The City Council considers Monday yet another poorly designed approach to expand affordable housing. This one would double the building heights allowed under the Affordable Housing Overlay to 15 stories in the squares and 12 stories along many major streets.
A group of city councillors had previously proposed that the AHO be revised to allow 25 stories in the squares and 13 stories along major streets. Public outcry and councillor questions raised many concerns about that proposal and its design. Now, that same group has reduced the proposed heights to 15 and 12 stories, and has tabled a policy order requesting the city government to flesh out the policy language.
I have three big concerns about this proposal and everything it implies about our ineffective approach to affordable housing.
First, it’s clear that this policy proposal has been developed by and for the housing developers – and one in particular. Proposal sponsors have stated in multiple public meetings that they collaborated closely with developers in drafting the policy proposal, and that the primary goal of this proposal is to enable a high-rise building at 2072 Massachusetts Ave. to be built under an expanded AHO. The developers are a private-sector, commercial business: Capstone Communities and Hope Real Estate. The ordinance proposal sponsors have not once mentioned the name of this business nor invited them to speak in our hearings, though they have prominently featured all of the nonprofit and city government housing agencies. The focus on benefiting one project led by a private-sector business is an inappropriate basis for policy-making.
Monday’s policy order also contains oddly specific language that suggests developer influence: a specification that buildings of any height will be allowed if they match the scale of an adjacent building; and a request for evaluation of mass timber (engineered wood) construction materials. This belongs in building code rather than zoning policy discussions.
Second, the public does not seem to be fully aware of the dramatic effects this policy proposal would have across the city. Thirteen streets are designated “AHO corridors” and proposed for 12-story buildings. These are: Albany Street, Alewife Brook Parkway, Bishop Allen Drive, Broadway, Cambridge Street, Concord Avenue, First Street, Fresh Pond Parkway, Massachusetts Avenue, Memorial Drive, Mount Auburn Street, Prospect Street and Sidney Street. The potential effects of zoning changes of this magnitude need to be studied fully and discussed publicly.
Lastly, the entire approach of this policy revision is misguided. We do not need more one-off policy adjustments or project-specific accommodations. We need a citywide affordable housing strategy that will enable us to meet the Envision Cambridge goal of creating 3,000 new affordable housing units in Cambridge by 2030. That strategy should be ambitious, well-designed and supported publicly. It should marshal and coordinate all of the city’s tools for advancing affordable housing, including policy, land acquisition, finance, public services and infrastructure.
Proposal supporters have said that the needs for affordable housing are so urgent that we don’t have time to make a plan – and must instead adopt a series of frantic and fragmented policy actions. I would say we can’t afford not to make a plan and implement it to get the job done.
Dennis Carlone has served on the City Council since 2014 and has worked as an architect and urban designer in Cambridge for more than 45 years.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Dense housing is more affordable, more environmentally friendly, and supports more local businesses. Cambridge should be doing everything it can to increase its density.
Also, do you really consider a 9 story building(2072 Mass Ave) a high rise? Apparently Paris is a city of high rises.
” it’s clear that this policy proposal has been developed by and for the housing developers”
The proposal is for the 21,000 people on the Cambridge Housing Authority waiting list:
https://cambridge-housing.org/cantwait/
While I agree that 25-story buildings are probably not necessary, I haven’t seen opponents of AHO expansion propose specific alternatives.
It’s clear that zoning is standing in the way of building housing. Perhaps we could eliminate A-1 and A-2 zoning?
Thanks Councillor Carlone -great points. Note to multimodal: dense housing often is less affordable (there is lots written on this); central air is less environmentally viable than interior fans or window air conditioners. The 9 story building proposed at 2072 Mass Ave. only had 1 elevator. The lot was simply too small for a structure this size. Can you imagine being on the 8th or 9th floor of the building with small children and having the elevator go out? Council passed something making that illegal now. Local businesses do better generally in existing buildings (and leases) rather than the newer ones. As to cities like Paris and DC – they have good planning departments, strong historic preservation requirements and even height limits.
Comparatively speaking, 9 stories is a high rise.
there are plenty of opportunities adding stories to smaller buildings between Harvard and Porter sqs. and on side streets. Engineered wood is not environmentally friendly to those who have allergies. It can off-gas. Agree fake material is not a zoning issue (it is a developer’s issue).
AHO 2.0 is payback for 2072 Mass Ave on the busy corner with no drop off, no healthcare worker parking and it only had one elevator which is dangerous. Was that enough to reconsider? I would think so. There is still a possibility. It was also involved with Boston’s 40B not the AHO. If a design or issue is a problem, fix it, don’t throw the whole policy out and conflate issues (unless your the city of Cambridge who invested several million into the project).
