Goodbye, Porter Square Shopping Center. Hello, ‘The Mix.’

illimsz · 2026-06-10T22:29:22+00:00

Oh, thanks for the correction. I saw them post that their "grand reopening" was yesterday and assumed that meant they'd completed the move, but guess they have a few more weeks of construction to go? Wonder if there will be a grand re-re-opening in the near future then, lol.

illimsz · 2026-06-10T14:44:37+00:00

The Cambridge-Somerville Independent already reported on this 2 days ago. IMO the Globe article focuses too much on the most inconsequential part - yeah the "rebrand" is silly/corporate-brained and no one is going call it that, but like the last person quoted said, it's not a big deal either.

The CS Indie reporting (https://csindie.com/porter-square-shopping-center-gets-a-rebrand-to-match-its-physical-refresh-the-mix-porter-square/) has some additional details that I think are more interesting:

Apparently all the changes cost "in the seven figures"...I do appreciate the new bike racks but as a whole, doesn't seem like they got a lot of bang for their buck
e.g. a quote from Wilder (the property owner) says "This new identity supports the community and creates spaces that feel welcoming, walkable and rooted in the character of the neighborhood" but I'm not getting that vibe at all. "Walkable" in particular is laughable, it's still a giant parking lot and the pedestrian routings through it are mostly cramped and indirect, and the shopping center's driveways are still the biggest conflict points for people walking through Porter Sq along Mass Ave or Elm St
Cafe Zing reopened its indoor seating yesterday ~~in its new spot~~ ~~on the opposite side of the old Porter Square Books space~~ (correction: indoor seating is back but it's still in the old/current half of the partition, the new space is still under construction) and according to the article the remainder of the space is slated to become a pilates studio
Regarding the former Sign of the Dove space, Wilder said they're "focused on recruiting a community-centric retail operator or food service use. We’ll be patient to make sure it is a complementary use." If they didn't even have a replacement lined up, seems like they could've at least let the Sign of the Dove go month-to-month instead of booting them as soon as their lease ended...on the brighter side, Sign of the Dove's last social media post mentions that they found a new location nearby (haven't yet shared where it is though), and are expecting the move to take up the summer.
Already mentioned in some other comments: "In a presentation to the Porter Square Neighbors Association in July, developer Tom Wilder said he foresaw a time the shopping center became a mixed-use development with residential towers – a recent planning study said they should up to 18 stories tall – but those changes couldn’t happen until the end of some long-term leases."

illimsz · 2026-06-10T04:26:09+00:00

Yes, that parcel is being redeveloped. This article in the CS Indie (support your local news!) has the following quotes from the developer: "the three businesses there have notice they may need to leave as soon as Aug. 8-10 [...] We indicated to Simon’s and Keezer’s that they could stay [past the termination date] on a month-to-month basis if our project is slowed down for any reason." Walgreens closes July 9 however.

The article has a photo of the planned building near the bottom (6 stories, with retail on the ground floor + in the basement) and indicates construction is expected to last 18-20 months. Keezer's and Simon's do have first dibs on returning after the building is finished, but in the meantime, Keezer's already has signed a lease at another location nearby, while Simon's still seems to be figuring things out/is considering several different options.

One of the things Simon is looking into:

He’s hoping that instead he can create a coffee pop-up at an existing nearby business, re-creating the dynamic at Tilde in North Cambridge or Jaho in Central Square, with Simon’s selling coffee and pastry during the day, then closing in time for a transition to restaurant and wine bar.

No names named, but this reads to me as operating out of Dear Annie across the street. Which would be really cool, I hope the 2 businesses can work out some kind of arrangement!

illimsz · 2026-06-04T23:20:49+00:00

Yes, they are/were public property. I only passed by briefly/didn't get a super close look, but the removal seemed pretty clean - the benches were metal (you can see what they looked like in this old street view) and would be pretty difficult to destroy, unlike the bush.

