satisfied, and asked also that the cost of retail space be limited. “If it’s priced so high no one can attain it, it just doesn’t happen,” she said.

An Open Space and Retail Advisory Committee, meeting once annually for 10 years, that will include representatives from neighborhood groups.

A five-year incremental removal of any property from tax rolls, rather than a three-year process. Last month City Manager Robert W. Healy testified that the 26-acre plan would give the city an additional $10.5 million a year in property taxes from the institute. At $36.5 million annually, the institute is already the city’s biggest taxpayer, but the commercial property could be switched to academic use, causing the city to lose those millions. Under the new proposal, that would happen more slowly. (Owners of nontaxable property, such as schools and churches, often give payments in lieu of taxes.)

Community benefit payments that start with $1 million made within 90 days of the adoption of the zoning amendment and include $1 million with the issuance of a final certificates of occupancy for new commercial space or within three years from the adoption of the zoning amendment.

“Innovation space” for startups that equals 10 percent of all new office space, although not all of it has to be within the newly zoned land; some would be within 1.25 miles of it. Councillors Leland Cheung and Minka vanBeuzekom had pushed to get innovation space over the 5 percent mark, with vanBeuzekom urging that as much as 33 percent be turned over to cultivating the kind of business that made the square as vital as it is today. “Ten percent is better than 5 percent,” she said. “I’m very surprised and pleased by all the listening that’s been done.”

“Innovation housing” or “micro-housing” in at least 8 percent of the new gross floor area of the required housing will be apartments measuring between 300 and 550 square feet in size. While the space can be leased by anyone, including interested retirees, proponents say it’s ideal for young entrepreneurs and students who will spend much of their time in the lab or office – potentially going along with the innovation space that can serve as an incubator for small businesses. “I really love the incubator housing,” Cheung said, “But it’s not just the size that matters, but the cost of the units.” (Pricing isn’t set, Marsh said, but will be “very attractive and competitive.” He also expected leases of a year, as with traditional apartment rentals.)

Fewer parking permits. While most housing built in the city calls for one parking space per unit, the institute will demand that renters of 30 out of the 300 units it is estimated to build – with the burden falling on micro-units – won’t apply for a resident parking permit.

Marsh said the institute was also committed to the additional affordable-housing requirement; following noise limits for office zoning; and complying with the sign ordinance followed everywhere in the city except Kendall Square.

One Response to MIT sweetens the deal as Kendall Square vote nears

Mike Connolly
April 3, 2013 at 9:30 am
These sweeteners are nice, but the fact remains that housing and the environment are the two most important issues facing our city right now, and on each of those fronts, the MITIMCo proposal does not go far enough…
Therefore, the council should allow petition to expire and encourage the Institute to do more to address the housing issue and show leadership on the environment.
First of all, MIT should make a commitment to provide additional housing to the thousands of graduate students and post-docs who are forced on the Cambridge rental market. This is a key step to unlocking the housing issue for our city’s workers and families.
As it stands, the Institute plans to issue a report on graduate student housing in July. The council should withhold approval until the community has had a chance to receive the report and engage with the findings.
On the environmental front, Green Cambridge is asking MIT to step up to the plate by making a commitment for net-zero development and by doing more to take the lead on local efforts to adapt to climate change. I completely agree, and the council should demand more…
At the end of the day, the MIT petition is too focused on commercial real estate development and the profits that will flow from building corporate office towers on campus property. Profits are very nice and wonderful, but as a city we cannot sit back and abide these lost opportunities on our most important issues.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
 
Good news and all, but is there really any good reason why Kendall Sq couldn't have a 600ft cap?
 
There is no good reason for a cap there, period.
 
I have always wondered what a Boston / Cambridge skyline rivalry would look like if there didn't exist the height restrictions on the Cambridge side.
 
I walk by the One Broadway area everyday. That project should go as high as the market will allow, especially since its in Kendall, and beside from the unfinished watermark, there isn't much residential or view concerns. Make it a giant 600 foot apartment tower. It will be leased in a week.
 
Kendall Square is filled land. How far beneath the surface is bedrock?

flooding.jpg


Image from NY Times via MIT. Rising sea levels would mean you would need scuba gear to reach your favorite laite dispenser.
 
When they make these maps do they realize there is a dam?
I believe they do.

The Blizzard of '78 came within 16 inches of overtopping the dam. Assuming an average sea level rise since 1978 of 3 millimeters per year, mean sea level is up about four inches at Boston since 1978. Further sea level rise by 2050 is a minimum 18-24 inches.

Kendall square was formerly tidal mud flats.
 
MITPage4.jpg


graphic in the Herald.

article here:
http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2013/04/mit_engineers_zoning_ok

The Cambridge City Council’s approval Monday of MIT’s zoning petition allows it to construct two 300-foot-high buildings on both Third and Main streets — provided any space above 250 feet is limited to residential or dormitory uses, and moderate-income units are included. Otherwise, the buildings are capped at 250 feet.

The maximum height had been 120 feet in most of the district, although taller buildings, as high as 250 feet, already stand.

MIT plans four major buildings and one smaller one — excluding academic buildings — on current surface parking lots over an expected 10-year buildout.
 
One Broadway is currently an office building. Is the proposal to tear it down and replace it with residential, or to convert the existing building?
 
I have always wondered what a Boston / Cambridge skyline rivalry would look like if there didn't exist the height restrictions on the Cambridge side.

Me too. Oh man, do I ever? It seems so appropriate.

I never knew that a majority of Cambridge was landfill. I guess that explains some of the restrictions.
 
One Broadway is currently an office building. Is the proposal to tear it down and replace it with residential, or to convert the existing building?

I believe the proposal is for adjacent parking lot. I don't think they are planning to touch existing building
 
That doesn't explain any of it. The tallest building in Boston is built on filled land.

Good observation but I'm not 100% sure about that. JHT and Pru are about 1/2 mile away from the Charles where as Kendall Sq is right next to it. I don't think the issue is the landfill itself but maybe the threat of rising water levels.
 

Back
Top