Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. has bought up seventeen acres along Binney Street in East Cambridge. They want to build about a million and a half square feet of office and lab space to lease to the biotech industry. Not happy with the limitations under current zoning, they have submitted an amendment to the zoning ordinance to the city that they would like to have passed.
This cheeky act did not come by itself, but was accompanied with the offer to the city and neighborhood of 1.75 acres for a park. It has since been expanded to just over two acres, making it the entire block surrounded by Bent, Third, Rogers, and Second streets. This was a pretty savvy tactic on their part. It got the neighborhood’s attention - without having their zoning petition rejected outright. They sent a delegation to the East Cambridge Planning Team last summer and asked if it was worth discussing the issue. The conversation is heating up.
Briefly, their request is to be granted the density allowed for housing to be applied to their commercial development. There are a lot of issues involved in this case. Is the offer of two acres of open space sufficient mitigation to justify the increase in density being sought? Should we allow any deviation from the zoning that came out of the Eastern Cambridge Planning Study (ECAPS) just eight years ago? Residents and the city put a huge amount of time, effort and money into that project. What kind of precedent will be set? How much will they be willing to give and what is the most we should allow them? How will the final language of any proposed amendment be agreed upon?
I have attended about ten meetings about this deal so far and Alexandria has said a lot of things that I never expected to hear from a big developer. They say they are willing to commit to building to LEED silver standards. They have some great ideas about reducing commuting to their site by car. We are working on the “mixed use development” issues to insure that the area does not shut down at 5:00 PM and become another mugger’s haven. We know from experience, however, that if promises are not written into the zoning and permitting they don’t really exist except as public relations tools.
The ad hoc nature of the process that is being used here is fascinating. The developer puts forth a plan. The neighbors make it an issue and get the developer talking. The City Council listens to both sides and then changes the zoning ordinance as it sees fit.
We at the East Cambridge Planning Team are having to take the lead in responding to the developer. Not that I would trust the city to do a first rate job, considering what they have let happen in the past, but they are the are the ones with the resources to do this properly. They have the planning staff, the legal experts, the money to hire consultants. We are at an overwhelming disadvantage. We have formed a committee drawn from our membership to distill our hopes and dreams into legally enforceable language that we then must hope that the City Council will then incorporate into the final zoning package. We have some talent and brains at our disposal, but we are not a five billion dollar corporation. We don’t have a planning staff or any budget for anything. Councilor Davis suggested that the city help in this regard, and we mentioned it to Councilors Maher and Murphy in another meeting, but no offers have been made. We will have to come begging, which we are prepared to do.
The city doesn’t seem to be especially pleased with this project as it has been presented, but they are leaving it to us to do the heavy lifting. We have jobs and families and other responsibilities. We need help with this task, and are asking the city to pitch in. The time table on this is short. It may be over by the end of the year. Without “professional help” we are likely to be steam rolled. If our fair city would fund a planning consultant and perhaps a lawyer to help with zoning technicalities and language, we would have a much greater chance of getting a result that would please us, them, and keep the developer happy.
Who ever heard of a city that makes its taxpaying citizens do the urban planning work to insure an attractive place to live and work?
Mark,
Thanks for posting this, but I have a couple of points of clarification. Alexandria does develop and build biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) labs and will not agree to forego that option in the most densely populated neighborhood of Cambridge. Note, Level 3 labs contain airborne pathogens, like SARS, tuberculosis, anthrax, the plague, somewhat treatable for only some of our population. Note, East Cambridge contains three senior citizen housing complexes, one of which houses over 400 elderly and disabled residents. Also, the Alexandria property abuts two public housing complexes. In the event of an accident, it would be catastrophic. While Alexandria is willing to deal on the aesthetics of their project, they have refused to commit to Level 1 and Level 2 labs only. In case some of you are not familiar, Level 3 labs house biological weapons so that the laboratories could then become a terrorist target. Also factor in that the airborne pathogens have to be transported in and out of the neighborhood. Because of various state and federal regulations concerning transportation of hazardous material, the transport of the airborne pathogens cannot be through any tunnel. So, the transportation is relegated to the city streets. This increases the risk to the neighborhoods exponentially. This was the finding of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of the BU lab.
So, Mark tells half of the story. I agree with Mark about the shear density of this development. However, the problems with Alexandria go far beyond aesthetics and mixed use preferences. The problem with this development is that it presents a danger to the safety and security of several neighborhoods, and to Cambridge at large.
While you (Mark) now assert that you have asked the city for funding for expert assistance, I note that I was the only resident who expressly asked this of city council, on the record, at two separate meetings. And, you, and the aestheticians, remained silent.
In sum, there are critical problems with the Alexandria 6-block development, concerning the very health and safety of the residents of Cambridge. If any monies are to be afforded for analysis of this project, they should be spent on the analysis of safety and security of the residents.
While I mean no disrespect to Mark in this post, we simply see different problems. I think a mixed use, green, silver Leeds BSL-3 lab is an oxymoron.
Respectfully submitted,
Marie Elena Saccoccio, Esquire
4th Generation East Cambridge
Post new comment