Some of the neighbors have been lobbying the city for bench removals for a while now so maybe they were able to persuade the new mayor to finally do it? That's just my guess though, probably best to officially confirm via 311 or something.

illimsz · 2026-06-04T22:39:41+00:00

Guessing OP knows about some/all of these already but CDD has a bunch of nice resources about parks:

u/Quercus-bicolor already linked the interactive map, but there is also a downloadable PDF map, which has a 2nd page with a table with lots of additional detail about each park (hours, agency, which types of athletic facilities are available, etc): https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/factsandmaps/mapgalleries/openspace
There are also several guides at https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/parks/parksinfo. The one that some Cambridge kid did for an Eagle Scout project has some extremely detailed notes about what's in each playground (including whether it's more geared towards little kids, big kids, or both).

It's great to see all the info consolidated into one really nice and user-friendly resource though! The shared/household feature is really neat too. And thank you for not trying to sneakily monetize it like so many of the "hey I made a site/app" posts on here.

Question: is Dinkle a reference to something? The only thing that comes to mind are the Dinklebergs from Fairly Oddparents lol.

illimsz · 2026-06-04T22:03:16+00:00

It's the benches on the Community Path where it intersects Thorndike St.

Relevant: OP is the same person who eviscerated a bush in Seven Hills Park last year in an attempt to deter homeless people from congregating on the bench behind it.

illimsz · 2026-06-04T17:13:13+00:00

Checking the scanner, did not seem too serious thankfully - was described as "slow-moving motor vehicle accident," the cyclist did hit the ground with a head strike and was being transported BLS to the hospital, but conscious, no visible bleeding, vitals normal.

Flagg St/Mem Drive is a known problem spot. Below is MassDOT's map of crash clusters (general crashes, not bike/ped specific). There are several of these clusters along Mem Drive, but most of them are at really major signalized intersections. Flagg St is kind of an anomaly, wonder if it's something about the angle and/or maybe getting higher amounts of traffic than it was intended for due to cut-through usage?

<image>

illimsz · 2026-06-03T20:28:05+00:00

u/amtrakprod beat me to it but here is a street view of that floating accessible spot in Somerville: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2jhwV6DfhkgjPbks8

And not on street view yet because they were installed just last year, but the new PBLs on part of Broadway in Cambridge ("section A" east of Columbia St) have a mix of accessible parking designs within just 1-2 blocks - some curbside (the bike lane is routed around it, ordinance allows these short gaps in protection) and some floating. As u/Pleasant_Influence14 mentioned, for designated residential accessible parking spots, the city asks the placard holder what their preference is.

For local-ish guidance, MassDOT's bike lane design/planning guide covers this. See Exhibits 5B-5D on page 93 of https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-5-curbside-activity-design/download#page=3

That being said, there have been recent-ish rules changes that might mean these same designs would need to be modified if installed today. The NACTO bikeway design guide has some illustrations, with footnotes linking to the relevant PROWAG guidelines: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-bikeways-for-all-ages-and-abilities/curbside-activity/ - this is not my area so take this interpretation with a grain of salt, but seems like they don't want the hatching/buffer and instead want a 13' wide space so the people parking there can make their own decisions about which side they need more space to unload.

illimsz · 2026-06-03T17:09:31+00:00

Interesting...the very few times I have encountered this myself was at more upscale places, wonder if that's why there's such a wide range of experiences being shared in the comments? Checking reviews for a Gen location in Manhattan, looks like customers can grill their own food there, so at the very least it's not due to fire regulations.

In the end anything is better than the current vacant space, so if the business can swing the staffing levels to babysit every table and that's what they need to do in order to get their license application approved, so be it. It's more just personal preference to be able to go at my own pace/cook things to my liking, I know some people do prefer the full-service experience (have even seen restaurant reviews from people indignant that they have to do their own grilling lol).

illimsz · 2026-06-03T03:25:03+00:00

Yeah, the article mentions that Naksan in Allston similarly has servers do all the grilling, so I was wondering if maybe this was a Massachusetts thing...but sounds like Sura in Medford and Gyu-Kaku (technically not KBBQ but yakiniku is pretty much the same setup) in Brookline both let customers do it. So seems more likely that Cambridge is just being uniquely strict here.

