As a group of legislators deeply committed to tackling the housing crisis in Cambridge, we want to emphasize the importance of the Affordable Housing Overlay – a pivotal piece of legislation that has garnered extensive discussion. The AHO is not a policy for us; it represents our personal commitment to creating a more inclusive and equitable city for all residents.
We recognize the urgency of addressing the demand for affordable housing; we meet daily with people in desperate need of it. These people range from those who are unhoused to single parents to young families. The waiting list managed by the Cambridge Housing Authority currently includes 21,000 people, with 6,500 of them living and working in our beloved city. They are members of our community. They represent people who work in our local businesses, who teach our children and who work for our city. Each number on that list represents a person or a family struggling to find a stable and affordable place to call home.
Over the past 25 years, our city has faced a housing shortage, resulting in many unrealized building projects. This is precisely why we need the AHO amendments: to breathe life into these projects and create affordable-housing opportunities that were previously unattainable. It is important to note that the overlay includes strict design guidelines and community engagement requirements, ensuring transparency and giving residents a voice in shaping their neighborhoods.
Some have raised questions about why the city doesn’t buy land to address the crisis. We want to make it clear that acquiring city land is a strategy we fully support – in fact, all the co-sponsors of the AHO amendment stood united in advocating for increased funding for the Affordable Housing Trust. It is disheartening that councillors opposing the overlay voted against allocating additional funds, which hampers our ability to acquire land and build more housing.
The AHO is not a stand-alone measure; it aligns with our citywide plan. We have actively listened to the concerns voiced during previous debates about the overlay, expanding our vision to include transit-oriented development in squares and corridors. By adopting a holistic approach, we aim to address the housing crisis comprehensively, ensuring no neighborhood is left behind. It is crucial to understand that the overlay is one of several tools we employ to build more affordable units in the city; it is not a silver bullet solution to the housing crisis.
The high cost of housing construction poses significant challenges. Factors such as inflation, escalating labor costs and the cost of land contribute to these expenses. The AHO offers a solution by streamlining the approval process, reducing delays and avoiding costly legal battles, though. By creating a more efficient environment for housing development, we can make projects more affordable and accessible.
Debunking misconceptions and objections
Let us dispel the notion that the AHO will transform Cambridge into Manhattan. In reality, we anticipate only three to five larger buildings to be constructed over the next decade, spread out across the city.
It is important to address the misconception that the AHO will concentrate low-income residents. The truth is, individuals and families of various income levels, including city workers, teachers and electricians, will have the opportunity to live in these developments. The overlay encompasses a range of income brackets, fostering a diverse and vibrant community.
Other concerns:
Developers had input
When you have a crisis, you go to the experts.
We collaborated with our local affordable housing developers to understand what they needed to build more affordable housing. Seeking input from those who possess expertise and experience in building award-winning affordable housing is not only logical, but vital for our community.
You don’t need to build tall
Given Cambridge’s limited geographical space, including land owned by Harvard and MIT and municipal buildings, we face constraints when it comes to available land for housing. Building taller structures becomes essential. We simply do not have enough land to build four-story buildings and meet our housing needs.
The AHO eliminates setbacks and open space:
The AHO amendments permit additional height without additional density. This means that buildings can be taller but not wider, thereby occupying less space on the lot and allowing for more open areas.
People don’t want to live in tall buildings
According to the Cambridge Housing Authority, there are 1,367 people on the waiting list for its Millers River (19 stories); 1,489 for Manning Apartments (19 stories); 1,419 for LBJ Apartments (12 stories); and 8,674 for Fresh Pond Apartments (22 stories). People are choosing to live in these buildings, and one need only visit to know that they have thriving communities. In fact, residents of Fresh Pond Apartments wrote a letter in support of the AHO.
These buildings are just like those built during failed urban renewal projects
The reason the urban renewal buildings of the past failed had less to do with the height of the buildings and more to do with the fact that the buildings were poorly constructed, underfunded, built away from transit and amenities such as local businesses, and had no open space. AHO buildings are nothing like this. Its buildings are on main corridors, surrounded by retail, parks, transit and open space. This comparison is unfounded.
Cambridge has an affordable-housing crisis. If development is left up to market forces, our affordable-housing partners are going to continue to be outbid by market-rate developers. By working together and using effective strategies, we can create a city that provides safe, affordable and inclusive housing for all residents. Let us forge ahead, leaving a lasting legacy of housing equity and opportunity.
Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern, E. Denise Simmons and Quinton Zondervan, Cambridge city councillors
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.