The council at this point reminds me of the supreme court of 6-3 votes or even a page from trump’s hand book ganging up against people.
This is not good governance. This involves shaming, blaming, manipulating, intimidating at its best. Just ask those citizens who speak at council only to get reprimanded for what they expressed by one of the gang leaders. We need new council desperately whose goal is not to “win” at any cost or be first in the world when Cambridge is ahead of the curve of many a policies, but who pulls in all stake holders, who hears all sides and understands broader issues. All this divisiveness can be laid at the feet of a couple of councilors as they favor their constituents over others including the elderly and cash-poor.
Will we get new candidates? who knows. No one wants to crawl into the snake pit where they can get hand-slapped let alone bitten. Thank you Councilor Carlone, for speaking truth to meglo-maniac self-serving power. This is not how a city is supposed to be run. This is not democracy.
Yes, Dennis Carlone is right.
Cambridge needs more affordable housing but this is the wrong track entirely.
City Council, do your homework, and do it right for Cambridge and its future.
Thanks, Councillor Carlone. Thoughtful and well reasoned, as always.
It’s so disappointing that in a city where most people would support more affordable housing, and we have many examples of very reasonable affordable housing developments, the AHO advocates propose extremist solutions again and again. I’d say they were thoughtless, but unfortunately, as this piece points out, they are very thoughtful…thoughtfully supporting developers instead of residents
Grrrr, those evil developers building 100% affordable housing. Why would the city council support such extreme actions as building mid rise housing that will cast shadows on my back yard for a few minutes more each day. Why would anyone want to live in Cambridge if they can’t afford a 3,000sqft single family home? They only cost a measly $2.5 million, much more affordable than an $800,000 luxury condo.
Thank you Dennis Carlone for taking a deliberate approach to a complex problem. Why is it that Capstone Communiites and Hope Real Estate have not come forward to share the news that they would be beneficiaries of the Walden Street project. Are other Councilors, in addition to Dennis asking for this transparency?
your sarcasm and exaggeration is not helpful. no one is talking 3000 sq ft single family homes, most AH units costs anywhere from $300,000 to-650,000. So if you are building over 100 new units, why is Jefferson Park affordable housing so much more expensive at $900,000 per unit? you keep missing the larger point, that of nuts and bolts practicality, not ideology. There are some great developers, including home owners rehab which repurposes historic houses and adds units. Financing seems to be the biggest problem next to land. So who is keeping track of possible wasted monies and opportunities?
Finally we have someone on the Council saying it loud and saying it clear.
Not only do we have a handful of Councillors pushing their own agenda, they don’t even have the data.
Everyone is screaming g about the folks on the CHA waitlist. Most of those folks are low income folks who do not even qualify for these kinds of buildings without deeper layers of subsidies. The folks on the CDD waitlist generally fall into higher levels of AMI and must credit qualify and be chosen by lottery.
All this to say where is the data! How many folks in Cambridge looking for affordable housing fall into each AMI category? How did we do at the recently opened Frost Terrace? Did any of the folks who secured an apartment get off the CDD or the CHA lists? We’re there folks that lost out because they couldn’t qualify? How many mobile vouchers were accepted? How were folks who could only pay 30% AMI further subsidized? How many apartments went to each income level? How many units went to Cambridge residents? What percentage went to folks outside of Cambridge as required by the state?
These shouldn’t be “gotcha” questions. We need data points and only then should we consider just what kind of urban housing plan WE ALL WANT.
It isn’t 12 and 15 story corridors.
For now, all I can think is that private developers are really in charge of our city planning.
Thank you Councilor Carlone. It appears you are the only one on the council willing and able to speak truth to power. We Cantabrigians are deeply frustrated and doubly dismayed at what has been happening at city hall and in the council. How is it that others on the council believe this is what the people of Cambridge want? Has it surveyed the people in a private poll and have yet to publish the results?
It galls me to no end how obviously certain councilors play to the developers’ lobby rather than to tax-paying citizens who are and ought to be their first and most important constituents.
I’d like to remind you and anyone reading this how densely populated Cambridge already is: we are the most densely populated small city in America, that’s right: we have 18,000 residents per square mile and we have just about 7 square miles–not much room left over to try to pack in even more of us. To amend the overlay and pact in more people would seriously threaten the infrastructure in myriad ways. Y0u can read about our density here:
https://filterbuy.com/resources/most-and-least-densely-populated-cities/
Were the council to amend the overlay so the likes of Hope and Capstone can build at 2072 Mass Ave (and along the other thoroughfares and squares), Cambridge would be overrun with commercial developers and in zero time we would be much more Brooklyn and much, much less Cambridge. That Cambridge has MIT, Harvard, and our own Silicon Valley in Kendall Square means we have a lot going on, and not enough for those who already do not have enough means. Any discussion about affordable housing ought to be a conversation about home ownership, not adding more rentals to the market.