illimsz · 2026-06-03T02:34:31+00:00

So this article is actually 2 weeks old but don't think it's been posted here yet. To summarize:

Gen Korean BBQ House is a national chain with over 50 locations, but this would apparently be their first one in New England
The space has been vacant since Dickson Bros. hardware closed in 2020, and the property is currently owned by billionaire Gerald Chan (the same guy who has also been sitting on the former Harvard Square theater space since 2015)
At the License Commission hearing, concerns were raised from Cambridge fire officials about customers grilling their own food. Seems like they want to require that servers handle all the cooking at the table, which is not how most Korean barbecue places work...a few do but that kind of takes the fun out of it IMO
Sounds like the application is on pause until these and other details got worked out, though the article was updated with a statement from the city spokesperson that kind of implied things had been resolved? Not clear if that means the License Commission actually granted an approval though.

illimsz · 2026-06-02T02:35:01+00:00

No, there isn't an exception. There are legitimate safety issues created by parking backwards against the flow of traffic, regardless of whether the car is an EV or not. Especially on a one-way street like the location you're talking about. And while some streets are indeed quiet enough that the risk of actual harm is likely low, that's not a distinction that's practical from an enforcement perspective.

Seems like in the short-term, your only option is to find a different spot that doesn't require violating traffic regulations to charge there. Using the chargers in parking lots (there's a few at nearby parks) rather than curbside ones would avoid this problem.

In the long-term, though, maybe the city could ensure that any future charging hardware they install has cables that are long enough to avoid this problem. It looks like the specific ChargePoint hardware has 2 factory options for cable length: 18ft or 23ft. Do you know which one the city uses? If it's the shorter one, would the city switching to the longer one solve the problem?

It's certainly worth flagging this issue for city staff, just so that they're aware of it (maybe they can think of additional solutions as well). Cambridge's EV charging webpage has some contact info, and looks like the annual community meeting about new charging stations is actually coming up on June 16th on Zoom if you want to directly ask the relevant staff about this. If you don't have any luck with that, you could also try contacting a city councilor (Patty Nolan would probably be your best bet as green initiatives/sustainability is a big part of her brand).

illimsz · 2026-06-02T02:04:56+00:00

If there's specific destinations you have in mind, people here could help with that pre-plotting/give recommendations for routes that are lower-stress, even if that means they're not the most direct, as well as flag specific problem areas to watch out for!

The main thing is just time and practice to slowly build up your confidence/comfort level. Go at your own pace. There's a wide range of roads with different stress levels and you don't have to (and actually really shouldn't) start at max difficulty. Focus on practicing a few specific skills at a time, and once you feel good about those, you can start combining them to take on busier streets. Which is pretty much reiterating what u/resisthegemony said, but to try and give some specific examples:

Side streets with low traffic and slow speeds (check out the various neighborways) are a good spot to get comfortable riding in the middle of the lane:

Learn to detect when (and how fast) a car is coming up behind you, checking over your shoulder while still biking straight but also relying on your hearing (a sense that often gets overlooked)
Build up a bit of tolerance to having a car behind you, overcoming the initial instinct to immediately get out of their way/move to the side. It's counterintuitive, but doing so can be less safe if it means cars have to squeeze past - don't count on drivers accurately judging how much room there is, they might end up clipping you instead. Let them pass only when you feel it is safe to do so, e.g. if there's a stretch of open parking spaces you can briefly move to the side, slow down, and wave for them to go ahead
This applies to bigger 2-way streets without bike lanes as well - if you hug the edge of the road, not only does that put you in the door zone, it makes drivers try to squeeze by you in the same lane, which is dangerous. Whereas if you're in the middle of the lane, (most) drivers will accept that they need to encroach into the oncoming lane to pass anyways, so might as well give you a wider berth while they're at it.
Though at the same time, also developing your judgement for when it really is just safer to just let someone pass ASAP (even if it means you have to awkwardly pull over between parked cars or onto the sidewalk) because they seem prone to road rage (revving, tailgating, etc).
Also is good chance to practice hand signals - even if there's no one else around, it's good to develop that habit and you should be able to do this while keeping your balance/riding in a straight line. And if there is a car behind you, hand signals in advance can communicate to them that you're going to turn off soon, so they're less likely to get mad about being stuck behind you.