The number of fabrications and half truths contained in this ridiculous work of fiction would be comical if not for the source. Coming from our duly elected representatives, it shows the sheer contempt for civic process that has of late pervaded our local affairs. But why honor past promises when it’s far easier to weaponize the housing issues created under this same Council and use them as a cudgel against their opponents every time an election comes around? Sadly, such smoke and mirrors has never been the solution to our housing issues, despite what these magicians may say. “Ignore the man behind the curtain,” they say. If only.
@Doug it’s almost like they don’t actually want to hear what people who disagree with them think.
I don’t really take 2-sentence responses to be proof of anything. I don’t need a report, but there is no substance backing any of their claims here. Of course the people who can’t afford to live somewhere like it when they get things for no or reduced cost.
I support these AHO improvements, an important remedy for our city’s housing crisis, which were designed with thoughtful suggestions from our affordable housing builders. I have yet to hear any realistic alternatives from the caustic critics.
This is a fun one and I just cannot resist. First I’d like to say I adore Denise Simmons, McGovern, and Azeem they are, in fact, great people. However there is a lot to unpack here and its not all terrific. Unfortunately yes there is a housing shortage which is causing prices to increase. I am not sure I feel comfortable calling it a crisis when in fact it is man-made and something we continue to accelerate with apathy, political entanglement, and every decision the Council has made for several decades. The AHO tries to address this by removing the regulatory process and creating “playing field leveling” bonuses to the zoning code. This to my mind is where it starts to run off the rails. Our Ordinance is a completely broken anachronistic testament to the absurd. There are sections that contradict other sections and rules that are so squishy they may as well not exist. Nothing that anyone associates with being iconic in Cambridge or being part of the “character of the neighborhood” was created with the rule set we have today. In a word it is nonsense. That the AHO allows affordable housing developers to skirt the nonsense and to say that they, as experts, agree that an amendment should be adopted to further exculpate them from it doesn’t seem like a revelation. There is something that sticks deep in my craw (I’ve no idea what a craw is but its fun to say) when we applaud a rule that allows someone to turn my home into a 6 story housing development while I cannot get a deck approved. So when the Council says they’ve a “personal commitment to creating a more inclusive and equitable city for all residents.” It is clear that “all residents” cannot mean all residents. It also makes the part where they say, “It is important to note that the overlay includes strict design guidelines and community engagement requirements, ensuring transparency and giving residents a voice in shaping their neighborhoods.” is simply not true. In fact the crowning achievement of the AHO is that residents absolutely have no say at all. To my mind that is an honesty issue. Better to just tell it like it is; “Sorry friends we do not care what you think and we’ve made a rule to celebrate that.” However what really bakes by bread is that affordable housing alone is not a housing strategy. In fact the AHO is now used as the metric by which all other zoning amendments at judged. “Will this change compete with the AHO.” I am often asked when prosing any such change. Further, the affordable housing trust has jumped the shark on this one and I feel a need to call them out. Over the past year their fund has ballooned to $140M, their average cost per unit is roughly $900-1M, and they alone approve their own projects among themselves. So is it any shock that they support this? We need comprehensive zoning reform but it needs to be done by actual experts not self interested parties and definitely not CDD. We can build a lot of housing in Cambridge but putting all our eggs in the AHO basket is dumb. Suggesting that someone is going to sell a commercial building in Harvard Sq, Central Sq, Porter Sq, and beyond to allow affordable developers to build tells me you do not have command of addition and subtraction let alone zoning or development. We had a great achievement in inclusionary zoning and then in 2015 the Council cheered on by the weakest community development department in history and a “nexus study” that was of bazooka joe quality broke it. Even San Francisco recognizes that 20-25% essentially means no housing. Which is really why the AHO exists … instead of fixing the thing we broke we added another layer to cover up the mess. We need massive reform to zoning, amend inclusionary zoning, and set achievable goals. Talking about amending the AHO without the substantive reforms that are needed isn’t getting it done. All one has to do is look at the past forty years of Council and City intervention to see the effects on the market. If the goal is to make my house worth infinity million dollars I guess keep doing what you’re doing. However last I looked I was the only capitalist in the room and the rest of you were “progressive” benevolent do-gooders which has always led me to believe that you didn’t intend to make our homes worth $1200-2000/sqft. If it is then I grossly misjudged all of you and from the bottom of my heart I thank the Council, City, and all you terrific activists who have jacked the cost of housing beyond my wildest dreams. Namaste.
Pretty rich for a CCC donor like Doug Brown to make nonsensical, fact-free accusations when CCC just sent a flyer full of lies to half of Cambridge (presumably the rich NIMBY half like Doug).
