Letter: Lamenting the Transformation of the McLellan Street Neighborhood
Photo: istock
The following letter was sent to the Amherst Town Council and the Amherst Planning Board on April 28, 2026.
As a longtime resident of downtown Amherst, Massachusetts, I am deeply concerned about the dissolution of our local community. It is undeniable that the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Five College Consortium are hubs of employment and culture that make the Valley a desirable place to raise a family. I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have grown up in the shadow of UMass, on McClellan Street.
After moving from North Village, UMass’ campus housing, to McClellan Street, I remember vividly the sense of community that defined my new home. There were so many children, many of whom would become lifelong friends. I can still picture waiting for the bus at the corner of McClellan and Beston Street with seven or eight other kids and my brothers. That memory now feels distant, almost obsolete. The bus no longer runs down McClellan, because there are no longer enough young children living on the street.
Growing up, my family understood that student rentals were part of the fabric of a college town. That balance once existed, and it was something the community actively worked to maintain. My brothers and I even participated in a local awareness campaign initiated by UMass Admissions called “We Live Here Too”, which aimed to bridge the gap between students and permanent residents and promote a sense of mutual respect. What we are experiencing now is something very different.
Today, likely more more than half of the homes on McClellan Street have been converted into rentals. What was once a neighborhood of families has gradually become dominated by transient occupancy. That shift didn’t happen overnight, but its effects are now impossible to ignore. The sense of continuity—the idea that neighbors know each other, look out for one another, and build a life together over time—has been steadily eroded.
Last year, hearing a local developer justify yet another rental on McClellan by stating he is exclusively “renting to girls” was deeply troubling. It felt not only discriminatory, but also like an acknowledgment that these changes are being pushed through despite community concern. Even more troubling is the quiet acceptance of this shift. Many of our neighbors are now elderly, and their homes, once filled with families, are at risk of being absorbed into a cycle of high-density, investor-driven rentals.
The changes behind McClellan Street are impossible to ignore. New construction has come at the cost of clear-cut land that once provided privacy, natural beauty, and peace. What was once a woodland buffer filled with evergreen trees and birdsong has become an open passageway into town. It is now common for groups of college students, often intoxicated, to walk directly through what used to be private backyards. I miss those trees. I miss the quiet. I miss the feeling that our neighborhood belonged to the people who lived in it.
Now, when I come back home, that sense of familiarity is gone. Instead, I feel as though I am being watched. There are six cars in the driveway next to us, and six more behind our house. The shrubs, crabtree, and flowering bushes have all been clear cut. I now understand that was to prepare the land for another development project, though at the time it was labeled as “cleaning up the property”. McClellan Street looks more and more like a parking lot. It is sad to see the local driving school try to navigate two way traffic when UMass is in session. One by one, family homes are being replaced as neighbors pass away or feel pressured to sell.
The scale and pace of this change have made the neighborhood feel unrecognizable. In my most recent visit home, I saw stakes marking out a new building site and heard from a neighbor that a developer plans to build another house on 68 McClellan, despite having previously, and publicly, promised not to. This new structure will sit directly beside my childhood home, squeezed between other rentals that took months to construct. If I could show what McClellan Street looked like twenty years ago compared to today, it would break anyone’s heart. Enough is enough.
I think of neighbors who spent their lives in these homes, one who proudly remained in her historic house until she no longer could, another who dreamed of passing her home on to a young family and tended a beautiful garden in her backyard. I think of the towering evergreens, the tree-lined street, and the sense of safety we felt playing outside all day. We never worried about strangers cutting through our yards or cars constantly turning around in our driveway, things that now happen daily.
Why are some neighborhoods protected while others are left to absorb this level of change? And how much student housing can we continue to build that offers little benefit to long-term residents, while contributing to rising housing costs driven by ongoing shortages?
If this is the future the Town of Amherst envisions for its downtown neighborhoods, then it is a decision it will have to live with. But we must ask: how many cars can our streets realistically support? Why are some neighborhoods protected while others are left to absorb this level of change? And how much student housing can we continue to build that offers little benefit to long-term residents, while contributing to rising housing costs driven by ongoing shortages?