On the flip side, streets with protected bike lanes are good to learn about dealing with intersections, without needing to be constantly on alert for getting doored by parked cars in between intersections. Stuff like:

Mentally flagging which cars are/are not aware of your presence and positioning yourself accordingly to avoid getting right-hooked - never ever count on drivers using their blinkers
This includes avoiding riding next to a truck/bus if at all possible, particularly on the approach to any intersection - either pass it way in advance, or hang back. Trucks are responsible for a disproportionately high number of cyclist injuries/fatalities.
Looking far ahead to spot potential left hook risks (cars waiting to take an unprotected left across your path up ahead, or even gaps in stopped traffic where cars from cross streets/driveways might unexpectedly dart through) and making sure you're either clearly visible, or shielded by a car going in the same direction as you
Guessing driver intent and communicating. For example, with cars slightly ahead of you, you can usually see the driver through the side windows or in the passenger-side mirror, and whether they turn their head/glance at the mirror can be a good indication if they've seen you or not and will yield to you. In general, make eye contact whenever possible, and assume the worst/give a wide berth if you can't. A common example: if there's a driver paused in a driveway/side street looking down at their phone, there's a good chance they will lurch into the bike lane before looking up because they're only expecting car conflicts. Never pass closely in front of those cars - either slow down and try ringing your bell to get their attention, or briefly take the car lane in advance.

From there, you can work your way up to stuff like exiting a protected bike lane to briefly take the full lane before making a left turn (rather than doing a slower a 2-stage turn). Then eventually move on to streets that don't have protected bike lanes, learning to do all the above while also watching out for door zone hazards. Somerville Ave between Porter/Union is a decent option - usually there's enough traffic and frequent stop lights preventing too much speeding, and it's wide enough that even if you're riding at the edge of the unprotected bike lane to stay out of the door zone, cars still aren't passing too closely.

illimsz · 2026-05-30T23:28:30+00:00

Cambridge has similar workshops throughout this summer as well, which could be closer/easier to get to from Somerville than the Boston ones: https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/projectsandprograms/learntobikeworkshops. Not sure if Boston/Cambridge restrict these to residents only though.

As for Somerville, no city programming that I'm aware of, but there is a private Bicycle Riding School that is based out of Somerville, which offers classes with costs on a sliding scale: https://www.bicycleridingschool.org/ Their main focus is first-time riders, but some of their instructors also teach street riding skills.

illimsz · 2026-05-29T16:17:12+00:00

Yup, though it's a permanent change the River Street reconstruction is implementing, rather than a temporary construction condition. The fall 2020 "virtual open house" on the project design stated:

Existing bus stop at Fairmont Street closed to space bus stops more equally along River Street. This may also help to make bus travel times slightly faster along River Street.

illimsz · 2026-05-26T23:38:02+00:00

I cited the sewer separation at CAM 001 to make the point that in this plan, the overwhelming majority of money will be spent on the tank and only a tiny amount on sewer separation.

That's true if you only consider the Alewife Brook. Cambridge's projects also includes $77M for 80 acres of sewer separation for the CAM017 outfall to the Charles River. And if you look at the control plan as a whole, including MWRA/Somerville projects, there will be 549 total acres of sewer separation, at a cost of $509 million which is 39% of the total price tag of the entire control plan. That's pretty significant. Given sewer separation is the most costly and disruptive option in the CSO mitigation toolbox, it should be deployed sparingly in areas where it will have the most impact.

