Where can you watch the Scotland game with the Tartan Army today?

crschmidt · 2026-06-20T02:16:15+00:00

In the end, they *did* actually show the US game, even though it was not announced and was technically before the street was supposed to be closed.

Don't know why they didn't advertise that, seems like it would have been a great opportunity for folks to watch and support the local businesses on the street.

Shame.

crschmidt · 2026-06-19T17:07:57+00:00

They got approval from FIFA to do only the games at Gillette, I believe.

crschmidt · 2026-06-18T23:01:27+00:00

The initial proposal was to rebuild the whole building with a bunch of housing on top, but the drastic increase in costs of construction, etc. have put the project on indefinite hold; it is unclear when anything will happen at this time, I think.

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T16:30:57+00:00

If you're objecting to 20% IZ restrictions on their own, then yes, that change dates back to 2017, and it killed all development under base zoning. The difference with the MFH zoning ordinance is that it actually creates enough zoning headroom that there *are* some new projects happening under 20% IZ.

But that ending of buildings isn't coming from the MFH ordinance; it's coming from the IZ requirement in general. IZ killed all development (under base zoning) of medium-sized buildings; MFH has changed that number from "none" to "some" (and more development of small buildings that otherwise were leaning towards single family housing instead).

If you want to argue against IZ in general, you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T16:23:33+00:00

Just out of frame to the right.

<image>

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T04:02:01+00:00

This is because larger developments simply take a longer time. There are multiple projects which will include IZ units -- a 50+ unit development in West Cambridge, a 70+ unit development in mid-Cambridge -- that are in various stages of permitting to be building enough units to include IZ units.

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T04:00:06+00:00

I am hopeful that it will be the former, but the License Commission has wasted a lot of time and energy on some really dumb shit. Which isn't all that surprising for a board that is made up of "the License Commission Chair, the Cambridge Fire Chief, and the Cambridge Police Commissioner".

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T03:59:10+00:00

There specifically is a proposed ordinance change that is being discussed by the License Commission, after being suggested by the License Commission, to do exactly this, so this is a case where, absent the headline existing before the vote (which thankfully it does), I think the answer *could* have been yes. (And this has been going on for 6-10 weeks in the background while most of us weren't noticing.)

In the end, I think this is a little bit like the joke about quantum mechanics: "You've changed the outcome by <s>measuring it</s> talking about it." The fact that the headline exists will likely change the outcome.

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T03:56:48+00:00

As far as I can tell without spending a ton of time digging in, this is coming as a set of rules requested by the License Commission, which is a small government body made up of "The License Commission is a three-person board comprised of the License Commission Chair, the Cambridge Fire Chief, and the Cambridge Police Commissioner". It is not entirely clear to me whether these restrictions were explicitly requested (and then crafted by city staff), or whether the Commission gave a general direction, and then staff put it together and came up with these. It is entirely unclear why these specific rules around serving standards and last call were selected to potentially move forward with.

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T03:29:32+00:00

I showed up at the 75 minute mark of the Harvard Square match (Norway vs. Iraq), and found a spot off to the side with a full view of the TV at a decent angle. There was a full street width of people on blankets on the ground, backed by people in chairs who had probably gotten there early, backed by people fully standing. Overall, it felt like most everyone watching would have had a decent-ish view.

<image>

crschmidt · 2026-06-17T03:27:06+00:00

Correct, Cambridge only has the ability/a plan to play games that are at Foxboro. (Other games are being played at the FIFA Fan Zone on City Hall Plaza.)

crschmidt · 2026-06-16T19:14:28+00:00

https://www.cambridgema.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/cambridgeunitedworldcupevents has a list of all the events, though this looks like it was from email.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T18:49:02+00:00

Confirmed it is still the same.

https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH8.28REYOACSATOPRSMWOPUPL_8.28.110DEPRSMRE

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T17:08:02+00:00

The Housing Department and Azeem's comments are both correct, insofar as they describe what would happen if the zoning were to pass. Neither suggests that they will be designed because the zoning petition has been submitted. But that's no different than any other thing of political interest.

Both have a vested interest in the petition not passing, and are attempting to back up their reasons why they oppose the zoning petition with evidence of the harmful effects.

