Porter Square Neighbors Association

Letter to the Editor - Cambridge Chronicle
19 August 2008
Michael McKee

I would like the opportunity to respond to a number of statements contained in the letter from Mr. Francis McGrail, regarding the proposed zoning amendment that would allow a hotel in Porter Square.

Mr. McGrail is not correct when he claims that the City Council is not fully aware of the impact of the proposed zoning amendment, this specific issue was the focus of a significant portion of our discussions with the Councilors. During our presentations to the City Council, the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board, we identified 6 sites, including ours, as being potentially impacted by the amendment. But, we also noted that four of these six sites were already developed to a greater density than would be allowed for a hotel by our amendment, with the fifth site also close to our proposed density, so it is unlikely that they would ever want to take advantage of the proposed amendment. If they did take advantage of the amendment, it would result in smaller buildings than those currently on those sites and they would also be required to put all of their parking underground and provide significant new landscaped open space - both of which are required for any hotel built under the proposed amendment. Mr. McGrail is correct that a subsequent study by the Planning Department identified a number of other sites which could be impacted to a minor degree, but he neglected to point out that the Planning Department proposed a minor modification to the wording of our amendment that would eliminate these sites from the impacted list. This modified wording was included in the version of the amendment that the Planning Board has recommended for approval to the City Council.

Mr. McGrail advocates for the construction of an 'as-of-right building' under the current ordinance. I believe that the context of Councilor Maher's reference to both the Longs Funeral Home development and the glass building across the street - both were 'as-of-right' buildings - was specifically intended to make the point that 'as-of-right' is not an infallible formula for producing what is best for a specific site or the City in general, and that there are some very significant advantages to the community-involved process that we have undertaken.

Mr. McGrail goes on to state his concern about "who the developer is". Mr. Meehn Su Gim, who has owned and operated the Kaya restaurant for the past 15 years, is the developer. Over the course of the past 16 months, he and I (I am an architect and author of the proposed zoning amendment) have participated in at least 9 major neighborhood meetings and countless smaller meetings with our neighbors and abutters. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. McGrail did not attend any of these meetings, but if he had, he would have had a chance to not only discuss his concerns, but to get to know Mr. Gim. It is not a fluke that our strongest and most vocal supporters are our direct abutters - those most directly impacted by our proposal. Over the years, Mr. Gim has earned their trust and it has been their strong and continued support that has sustained us throughout this long and difficult process.

If we could, as Mr. McGrail suggests, build an as-of-right hotel in Porter Square, we would not have put ourselves through this process. But we don't feel that it can be done without amending the Ordinance. It is important to point out that our proposed amendment limits the size of a hotel to what the current zoning would allow for an as-of-right residential building. It also requires all parking to be underground - eliminating an existing surface parking lot - and requires the creation of significant new landscaped open space - both of which are good for Porter Square and neither of which would be required for an as-of-right building. Mr. McGrail has the right to oppose this and any other development in our City, but we do feel that it is important that the facts be kept straight.

Thank you,
Michael McKee
MTMA Architects