Saying no and sticking to it used to serve Cambridge well. A righteous devotion to “no’’ in the late 1960s and early 1970s blocked a monstrous highway that would have plowed through the middle of Central Square. Absolutism saved the city once. But it won’t work twice.
A group of residents is currently pushing measures to stymie new real estate development around Central Square. The residents are trying to down-zone the area, and have already succeeded in putting a pair of planned construction projects on the shelf. They’re doing all this in the name of preserving Central Square. That’s a problem, because Cambridge residents can’t just wish the real estate market away. They can stand by and get steamrolled, or they can harness development as a tool for creating broad public goods. “No’’ isn’t an option.
Comments
Folks here in Cambridge don;t seem to "get it" that housing is expensive here, and will become more so, because there is just not enough of it. Central Square will b3come truly gentrified if it is not allowed to grow. The only downward pressure on our housing costs here has been provided by our low low property taxes - thanks to the growth of businesses like Millenium. Opposition to housing in the area of Alewife and North Cambridge, and some attempts at downzoning in residential areas (the so-called Bishop petition), will guarantee that only the wealthy can afford to live in Cambridge.
Not all of us are trying to stymie new real estate development. Some of us in Central Square want to follow in the footsteps of our Kendall Square brethren. I have lived in the heart of Central Square for 34 years and I fully support the Goody Clancy plan. My husband and I are amongst a growing number of residents who want a more nuanced approach to the real estate development pressure. We are organizing in support of more affordable housing and sustainable growth that includes public benefits.
Union Square in Somerville is only a mile away and many of us here would love to have some of the development taking place in Central Square...
Cambridge lacks a comprehensive city-wide development plan. It is unfair for a developers to be allowed to develop twice the existing zoning to put huge development projects in selected neighborhoods, while telling the affected neighbors to shut up and enjoy it for the benefit of the rest of the city. Not many would enjoy two Boston World Trade Centers going up literally next to their houses, when particularly when the extra one would be in excess of the existing zoning, given as a gift to the developer (who has paid many current City Councilor campaigns handsomely). The point is not that all development would be stopped, but rather that current residents can continue to have a decent quality of life. This isn't suburban snob zoning of one single-family home on two acres. The Forest City zoning proposal was to allow 1/4 million square feet of office space on a 50,000 s.f. lot, double what is currently allowed. That's a [whole] lot of development. I don't live near Central Square, but I can feel for them.
This comment has been removed.
Idiots. If they take away the city's parking lots in the area to facilitate over-sized office buildings, where will all the potential customers park? That's the biggest problem with Kendall square. We never go there for anything becuase of the lack of on-street parking. There must be some under-developed areas in Cambridge where development would be welcomed. Idiots.