CCC (Cambridge Citizens Coalition) lies on their mailer include easily verifiable facts like how many affordable homes have been created under the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (that CCC opposed but now claims is “standard best practice”) and the number of Cambridge residents on the CHA affordable housing waitlist.
The fact is that the waitlist numbers have rapidly gotten worse, even from those cited above from earlier in the process, with CHA publicly reporting that the waitlist now has 22,537 unique households on it, including more than 7,500 with preferences, namely 4,488 applications from those who currently live in Cambridge, 2,912 who work in Cambridge, and 327 Veterans.
We really need more affordable housing in the City, and this bill will allow more. Given we have a real-world example of an affordable housing projects being killed due to current height limits, I’m very glad this is being pursued.
And having listened in on some of the hearings, the non-profit affordable housing organizations definitely seemed to find this is a useful approach.
It’s not a magic bullet, we will need other approaches as well, but every little bit helps.
Yes, we do need to absorb facts and hear conflicting opinions in our “civic process” around the housing shortage. That’s what Cambridge government has in fact been doing in the past several years with the AHO, increased funding and other measures.
The housing crisis and its consequences have been well documented and reported — nationally, regionally and locally. Attempts to deny this work by simply labeling it lies and fiction will not help us dig ourselves out of the hole resulting from decades of under-investment in housing and exclusionary zoning limitations. Repeatedly and falsely claiming that the CHA’s housing waitlist has only 3,000 names does nothing to alleviate the burdens that Cambridge’s high housing costs impose on the remaining 18,000 people, whose existence some among us would have us ignore.
I’m sorry HelloCambridge, are we now on a first name basis? You call me “rich NIMBY Doug.” And your name is…what exactly? Kinda hard to have a discussion of facts when you won’t even share your real name. But sure, feel free to dox me. It’s not like you and your cabal haven’t done it before.
Is this vote a 5-person or 6-person vote? It is again re-zoning the entire city without data to back up their points. what is presented is emotional, not practical or realistic . And “21,000” people on the list include those across the country just wanting to move to Cambridge, not people who work or live here already. We have an AHO which was supposed to be reviewed in 5 yrs. But they are re-writing it before it even gets evaluated. THESE ARE NOT AMENDMENTS! The intent has totally been re-defined. One size fits all is not an equitable policy and how are the moving parts going to work with BEUDO, stretch code, net zero, infrastructure, electricity, etc. all being addressed? I would think the powers would seek opinions from those other than the very developers slated to build these towers. Developers are running the city. They sit on boards. They contribute to campaigns.
“It is important to note that the overlay includes strict design guidelines and community engagement requirements, ensuring transparency and giving residents a voice in shaping their neighborhoods.” Then why, when the public (as did CDD’s own design committee) questioned design problems with 1627 Mass Ave (Lesley) AHO, there is nothing but condescension from proponents chastising the process? Not one person speaking rejected the AHO use. Why, when 2072 Mass ave gets challenged because of safety issues (and that wasn’t even an AHO building), the outrage in council sparked the AHO 2.0 retaliation with double the height as punishment? All or nothing is not an answer. allowing for serious design review as stated in the original AHO would allow buy-in from neighborhoods. They are going to have to live with the result. But no, don’t allow the residents the process. And if you noticed, the tall towers touted are on secondary streets and blocks off the main corridors, spreading the density. AND did you know Rindge Towers was built on 10 acres?
Why 15 stories in Harvard square, a small triangle destination for tourists? This is irresponsible. But history doesn’t matter. “today’s ugly building is tomorrow’s landmark”- so stated one councilor. “Design is just a subjective opinion”yet there are schools teaching principles of design. Sheer ignorance.
We are losing an important council voice with vast city planning experience because from what the public saw, councilors had no respect for him and ignored him. We can’t get rid of the other two “retiring” councilors fast enough. We are left with a bully, rubber stamper, and I am disappointed in one of the last experienced thoughtful people. We need a new council who are bigger thinking and practical, not ideologues.
If you are in a leaky boat, quit bailing like crazy, figure out how to patch the boat from sinking and then empty it to keep it afloat. lack of housing is not causing the demand for housing. And our Bio-tech, commercial industry with 2000 employees don’t help any. You haven’t even come close to analyzing root causes. just build baby build. How’s it working across the country? There is plenty of information out there.
Pete,
The folks supporting this on the council believe it is a five vote. However that would conflict with some more recent opinions issued by Glowa. Personally I would think it should be a five vote. There is almost no way this doesn’t pass with the current group.
