An attempt to delay change in affordable housing is accused as city councillors tweak a policy order
Just A Start’s 52 New St. is being built under the current Affordable Housing Overlay. (Image: Just A Start)
Waiting a week didn’t change much about a policy order meant to bring more affordable housing to Cambridge: After Monday’s meeting of the City Council, the order still suggests allowing 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 12 stories along the city’s main corridors and to 15 stories in the squares, which is taller than current zoning allows but shorter than the 13-story and 25-story buildings originally proposed as a change.
An amendment brings the Community Development Department into the work, though, calling for it to consult with the city’s nonprofit affordable-housing developers and come up with recommendations to present to the council by June 1.
Timing has been a cause for tension, starting with some members of the council objecting to the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning being tweaked now at all, when it was adopted by the council Oct. 5, 2020, with a review built in for 2025. “As has been said many, many times,” councillor Patty Nolan said.
When the underlying order about amendments voted by the council was introduced a week ago, then stopped for one meeting by Nolan invoking her “charter right,” it was with an acknowledgment that there were no projects waiting for the changes – that neither money nor properties are available for more affordable projects.
Delaying new zoning doesn’t delay new housing, Nolan and others said.
“A pretty transparent attempt”
A substitute order by councillor Paul Toner also returned from a week ago suggested that Community Development get to the five-year review early, starting in September, but come back to the council with height suggestions by June 26.
The council takes the months of July and August off from regular meetings; it holds just one special summer meeting in the middle of the break.
“Really what we’re talking about is September, because someone can charter right it” from June 26 to the summer special meeting, councillor Marc McGovern said. “We’re not going to deal with it at the summer meeting and make any major decisions, because then people will say ‘You’re doing this in the summer when nobody’s paying attention.’’
If you file a zoning petition in the fall, the standard timeline “means it won’t get voted on until the next term. So this is a pretty transparent attempt to delay this into the next term,” councillor Quinton Zondervan said.
Not trying to delay
Backers of a process in which Community Development and the nonprofit builders came up with proposals, rather than responded to councilor’s specific suggestions, rejected the accusation.
“What we’re trying to do here tonight is not delay, but to start the process in a way that I think we could all feel comfortable moving forward with,” vice mayor Alanna Mallon said.
While it was true the affordable-housing developers and at least one poverty-aid organization supported councillor E. Denise Simmons’ proposal for 12-story or 15-story buildings in certain areas, “it is very hard” for them not to support any offering of more flexibility, Mallon said. But on specifics, “I just haven’t heard that articulated, and I really want them to have a thoughtful conversation with CDD.”
The council, however, had a communication from developers saying clearly that they supported the current proposal, McGovern said, and it seemed unfair to say both that the developers hadn’t weighed in fully and to criticize supporters of the amendments for getting with developers to get their thoughts. “God forbid we actually talk to the people who build affordable housing,” he said.
Election-year math
What Zondervan alluded to is that this is an election year, and the original AHO failed in a first attempt at passage in 2019 then got enacted the next year with a shakeup of councillors that brought on a pivotal vote in Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler.
This is so far a quiet election year. In 2021, the first council challenger declared in February; two years earlier, the first began running in mid-March; in the 2017 elections, the first declaration of a challenge came the previous November. Though no candidate has declared publicly, challenger Joe McGuirk said in January that he planned a second run for a seat after an attempt two years ago.
Reliably, one incumbent on the nine-member council will opt not to run or lose a bid for reelection. But it’s not clear that would change the math on an AHO update.
Toner’s substitute order failed on a 4-5 vote, with only him and Nolan, Mallon and councillor Dennis Carlone in favor.
The order by Simmons, with some tweaks by Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, passed 5-3-1, with the substitute order’s “yea” votes now in the “nay” position save for Carlone, who voted “present.”
“Delaying new zoning doesn’t delay new housing, Nolan and others said.”
Well that’s obviously not true. But more importantly we need housing, Cambridge has long acted like an exclusive suburb, it’s time it started acting like a real city. A 12 story building will not negatively impact anyone, the only thing it might do is offend those who dislike cities but decide to live in one. We are 1/2 the density of the Plateau neighborhood in Montreal who have a similar population, we are 1/3 the density of Hoboken, and we are nowhere near NYC or Hong Kong like people often suggest.
Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui and Councillors Simmons, McGovern, Zondervan, and Azeem for your strong support for affordable housing!
The other Councillors who claim there is no harm in delay are wrong.
First, we have a housing crisis, and Cambridge families need affordable homes and face displacement if their apartment building gets sold.
Second, as with the Phil’s Towing and Lesley University properties that have recently been put up for sale, no one knows when opportunities will arise to buy parcels that our local non-profit affordable homebuilders might be able to purchase (with assistance from Cambridge’s sadly underfunded Affordable Housing Trust). We all know that opportunities to buy fitting parcels for affordable housing are few and far between. If we wait another, no one knows what once-in-a-generation opportunities we may miss.
