Affordable housing in residential enclaves, bigger towers imagined for overlay zoning
A draft of zoning rules that make it easier to put up affordable housing in residential areas, and for affordable housing projects to compete with builders of market-rate housing, should be on City Council desks by early March and headed for a vote, councillors told city staff Thursday.
With the proposed affordable housing overlay district beginning as a council order in October 2014, and with complaints that lower-income housing has continued to be clustered unfairly in the nearly four years since, council housing committee co-chairwoman E. Denise Simmons asked staff for a written timeline of “what do we need to do by when” to see the March deadline met – and said she was unhappy that the process had been slowed by becoming part of Envision Cambridge, the development master plan process now in its third and final year.
But experts in affordable housing were careful to warn against soaring expectations for passage of an affordable housing overlay district, even if it opened up new parts of the city to economic diversity. “It will not open the floodgates by any means, but even the few projects we might be able to achieve will be very significant progress toward [affordable housing] goals,” said Iram Farooq, assistant city manager for community development.
“This is not going to be the tsunami of affordable housing some of us hope for. It’s really money that’s the limiting factor” even if zoning is loosened, said Peter Daly, executive director of Homeowners Rehab Inc., a nonprofit developer of affordable housing. “But this is a tool [that could help].”
A “super-inclusionary” program would give residential developers building bonuses for up to double the amount of affordable space in the current inclusionary program – up to 40 percent – and make for bigger, more densely populated buildings along Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street, and in the Cambridge Highlands, Cambridgeport and East Cambridge.
For completely affordable projects, the zoning could allow conversion of any existing structure into multi-family housing; lower permitting hurdles by allowing as-of-right approvals, though with Planning Board and community input on design; let developers of affordable housing build denser, and with fewer required parking spaces; and allow multi-family and townhouse projects in residential areas. It’s difficult now to put up even a mid-rise, multifamily building that looks much like the rest of the neighborhood, because zoning has changed over time to decrease density in those neighborhoods. About 70 percent of structures in those neighborhoods couldn’t be built today, according to a Thursday presentation, which means an affordable project that follows current zoning would be too small to make back its money.
Chris Cotter, the CDD housing director, estimated that the city had looked at more than 50 possible sites for affordable housing with Homeowners Rehab Inc. and its fellow nonprofit, Just-A-Start, but had seen just three or four move forward without being quashed by financing or zoning complications. The overlay district could change that math, allowing for certainty in the number of units allowed and an easier path to completion.
“If we could take something like we’re talking about tonight and reduce the acquisition costs by $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000 a unit, that’s going to enable us to be competitive. We would have been able to grab some more of those [50] properties,” said Daly, of Homeowners Rehab Inc.
The overlay district, had it been in place several months ago, might even have allowed Just-A-Start to turn former Episcopal Divinity School property near Harvard Square into a mixed-income homeownership project, Farooq said. Instead, without the zoning in place “and significant risk associated with what would likely be a difficult permitting process, given the density needed to make the project feasible,” it went to Lesley University, as Farooq laid out in a Sept. 10 report to the council.
The lack of affordable housing in the Harvard Square area and in West Cambridge has long rankled councillors such as Tim Toomey. But councillor Quinton Zondervan said staying out of West Cambridge for bigger, denser buildings along corridors such as Massachusetts Avenue were worth considering if it meant hanging on to more trees and green space, which the city will need to handle the worst effects of climate change.
“Our tree canopy right now, it’s actually declining … and part of the reason is that we’re trading trees for buildings,” Zondervan said. “If we’re purely looking for the miracle goal of more housing, there are more sites to develop. There are one-story buildings on Massachusetts Avenue that could be 20-story buildings and we could numerically add tons of housing without decimating our tree canopy.”
Development officials said they were already aware of pushback the zoning would face from people who don’t want more density, traffic, lower property values or other issues they associate with having lower-income residents in the neighborhood – some cited Thursday sounding blatantly classist, such as the fear that “poor people bring rats” or even that “people will linger at the door” – that can be grouped under wanting to preserve character of a neighborhood.
“Sometimes ‘neighborhood character’ is a dog-whistle … it’s really about who’s going to move into this neighborhood,” said Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, a trustee of the city’s Affordable Housing Trust. “I do see this in terms of racial equity. If we don’t do it, I think it’s disgraceful.”
During public comment, resident Lee Farris spoke to neighborhood character as well as environmental concerns, saying she didn’t want to see older buildings and mature trees torn down in a rush to add affordable housing – but that getting more economic diversity throughout the city, especially through more affordable homeownership, wouldn’t change neighborhood character – it would be a return to what made the city so attractive in the first place “Many of these neighborhoods used to be more diverse before the huge increase in housing prices. We all remember a more diverse Cambridge,” she said. “People have been driven out.”
This Cambridge Day article is so one sided it feels like it was written expressly as part of a disinformation campaign.
No mention that CDD itself said at the Planning Board meeting that they do not expect that the affordable zoning overlay will add any affordable units to the city/
No mention of all the push back to this plan by neighborhood groups around the city from East Cambridge to Harvard Square to Fresh Pond.
No mention that the Planning Board was largely against it (3 opposed, including the chair; 2 said nothing; 1 for it (because it would force neighborhoods to see the importance of this housing)
No mention that the Planning board said that they would have no means to oversee design, because it is “as of right”
No mention that while the overlay is for affordable housing, if someone comes with a market rate proposal, there is NO WAY to stop it by the Planning Board because they cannot discriminate.
No mention that it will remove trees and green spaces
No mention that Cambridge is already ahead of other regional towns and we have already met our 2023 goals
No mention that HSNA voted unanimously against it.
No mention that HSNA voted unanimously against 11 PLUS story structures in historic Harvard Square.
No mention that this will pit one neighbor against another as properties are sold off for affordable housing.
No mention that this will ghettoize low income people in buildings without parking far away from the transport hub.
No mention that kids in these structures will know that they are in affordable housing only units and so will others around them since this calls for 100% affordable housing only.
No mention of the 8 point alternative document we have put together that I sent to the Planning Board AND to CD reporter John Hawkinson.
No mention that this is Cambridge doing affordable housing on the cheap – without any real $$ investment in it.
No mention that this is Envision “plan” put out without any statement as to HOW MUCH housing (both affordable and market rate) above the current regional goals the city feels they must add to meet regional and national desires to move to Cambridge.
No mention that their “scenarios” were put out without any citizen input.
No mention that what CDD expects to work best is additional FAR in the corridors – NOT with the zoning overlay.
No mention that Harvard Square is TOO expensive for anyone to want to put affordable housing there, even with incentives – much less the HUGE need to support affordable leases for local businesses.
No mention that this overrides current residential zoning regs – including the neighborhood conservation district rules intended to support preservation.
If you want to see how this plays out in your area we have mapped it out here:http://worldmap.harvard.edu/maps/harvardsquareassn
What she said. Neighborhoods have no recourse in height, density, design- all of which don’t necessarily have to affect the pursuit of affordable housing. What this “by right” overlay does is allows for shoddy building for the quick buck with poor materials and architecture. We know because we are fighting that even now. Not one word about historical districts which are protected as part of our national heritage. What about the garages in back yards being converted into units? Why do you want to throw the baby out with the bath water? Envision is treating Cambridge like a giant board game plopping moving pieces anywhere with no consideration of consequences. They keep saying this is just an exploratory, that if no one likes it or it doesn’t work they will stop it. “they don’t HAVE to do anything”. After all this time and money, by the time the plan gets to City council for a progress review, it is already in the pipe line to move forward. there is no recourse.