 The center photo above is 84-86 Ellery Street. Thanks to the Feb. 10 luxury housing upzoning, this multifamily brick home is scheduled to be demolished and replaced by the building imaged on the right, whose faux-mansard roof makes a mockery of the neo-Baroque style mansard roof of both 84-86 Ellery and the two story grey two-story duplex next door. The proposed redevelopment at 84–86 Ellery Street would demolish a durable, well-functioning 1877 brick building with 14-units and replace it with a 77-unit structure dominated by tiny luxury studios. Touted as “green,” the project is in fact a speculative, oversized intervention that threatens Cambridge’s architectural character, neighborhood stability, and climate commitments. There are similarly problematic issues at play for the proposed demolition of 60 Ellery Street. Both will come before the Cambridge Historical Commission August 4, the same night (and time) as City Council holds its critical summer meeting, requiring residents to choose which meeting to attend, a abrogation of the city’s responsibility for public engagement on key issues before them. Let’s Look More deeply at 84-86 Ellery. Who’s Behind the Curtain? As we dive deeper, it’s worth identifying the central players in this project. They are each listed on the August 4, 2025 Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission agenda:
A Building That Works—To Be Replaced By One That Doesn’t The current 84-86 Ellery building is a multifamily three story classic mansard roof brick structure built in 1902 according to the Cambridge Property Database. As reported on the Cambridge Historical Commission July 30, 2025 Staff Report, the filed Applicant Certification Document identifies it instead as an 1888 structure, sitting on a lot area of 8,949 SF. The DND Homes sales advertisement lists the current property as having 10 one-bedroom units and 4 studios. The current tenants of these 14 units most likely all were evicted or had their leases terminated. This part of Cambridge is already among the densest urban areas in the country. It is also one of the most expensive. A one-bedroom apartment near Harvard Square now rents for over $3,800 a month (Zumper, July 2025). Adding 77 more luxury units—58 of which are studios—will not shift the housing market costs downward in a positive way, and most of these units are likely to be unaffordable to local residents. The inclusion of a token number of “affordable” units does not address the deeper structural issue: Cambridge has no rent control, and most new market rate developments simply raise prices, causing nearby property rents to do the same thing. In addition to this, a sizable majority of new units would be studios replacing the existing one-bedroom units, so this is not designed to be conducive to supporting local families. The new building, according to the filed Applicant Certification Document, will be 6 stories in height and will include 77 units. Of these 58 units will be studios, 11 1-bedrooms, four 2-bedrooms and eight are 3-bedroom units. There are no 1-bedroom units planned. The interior design presented by the applicant evokes a dorm-like warren of small studio units off a central corridor. The developers intend to expand the current structure from 8,949 square feet to 46,125 SF—a 516% increase according to the Applicant Certification Document. Despite the number of new units, and the massive size of the building, the developers plan to offer no on-site parking and little open space. Worse, while the new building itself is required to be solar ready, its six-story height will cast deep shadows over the two- and three-story neighboring homes and rooftops, limiting future access to solar energy. Environment Impacts and Factors of Design Environmentally, the building performs even worse. Although, as per city ordinance requires that the new structures be all-electric and highly efficient, these benefits will take decades to offset the environmental cost of demolition and new construction. Indeed, we have reports on the environment harm caused by such demolitions rather than simply refitting the existing building. Read more “Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse” HERE. Indeed “The greenest building is the one that already exists” according to Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects. The bricks being torn out of this Ellery Street property and the other at 60 Ellory Street will not decompose. Unlike timber, they will sit in landfills indefinitely, while the new building is constructed using insulation foam, engineered wood, and other materials with short life cycles and long-term toxicity. And, while this will be all-electric, in Massachusetts, over half the electricity still comes from natural gas, so even electric systems aren’t fully decarbonized (MA EIA, 2023). This document also notes that 24% of state energy is solar, an option that will not be available to Cambridge residents with the inclusion of far taller structures like this in residential