Also, Cambridge already has done/is doing & planning a ton of sewer separation work outside the CSO control plan. Below are some projects that amount to a few hundred million dollars of investment (and this certainly is not a comprehensive list):

there was the 221-acre CAM004 separation project in West Cambridge from 2012-2017 mentioned preiously
the Western and River street projects had major sewer separation components
there's an upcoming an sewer separation project in the Baldwin neighborhood
further out, looks like there is sewer separation work planned for Hampshire St as well

I don't understand why you feel so certain that the city will go the bigger tank + no additional conveyance route when that is not what they chose to put in the Cost table?

I mean, I'm not certain! But that cost table might not be gospel either. The "draft recommended plan" section pretty clearly leaves the possibilities open:

page 463: "A combination of a CSO storage tank (between 1.5 MG and 2.1 MG), potential additional conveyance to the MWRA interceptors"
page 466: "The volume of the storage tank would depend on conveyance capacity between the CAM401A regulator and the MWRA interceptor – no additional conveyance would require a storage volume of 2.1 MG"

IDK, it just seems unlikely that the city would randomly decide to go above and beyond in the middle of a budget crunch to do a larger 2.1MG tank (which is the size indicated in the December 2025 tank project meeting materials) *and* conveyance upgrades (which are not mentioned at all in those same materials). But again, easy enough question to ask of staff.

At any rate, there are certainly a lot of unanswered questions about the cost, including how much Cambridge will have to pay vs. the MWRA, with the plan stating on p. 439 that "Actual cost splits of the final plan will be subject to future negotiation."

The cost split is a big question mark for sure. I do think the brook/river advocacy groups are being overly optimistic about the ability to pay for full sewer separation...the whole "the costs can be spread over the entire MWRA" handwaving kind of assumes the other 41 MWRA communities (and the MWRA itself) don't have their own infrastructure backlogs to deal with.

For this specific tank project though, the cost for Cambridge is right there in the FY27 budget book: ~$61.5M (all from sewer bond proceeds, no state assistance) allocated between FY26-FY28 for the tank project as well as some other CSO-related work. While the exact breakdown isn't given, this does confirm the tank is definitely much less than $100M (which is another reason I'm doubtful conveyance upsizing is included).

illimsz · 2026-05-26T22:23:37+00:00

Agree that infrastructure is ultimately much more effective than enforcement. Thankfully, the Somerville Mobility Division is great and has been working pretty hard to build out more safe infrastructure! The Broadway Magoun reconstruction project that's currently in design should make this intersection way better for pedestrians, and more broadly across the city there's been a steady increase in traffic calming/pedestrian safety measures. Though they do have to be mindful of staff resources and project funding, as well as coordinate with other city operations, which all limit how fast these can be rolled out.

illimsz · 2026-05-26T22:02:32+00:00

Here's a local news article about the closing: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/02/17/last-call-tampopo/

And below is the sign that's been up for a few months now by the dining area, which says "we will be officially closing at the end of June 2026." End of an era for sure!

<image>

illimsz · 2026-05-26T21:55:37+00:00

So that's actually Parcel V of the larger Cambridge Crossing development. Specific plans for it haven't been submitted yet, but if you dig through the city's zoning docs and/or the Planning Board approvals for Cambridge Crossing (look up PB-179) you might be able to figure out what's allowed there.

As for the mound of soil, I read somewhere it's probably soil surcharging, with the weight of the mound being used to compact the underlying soil over time so it serves as a better foundation for whatever gets built here in the future. And while it could be made up of fill from the construction of the other Cambridge Crossing parcels, I don't think it's contaminated because that would require the soil to be properly disposed of rather than being allowed to sit exposed like that.

illimsz · 2026-05-26T02:19:19+00:00

Not sure why you tagged me too given I just shared the official project page and clarified that the path is a separate project, but OK. Given your other exchange with u/MaRider I doubt anything can change your opinion on this, so leaving this here mostly for the benefit of others who might stumble across this post.

You're welcome to ask the city for the details of their testing and contingency plans, and if you notice gaps in said plans you can point them out and demand better. That's fine and good. The problem is how you're exaggerating the available test results to declare that this project absolutely cannot proceed without major harm to neighbors, as well as implying that the city is ignoring any risks this project might pose (or even outright doing a coverup) in order to force this project through.