I worry that when the time comes for families like mine to sell, the highest offer will come from a developer, and financially, there may be no real alternative. That reality should concern anyone who values the long-term stability of this community.
Growing up with an older brother with autism, I understand deeply that the importance of community cannot be overstated. Stability, familiarity, and connection are essential. The increasing transience of the population—while not the fault of the students themselves (I proudly attended UMass as well)—has turned neighbors into strangers. It has eroded the sense of belonging that once defined this place.
I recognize that the town has taken steps to address housing challenges, including efforts to expand supply and adjust zoning policies. But from where many of us stand, those efforts are not doing enough to preserve the balance that once allowed neighborhoods like this to thrive.
If the town is serious about protecting its community, it must take a more intentional approach—one that acknowledges that not all housing development serves the same purpose, and not all growth benefits the community equally. I urge the town to consider the following actions:
- Enforce existing occupancy limits in a meaningful and consistent way
- Create incentives that prioritize owner-occupants and discourage investor-driven purchases
- Place limits on the conversion of single-family homes into high-density student rentals
- Protect remaining green space, prevent unchecked clear-cutting, and prioritize planting rather than removing trees
- Establish zoning protections that preserve affordable, family-oriented neighborhoods
- Develop a long-term housing strategy that supports non-student residents and year-round community stability
Ideally, I would like to see a moratorium on new rental housing developments on McClellan Street. This is not about opposing students or denying the importance of UMass and the Five College Consortium. They are central to what makes this region vibrant. But a healthy college town requires balance.
Without meaningful action, we risk losing more than just century-old trees and carefully tended gardens. We risk losing the continuity of community itself, the relationships, the shared history, and the chance for future families to experience what so many of us once had. And once that is gone, it will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to bring back. Sincerely,
Devon Glennon
Devon Glennon grew up in Amherst, graduated from UMass, and is now a Program Specialist at the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Labor & Workforce Development.
This is a well written and thought out article, and I do appreciate the sentiment towards wanting to preserve community and have a more permanent year-round population in Amherst, but this individualistic (dare I say NIMBY) mindset is exactly what has gotten Massachusetts and the region into the housing crisis. Amherst has 1/3 of its land permanently preserved in agriculture and forest, another 1/3 owned by the colleges (much also in farm/forest) and another 1/3 in private unrestricted use (which still includes some farms/forests). Amherst is not going to lose its rural qualities because of proactive planning from prior generations. It is now up to the town to determine how to overcome the issue of building enough housing to alleviate market pressures that have caused the town to have the most expensive real estate in the valley. I understand this article is specifically about McClellan street, but people have the same knee jerk reaction as you to any change in Amherst and the region as a whole. It is why it is so incredibly difficult to build anything, and directly translates to higher prices. Change and development is a constant, and is something that should be embraced, not shunned for some time gone by. Amherst is not a museum, it is a burgeoning city and beacon for the region as a whole. Again, I appreciate your perspective from this article, but I encourage you to think about the magnified effect of hundreds or thousands of people having the same conception of change and growth on any individual neighborhood (in your case, McClellan st.) across the region and how that negatively affects development of housing for the next generation.
How about UMass building 5,000 bed s on campus for students? Students want to be on campus, more beds will take pressure off of neighborhoods, fewer cars will be on the road…the list of benefits goes on. The Master Plan calls for mixed neighborhoods and density in town and village centers, not every street near UMASS.
Great letter reflecting. I believe, the sentiments of most year round residents. I am personally facing potentially having student housing on both sides of my house. Orchard Valley is another place that is highly threatened due to being the lowest priced housing in Amherst. Zoning protections for those neighborhoods, and housing a lot more students on campus are obvious answers that have been ignored for years. And dorms on campus that are public private partnerships, structured to be taxable. That is a win-win-win. Always favoring developers in our decision-making is making the town both unaffordable and unappealing.
Well said Craig!