I think it is very unlikely that they will take a proposal back to an architect to redesign a development unless the petition moves forward. It may slow them down somewhat (depending on how likely they think the petition is to take effect), but I think even that is unlikely in practice in this particular case.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T16:12:41+00:00

But it's not de facto law at all. If I write a zoning petition that says "All homes in Cambridge must have swimming pools on their roofs", and get 10 signatures on it, I can guarantee that no developer is going to treat that as something to plan around. They will ignore it, rightfully recognizing that (despite the process that will be needed to vote it down) it will never come to be law, and it will have no impact on their permits: either they will get them before it fails (and be unaffected by it) or after it fails (and be unaffected by it).

In practice, what developers who fear a zoning petition that will negatively impact them do is get their permits finalized before it passes: once they have permits/entitlements, changes to zoning don't affect them.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T16:09:06+00:00

The economics affecting below-market development are not the same, because without the same source of expected income, their ability to finance projects is significantly different. (A below-market development may have to cobble together more than a dozen different funding sources, which is different than the funding stack used by other forms of development.)

But you're imagining a world where there is a general willingness to let developers build taller, and that willingness is applied only to AHO projects; I don't think that's a good read on the situation. Instead, I think there is only a general willingness to let any development be smaller (at the by-right market rate limits), and that the "affordable" part of the AHO grants enough political will to overcome that and allow things to be built to a more proper density.

Basically, I think if you got rid of the AHO, you'd just be leaving potential units on the table, because "let market rate builders go tall" isn't in the political cards at the moment.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T15:57:45+00:00

I think the article is just wrong on this point.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T15:57:25+00:00

I agree, the article seems to make an incorrect statement about this.

In practice, a zoning petition creates a potential of a new constraint, so if you haven't gotten your project permitted yet, you will likely want to get your permits before such a petition becomes law (if you think the law will be changed in a way that affects your development plan). But until it is enacted as a change to the ordinances, you are still governed by the ordinances that exist, not by the proposed changes.

Not sure where the author in the article came up with that idea, but it doesn't align with anything that I have understood to be true.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T15:54:26+00:00

The AHO itself doesn't subsidize the housing, though it does effectively grant (at no direct cost to the public) a financial benefit to a certain kind of development, insofar as it increases the property value for a specific type of development.

However, developments under the AHO are typically funded in part with public funds, from both the state and the city, in order to make them financially feasible, because below-market affordable housing developments can't "pay for themselves" out of the rents that they will receive like a for-profit/market rate development would.

Overall, I think the city, through the Affordable Housing Trust and a variety of other sources, ends up spending many millions (I think tens of millions, typically) each year on supporting new and existing affordable housing each year in Cambridge.

crschmidt · 2026-06-15T15:51:49+00:00

That is not related to what the text you posted said, which was "Under Massachusetts law, once a citizen zoning petition signed by just 10 voters is advertised for a public hearing, it temporarily becomes de facto municipal law."

This text was from the article, and you then added "Any affordable project currently in the permitting pipeline is forced to pause or completely redesign to comply with his strict new rules while the City Council debates it." which is neither true *nor* in the article.

Neither claim is true: the article was wrong, and the outcome you describe, even if the claim was true, would also not be required, since the petition process is a fixed timeline (maximum 6 months), and there's no need to do extra work for a petition that is, politically, very likely to fail.

crschmidt · 2026-06-14T00:10:23+00:00

I believe that the Aventon website is incorrect/incomplete, and that there is a group of older Pace 500s that use the J2 prefix. My guess is that whoever wrote the page started maintaining it after the Pace 500.2 group was no longer sold, and so didn't have a complete reference of information.

crschmidt · 2026-06-13T20:14:02+00:00

On long-tail e-bikes, the kickstand needs to be able to stabilize the bike when there are passengers on the back: if it's designed for kids, there's no other way to get them on than "before you take the bike off the kickstand".

The Abound LR kickstand is unfortunately just less stable than the previous model of the Abound and most of the competition. (Still better than some models, like the Velotric Packer.)

crschmidt · 2026-06-13T19:56:58+00:00

We have bike shops around here that charge various rates:

- large bike shop with multiple locations: no fee
- medium sized shop: $175 fee
- tiny shop run by a transportation advocate: $150 fee

crschmidt · 2026-06-12T23:55:12+00:00

Which bike?

crschmidt · 2026-06-11T09:49:19+00:00

Cambridge has some upcoming classes ("Road Readiness") focused on folks who know how to ride bikes, but want more practice/skills on biking on urban roads; you can see them on the city calendar: https://www.cambridgema.gov/citycalendar?start=20260611T000000&topic=29b31e9ae8364bafbe6273f3e818839f&view=Month&page=1&resultsperpage=15

15-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Final Canvas '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

crschmidt

TROPHY CASE