The Furman Center had a nice 🧵 backing up many of the points in this article: “…strong consensus that more housing lowers rents citywide, and there is emerging consensus that it also helps at the neighborhood level.”
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1583469267940671490.html
CHA adapted its designs at Jefferson Park and Windsor St. based on Planning Board and community feedback. Similarly, HRI is adapting their plans for 1627 Mass Ave. Walden Sq. was put on hold for several years by the Affordable Housing Trust.
Community feedback mechanisms exist under the AHO, the same people who would attend and give feedback still attend and give feedback—they just lack veto power and can’t block projects.
These so-called “Neighborhood Defenders” blocking new apartments are one of the reasons we do not build enough housing to meet demand and have vacancy rates at all-time lows.
“[I]ndividuals who are older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners are significantly more likely to participate in these [planning and zoning board] meetings. These individuals overwhelmingly (and to a much greater degree than the general public) oppose new housing construction.” https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/who-participates-in-local-government-evidence-from-meeting-minutes/C6505940E607B6392C4A8F53A9363DB1
There’s really no question that we need to build more housing and that the failure to do so is why our city has become absurdly unaffordable. I agree that we need comprehensive zoning reform to unleash a wave of housing construction. But if something as modest as these AHO amendments causes the sort of angry pushback we’ve seen from commenters here and from CCC, imagine how vitriolic a full-fledged rezoning process would be.
So we’re in a situation where we have to make modest improvements because the political reality precludes something truly transformative. Will a stronger AHO solve our housing crisis? Of course not. But every little bit helps.
The letter says: “Let us dispel the notion that the AHO will transform Cambridge into Manhattan. In reality, we anticipate only three to five larger buildings to be constructed over the next decade, spread out across the city.” Who is this “WE” and why should I trust them? If the ordinance has no limit on skyscrapers then there is no limit. I don’t believe in sweet talk.
Trussell,
Does the study look at subsidized or government regulated housing? The AHO isn’t for market rate which is what your study seems to point to unless I missed something. By having an affordable only strategy we aren’t addressing supply issues we are in fact exacerbating them.
@DanEisner: I also support comprehensive zoning reform (see my prior zoning efforts rejected by the Council). I might even agree with your statement that “..we’re in a situation where we have to make modest improvements because the political reality precludes something truly transformative.” Except I would substitute “massive” for “modest” and “sensible” for “transformative,” as there is nothing modest about unlimited height and unlimited density.
@HelloCambridge: so you’re now defending our city against “voters in local elections”? That’s rich, given that residents of affordable housing vote at a rate that is 10x the rate of new residents of market-rate developments. Oh, and we’re still waiting on a name. #namelesstrolls
It’s so funny to me that in pretty much every comment section for articles/letters about this topic (or bike lanes) there’s a NIMBY “rebuttal” that’s just complaining that someone doesn’t have their full name as a username. Without fail. Your case might be stronger if you had some talking points besides that, scaremongering, or a refusal to acknowledge facts and data.
@mrchatterbox A decent rebuttal might be that other cities in the world are much more dense than Cambridge without high-rise buildings. As just a generic comparison, Paris has a population ~2.0 – 2.5 x that of Cambridge without high-rises. Even as a single point of comparison, I think the conclusion that we “need” tall buildings is pretty insubstantiated.
* correction* population density
Yeah, agree that it would be nice to have the urban landscape of Paris. If we could go back in time and build tons of 6 story apartment blocks instead of existing 1-2 family housing, I’d be all for it. But the reality is that it’s 2023, we are in the midst of an urgent and worsening housing crisis, and there is limited land to build on.
There’d probably be a lot more support for denser housing if they made it look & feel more like Cambridge. The issue I take is that they make them like spaceships invading the city; they don’t care about the surroundings, they don’t care about neighbors, they just put a big box up and call it good.
I’m not gonna say developers at any point in history were better, but I think there was more social cost to building ugly things. Now ugly things are the norm.
And now anonymous MrChatterBox joins the fray. The Council must have sounded their troll alarm from the roof of City Hall to come rescue them from all us “local voters.”
I’ll let your obsession with usernames and how a point is made—rather than the actual point—speak for itself.
I’m not a huge fan of the aesthetics of newer construction either. The question is, what’s more important, aesthetics or giving people a place to live and preventing homelessness and displacement? I worry you don’t fully comprehend the reality of the housing crisis and where we are in this moment.