When housing is a rare commodity it will fetch a higher price and investors almost always win when it comes to price competition!
It would be nice if UMASS did house more students on their campus but wishful thinking is not a coherent strategy for the town to deal with our problems. People have been trying to force UMASS to house more students for decades, how is that working out? If they ever come, those additional beds will not help with our financial problems. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore our problems and try to shift the responsibility to UMASS.
This letter illustrates the larger problem that we face as a town, and as a nation. We have not built any meaningful number of homes for the last 40 years or so, especially not since the 2008 financial crisis. Housing pressure is like a balloon, it will keep expanding and pushing outward from the center until it is relieved or bursts under its own inability to handle the pressure.
Hi Craig, thanks for your thoughtful comment! I agree Amherst NEEDS more housing, but I feel as though labeling concerns like mine as potentially “NIMBY” shelves what’s I am trying to get across.
The change has already happened in my backyard. It’s about the form that change is taking and its real impacts on neighborhoods. UMass continues to grow at record rates, so it’s fair to ask how the town of Amherst will advocate for its residents and manage that dynamic. I believe that the rental development on McClellan exacerbates the housing crisis. When new or converted units are geared toward high-end student rentals (just check out the cars they drive), they don’t ease pressure for families or long-term residents. Most, if not all, of these new developments are owned by the same couple of individuals/development companies.
I can’t point to a single case of a new home being built and sold to a family there. The incentives favor renting by the bedroom, not creating stable, owner-occupied housing, and that has consequences we’re feeling now. I’m fully in support of building more housing for families and long-term residents in addition to strategically placed student housing. I know this isn’t limited to McClellan since we’re already seeing signs of families being priced out of the town in the declining public school enrollment.
I think considering the broader structure of preserved/college owned land in Amherst that you brought up is super important. With that context, it raises a fair question about how much responsibility institutions like UMass and the other colleges should take in helping address housing pressures they significantly contribute to. Otherwise, the burden of “growth” for student housing falls disproportionately on a shrinking slice of residential neighborhoods near campuses.
And looking forward, I do think about the cumulative effect this has on future generations. We’re not far from a time where streets like McClellan are entirely student housing. If that’s the direction the town collectively chooses as a tradeoff for hosting a major university, that’s one thing.
I understand that Amherst isn’t the same town it was 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago. But recognizing that change has happened doesn’t mean it’s been for the best. Sure, Amherst is growing but that isn’t being reflected (at least downtown) by new families or longterm residents moving in. Maybe it’s a catch-22 because more housing needs to go up to match the demand, but the type of housing going up downtown is definitely not helping the issue.
My concern isn’t about trying to turn the clock back, it’s about whether the direction we’re moving in is creating a more balanced, livable community over time, especially for long-term residents and future generations.
I agree that housing supply matters, but it is also important to be clear about what tools the Town of Amherst actually has, and where the real leverage lies.
Under Massachusetts law, Amherst cannot dictate who buys a home or prohibit corporations or investors from purchasing property. What the Town can regulate is use, occupancy, and intensity, and Amherst already has bylaws aimed at exactly this. For example, the zoning bylaw limits occupancy in single-family neighborhoods to no more than four unrelated individuals living together, and requires special permits for certain changes in use or density. The Town also has a rental registration and inspection program, which, if consistently enforced, is one of the most effective ways to curb high-impact, absentee-owned rentals.
The challenge is less about the absence of tools and more about how they are applied. When occupancy limits are not enforced, or when conversions of single-family homes into high-occupancy rentals proceed incrementally, neighborhoods can shift in ways that are difficult to reverse. That is a land use issue, not simply a question of “resisting change.”
It is also important to recognize that the student housing market operates differently from the broader housing market. Adding more off-campus, high-occupancy rentals does not necessarily improve affordability for families or year-round residents, and can in fact accelerate the conversion of existing homes into investor-driven rentals, as we’ve already experienced.
