00:27:29 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LPWJK3J 00:31:56 Robin Chase: As I was walking down pleasant to Mass Ave, I realized that the municipal parking lot immediately before Pandemonium (corner with Green st) could potentially be a good location to replace Starlight. No residential within immediate proximity. 00:32:00 James Williamson: Was there any city council policy order calling explicitly for (yet another) rezoning of Central Square of this scale? 00:33:11 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Reacted to "As I was walking dow..." with ❤️ 00:35:43 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): Hi James, Yes, there was a policy order earlier this year asking CDD to lead a process to update zoning for Central. 00:35:56 Mark Nahabedian: What about mitigating the increases in ground level wind that has resulted from the existing tall buildings? 00:36:33 Nancy Seidman: How does this effort relate to the overall city zoning changes before city council? 00:37:23 Lee Farris: Reacted to "How does this effort..." with 👍 00:37:24 James Williamson: Melissa, Do you have a reference number or date? (Or possibly even a link?) Thanks. 00:38:30 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): Hi Mark - we will be sharing ideas for how to mitigate the impacts of height (light/wind) via design standards. Looking forward to your feedback tonight. 00:38:45 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): James - yes, let me track down the link. 00:41:49 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): Nancy - I believe you are referring to the multifamily housing zoning changes being discussed at Council. That would affect the residential districts to increase height to 6 stories and promote uniformity in height across all neighborhoods. 00:42:19 Lee Farris: I think the current 80 foot height is only for housing- is that right? Commercial can not go to 80’? 00:43:47 Randa Ghattas: Please note, the zoning that was proposed in C2 was not approved by City Council. So the zoning recommendations from C2 were not implemented minus some small changes. So we don't know what the impact of C2 would have been. 00:43:55 Lee Farris: Market Central owner wanted to be taller, and was reduced to current height because it was similar to the other 2 buildings. MC had to provide lots of other community benefits. 00:44:04 Dan Totten: Reacted to "Market Central owner…" with 👍 00:44:10 James Williamson: Would be good to get more real actual evidence - sample Pro Formas, for example, or ROI info - for how the existing zoning allegedly does not "pencil out," and for who? 00:44:58 Mark Nahabedian: Is Market Central the development across from the fire station near Lafayette Square? 00:45:34 Robin Chase: If it is only housing that can go to 18 stories, does that mean that we don’t get a wall of 18 stories? or some of the buildings will be lower 00:45:39 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Reacted to "Is Market Central th..." with 👍 00:46:10 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): James - here is the policy order: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=22139&highlightTerms=central%20square 00:46:32 Lee Farris: Reacted to "Market Central owner..." with 👍 00:46:39 James Williamson: Thanks. 00:46:46 Melissa Peters, CDD City of Cambridge (she/her): Reacted to "Thanks." with 👍🏼 00:46:54 Casey Szilagyi: Reacted to "Market Central owner..." with 👍 00:46:55 Lee Farris: Replying to "Please note, the zon..." True. 00:47:54 Lee Farris: Replying to "Is Market Central th..." Yes 00:48:34 Gillian McMullen: More wind tunnels? 00:48:35 Robin Chase: would we also put in one car per unit? We don’t have the streets to support the movement of that many cars. I would say we have to put a max on number of parking spaces allowed in the square. 00:49:44 Cathy hoffman: Market Central is more known as Mass and Main and was the result of a long and conflictual process including getting 20% affordable not 11. It was not meant to OK a new standard. 00:49:45 Casey Szilagyi: Replying to "would we also put in..." The city already got rid of parking minimums a couple years ago, it’s unlikely that a developer would want build a lot of parking because it’s not profitable for them. But I agree that parking maximums would be interesting 00:50:02 Dan Totten: Reacted to "would we also put in…" with 👍 00:50:08 Lee Farris: Replying to "would we also put in..." There is not required parking- but developer can build what they want. Maybe you are talking about having a parking maximum. 00:50:31 Robin Chase: Replying to "would we also put in..." Still thing we need to have a parking maximum for the district as a whole. These spaces will have a HUGE impact on congestion on local streets. 00:50:57 Kevin Grinberg: We need more housing, more density, fewer arbitrary restrictions, and less micromanagement. Looking forward to the recommendation details and hoping they allow for flexibility and vibrant growth. 00:50:59 Robin Chase: Replying to "would we also put in..." We now don’t have parking minimums, but we need also parking maximums 00:51:13 Lee Farris: Every aspect of Market Central was negotiated. Any added height needs to continue to have that kind of close review- not become completely as of right. 00:51:35 Nancy Seidman: Reacted to "would we also put in…" with 👍 00:51:38 Dan Totten: I’m a tenant in the district who stands to be displaced by a proposal like this. There are a lot of us 00:52:54 John Hawkinson: Lee: That implies…spot zoning? 