Skyward Affordable Housing Overlay changes receiving plenty of process, councillor assures
Construction at an affordable-housing project in North Cambridge seen Dec. 1. (Photo: Marc Levy)
City councillor debate over changes to affordable-housing zoning was bumped to March after long and impassioned public comment took up much of a hearing last week.
That suits officials endorsing the changes – called “radical in the sense that it is bold” by councillor Marc McGovern – who have been underlining the openness of a new Affordable Housing Overlay zoning process after residents learning of the proposal last year said they felt “blindsided.”
The discussion came at a Tuesday hearing of the Housing Committee.
For projects under the AHO, meaning that they are entirely affordable housing, buildings of up to 25 stories would be allowed in some of the city’s squares; along major corridors, what were up to six-story buildings in the current zoning could be nine stories, and what were up to seven-story buildings could go as high as 13. In squares and corridors designated by the overlay, floor-area ratios will be eliminated. allowing for denser development. In terms of the rules for open space, side and front setbacks will be eliminated entirely, like in business districts, and rear setbacks too unless the height of the building is less than four stories, in which case setbacks are set at 15 feet.
“The basic idea is to allow more height in exchange for more open space … If you can build a taller building, you can take up less space on the surface,” councillor Quinton Zondervan said, while councillor Burhan Azeem stressed that the 25-story height would be for “a few very, very specific places” close to overlapping transit options.
The set of amendments “does a few specific things that try to make the AHO work,” Azeem said.
Public comment
People for and opposed to the amendments made impassioned statements during public comment.
“I am very opposed,” said Annamarie Flynn, a Cambridge resident. “I think that we need our fresh air, we need our sunshine, and I don’t think we need to impose all these new buildings and more people on those of us that have lived here for years and years and don’t want to move. I like my Cambridge the way it is.”
Alan Sadun, a Cambridge renter, said he is for the amendments and the more cost-effective “medium and large-scale housing” it can bring in taller buildings that are an option, not a requirement.
“The more options we give ourselves, the more we’ll be able to play offense and not just beg for scraps in terms of affordable-housing sites,” he said.
Those opposed to the amendments said residents weren’t consulted before they were brought before City Council in November.
“It was developed in a very untransparent and undemocratic manner, in secret in consultation with housing developers and then dropped like a bomb on the City Council before Thanksgiving,” said Lisa Dreier, another resident.
Longer proces to come
The proposed amendments were developed in consultation with affordable-housing developers, who mentioned flexibility with heights, setbacks and floor-area ratios as important, Azeem said. On Tuesday, affordable housing-developers including the Cambridge Housing Authority, Just a Start and HRI expressed their support for the amendments.
“These amendments not only allow us to be a little more competitive in the market, but we think that we can bring better projects to the table,” said Michael Johnston, executive director of the Cambridge Housing Authority.
Azeem also said that it this is the “beginning of the process” for amending the zoning. Another Housing Committee hearing and one by of the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning committee are expected. From there, if no other preliminary committee meetings are needed, he said, an Ordinance Committee meeting and the Planning Board process are to follow.
“There is a very very lengthy, monthslong process that is still ahead of us for anyone who wants to give input,” Azeem said.
A Housing Committee hearing is scheduled for March 8. If possible, they could “squeeze a meeting in before then,” said E. Denise Simmons, chair of the committee. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee meeting has not been scheduled, but chair Dennis Carlone has asked for it to be scheduled.
People denying other people affordable housing because “I like my Cambridge the way it is”. I can’t think of any more selfish than that.
It just goes to show, when you are used to privilege, equality looks like oppression to you.
These rich homeowners feel blindsided.
I wonder how the people pushed out of our community felt as their city government refused to do anything to help.
A proposal by elected city councilors fully reflecting policy that they campaigned on. Likely spanning over half a year with hours of public debate. “I FEEL SO BLINDSIDED, WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY!”
It’s time to be less selfish and open Cambridge up to thoughtful design and new residents. Cambridge should do better than become a country club for the rich and privileged
Wow. Can you believe these self-entitled, privileged, people? They would deny others homes because they like things the way they are.
This NIMBY attitude is not just morally reprehensible, it is bad for Cambridge. The lack of affordable housing is a drag on local economies.
https://www.habitat.org/costofhome/housing-affordability-and-economy
Plus, there are benefits. “Moreover, each dollar invested in affordable housing boosts local economies by leveraging public and private resources to generate income—including resident earnings and additional local tax revenue—and supports job creation and retention.”
https://nlihc.org/explore-issues/why-we-care
But no, these NIMBYs like things as they are. So everyone has to pay for the consequences of their selfishness.