At the same time, a major driver of this pressure is the limited supply of on-campus housing. University of Massachusetts Amherst enrolls tens of thousands of students, many of whom are housed off campus in surrounding neighborhoods. Because the university is state-controlled and largely tax-exempt, the Town cannot require it to house more students directly. However, Amherst can and should use the tools it does have, including zoning, permitting, and negotiations tied to infrastructure and expansion, to press for better alignment between enrollment and housing capacity.
None of this is about opposing development. It is about ensuring that development is intentional, that it matches infrastructure and environmental constraints, and that it serves the long-term stability of the community. Amherst does not need less planning, it needs more precise planning that distinguishes between types of housing and their impacts.
The goal should not be to stop change, but to shape it so that it supports both new residents and the long-term health of the neighborhoods that make Amherst a livable place.
There is also a broader planning issue here. Infrastructure, roads, water, sewer, emergency services, and environmental systems all have limits. Development that is driven primarily by short-term market demand, without fully accounting for these long-term costs, can create financial and environmental burdens that outlast the immediate benefit of new units. Clear-cutting remaining green space, increasing impervious surfaces, and intensifying traffic in areas not designed for it are not abstract concerns, they are measurable impacts.
Amherst does have a strong legacy of land conservation, as you note. But that makes the remaining developable areas even more consequential. The question is not whether rural character disappears overnight, it is how incremental decisions accumulate. Once neighborhoods lose tree cover, density balance, and long-term residency patterns, those changes are effectively permanent.
Framing concerns like those raised in the original letter as simply “NIMBY” risks overlooking legitimate planning questions. Communities function best when there is a balance between renters and owners, students and non-students, density and open space, institutional needs and local quality of life. When that balance tips too far in one direction, it affects not just aesthetics or nostalgia, but safety, cohesion, and long-term affordability.
This is ultimately about responsibility to future generations. Not just to provide housing, which is essential, but to ensure that what we build contributes to a livable, sustainable, and inclusive community over time.
Development is necessary. But so is intention.
Jason, Amherst has been in a building boom for the past 10 years–our town has built more housing than any surrounding town. Look around you ?At University Drive, University Drive South, on Route 9 going towards Hadley, Olympia Drive, Amherst Center, the Mill District, East Amherst. More projects on University Drive, East Amherst on Route 9, East Street School and on Olympia Drive.
Craig & Jason, we get you want more housing. What you don’t address are the complications, the continued issues neighborhoods are facing with today’s policies and lack of enforcement. As Darcy is soon to be, we are already surrounded by rentals. An example I would like you to address is this: Two rentals where there should be 4 cars, usually have 6. A soon to be duplex will house 8. So in very close proximity that’s 20 cars, in and out of the neighborhood at all hours before the friends come for sleepovers. We’ve had students next to us, the 46 years we’ve lived here.Please provide some real answers to existing issues that neighborhoods like ours, Darcy’s and Devon’s have that just building more housing won’t solve. We as tax paying households have to follow the rules, but deserve the same from our neighbors whoever they may be.
Janet,
This “building boom” is a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual need. Yes, there have been some new units built recently but there is nowhere near enough new building to provide the housing that is desperately needed. Each one of the projects you listed are multi-family projects. Those types of projects are needed but they can’t be the only type that get built. Where are the single family homes? Where are the smaller homes built for families? 1 University Drive is 45 units, 11 East Pleasant is 90 units, 26 Spring Street is 58 units, One East Pleasant is 136 units, Kendrick Place is 36 units, Boltwood Place is 12 units, South East Commons is 57 units, Olympia Place was 75 units, Olympia Oaks was 42 units, Mill District is 130 units. That’s 681 units in ten years, 564 that are still standing. Those are very low numbers for a town that has been pretty steadily growing. According to the Housing Production Plan in the (relatively) same time frame (2010-2020) the town saw an increase in population of 1,444 people. Even if the number of units that were built in the last 10 years would have housed everyone that came to town in the same timeframe, it wouldn’t have met the backlog of housing units that are needed. “Look around you” why do you think there are 6 – 8 people living in a 4 bedroom house? Why are single family homes being purchased by investors? It’s because investors can make a ton of money jacking up the rent for students that have nowhere else to go, are captive, and are willing to live in a crowded house. If there were ample places for students to live, there wouldn’t be the pressure for the very few houses that come up for sale each year and there wouldn’t be the incentive to cram as many people into a house as they can.
