Instead of Affordable Housing Overlay revision, Cambridge needs affordable-housing strategy
The Cambridge City Council Housing Committee will discuss Wednesday a radical proposal to revise the Affordable Housing Overlay. The proposal, put forth in November by four city councilors – Marc McGovern, Burhan Azeem, E. Denise Simmons and Quinton Zondervan – is alarming. It would allow 13-story buildings on 13 corridors across the city, up to 25 stories in Porter, Harvard and Central squares, and would remove setback, parking and other current requirements.
The lack of public transparency and sound analysis behind this proposal renders it completely illegitimate from the start, and we ask that it be thrown out in its entirety. It is a radical, poorly formulated proposal that seems designed to provoke and inflame division. The proponents appear to be motivated by a combination of political naiveté, believing that such a drastic policy action can be executed by unilaterally making track changes on a document; and political cynicism, believing that starting from such a wildly over-the-top position will allow negotiating down to an apparent “compromise” on increased building heights.
We encourage the Housing Committee to hit the reset button.
A sound analysis and citywide discussion is needed to evaluate the performance of the AHO to date. It has been in place for just over two years, and during that time six projects have been approved. A logical starting place would be an analysis of the results compared with expectations, a discussion of barriers that exist for projects that didn’t go through and an examination of where the opportunities lie for more affordable-housing development in Cambridge.
We urge our City Council to develop a clearly defined, publicly supported affordable-housing strategy for our city. The multitude of ideas and recommendations generated through Envision Cambridge have never been formally adopted nor implemented. Different groups are pursuing conflicting goals based on fiercely held assumptions. Our city needs to develop a long-term strategy for increasing affordable housing, advanced in partnership with residents and urban design experts and leveraging the innovations and best practices from communities around the country and the world. Our city’s affordable-housing strategy should include numeric targets, budget allocations and an implementation plan that draws on diverse approaches to increasing housing stock – including using vacant and underutilized city properties, buying existing buildings or units and using vouchers and subsidies, as well as creating well-designed new construction.
With strong council leadership, Cambridge can become a role model for innovative, inclusive housing strategies rather than reverting to the 1970s-style high-rise approach this proposal advocates. Let’s reject this radical proposal and start from a place of transparency, analysis and comprehensive planning.
Lisa Dreier, Susan Frankle, Michael Kennedy, Gus Rancatore, Margaret Rueter and Merry White, members of North Walden Neighbors
HelloCambridge, 2072 Mass Ave is not and was not city-owned land. It was bought by private developers with a mortgage loan from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. Even though Massachusetts is a title theory state, we do not customarily consider a mortgage lender to be the owner.
Just to clarify, it is important to know the difference between Historic Districts and Conservation Districts in Cambridge. It appears that the area of Harvard Square where this rendering is situated is within the Conservation District. There is a map is available at the red tab here: https://www.harvardsquareneighborhood.org/maps.html
@Suzanne Preston Blier
Here are some facts.
The local economy depends on workers of all types, clerks, servers, barristas, firefighters, nurses, etc. They can’t work remotely. Businesses and local governments can’t fill these positions if there are no good housing options for them.
There is not a glut of office space in Cambridge that can be converted to housing. Do you know of any? That is just a half-baked idea you are tossing out there.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
The distinction between the Historic and Conservation Districts is not important
What’s important is that you can’t just put a 25-story building in the middle of Harvard Square.
What’s important is knowing that when you use an image of a 25-story building in Harvard Square, you are lying to people.
What’s important is the distinction between truth and mendacity.
I don’t see why anyone would believe anything the authors say.
They lied with that image.
They called raising the height limit “not well thought out”. In fact, it has been studied and endorsed by urban planning experts.
They proposed alternatives that they have previously rejected.
It is bad enough that they would deny families homes but they are doing so with lies, misleading statements, and half-baked ideas.
These NIMBYs don’t really care about the city. If they did, they would care about the truth.
And to the people who say that Cambridge is just for the wealthy now and we have to accept it…
Please point to me on a map where the nearest town is that someone earning $15/hr can live. Do you honestly expect people working minimum wage to commute that distance and time, just to work a minimum wage job… a job that will probably be available in whatever far flung town they can afford?
Just so cruel.
Frank I hear you, and would point out that this image was created by a developer (on his own) based on the language of the AHO zoning petition amendment that specifically targets Harvard Square (and several others). If 25 story structures cannot be built in Harvard Square, why would the drafters of this petition have specifically stated that this was their goal/intent? Reality and facts please.
I am really startled by letter.
We are in a housing crisis “without precedent”. People need housing now. The city need workers of all incomes.
Raising the height requirements to allow increased density is an obvious solution. Other cities are doing the same.
This anti-development NIMBY attitude created the housing crisis to begin with.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/zoning-housing-affordability-nimby-parking-houston/661289/
It is hard to think of anything more selfish than denying housing to families because you like your city as is. It is incredibly short-sighted because it wrecks havoc on the local economy, among other problems.
https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/01/13/795427706/why-the-housing-crisis-is-a-problem-for-everyone-even-wealthy-homeowners
The affordable housing crisis is everywhere. We are in this together. We all need to do our part. The authors’ suggestion that we make development decisions based on local input is a sure-fire way to halt development. NIMBYs will always say “somewhere else”.
That is clearly the motivation of this group. Stop development. This “we need more discussion” is just a way to do that.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
Reality and facts.
There is nothing in the AHO zoning petition that “targets” Harvard Square. That is a claim made up by this group. Don’t hide behind the opinion of some unnamed “developer”. That is smoke and mirrors.
The AHO zoning petition will *not* suddenly allow 25-story buildings to be built in Harvard Square. All developments still have to be approved and are subject to the Harvard Square Conservation District.
Stop misleading people. Denying workers and their families housing is reprehensible enough without the mendacity.