Alternate to Affordable Housing Overlay change gets a hearing, may wind up having little impact
The Dortheavej apartments in Denmark are cited by city councillor Dennis Carlone as a model for Cambridge housing. (Photo: Rasmus Hjortshøj via World Architecture Festival)
In a faceoff over changes to a law meant to bring more affordable housing to Cambridge, city councillor Dennis Carlone all but conceded defeat Thursday for his approach to building six- or seven-story buildings instead of allowing a limited number of higher-rise towers.
“It’s very clear this council is going to approve that or some modification of it,” Carlone said of the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning change he opposed. “If the council doesn’t want to go with [mine], I can accept that.”
Under the amendments for AHO buildings – in which all units are affordable – 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 debate took place at a Neighborhood & Long Term Planning committee meeting chaired by Carlone after discussions in the Housing Committee, where the topic will return. The next hearing hasn’t been scheduled.
Carlone’s approach
Carlone drew on his experience and studies as an architect and urban designer to preach the social ills of some high-density housing. He cited a study by Oscar Newman, a city planner and architect, that claims that crime often increases in housing as height increases, regardless of the social class of residents, and cited fears of failed experiments in urban renewal. He showed examples of bad housing, such as Le Corbusier’s Voisin plan, a concept for high-rise housing in Paris that was never built, and the Pruitt-Igoe development in St. Louis, Missouri, which was widely panned and demolished in 1970s.
In Carlone’s vision, the city can add 3,000 affordable homes in mid-rise buildings on city land, with municipal uses such as schools or libraries at their base, and by using eminent domain to buy single-story properties and convert them. Near his own home, “half the buildings are one-story,” and most won’t “be there in 20 years,” Carlone said.
He also wants existing city land to be used for housing and to raise funding through a real estate transfer fee that he said would bring in $23 million this year alone.
Avoiding problems of the past
Studies presented by proponents of the measure indicated, however, that building design was only one factor in the failure of high-rise affordable housing. They pointed too to the concentration of poverty, a lack of funding and location, and to Cambridge’s vibrant and largely crime-free affordable towers as exceptions to the studies Carlone cited. Proponents highlighted that housing under the AHO is meant to be mixed-income, with residents earning up to 100 percent of the area median income.
“We believe that the failures of urban renewal of the ’60s and ’70s do not correspond to the housing that we’re proposing and agree that we should not make the mistakes of the past,” councillor Marc McGovern said. “No one is suggesting that or wants to see that.”
You would be hard-pressed to walk by newer affordable buildings in Cambridge and be able to tell they weren’t market-rate or luxury, McGovern said. “Our affordable housing developments have won awards.”
Room for compromise
The proponents of the AHO amendments also support the city buying land and using existing city land for housing, but say the city needs more height.
“We can get together on a lot of that stuff,” McGovern said of Carlone’s proposal, but “need to be able to build taller buildings where appropriate.” While 3,000 new homes might serve current residents on an affordable-housing waitlist, including people who work here raises the figure to 7,000, McGovern said, and they “are also members of our community.”
Councillor Burhan Azeem assured Carlone that he was open to discussion about the amendments, including about heights. “There’ll be plenty of time to work it out. And I’m sure we’ll have lots of amendments, and I look forward to that process. It really does get me excited to make a bill that [includes] feedback from everyone,” Azeem said.
Public comment
Public comment was intense. Speakers on both sides totaling more than 40 expressed support for affordable housing, but many backing the AHO amendments underlined the urgency.
“There are no justifications for any city or town during the housing shortage like the one we’re suffering from now to maintain land-use regulations that forbid the building of more homes on our very expensive lots,” resident James Zall said.
“One of my patients told me the other day that the best thing about his new home was it has a front door that locks and the inside is his,” said Mark McGovern, a social worker and director of Cambridge Health Care for the Homeless. “People don’t care if that unit is on the third floor or the seventh floor or the 23rd floor. When they are home, they are home. Taller buildings with more units and a denser population will certainly change the character of the squares and major corridors of Cambridge – the new character will be a city that cares enough about diversity to include diversity in its housing stock in order to give more people access.”
Lindsey Frasier, a resident who commented during the meeting, said she does not support any building over six stories in Cambridge. She supports Carlone’s plan.
“I think scale really matters. I think access to green space and keeping our city healthy in other ways – in terms of the natural environment, but mostly I think that that we really have to build spaces conducive to creating community,” Frasier said.
If the city had been constructing the types of buildings that Carlone and CCC claim to hold in such regard this entire time there would be no need for these tall buildings.
Yet here we are, and these supposedly venerable 6 story buildings *still* remain illegal to build almost everywhere in the city.
It’s a farce and fortunately it seems people are fed up with it.
The towers are going to be eyesores and hotbeds of crime just like they always have been. One of the best bits of Cambridge is that it was built out so long ago that “social engineering” people who think they can shape society didn’t have a chance to muck it up.
One of the best aspects of Cambridge is its small streets that all link together different areas of the city, and small scale buildings that allow for lots of different things to happen in them. Its small, tight, and close. These new developments just don’t fit in with the place.
What kind of compromise will the “build build build” crowd be satisfied with? And why do we tell AHO developers that they don’t need to follow the rules everyone else does? Maybe this crowd should focus on why building is so expensive so we could build things like row houses, and multi-family walkups that predominate much of Cambridge.