This outcome is extremely disappointing, going against all principles of good policymaking. And there is **one** project this policy would benefit in the near term: 2072 Mass Ave, which was vigorously opposed by surrounding neighborhoods due to the excessive height and problematic design for the site: 200 people in a 9-story building with one elevator (which will break down), family housing with no parking or green space, zero setbacks or pullouts on a highly congested and complex intersection. The commercial developers are sitting on $5 million in city funding, just waiting for their friends in the City Council to dramatically rewrite the zoning laws to enable them to build an even taller high-rise the moment this is passed. THAT is the “urgency” motivating the proposal sponsors.
The New Street illustration is a great example of the affordable housing we should be championing. It’s an attractive building in a sensible location that does not impose a dramatic negative impact on neighbors.
It’s only when we read a bit deeper that we see the outrageous goals of the AHO advocates today–their 25-story plan is >4 times the size of the 6 story building in the picture. The new AHO structures would tower over everything else near them and alter the fundamental fabric of their neighborhoods. We need to stop them and insist on a plan that makes sense for all
If the local non-profits had more parcels like New Street, which HRI built, they could build other, similar buildings, but as the head of HRI has testified repeatedly, they don’t have the land and keep losing out to other parties because they can’t justify the cost for the number of affordable homes they could build on the site.
The policy order is 15 stories in places like the Phil’s Towing parcel, which all of the Council said was an appropriate location for that (although we should all ponder why there and not other locations), and 12 stories on corridors.
So apparently the Kendall Square streetscape, except with higher buildings, represents the vision for the rest of the city’s main arteries and squares.
Councillor Carlone has presented a well-considered, professionally informed and achievable framework for accomplishing the goal in a way that maintains the essential character of the city.
The proponents of the amendment describe it as not radical, but bold. So is Councillor Carlone’s plan. The difference is whether we want the squares and main corridors to look like Kendall Square or to provide people with affordable homes that, though reasonably taller and denser, are integrated within their neighborhoods.
We can meet the need by evolving, not sacrificing, the essential character of Cambridge’s built environment.
I am disappointed that the more ambitious change did not pass, but compromise is the play in a closely divided city council. There are many who want to live in Cambridge and it should not be limited to low density enclaves owned by the rich
James, can you link to Councillor Carlone’s policy?
I have seen some opinion letters by councilors opposing this proposed zoning amendment but I wasn’t aware this was translated into real policy. I would love to see what that proposes.
If all there is are some vague calls for a “strategy” or “plan” that in my mind isn’t good enough. We should hold the bar higher for our councilors. Continuously punting problems to committees isn’t leadership in my mind.
There is a wild over estimation about what any amendment to the AHO will actually do. To say that “Cambridge has long acted like an exclusive suburb” is a bit ridiculous. Maybe we should go on a field trip to Weston, Manchester-by-the-sea, or Lexington to see what a suburb actually looks like? Central Sq, Mass Ave corridor from Porter to Arlington, and parts of East Cambridge are the most logical spots for zoning reform, height, and “city” density. Acting like we are going to plow through West Cambridge is nonsense though I do get the allure of making the be-monocled twist their pearls. In 2013 we finished the zoning for Central Sq which if passed we could have had 1000’s of new homes by now but alas on to the new hotness. I know it’s boring and very GenX of me but can we just finish one damn thing we’ve started in this city?
Interesting Patrick, what were those proposed zoning changes? Why didn’t it pass?
Agree with James. The pro-builder/pro-developer group that has for too long held a majority on City Council, has done nothing to bring down housing costs over these last few years at all but has continually pushed to enrich their builder/developer friends. They are now so blatant that they advertise this by way of publishing articles like this one: https://bankerandtradesman.com/cambridge-seeks-to-take-overlay-to-higher-level/ For them, we should build more and more housing on our small space of land so that anyone who wants to live here from any place can do so (even if it means Cambridge tax payers have to fund this). We have 3,000 city residents in need – but they want us to open things up so everyone can have a spot. And no problem, in their view, if AHO units cost over $900,000 – way way above luxury units here and in the area. We should just buy up Boston waterfront apartments going for that price and give them away to those on our non-resident housing list. And BTW did you see the massive increases in the city budget being proposed even as we face a financial downturn around the corner? Best Council ever (not).
cportus: Councillor Carlone has written often about his ideas for achieving our affordable housing goals. You can read some of them in Cambridge Day if you search on “Carlone housing.” He’s also written blogposts on his website, DennisCarlone.com
He has extensive experience in both urban design and construction, and so can speak authoritatively on the optimal design for affordable housing and its cost.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect is his recommendation for using eminent domain to acquire properties on which to build affordable housing. But even there, he offers sensible reasons for the judicious acquisition of properties for this purpose. Since land costs in Cambridge are a very significant development-budget factor, stockpiling a kind of city-owned land bank would enable the city to lease property to developers at favorable rates, thus reducing the cost of developments that are more in keeping with the built character of the city.
