I will never get over how disingenuous it is that Cambridge uses "open space" (technically "private open space") as a euphemism for lot coverage maximums
Every Lot in Cambridge @everylotcambma
30 Jun 2019
78 Dana St - Condo building. Built 1901. 2555 sqft lot. 3 properties. Current assessment: $2.2M. Non-conforming (density, lot size/unit, open space, setbacks). google.com/maps/search/?api=… cambridgema.gov/propertydata…
2
1
12
Whether or not you agree with it, the "open space" movement originally meant, like, preventing a guy from building a subdivision near a pretty mountain, not making sure every home has a backyard
1
11
Replying to @JakeAnbinder
Palo Alto has "private open space" (often balconies) and "common open space" requirements. City council debated a few months ago if roof decks could count towards common open space; they now can, *unless* they're on the second floor, thanks to one persistent NIMBY councilmember.

Jun 30, 2019 · 10:27 PM UTC