FNL
HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
MIT HomePage

Considering 100 Memorial Drive

Paul E. Gray

October 14, 2003

This note, provoked by the idea that MIT might subsidize rents for young faculty at the 100 Memorial Drive apartment building, is written to lay out some relevant facts and observations. Priscilla and I have lived at 100 Memorial Drive for 13 years; until 1997 in the penthouse, and since then in a twelfth-floor apartment. Thus, the following observations and comments come from an interested, but not necessarily unbiased, tenant.

Built in the mid-to-late forties, the building was sold in the mid-nineties, by New England Life (the developer) to a partnership in which Martin Trust, (MIT '58) is the general partner. The Cambridge Rent Control board had been very tough on owners and landlords for more than 25 years, and the price paid reflected that fact. As a consequence, the building deteriorated significantly and had a backlog of deferred maintenance when Martin Trust bought it.

A year or so after the sale the voters of the Commonwealth eliminated rent control. Since that time, the rent on our apartment (which we began renting in October '96 to hold it for our use commencing in July '97) has approximately tripled, in just seven years. The owners have put some money into the building, mostly for cosmetic improvements such as new carpets and paint in the public spaces, a renovated garden area, a play area for children, etc. More substantial renovations are difficult because of the design and construction of the building; corridors every third floor, reinforced concrete construction in the interior, 1940s wiring, heating and plumbing, single-glazed casement windows that leak air and rain, rooms small by present standards, no provision of air conditioning (except tenant-supplied window units), in-apartment laundry facilities not possible, limited storage space, etc.

Because of the demand-driven rapid escalation of rents, many retired MIT folks, some of whom had been tenants for many decades, have had to move out. They have been replaced primarily by students, who often double- or triple-up (or more). I had an advisee a couple of years ago who was renting a three-bedroom apartment with four other unrelated students! The willingness of students to arrange rent-sharing with others has been one of the factors that sustains the extraordinary rate of increase of rents. The sense of community that existed a decade ago is largely gone.

When the insurance company owned the building there was a provision in the ground lease from MIT that gave absolute first priority in rentals to MIT people. For many years Bill Dickson [former MIT executive vice president] maintained a list of interested persons who wished to move into the building. I assume that this privilege was retained when MIT consented to the sale and extended the ground lease to ca. 2024. No such list has been used recently, because the rent structure has left vacancies (note the "Now Leasing" banners on both the front and back of the building).

If the owners were to have an assured supply of subsidized faculty renters, their persistent instinct for higher rents, which they endeavor to justify by comparing the accommodations with "luxury housing" in the area would, I believe, be unbounded. I do not know how to reconcile this dilemma with the genuine need for more close-in housing for MIT people, particularly young faculty.

FNL
HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
MIT HomePage