Too, the overlay was already amended recently and is scheduled for its review in another two years time. How is that topic is even on the table for discussion when there has not yet been the requisite time elapsed to evaluate the outcomes of this recent– and might I add rather contentious– initial amending of the Overlay?
Keep doing the right thing councilor Carlone–for the good of Cambridge, for the good of our democracy, and for the good of Cambridge residents. Thanks you for doig your job and caring about the residents rather than cow-towing to developers and pressures from other councilors, city manager and mayor. It’s shameful there are not more voices in the government next to yours. It takes stamina and mettle to lead. Let’s hope others will learn and follow your good lead and return to good governance where the tone is enlightened and informed, not polluted and corrupt. Thank you!
The proposed amendments are NOT going to allow for more affordable housing. None of the not for profit developers said during the Housing Committee meeting they needed 25 stories or even 15 to make an affordable housing project viable. Some height relief would be welcomed they said and with further discussions with the not for profit developers, a rationale policy could be developed. Councillor Carlone is right to call out how some councillors are tied to developers and how these ties have infiltrated the city council’s policy making. Remember the recent removal of parking minimums. Who benefited from that? The Planning Board said it was a developers dream. Check out the sponsors of that policy order and you will see a pattern.
Never underestimate greed as a motivating factor. It’s not like the accusation that developers are behind the proposal to upended the normal vetting process is coming from a random source. Since it is coming directly from a councilor, the burden should be on the council to show that their motivations are truly aligned with the city’s best interests (and not with for profit commercial entities).
We do not have the infrastructure to support the 12-story buildings! End of story! First, build the infrastructure, then the housing.
@multimodal – Here is the map for Paris train system –
https://parisbytrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/paris-metro-map-2021.pdf
Now pick any 5 consecutive dots in one color on that map. That is about the extent of the train system in Cambridge (Kendall, Central, Harvard, Porter, Alewife). Do you still think you are comparing apples to apples? In Paris a 9 level building might not be a big deal, but in Cambridge is it because it means 200 additional cars. (and the answer cannot be let’s just not build parking because now those 200 cars have to park on the street).
Councillor Carlone, perhaps you should speak to your colleagues before you spread misinformation and make false accusations of developer influence.
The language about adjacent buildings is from the Cambridge Housing Authority, which has stated several times that it wants to build another building adjacent to Miller’s River.
The mass timber provisions are questions for CDD from Councillor Zondervan.
Families are living in shelters and motels. We don’t need more studying and planning. Besides, we already have a plan, Envision Cambridge, and we are already failing to meet even our much too-low Envision affordable housing goals.
Meanwhile, at least six of nine City Councillors supported 2072 Mass Ave., which was rejected by the BZA.
No one in the Council has any problem overriding the BZA by changing zoning to allow Starlight Square. This is exactly the same, just even more important.
As Councillor Carlone knows, local housing non-profits and CHA are the primary beneficiaries of these changes to the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, and they all testified in strong support of this policy order and discussed the serious challenges they face in trying to buy Cambridge real estate to build affordable housing.
Cambridge needs affordable housing, badly. There’s nothing wrong with a 9 level building in the right place. We don’t need more megabucks condos and Cambridge is absolutely not densely populated.
Enough of the hidden NIMBY agendas, it’s time for the city to get off their behinds and do something to help the city that doesn’t include bike lanes.
People need homes. Increasing density, especially near public transportation, is an effective way of creating affordable housing. Cities all over are taking this approach because it works.
Complaining about 15 story “high rises” is NIMBY nonsense. You know, there were people who complained about change and density before you got here. I guess all that change was fine but it had to stop the moment you buy a house???
@EastCamb the city eliminated parking minimums, and a full 1/3 of households don’t own cars. There is absolutely not a 1:1 ratio of households to cars
One of the best places to build affordable housing is in West Cambridge. The Star Market site on Mt. Auburn, right by the Watertown line, is perfect.
Great transportation. Large lot. Put the Star Market on the ground floor and build above.
Oh, I forgot… this is West Cambridge so it’s probably a NIMBY no go.
Take a look at 221 Mt. Auburn St. It is 7 stories high (8 if you include the ground level of covered parking), and see how it stands out above the 2-3 story houses that surround it. I wouldn’t want to see anything more than another two or three stories in that type of neighborhood.
Thank you Dennis Carlene for taking a proper stand on housing.
Sorry for misspelling your last name!