What equality when a person who has live in their house for 40 plus years, endured rat infestations, drug use on the front steps, dog crap on the sidewalks etc etc….. only to then endure two plus years of noisy, disruptive construction with the end result being more rat infestations, loss of sunlight, and further congestion of narrow streets and already over-loaded public transit?
Many of us retired “rich” homeowners struggle with increasing utility costs and maintenance costs for those rat infestations.
It IS a privilege to live in Cambridge…but it is not a right.
But hey, these issues play well when trying to get elected.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury”
@Sam Noubert
Typical NIMBY alarmist hyperbole. And a little disturbing.
Families are looking for affordable housing. Workers. Nurses, firefighters, restaurant workers, clerks, etc. You know, the people who make the city work. But they are somehow associated with “drug use” and “dog crap”? I guess we know where your sentiments lie.
When lower-income people have trouble finding affordable housing, it starves the local economy. Businesses have to raise wages to attract workers to work far from home. When people spend more of their money on housing, they have less to spend on local restaurants, shops, bars, etc. It is difficult to attract and retain workers when they have to live far from work.
This is not speculation. It is happening. All over. Google it.
As far as “enduring construction”. Cities change. There will be construction regardless of whether or not the zoning law changes.
People who lived in Cambridge before you also complained about change. Yet, you are here. I guess it’s OK to take away the ladder once you are aboard.
As far as the roads, the affordable housing plans help with congestion and traffic. The population of Cambridge is rising 1% per year. People will move here one way or another. The planned affordable housing projects are near public transit. That will *remove* cars from the road.
@taguscove +1
The AHO has been in the works for years. Council members campaigned on it. There were public meetings and debate.
This “lack of transparency” is just another delay tactic. It is false and straight out of the NIMBY playbook. Use any means to delay, make demands, hope the developers give up.
Cambridge can do better than this selfishness. We need to provide a community for people of all incomes, not just for priviledged and self-entitled.
Shame on you people.
@FrankD …. yes….FAMILIES are looking….so explain to me how studios, one bed, and two beds help FAMILIES.
We can build these 25-story buildings with no parking requirements when we have the infrastructure to support them. Right now, we have 1-way streets where residents fight for street parking and clogged main streets because we have a sh**ty public transportation system. Add a hi-rise here, another hi-rise there, and now you have additional 400 cars looking for a place to park at night and move during the day.
Easy for politicians to get elected by saying – we need more housing. But they are ineffective in executing the groundwork that could support more housing.
Cambridge doesn’t run the MBTA, so we can’t just conjure up better operations. But I take the T on a regular basis, and it’s more than functional enough to support the increase in ridership from as many affordable homes as Cambridge can possibly add to its pipeline—plus there are plenty of jobs in all parts of Cambridge to which residents of these affordable homes would have access (and where many likely work already).
Some of these squares and corridors under consideration for inclusion are adjacent to the new Union Square station. People moving to that neighborhood may no longer choose to have a car in the future. But somehow the permanent detractors never mention that huge infrastructure improvement.
In fact, it always seems like people who never ride the T are the most eager to declare it dead. But before Covid, the supposed problem was that it was overcrowded! I guess since that issue has been solved, we should be all set! Residents of new homes can help offset the post-pandemic loss of ridership and improve the T’s finances.
@EastCamb Stop with the alarmist nonsense. Read the AHO and the plans. Read this article. You have your facts wrong.
There is no plan to build a hi-rise “here and there”. The plan is to build new 25-story affordable housing developments in *specific* places, near public transportation.
If more people live near public transportation, that will remove cars from the road. In fact, this is one of the stated goals of the development plans.
If we don’t offer workers affordable housing in town, they will drive in from the surrounding areas and that will *add* cars to our roads.
I use public transportation and so do many others. Most of the people moving around Cambridge do without cars. (Look it up on the Cambridge gov website). So, your characterization of everyone usings cars instead of public transportation is also wrong.
@Sam Noubert OK. I explain to you how affordable housing helps workers as soon as you explain why you think lower-income workers are associated with “rat infestations” and “dog crap”.
I think we can guess your motivation.
