City Okays Mass. Ave. Lot's Lease

The Cambridge City Council voted last night to lease a city-owned parking lot for a proposed commercial and residential building in Central Square. The 8-1 vote came despite protests from commercial tenants who will be evicted from the buildings currently occupying the property and slated for demolition.

At a hearing in City Hall, representatives of various artistic and activist organizations asked the council to take steps to protect the buildings.

The proposed building would be located along Massachusetts Avenue and would provide 84 new residential housing units--including up to 24 low-and moderate-income units--and more than 30,000 square feet of commercial space.

The council voted to lease a 18-space parking lot for $1 a year and approved the overall proposal, which the developer modified after negotiations with community groups and the city.

Assistant city manager for community development Michael H. Rosenberg said the city was required to lease the lot at a low price to make the project eligible for federal grant funding. In return, he said, the developer agreed to provide low-and moderate-income housing.

But current tenants and area residents said the council should not approve the plan because the buildings on the site are of historical significance and provide needed space for artist and community groups.

"I am concerned about the gentrification of Central Square," said Gerald Bergman, a 15-year Cambridge resident.

Bergman criticized the plan because it only assures that the low-and moderate-income housing will remain below market price for 20 years.

"We've heard a lot from this city council about our children and our grandchildren," he said, pointing out that histhree-year-old son will probably never be able totake advantage of the protected housing.

But Clifford Truesdell '66, vice chair of theArea IV Neigborhood Coalition negotiating with thedeveloper on the project, said he thought theproposal was as good as possible.

"Nothing in life is free and there are somecosts to this," he said.

Truesdell said at the hearing, "It is a matterof serious concern that space like this isdisappearing...[but] it's housing and we needhousing."

According to Truesdell, the proposed buildingis relatively small and architecturally appealing.He said that if the plan is blocked, anotherbuilding--perhaps uglier--will eventually bebuilt