Jeff,
I agree that enforcement is important. Having policies in place is also important but policy and enforcement are not magic. Building more is the answer. Building more of everything. More available homes give renters and home buyers more leverage and power and reduce the potential profit motive for investors. I don’t understand how this seems to be a controversial opinion. Housing is a rare commodity and it will fetch a high price, it will always be attractive to investors as long as there is limited supply. This is just a basic economic principle. I get that people want UMASS to do something, I get that the changing neighborhoods can be very disheartening to see. But I’ll ask you why you think these neighborhoods are changing? Why can’t students find places to live that are closer to campus, or on campus, or in larger apartments in the down town or town centers? It is because those places haven’t been built. Everybody seems to understand that building more housing on campus will ease the pressure on our existing housing stock, but a rather large group of people don’t seem to understand that same principle also works if more housing gets built throughout the town as well.
As far as all the cars are concerned, and a “real answer” to an existing problem, the town should require Residential Parking Permits in all of the neighborhoods around the down town and UMASS. Those residential permits should cost $100/year for all residents who register their cars in Amherst and pay the excise tax. If the residents car is not registered in Amherst the permit should cost $1,500. No more than 4 vehicles can be registered to one address. If all the cars are parked on the property, require that all vehicles be parked on an impervious, paved surface. Then enforce it!
I want to make sure that it is also understood that I don’t just want more housing, I want more tax revenue. I want more teachers in our schools and not having to fight every year for a budget. I want our DPW workers, and all town employees, to be paid a living wage and be able to actually afford to live in town. I want our damn streets to be paved and maintained. I want our town to be able to build things like a new fire station, new DPW facility (or the two combined), maintain our trails and open space, build new green infrastructure, protected bike lanes, provide senior services, fund CRESS, fund all of the programs we want as a progressive town. The only way we can achieve any of this is by increasing our revenue through property taxes. New housing is not just about people having a place to live, it also funds the town, the schools, and helps to make Amherst such a desirable place to live.
Some more considerations:
Of the many towns and cities in Western Mass, Amherst is one of only 2 that has achieved the 10% Chapter 40B affordable‑housing (SHI) goal (us at 12.81% subsidized housing, Great Barrington = 11.14% – all others are below the goal. So it might make sense to have some of those catch up, which will relieve some pressure on us.
Amherst has a density of 1459 people per square mile. All these towns are less dense, have not met their affordable housing goal, and are not a huge commute to UMass: South Hadley (1,010), Northampton (910), Hadley (227), Belchertown (291), Granby (217), Hatfield (207), Deerfield (~200), Montague (~300), Greenfield (~700), Whately (~150), South Deerfield (~400, using Deerfield’s town density as proxy), Pelham (~100), Leverett (~80), Shutesbury (~70), Conway (~40), Williamsburg (97), Wendell (~25), Turners Falls (~800, using Montague’s denser village area as proxy)
In the United States, adult workers average a one-way commute of approximately 27 minutes, while college students face longer, variable travel times of 30 to 50 minutes. So is it realistic to expect that almost anyone who wants to live in Amherst will be able to do so? (when I worked at UMass, in Continuing & Professional Ed, I was 1 of 2 people who lived in Amherst, of the 40ish staff. Amherst was seen as too expensive for many, but I don’t remember any protest that they had some right to live in the town they worked in.
Amherst is unusual even among college towns because the town itself has evolved into an extension of UMass rather than a distinct, balanced community that simply hosts a university. The sheer number of students relative to the official population means campus rhythms, needs, and expectations set the tone for housing, business patterns, and daily life, while families and long‑term residents make up a much smaller share of the whole. In Ithaca, Burlington, and Orono, the universities are central but still sit within a more robust year‑round population and regional economy, so the town retains a clearer identity of its own, whereas Amherst’s governance, economy, and public priorities are now heavily framed through the lens of the university’s presence.