For instance, consider that ALL new buildings over 1 storey in MA have to have have elevators. You know what’s not cheap? elevators. However noble your intentions can’t have everything and expect not to lose something else. Rules = expense. High desnity = loss of human scale. There’s no getting around tradeoffs, you just make different ones.
If I want to live in a place filled with 25-story buildings, I can move to NYC. Why is it not possible to keep our smaller city reality with still building more housing?
Cambridge is a desirable place to live because it is not super dense, has a neighborhood feel, and offers open space. It also has a thriving commercial market that pays top dollars for talent. So that is why a lot of people want to live here. That is why prices are high.
The AHO wants to open the floodgates and let anyone who has expressed interest live in Cambridge. That is not how shit works in real life!!!! There are trade-offs to everything, as mentioned by @trevorl
Also – so the lower income get subsidized housing. The top earners can buy the million-dollar conversions. What about the people in the middle? You know – those who work 8-10 hours a day at their job, pay 30% in tax, and get no govt benefits and subsidies?
Setting aside these exclusionary attitudes being unrepresentative of most Cantabrigians, many of these statements are factually incorrect.
First, just because we relax zoning for affordable housing doesn’t mean all of a sudden dozens of tall buildings get built. That’s not what happened under the first overlay and won’t be what happens now. This will improve the handful of proposals that get off the ground and get a few more off the ground that wouldn’t be viable otherwise due to our outlandishly high land and construction costs. The non-profit affordable housing builders have made that clear.
Second, the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay extends eligibility up to 100% of Area Median Income, which in Cambridge is more than $100,000 in family income. Some commenters still don’t seem to grasp this fact.
@HelloCambridge None of us know what’s going to happen once they open the floodgates, so I agree it’s not possible to say with certainty that towers will pop up. But for many of us we do not want them. Cambridge is already incredibly dense the way it’s been built and I find it incredibly ironic that instead of doubling down on what works people smack the tower button. Cambridge is like 20k ppl / sq mile and that includes places like fresh pond that have no people living there. What portion of that population lives in towers? I’m willing to bet very few.
But think of the most vibrant areas in Cambridge and Boston in general. How many towers are there? How many in the back bay? how many in the north and south ends? people are much more willing to accept density when it follows their preferences, so if the pro-affordable housing crowd actually cared about more housing, they would try to push it in a way that is acceptable to people. Now what they’re doing is doubling down on MORE for the sake of more because some people have reservations.
Also, 3 years is not that long for a policy to be enacted and observed, especially over the pandemic where everything is out of wack. How can we possibly say it’s already time to re-evaluate that policy as it currently exists on such a major level? Should any adjustments be incremental?
@trevorl asks, “What portion of that population lives in towers? I’m willing to bet very few.”
In Cambridge, 28% of our residential units are in buildings with 100 or more units. 58% are in buildings of 7 or more units.
Although @trevorl believes that Cambridge residents do not want large buildings, many are paying some of the highest rents in the city to live in new tall buildings in Central Sq and Cambridge Crossing.
Several of the tall structures included in the presentation are student dorms and were so inconsistent with the neighborhood and caused so much anger that new zoning was passed. As to 6 story buildings – are they illegal? If that were true, someone could just sue the city to bulldoze them to rebuild something that is legal. In fact, they are perfectly legal even if the district were later rezoned. It is called “grandfathering.” In case of a fire etc the owner can rebuild to the same height and scale. To go even bigger, one could apply for a special permit.
I support Dennis Carlone’s plan. Use our city land to build more affordable housing.
Don’t give developers this blank check allowing dramatically greater building height, no setbacks, ignoring green space, and with no parking. It is no way to develop our city and its neighborhoods.
Great move. Hopefully just the beginning of more ambitious inprovements
If only the new buildings were this attractive, instead we’ll get more hideous plastic sided 5-over-1s.
Spend the money fixing the T, cleaning up the addiction mess of Central Square and investing in parks.
I agree with Vickey and support Dennis Carlone’s plan. Giving developers a blank check is a terrible idea. They care only about their profit which will show when they cut down the trees, provide no setbacks, and provide no green space. Too much developer money going to fund certain city leaders should be investigated.
I am for affordable housing. But I am against the approach the city is taking with the AHO.
The councilors need an approach that more thoughtfully balances the pros and cons of the AHO. Adding tall buildings (25 stories!!!) with no setbacks and no oversight will have a permanent and large impact on everything around it, including the people who live in those areas. I see no evidence that councilors even care about how tall buildings might disrupt the urban fabric and experience of living in Cambridge.
Dennis Carlone’s approach is much less risky and much more thoughtful. We should use city funds and taxes to build a land bank. And then use said land bank / city land to build a larger number of 6/7 story buildings that would be less likely to have negative externalities for the Cambridge community. There are a lot of old triple decker buildings that can be torn down / replaced with higher density / modern / more energy efficient housing. The other value of this approach is that it puts the city in charge, and cuts out 3rd party developers (who are the real beneficiaries of the existing AHO plan). Better yet… make the pharma / lab companies / Harvard / MIT pay for it, because they were the ones who created the affordable housing shortage in the first place.
Please councilors, don’t steamroll your constituents!