(In terms of adding new homes to the pipeline, the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay has only put 280 new affordable homes into the pipeline since it was introduced. None of those homes are built and occupied yet. But we have more than 20,000 people waiting for homes. These proposed changes will help further ameliorate this situation, but there are many more constraints on building affordable housing, particularly funding but also organizational capacity at CHA and the non-profit home builders who do this work, that will remain in place and continue to limit the pace at which we are able to add new affordable homes.)
This stuff about how we can’t increase density because no one rides the T is nonsense. It seems to be the opinion of someone who never rides the T.
@HelloCambridge is correct. Some of the parcels designated for affordable housing is near the new Union Square station.
Increasing density near public transportation is a great way to get cars off the road. That will help the person who seems to value her “fresh air and sunshine” more than housing people.
If we don’t do this, people who work here will just live outside of town and drive here.
Cambridge is doing the right thing. The plan is growth that doesn’t overburden our infrastructure and roads. People are coming here anyway. Let’s help them and help our city by strategic growth made possible by the AHO.
In any case, refusing to provide affordable housing for people because you “like things as they are” is not morally defensible. Your aesthetics are not more important than housing people.
Well then please do @FrankD…. because my comment was about enduring for DECADES the reality of living in Central Square and nothing to do with low income works….so please….go ahead.
@Sam Noubert
Has it occurred to you that whatever negative things you claim to have seen with lower-income housing have nothing to do with the people? It is more due to the type of housing that lower-income people are forced to live in.
Building new affordable housing will address that.
In any case, your stereotyping and impuning the character of low-income people speaks more to yout character than theirs.
I just read that MA is starting to lose businesses because the cost of living is too high. Well done, NIMBYs.
@Sam Noubert Cheap housing is in bad shape because it is cheap. It has nothing to do with the people. They would happily live in better places if they could afford it. It is disappointing that I had to point that out.
The AHO will address that by providing new affordable housing.
I’ve lived near Alewife for 25 years and in Cambridge most of the time since 1974. Not sure in Cambridge terms that makes me a longtime resident or not! I miss the old Cambridge, but then, I miss the old weather, too. The truth is that the loss of affordable housing has meant the loss of the kinds of people that made Cambridge a place I wanted to live — a mix of working folks of many economic levels and ethnic identities, students, artists, writers, and musicians. Most of them can’t afford to live here anymore. Adding more affordable housing might help to bring back some of that vibrancy.
Living near Alewife, we’ve experienced and are experiencing a lot of construction. While I don’t much like the pile-driving stage, after that, construction is not much of a problem. It’s true that Alewife Brook Parkway is one of the most congested roads in the Boston area, but much of that traffic is from surrounding communities coming into Cambridge on Rt. 2. The residents of our new housing take advantage of the T.
And as for the rats, did you know they’re the result of global warming, not increased housing? They now are able to keep reproducing all winter because it’s not cold enough for long enough. Same with bunnies. And making more housing and jobs close to public transportation is one of the concrete things we can do to slow the increase in global warming.
It’s time to be realistic: Cambridge needs more housing, and it needs more low- and middle- income housing if it’s going to be the city I’ve loved for more than 40 years.
@forghostwhowalks
Well said. I have lived here for over 30 years and I remember a diverse Cambridge. We need housing for all incomes. Cambridge needs workers of all incomes.
I agree with Sam Noubert that this proposal is driven by the election cycle. Councilors need about 2000 votes to get elected, and this proposal and its timing is aimed at exciting the base. Not so much different from Ron DeSantis talking about banning gender conversion therapy.
Those who are opposed to this: what is your solution to addressing the fact that 49% of Cambridge renters are cost-burdened, and at least 25% severely cost-burdened? These are similar (in fact a bit worse) than the rest of the state, for which we also need a solution
The previous comment that this is aimed at exciting the base is pretty strange. It and previous comments here seem to not acknowledge that there is an incredibly real, present, worsening affordability crisis in our city and our state. If you have an alternative solution, present it!
@Kavish Gandhi
The NIMBYs don’t have or want a solution to the housing crisis. They want to stop development, period.
The complaints about transparency are nonsense. There has, and will be, public meetings etc about the AHO.
Likewise for their calls for thoughtful development. The AHO and plans are thoughtful. Density will increase is very specific places near public transportation. They are just throwing up obstacles.
By opposing affordable housing, the NIMBYs will damage our local economy and our city in general.
If half of renters in Cambridge are cost-burdened, they don’t have money to spend on local goods and services.
Not allowing increased density means that more people will drive longer distances to get to work. That will increase traffic congestion and contribute to global warming.
The opposition to the AHO is selfish and short-sighted.