areas. Moreover, electricity is very expensive for heating adequately in the winters here, and electric generators may not be adequate to cover all the new proposed projects. See chart below. It was suggested at a recent poorly-attended community meeting, by the architect, that building materials now only last about 25 years so new buildings are built to pay for themselves in about 25 years . This is a problem. We’re replacing a well built building that’s over 150 years old and still functioning with something quite flimsy with negative environmental impacts: its demolition will produce embodied carbon emissions and, after it comes down in less then half a century, its foam insulation will pollute the planet for hundreds of years. Reviews of DND Homes, the international developer now in control of the project, suggest additional concerns. Their reputation includes complaints of faulty roofing, low-quality finishes, and misleading project descriptions (Birdeye, 2025). Their model mirrors the kind of global investment strategy now displacing local residents in cities worldwide: purchase modest properties, maximize zoning, add “luxury” materials, and market to investors. What makes this situation also problematic is the deceptive and inappropriate design. The project incorporates a faux-Mansard roof and superficial gesturing to historical architecture, giving it a kind of neo-neo-Baroque or Disney-like cartoonish design. It’s not real context or elegance—it’s costume design, a mishmash of inflated massing and historical references that don’t relate to the architectural fabric of its neighbors in Mid-Cambridge – or elsewhere in the city. This kind of style serves marketing, not community. It presents a caricature of taste while maximizing the developer’s profits per square foot. Public Process, Private Profits The attorney and architect’s involvement raises deeper concerns about the fairness of the city’s planning process. Patrick Barrett was among those consulted when Cambridge’s citywide upzoning ordinance was drafted. He now directly benefits from the loopholes and permissiveness of the very law he helped shape. His simultaneous role as public advocate and private beneficiary undermines civic trust. Meanwhile, Dan Anderson, the building’s architect, sits on the Planning Board—meaning that anyone opposing this project might reasonably fear retribution if their own projects later come before the Board. No one should be judge and designer in the same courtroom. And let us not forget the nature of the sale itself. Marcus & Millichap brokered the deal in June 2025, selling the property for $6.65 million—more than double its prior assessed value of $3.26 million (Cambridge Property Database). As noted above, in their own press release, they celebrated the buyer’s intent to “take advantage of the new Cambridge zoning changes” by building high-end condominiums (Marcus & Millichap, 2025). This was not a preservation-minded or mission-driven purchase—it was a real estate flip made possible by policy change and timed-for-speculative profit. The reality is that the current building still works. It, like many other very functional buildings, has housed residents comfortably for over a century. Its old-growth timber and brick structure offer unmatched durability and embodied energy efficiency that foam-insulated boxes cannot replicate. While ceiling fans and weatherproofing could dramatically improve energy use, tearing the structure down only creates a carbon debt that will take decades to repay. And even then, the result will be a pile of materials that won’t outlast what’s standing now. There are several other identifiable parcels, lots, and properties that could accommodate a large housing project more appropriately than to eliminate a key historical structure sitting on the largest green space in Mid-Cambridge. Housing is crucial but along with it comes responsibility and consideration of context which has lasted centuries. More Outside Studies A number of outside studies by economists and urban planners alike have pointed to problems with large scale upzoning of the type recently undertaken in Cambridge. Here are two of the most recent.
A recent July 31, 2025 Pew Study (HERE) reaffirms the kinds of problems that the 84-86 Ellery Street project also is making clear. This Pew study points out that:
Conclusions This is not a green project. It is a speculative teardown with faux historic flair, fueled by insider connections, large scale profits, and cloaked in the language of progress. This is not a housing solution. It has forced out existing Cambridge residents, to make way for a new group of more expensive investor units (most of the studios) that will raise housing prices in the city. This is financial extraction with architectural window dressing. Cambridge deserves better—better architecture, better process, and better priorities. Let’s preserve what works and hold accountable those who pretend to fix it. 
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |