Laws of supply and demand aren’t working for Cambridge housing; time to plan better
Cambridge has been changing rapidly over the past 10 to 15 years. Since the economic slowdown of the 1970s, former city manager Robert W. Healy’s constant focus on the bottom line has made us comparatively quite wealthy. But with more than 20,000 residents having been forced out of Cambridge, clearly something is wrong.
Cambridge is a great place to live. The universities and rich culture make this city very attractive. Empty nesters have been flocking here from their suburban homes; students stay after they graduate. Its proximity to Boston, attractive cityscape, quiet neighborhoods, great restaurants and well-funded public schools make it a really nice place to live. Add the city’s commitment to human rights and other issues, and it’s not surprising that so many people want to live here. But besides Cambridge’s superb quality of life, the one factor that has always driven people to come is jobs. Cambridge has attracted tech, biotech and pharmaceutical research companies, offering them an unmatched pool of highly educated professionals and support staff. Long gone are the days that we needed to attract business; now we can’t build fast enough to provide the insatiable hunger for commercial space.
It wasn’t long ago that Cambridge had been in an economic decline. The 1950s saw a sharp decline in domestic manufacturing, leaving the city with numerous abandoned factories; it wasn’t until the 1980s that things began to turn around. The city pursued corporations to locate here, offering various incentives, and by the 1990s we could see it working in areas such as Kendall Square, Fresh Pond and NorthPoint (now Cambridge Crossing). The city’s rezoning encouraged greater commercial density, and requests for even more were typically granted.
Back in the 1990s, the Cambridge Citizens for Livable Neighborhoods estimated that 1 million people wanted to move to Cambridge. By 2005, with the rapid expansion of biotech, the number has undoubtedly grown.
These changes in Cambridge’s real estate market made real estate agents giddy. Investors were eager to churn properties. Developers looked for zoning nuances to turn simple three-family, middle-income buildings into six luxury condos. Everyone thought they struck gold. Everyone – except the 20,000 who were forced out of their apartments.
“Build, build, build,” the industry shouted, claiming that the only solution was to harness the economic power of supply and demand – as if we were selling eggs. Building a few thousand high-priced condos with the belief that the law of supply and demand will somehow alleviate the problem is naïve. We cannot (and should not) fit 900,000 more people here. Furthermore, this strategy hasn’t worked anywhere in the United States.
Encouraging ever-increasing commercial development has exacerbated the problem. Traffic getting into Cambridge has become horrendous, and new employees who try to commute want to move here. The enormous influx of high-salary professionals has driven housing prices to ever-increasing levels. This places our housing stock beyond the reach of anyone who doesn’t earn six figures.
We also should not lose sight of what we want to preserve in our city. Do we want a Manhattan-style urban environment? Do we want round-the-clock gridlock traffic, dangerously crowded trains and overburdened city services?
Building more affordable housing is an admirable goal. But so far, we’ve added only a tiny handful of units. For every one we add, we’re losing five to 10 existing units. For example, while some celebrated the City Council’s “deal” to add 24 affordable units at East Cambridge’s former courthouse, they failed to see that this 500,000-square-foot commercial development will employ 3,000 people, approximately half of whom will seek local housing. The potential loss to middle-income people: 1,500 units.
At the same time, developers are making millions upon millions of dollars. It’s quite obvious that we’re being misled. The law of supply and demand isn’t applicable to housing, especially when the disparity is so huge.
Our leaders have a choice to make: Either Cambridge can continue with the same clearly failed policies, or we can be bold and adopt policies that stop or slow the rapid erosion of our middle-income housing. We don’t have to succumb to the developer-enriching real-estate grab, destroying swaths of our neighborhoods, choking the streets with never-ending traffic, placing even more people on our over-burdened transit system. We can do better.
Phillip Sego, Norfolk Street
Let me take a guess. The person advocating this is someone over 50 and a Cambridge homeowner who bought when Cambridge was cheap and now seeks to exclude young professionals like me from the chance to live in Cambridge as well. The 1 million number is a straw man, and it’s not an either or. We can and should build in the direction of more density.
The baby boomer generation is pushing exclusionary policies the restrict the additional housing that people in the younger generations desperately need. In the name of tree canopy and noise, force my peers to commute 45 minutes each way into Cambridge to work. People like us got our college education and found a good job. We refuse to back down or get excluded through exclusionary zoning in the name of the tree canopy, limited parking spaces or other BS.
Taguscove, the problems with Cambridge have no easy answer. I’m one of the over 50 crowd you want to single out as your oppressor. What is interesting about your response to Mr Sego is that you dismiss the very things that make Cambridge a unique and special place. Tree canopy, noise restrictions, and others. Let me add a few more for you, since you obviously know little about the city I adopted and raised a family in. A diverse community economically, racially, sexuality, education levels, etc. A wonderful mix of local bookstores, coffee houses, funky clothing stores, crappy dive bars and world class restaurants, as well as an incredible and diverse architecture. I’m not interested in arguing the positive and negative aspects of rent control but the end in Cambridge resulted in a tsunami of change, some good some not. Cambridge is becoming blander by the day and it is losing the charm that makes it unique. If you care to educate yourself I suggest you read Jane Jacobs the life and Death of Cities or by another author the Architecture of Nowhere for a much more articulate argument.
I bought my house in the early 80s and between the purchase and renovations spent under 200k if I was to slap a coat of paint on it I could sell for well over a million. Oddly, I find that obscene. What I also find obscene is that in order to find an affordable place of similar size I would need to move far out of the city.
What’s BS
Sorry premature posting. What’s BS, is the complete failure to improve the infrastructure. You complain about a 45 minute commute, take a bus or train. It often takes me as long to travel across my city.
Trust me, I do feel for you, but Phil and I aren’t the enemy. if you feel comfortable living in a box little better than the worst of Soviet housing, I can refer you to several real estate agents in Boston proper and East Boston
Trying to make this argument a personal attack ignores the facts.
First, Cambridge real estate has never been “cheap”. Our land costs have always been more expensive than surrounding communities, and the metro Boston area one of the highest in the country.
Second, the push for even more development is just bad policy. Urban planning standards recommend devoting 15-20% of land in cities to open space.
Cambridge only has 1/2 of that recommendation.
Cambridge has 17000 people per sq mile while Arlington has 8700, Watertown 8655 and Waltham 4900. These abutting towns have transit options to access our vibrant job opportunities and plenty of room to expand.
So continuing to ask for more development than Cambridge already has provided will just ruin the quality of life for everyone.
Funny we don’t see this younger generation excluded advocating in these other towns for more equity.
The author probably hasn’t visited Europe – the cities are built around city centers with public transportation. It has worked for centuries… Oh wait they probably have visited but don’t realize they are advocating for the exact opposite because of self-serving interests.
By not having more housing density near public transportation and where the jobs are located creates more travel time, more cars, more global warming, less family time… duh
As it turns out, if you look at the data, Cambridge is in the top 10 cities of the USA for population density. And already, right now, higher than many of those European cities. And definitely MUCH higher than European cities of our size. Not to mention that nearby cities in the greater Boston area could use more commercial development – which leads to higher housing demand. This problem is regional and Phil Sego’s piece outlines many of the complexities of the booming development we are living. Let’s discuss and debate solutions to these regional problems, instead of simplistically implying we should have no zoning.
As we know zoning’s history includes exclusionary and racist policies. Yet that is not all zoning. Some zoning was enacted to ensure thoughtful urban planning and design and prohibit things like liquor stores next to schools.
Patty, yes Cambridge is higher density (with all the good and bad that goes with it) which is why most of us choose to live here.
You mention zoning…Hopefully, this is one of the reasons you are running for city council! What happened in alewife with all the new apt buildings is a pathetic land grab with limited/no plan from the city and arguably built on wetlands for goodness sakes. The plan from the developers was clear – money.
There were so many opportunities for that space and its soo sad to have a pile of apt buildings with no community and it’s certainly not a mixed-use area. Why would anyone want to go there? You can’t drive past (you have plenty of time to think because the traffic that was bad is now horrible) and wonder what it could have been.
The votes for these apt buildings were almost unanimous approved by the c council. So you Patty and the other new c council members running couldn’t do worse than what has transpired. You have PRC’s my #1 Vote!!
We’re ALL “late to the table;” we arrived on this planet with laws, customs, norms, and expectations. Personally speaking, I accept that zoning was established to define the different uses of land. I don’t think that anybody wants a chemical factory to open next door– and defining appropriate land uses has been the primary tool used worldwide to stabilize communities and maintain quality of life. For those who wish to change a neighborhood to a significantly denser residential/commercial zoning, just remember that historically speaking, when density increases, housing prices don’t go down. Increases in housing density simply enrich developers and real estate speculators.
“just remember that historically speaking, when density increases, housing prices don’t go down.” Pretty ill-informed Phil…
Have you visited Detriot Akron Chicago etc?