00:53:11 John Hawkinson: (well, or perhaps “contract zoning”) 00:53:33 Cathy hoffman: the issue of even 20% affordable like Mass and main is hundreds of market rate which lead to displacement because the rents are increased. 00:53:46 Lee Farris: Replying to "(well, or perhaps “c..." Market Central owned many parcels and included parcels they did not own too. 00:54:18 Carolyn Magid: Reacted to "the issue of even 20..." with 👍 00:54:23 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." @Cathy hoffman building more market rate housing does not increase surrounding rents, as tons of existing data has shown 00:54:26 Cathy hoffman: school st is a major residential street not an edge for graeter heights. 00:54:30 Eric Nielsen: Zoning Ordinance 20.304.2 the as-of-right height of buildings that are in both C2-A and the Central Sq Overlay to 45ft. Will this restriction be removed? 00:54:56 Isaac Rockafellow: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." Can you say more? IIRC mass & main added ~50 affordable units that weren’t present before. 00:55:24 Lee Farris: Reacted to "school st is a major..." with 👍 00:55:34 Randa Ghattas: Replying to "school st is a major..." Agreed 00:56:35 James Williamson: I would reframe this as how to responsibly "limit" and "manage" growth. Population of Cambridge has grown from 90,000 to 120,000 since I've lived here. Have we reached our overall "carrying capacity" - in terms of a viable sense of community, transportation, services? 00:56:56 Dan Totten: Replying to "the issue of even 20…" Kevin, there’s evidence in both directions - studies are inconclusive and a lot depends on other contextual factors - so such a blanket statement is absurd to make. With that said, the issue of existing residents getting displaced by new construction is separate from what impact new construction will have on surrounding prices. Even the biggest evangelists for your position acknowledge that displacement is real and will happen. 00:57:17 Cathleen Higgins: Inclusionary housing has actually resulted in 100's of affordable units (a significant portion of all affordable housing). and half of all inclusionary units are occupied by voucher holders, a vital pathway for moving into stable housing. 00:57:28 Sara Shin: Reacted to "Kevin, there’s evide..." with 👍 00:57:36 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." That’s not true. The bulk of evidence is not at all inconslusive. 00:58:21 Lee Farris: Reacted to "Kevin, there’s evide..." with 👍 00:59:19 Randa Ghattas: Is the proposal that Bishop Allen be allowed to have the heights of Mass Ave 00:59:32 Dan Totten: Replying to "the issue of even 20…" Regardless of how you feel about that, you can’t argue with me on the latter point. As a tenant who lives in the shadows of Market Central, I know that this zoning will eventually displace me and my neighbors 00:59:56 Sara Shin: Reacted to "Regardless of how yo..." with 👍 01:01:03 James Williamson: Key obstacles to additional housing are often political - I'd trade much of this for access to build on the massive parking lot at Bishop Allen and Prospect currently assigned to Palandjian's "Leader Bank" building at Mass Ave. For parking! On top of a key transit node! 01:01:11 Carolyn Magid: Replying to "Inclusionary housing..." There are long waiting lists for low-income residents who want vouchers now. Without municipal vouchers (adopted and funded), low-income residents won’t have access to inclusionary units. The fact that current residents have vouchers, which is great, doesn’t assure that new residents will. 01:01:51 Lee Farris: I think the 2017 zoning was good about neighborhood edge- different heights on different sides of transition streets like Bishop Allen. 01:02:04 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." I can’t argue with yours or anyone’s beliefs; I disagree with your characterization of the likely consequences of increasing density. 01:02:05 Randa Ghattas: Replying to "Is the proposal that..." Or is it that 8 stories as the base zoning with opportunities for higher height on Mass Ave? 01:02:38 Robin Chase: could we just give a one floor height for ground floor cultural/low rent retail? This is a 1-1 relationship 01:02:46 Dan Totten: Replying to "the issue of even 20…" So you don’t think encouraging more construction will result in displacement of existing tenants? 01:02:54 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." No. 01:03:18 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." Existing tenants may still be displaced for all sorts of reasons, including continuing rising rents stemming from limited supply. 01:04:04 Dan Totten: Replying to "the issue of even 20…" You’re so wrong. Existing tenants will be much more likely to be displaced if construction is incentivized. That’s just a grim reality. 01:04:05 Kevin Grinberg: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." Nobody can promise you or anyone else that we can freeze the status quo in place, but building LOTS AND LOTS of new housing is the best defense against residents being priced out. 01:04:26 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: https://www.slido.com Code: 1160317 01:05:08 James Williamson: Not often all that "excited..." Overused word. 01:05:21 Sarah Hill: Bookstores 01:05:26 Lee Farris: Reacted to "You’re so wrong. Exi..." with 👍 01:05:27 Kathy Kosinski: Replying to "the issue of even 20..." movie theater 01:05:48 Rabbi Yoni: More affordable housing. 