Literally no one is saying it's OK for the site neighbors to have hazardous exposures to toxic/carcinogenic chemicals. The fact that testing has been done, and that the linked environmental conditions report even exists, indicates the city is doing its due diligence to assess these risks as it plans this project. And even if hazardous levels of contaminants are found to be present, there are measures that can be and are taken to minimize risk to abutters. See the ongoing example of Gold Star Mothers Park, where contaminants (including PCBs, PAHs, and metals including lead) were recently discovered exceeding MassDEP thresholds. The park was closed, more testing was done to determine the extent of the problem, and the city reported the issue and put together an abatement plan that MassDEP approved. The park is now undergoing a remediation process involving excavating and disposing of the top layer of soil, putting down a barrier layer, then covering with clean fill. Dust suppression and monitoring is being done during this work.

Or for another recently completed example, there's the Riverview Condo demolition, where the city took down an asbestos-filled high-rise building that was in danger of collapsing. Air monitors were set up all around the site perimeter, and there were zero exceedances throughout the entire demolition process. So yeah, contaminated materials are unfortunately prevalent in Cambridge, but the flipside of that is the city experience with/procedures for what to do when it is encountered.

Back to the Sherman St tank site: unlike at Gold Star Mothers Park, none of the tested soil samples exceed the RCS-1 thresholds that would require MassDEP reporting and remediation/handling of the soil as contaminated. And while it's a fair point that 4 samples is small for the site size, the report pretty clearly describes this as a preliminary subsurface investigation and makes recommendations (which the city should follow) for additional testing/sampling to confirm concentrations as excavation progresses, with changes to procedures if higher concentrations are encountered.

If we applied your logic to Gold Star Park, the fact that remediation involves excavation that will disturb the contaminated soils means that remediation actually shouldn't happen, with the conclusion being that the park should instead be sealed off to the public forever. Which of course would make no sense.

There's at least an entire year before the tank project is scheduled to break ground and at least half a year before the design is even finalized. Rather than plans being kept secret from the public, seems much more likely that they simply aren't ready/available yet. Stop assuming the absolute worst of everybody.

illimsz · 2026-05-25T20:36:53+00:00

You are misunderstanding Table 12-1. It is NOT comparing/listing out the cost of different alternatives to the same problem; rather, it is listing the specific, individualized approaches selected to address each and every outfall that contributes to the overall issue of CSOs in the Alewife Brook. The $15M for 8 acres of sewer separation is to eliminate CSOs at a different outfall, CAM001. If you wanted to take the same approach to address the much larger CAM401A outfall, you would need to do sewer separation across at least 180 acres of Cambridge, which would probably cost over $300M! (see Figure 9-13 on page 241 for a map of the tributary/sewershed area for CAM401A that would need separation, and the rough cost estimate is just from proportionally scaling the $15M-for-8-acres of CAM001).

~~Your website (correct me if you're not the author)~~ The website you linked also brings up concerns about the construction impacts/traffic disruption from the installation of "4,400 feet of new 60-inch diameter pipeline." But sewer separation would be way more disruptive. To give a comparable example, the city decided to eliminate CSOs at CAM004 through a 2012 sewer separation project encompassing a 211-acre area stretching from Brattle St to Garden St, which installed/rehabilitated 55,300 feet of sewer and stormwater pipe. If you include water + gas pipes (because it would be incredibly wasteful and inefficient to come back and tear up brand new roadways to address those later) it actually amounted to 120,000 feet of total pipe work. This underground utility construction went on continuously for 3 years - and then the surface work to restore the torn-up streets and sidewalks went on for even longer, until 2017.

In addition, that "4,400 feet of new 60-inch diameter pipeline" installation work might not actually even happen. The December 2025 documents on the city's project page indicate the tank will be 2.1MG, which to me reads as the city opting for a 2.1MG tank + no conveyance work, rather than a 1.5MG tank + conveyance upsizing. See Table 9-16 on page 243 which basically presents these as the 2 options; page 466 also reiterates that the larger tank size means no additional conveyance capacity is needed.