College is entering a slow‑burn crisis in which rising prices, shifting student preferences, demographic decline, gender imbalance, and AI disruption compound each other. Tuition is at or near record highs and still feels unaffordable and risky for many families, even as doubts grow about whether the earnings premium justifies the cost. At the same time, more Northeastern and Midwestern students are choosing Southern universities for lower tuition, better aid, and warmer climates, draining demand from high‑cost institutions in colder regions. The “demographic cliff” from the post‑2008 birth slump is shrinking the supply of traditional‑age students just as overall enrollment has already fallen. Within that smaller pool, men are opting out of college at much higher rates, leaving campuses disproportionately female and creating a long‑term social tension: highly educated women are markedly less likely to partner with men who lack degrees, another ticking time bomb for family formation and stability. Meanwhile, AI is both undermining traditional knowledge work and offering alternative, lower‑cost ways to learn, credential, and upskill outside the classic four‑year campus model. If colleges treat each trend as a separate headache instead of an interconnected system—cost, migration, demographics, gender, AI, and social spillovers—they will overbuild for students who never come, cling to unsustainable pricing, ignore non‑college paths and AI‑enabled learning, and walk blindly into failure. Institutions that want to survive will have to plan for the whole picture, not just tweak yesterday’s model.
So if I were a builder thinking of the multigenerational wealth I’m creating with more private dorms or buying up single family homes, I’d look down the road a bit.
Our problems as a college town are many. It doesn’t help that the dialog is so toxic and unproductive.
Just to clarify – Jason Dorney accurately states that between the 2010 and 2020 U.S. Census, Amherst’s population did increase by 1,444 residents. All of that growth was in District 4 (I believe in what is now Precinct 4B). The Commonwealth College dorms, which opened in August 2013, account for ~1,300 of those 1,444 new residents. Of the remaining 144 residents not living in the Commonwealth College dorms, the Census recorded them living in the precinct adjacent to campus. During that same ten year period (between 2010 and 2020), a number of houses in Precinct 4B transitioned from single-family homes to houses rented to students. All to say, it’s probably not going out on a limb to assume that the 1,444 residents who comprise the town’s population growth between 2010 and 2020, are not year-round, non-student households.
After living in our beloved home on McClellan Street for 23 years, we felt forced out by the realization that we were surrounded by student rentals – neighbor houses that had been single family homes. The neighborhood had been a mix of multigenerational family homes, including elders, young families, and some student rentals. Along with another long-time family, we founded the monthly neighborhood brunch in the mid-90’s, that I believe is still a thriving community event. Back then, the students would be invited to participate in these monthly brunches and learn what it was like to live, as adults, in a neighborhood where people looked out for each other and shared many things. We benefitted from many student babysitters, and they benefitted from our friendly support.
The balance shifted as these single-family homes got bought up, above asking price, by developers who often were irresponsible about maintaining guidelines for their tenants. Emotionally, it came to feel like we were living in a constant keg party. And, when we sadly tried to sell our house, it took a year to sell at a much-reduced price.
We are happy in our new digs in North Amherst. We are also feeling relieved to no longer live downtown, as it has changed so much since those days. Yes, change is inevitable, but reflecting on what is lost is important, too.
Thank you, Marcie and Devon,
I don’t think we should accept that this change is inevitable, just because some developers and their friends want it to be so. More zoning protections would prevent it. And some towns who want to discourage this type of thing have a 2 or 3 person limit on renters.
The new majority on our council should make sure the planning board is more balanced in members who advocate for year round residents when filling any new seat. Seven of them signed the petition to the Chancellor to house more students on campus. Make sure you thank them (Walker, Cano-Martin, Brevik, Rooney, Taub, Schoen, Lord).
We left Amherst three years ago after thirty-three years living on Shumway St. When we left, ours was the only owner-occupied house on the street. I don’t know if it still is.