Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cambridge rejects plan to turn old school into tenement slum
By adamg on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 6:53am
OK, the developer didn't exactly say that's what he wants to do with the former North Cambridge Catholic High School, but the Cambridge Planning Board was left "speechless" (Cambridge? wow!) by the sheer awfulness of his proposal, Cambridge Day reports:
"You're building something that's actually worse than a tenement," [the board chairman] said. "Tenements were reform structures, they were built to prevent things like this from happening."
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Substantially different?
Too many apartments with not enough windows or parking can't be good but this quote by Mr. Russell of the planning board worries me for different reasons:
“It’s a demonstration the project is not sensible in terms of housing, and the suggestion the kind of tenants who would live there are substantially different than the people who are living in the [neighbors’] two- and three-family houses is, I think, absolutely true.”
What exactly is the problem with people who are "substantially different than" their neighbors? What does he mean by "substantially different" ? Are they arsenic-based life forms perhaps?
Lots of parking should not be required here
since it is a half-block from a major bus line (77) and a short walk to Davis Square station on the Red Line. 40 parking spaces is plenty for 38 units. I live nearby in a 50-unit apartment building with 0 parking spaces, and the landlord has no trouble filling the units.
It sounds like the proposed development has other problems, as surely fire laws do not allow bedrooms without windows. But lack of parking alone shouldn't stop the development.
The article says 88 units,
The article says 88 units, not 38.
It says 88 *bedrooms*
but only 38 apartments.
Not speaking to the merits of this particular proposal...
But it's way too easy to block any project that increases density in this country. It seems the lowest common denominator wins and it's always a mix of big setbacks, tons of parking, low-rise buildings, etc. A mix of building types would mean more housing units, more activity on the street, and more of a city atmosphere. I wonder what will be the result of this project.
Merits aside
You have a point about the fear of density. What we should fear is a density of people made homeless by bad planning decisions that fear small-unit living for single adults and couples, and zone out any housing that might attract people with kids to feed who can't afford a 2500 square foot house on an acre.
Then again, a parcel that was slated to be developed at 33 units and had zoning as of right for 51 units was being challenged by the Stagnation Committee in that neighborhood because they thought it should only have 3 houses on 1.5 acres to "be in tune with the rest of the community". The density on that street: 40 units per acre.
no more Section 8 units please
Cambridge has more than enough Section 8 units and more than enough folks with criminal histories and drug problems. If you examine police reports you see most crimes by Cambridge residents are comitted by someone residing in Section 8. Giving away housing reduces tax revenue and rarely results in anyone uplifting themselves to the point where they are productive working members of society and no longer need or want public housing. Handouts don't alleviate poverty. They make poverty permanent by killing off motivation and ambition.
Section 8 units are widely scattered
and the program is designed so that they are indistinguishable from their neighboring non-Section 8 units. So how can you tell that "most crimes by Cambridge residents are comitted by someone residing in Section 8" ?
Adam...
...did you grab the domain BostonHerrald.com and redirect it to here? It's surprising how many people drift in to UH who are obviously looking for Howie Carr.
Using that logic
[sarcasm]I propose eliminating all mortgage interest deductions from income taxes. After all, why should those of us who don't have a mortgage be subsidizing those who do with a handout? Furthermore, all home improvement related deductions should be eliminated too. Why should I subsidize your new roof or weatherproofing or heating system? I could go on about the huge transportation and infrastructure subsidies that make living in the suburbs affordable, but that might be for another day[/sarcasm]
Nearly all housing in subsidized in one way or the other. No need to single out the Section 8 or public housing dwellers like they're somehow different.