And by the way, the people-scaled “built character” of the city is one of the reasons that people want to live here. It’s a pleasant city to be in where you can actually see the sky and enjoy the sunshine.
It is ironic that the image shown is a successful 6-story design for the original AHO New Street with stepback, open space and good location. What maffia councilors continue to do is push through their agenda based on emotion and politics, not data, analysis and facts. They also tend to ignore actual legislative protocol. The AHO is still in “recess” at the Housing Committee chaired by Councilor Simmons. Yet Community Development Department is directed to promptly draft a zoning petition so councilors can be ready to implement when the AHO RE-WRITE returns to the Housing Committee. This makes it easier to avoid deliberation and fact-finding because it is essentially already cooked. The chairman is also an avid sponsor of this bill as are McGovern, Zondervan and Azeem who stated at the outset- He won’t be weighing in on discussion, and that “proponents can do whatever they want and he will still approve it”. This is not the engaged Councilor people voted for. He is a rubber stamp vote. Zondervan showed his hand when he said this is an election year and this has to be pushed through while they still have the votes. MCGovern never asks questions but just wants to win without data or analysis of feasibility. All they needed was one vote. No consideration of the actionable legislation needed for equitable and responsible governance. Our council has been hijacked.
it is also interesting that they couldn’t support CDD sitting down with AH developers to hammer out sticking points and what is really feasible as suggested by the Toner substitution. 12- 15 stories is arbitrary. Most housing buildings on Mass Ave are 4-8 stories with opportunity to add on 2 stories. There is room for growth. There is no community-specific analysis -the foundation for zoning. The tower examples often cited considered the streetscape, design review, space and details which are now basically being eradicated.
We have available one of the most impressive letters by a professional affordable housing advocate who says this plan won’t work because firstly, it scraps transparency and good research, but ignores concrete data, cost of construction, transparency in design requirements and guidelines. According to housing expert Susan Connelly, there hasn’t been real process and what has been proposed is not fiscally feasible. These height changes are not tweaks. they “feel dramatic and random” without factual basis.
Policies take a long time. It took 2 yrs for the original AHO which seems to be working. To push this radical change in a month or two without public deliberation (only deals at risk of open meeting laws) is yet again a travesty. It is obvious the freight train that is our council has its eyes on the election, not transparency, equity, community and thoughtful deep dive and analysis. it takes too long. What if more time had been taken with the original AHO. Would its short-comings have been discovered and fixed eliminating a do-over before its 5 yr review is up? They don’t care. It’s an election year.
When policy advocates treat fellow residents who express concerns with respect, we will begin to make progress.
Amen, Pete.
Cportus,
It was called C2 and it’s about to have its 10th birthday. Still no action.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Planning/Studies/K2C2/zoning/c2_zoning_draft_20130507.pdf
Pete said it pretty much… ” It is obvious the freight train that is our council has its eyes on the election, not transparency, equity, community and thoughtful deep dive and analysis.”
When things are rushed, mistakes are made that the citizens suffer thru for years to come.
@James Mahoney
Cities constantly change. I suppose all the change before you arrived was OK. But once you are here, everything should stay just like it is. That is NIMBY, pure and simple. People’s housing needs are more important than your aesthetics.
please stop with the NIMBY labels. it is polarizing when you are disadvantaged at not being able to have a conversation with the commenter. pure and simple. James is not wrong, but maybe it doesn’t go far enough into that analysis needed. People needing housing also deserve to live in a nice place.
@pete
If the shoe fits..
Opposing affordable housing because “I like the city as it is” is pretty much the definition of NIMBY.
There is nothing inherently wrong with increasing density. Cities can still be nice places with increased density.
Increasing density is pretty much that only way to addressed a severe shortage of housing in the US. Assuming that will make our city not a “nice place” is also pretty much the definition of NIMBY.
That attitude is labeled NIMBY because it is NIMBY. Denying people housing because you don’t want anything to change *after you move in” is exactly what NIMBY is.
Denying people homes because you don’t like change is amoral.
Last I checked, it is the Residents of the City that are supposed to be represented by the City Council, and the interests of those residents. Unless the developers are residents they should not be given representation by the Council members by throwing money in to their political war chests etc. If they are residents, they still should only be given equal representation to the rest of the residents here.
@AvgJoe you talk a good talk about getting people into housing and how it’s immoral to deny people housing. Why don’t you share your place with someone who needs a place to live? I am sure even your living room will be a palace to someone needing housing.
Oh..did I hear you gruntle and say no way. How NIMLV of you!!!