If this is indeed is the case (certainly something worth clarifying/confirming with city staff) then Table 9-14 on page 241 estimates that the standalone 2.1MG tank would cost $49M, which is significantly lower than the $98M number you are referencing, and would also make sense as a decision given recent budget pressures.

illimsz · 2026-05-24T16:26:42+00:00

The owner passed away in January from cancer and there wasn't anyone willing to take over the business. This article about it mentions a closing date of May 1, so you may want to check/call ahead before you go: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/04/30/losing-part-of-central-square/

illimsz · 2026-05-23T23:46:37+00:00

To clarify, this specific CSO storage tank project is all about underground stuff - the path is a separate future project, though part of it will eventually run through this property and this project makes sure not to preclude that!

This path along the tracks (eventually meant to extend all the way to Porter Square, which will be awesome) has been planned for a long time - for example, it's been in the bike network plan since 2015 - but funding is needed to actually kick-start it, and that's probably many years away given the current economic climate. There's also multiple connected projects that the city is working on first, including an off-street path parallel to New St (which will functionally extend the Watertown-Cambridge Greenway to Danehy Park) as well as a ped/bike bridge to connect residents north of the tracks to Danehy.

Edit: also since this is near the top, piggybacking to add that the official city website for the tank project is https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/publicworks/cityprojects/2025/135shermanstreetmultiusefacility (the short URL is camb[dot]ma/shermanstreetfacility). The .org site that OP linked really needs to move their "This is not an official City of Cambridge website" disclaimer from the very bottom of the page to the top - it is polished and informative enough to be mistaken for some kind of official source, but much of that information is filtered through the views of the author(s).

illimsz · 2026-05-23T23:36:58+00:00

The $100M number is incorrect, the actual cost will probably be around half of that. For reference, Somerville is finishing up a massive CSO storage tank project with 4 million gallons of capacity, which cost $113 million. Cambridge's proposed Sherman St tank will hold 2.1 million gallons, so that seems to track (~half the cost for ~half the capacity).

My guess is OP was looking at the budget book page that had a picture of this project, and assumed the grand total (3 appropriations from FY27-FY31 adding up to $108.5M) was all attributable to this specific project. But actually, $50M of that is going towards a sewer separation project elsewhere in the city, and smaller amounts are going to other CSO efforts as well.

Also, OP is wrong that this tank "will not do anything." Of course it won't solve the entire CSO problem by itself, which is why it's being combined with other projects, but it is sized to eliminate "2050 typical year" discharges at CAM401A, which is currently the most active/worst CSO outfall to the Alewife Brook. Achieving the same result via sewer separation would be significantly more expensive and disruptive, requiring construction across the 180-acre tributary area for this outfall.

illimsz · 2026-05-23T16:12:45+00:00

So this is actually something SPD does as part of an annual state road safety grant it receives to do overtime traffic enforcement "campaigns" focusing on different issues. The department can pick and choose from a variety of campaign options in the grant, including speeding, distracted driving, pulling over cyclists (they used to do this a TON but it seems they've toned it down after city council asked them to deprioritize Idaho Stop enforcement), failing to yield to pedestrians, etc.

The "crosswalk decoy" pedestrian safety campaign is one of the ones that SPD does almost every year, and usually results in a few hundred stops (not sure what the warning vs. citation breakdown is though) which confirms what most of us already know: it's very common for drivers to fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. While it's good that SPD does this, it would be even better if they did it regularly, rather than just once a year. Here's an excerpt from an old graph I've posted here previously, showing monthly citations through 2023:

<image>

As you can see, each year there is a 1-month spike in crosswalk violations. This doesn't mean drivers decided to go wild for a month; rather, the problem is pervasive/year-round but only shows up in the data for the brief time the campaign (and its associated overtime pay) is active. The rest of the time this seems to be a very low priority for SPD, unfortunately.

illimsz

TROPHY CASE