01:05:51 Dan Totten: Under this zoning, we will lose our existing cultural spaces and nothing is requiring new ones to pop up. 01:05:53 Cathy hoffman: community gathering spaces - sitting down 01:06:51 Gillian McMullen: Could somebody add bookshops? 01:06:58 Dan Totten: Replying to "the issue of even 20…" True that residents could be displaced under the existing zoning, but it will be much more likely to happen if the new zoning passes. And lower income tenants will be hit the hardest because they won’t be able to afford the new buildings 01:07:04 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Reacted to "Could somebody add b..." with 👍 01:07:07 Gillian McMullen: OK, theyre on there. 01:07:16 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Reacted to "OK, theyre on there." with ❤️ 01:07:38 Karen Klein: Dance studios for rehearsals, dance performances 01:08:02 Lee Farris: Reacted to "Dance studios for re..." with 👍 01:08:18 Lee Farris: Reacted to "True that residents ..." with 👍 01:08:44 Dan Totten: I would like to see a cultural use requirement in order to unlock the taller height. Otherwise, we won’t get any new spaces 01:08:47 Lee Farris: Places to learn cultural activities, like music, dance, theater etc. 01:08:55 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Thanks for the comments and discussion everyone - we will be saving the chat so we can incorporate your ideas even if the poll closed. 01:09:01 Lee Farris: Reacted to "I would like to see ..." with ❤️ 01:09:03 James Williamson: We really ought to see estimates of costs of building at current heights, etc., that are supposedly limiting the feasibility of projects for private, for profit developers. 01:10:18 Carolyn Magid: Can we ask that people speak briefly to give everyone a chance 01:12:38 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: Please let me know if you need help getting to your breakout room 01:13:30 Alkarim Dhanji: Feel like we needs cultural space similar to bow market where the community can actually gather. Place for them to come, relax, preferably with green space, with food and some amenities, where farmers markets, especially with the plan for new residents 02:04:27 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Hi Room 2! So many helpful ideas, thank you! - does anyone want to summarize and share back? ;) 02:08:34 Cathy hoffman Cport: Ill back you up 02:08:39 Jessie Lan: Reacted to "Ill back you up" with ❤️ 02:08:51 Brie Hensold | Agency LP: Reacted to "Ill back you up" with ❤️ 02:12:00 Sheli Wortis: Concern about possibility of teardowns and displacing existing residents. 02:15:26 Brian Gregory | CDD City of Cambridge: Reacted to "Concern about possib..." with 👍 02:16:41 Catherine Forde: What is the current occupancy rate of existing buildings old and new 02:17:23 James Williamson: Bumped off again. Impossible to get back in. This is really an awful business for those not digitally gifted. In person meetings!! 02:17:50 James Williamson: Community meeting at the Central Square Branch Library! 02:17:56 Catherine Forde: We cannot keep adding people and eliminate parking 02:19:00 Cathy hoffman Cport: It was also asked what/who is driving this process- how muchbuilding 02:19:02 James Williamson: Bumped off again!!! 02:19:12 Jingzhi Fan | Agency LP: sorry a bit tech issue 02:19:32 Mark Nahabedian: Put your email or whatever feedback channel into the chat do we don't have to read it off a slide. 02:19:51 James Williamson: Bumped off again!!! 02:19:59 John Hawkinson: bgregory@cambridgema.gov (where are those colleagues?) 02:20:05 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: bgregory@cambridgema.gov 02:20:22 John Hawkinson: Reacted to "bgregory@cambridgema..." with 🙂 02:20:29 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: Reacted to "bgregory@cambridgema..." with 😂 02:20:32 Dan Totten: Will a recording of this meeting be made available to the public? 02:20:46 Elsa Mark-Ng | Agency Landscape + Planning: Reacted to "Will a recording of ..." with 👍 02:20:46 John Hawkinson: Yeah, Dan, Brian just said so a few minutes ago. 02:20:49 James Williamson: This feels too much too down to me. I don't feel this has grown organically at all from the actual community about which you are speaking. 02:20:58 Dan Totten: Good 02:21:32 Ann Sweeney (she/her): Why is the City juggernauting this plan forward when so many citizens are expressing concerns? 02:21:43 James Williamson: Bumped off yet again!!!! 02:21:56 Ann Sweeney (she/her): Replying to "This feels too much …" Agree James. 02:21:57 James Williamson: This feels too top down to me. 02:22:05 Catherine Forde: What us the cross street on Norfolk? 02:22:37 Cathy hoffman Cport: it will be a little discouraging and familiar if the comments do not impact the plans in any way 02:22:48 Ann Sweeney (she/her): Replying to "it will be a little …" Agree! 02:22:51 DOROTHY GAYDOSH: Agree with comments by Anne Sweeney re: bad model of Fresh Pond “development” + fact “envision C.” not being followed, and question: who is driving this development project- Dotty Gaydosh 02:23:01 Hawley Appleton: Reacted to "Agree!" with 👍 02:23:14 Hawley Appleton: Reacted to "Agree with comments ..." with 👍 02:23:24 Lee Farris: Reacted to "it will be a little ..." with 👍 02:23:29 James Williamson: Have an in-person meeting at Central Square Library! 02:23:38 Hawley Appleton: Reacted to "Have an in-person me..." with 👍