Because people want to live in Cambridge, both rich and poor is a crises? Ok now we have drastically increased the density by intense development of the East and West parts of Cambridge over the last 10 to 15 years.. Now advocates want to increase the development density of existing density because people want to live in Cambridge. Ruining the Cambridge experience by stuffing more into the city will deflate the quality of life for those who live here now. This is progress? I don’t think so.
“….a pivotal piece of legislation that has garnered extensive discussion.” If the AHO has done anything around town, it has polarized folks into two camps: for and against. It’s a divisive piece of legislation that makes consensus all but impossible.
“strict design guidelines and community engagement requirements.” Hmmm…let’s take a case in point: WinnDevelopment’s proposed 2 slab proposal at Walden Square. One slab/building, 65 units large, destroys Walden Square Road, turning a massive chunk of it into a tunnel, yes, a tunnel. With parking underneath, and a narrow walkway off to the side. The AHO has enabled WinnDevelopment to do whatever it wants to maximize profit – which includes the unsafe, dangerous, and – frankly – ugly tunnel scheme of one building. The other building eats up green space, but more on that below. As for community engagement, Walden Sq. residents have been subject to years of intimidation by Winn’s management. Why would they risk organizing into a unified body when their landlord literally lords over them? Hundreds of these folks live already difficult lives, struggling in neglected apartments, living several to a room. Winn’s “community engagement” meetings were so poorly attended that there were more Winn people in the room than Walden tenants. Especially vexing is the cultural and language chasm between the Winn folks (white, educated, English speaking) and the few Walden tenants present (Afr-Am, Hindi, Somali, Ethiopian, non-English speaking).
“…ensuring no neighborhood is left behind.” Please, leave us behind. Must city hall put pedal to the metal on every nook and cranny in Cambridge, green-lighting AHO-based development in the name of progress? Fortune magazine just named “our fair city” (thanks Tom and Ray!) the #1 best place to live in the USA. Is that because of the Manhattan-like structures going up in Kendall or is it the city’s European flavor, its walkability, it’s big-little-small town vibe? Obviously, the latter.
“a silver bullet solution” (meaning: the AHO). Quite the contrary. The AHO attempts to be just that: a draconian piece of legislation designed to penetrate through standard time tested democratic deliberative processes. It’s the private sector (developers) and city hall pressing the panic button on what we all agree is a nation-wide housing crisis. Panic generally does not lead to reasonable outcomes.
“we anticipate only three to five larger buildings to be constructed over the next decade, spread out across the city.” Really? In that case – WinnDevelopment already has two larger buildings planned at Walden Square. That leaves only two or three buildings left over the next ten years? I think not.
“When you have a crisis you go to the experts.” Only experts? An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about absolutely nothing. My point: experts are great, and so are generalists, like human beings wishing to live in spaces they are proud of, protective of. Places they do not want to leave.
“We simply do not have enough land to build four-story buildings and meet our housing needs.” From a Globe article published June 13, 2023. “Housing authorities are legally allowed to operate anywhere in the state, not just in their home communities, so long as they comply with local approval processes and zoning rules. So, the authority in Cambridge – where costs are high and housing is already fairly dense – is in talks with nearby communities such as Medford to build there as well.” Excellent initiative! A most creative approach.
“…buildings can be taller but not wider, thereby occupying less space on the lot and allowing for more open areas.” No kidding? One wonders what the clusterf***k coming out of the Yerxa underpass at Walden Square will be like when that building over the road goes up next to the already existing tower. And Winn’s second building, right next to that…well, enough said.
“In fact, residents of Fresh Pond Apartments [a.k.a. Rindge Towers, a.k.a., the projects] wrote a letter in support of the AHO.” Uh-huh. Ten residents to be exact. Ten residents out of the several hundred occupants of what some have come to call The Trinity, though I’m not sure why.
“AHO buildings are nothing like this [poor construction, underfunded, away from transit, no amenities]. Its buildings are on main corridors, surrounded by retail, parks, transit, and open space.” Winn’s Walden Square plans are not on a main corridor, there’s no retail nearby, no subway and no major bus lines, though there is a park (Danehy). How much open space will remain after 100 units are built remains to be seen – but I am confident in stating: not much.
“…a lasting legacy…” That much is true: once a ten story building goes up you can’t tear it down. It’s there for a hundred years. It’s the wrong legacy, folks. Antithetical to Cambridge’s character. We can – and must – do better than surrendering to the AHO, regardless of the version. We must hold developers and the city accountable.
Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
https://chng.it/9ww95MSZTK
If the Council is committed to housing why not adopt the 2013 recommendations for Central Sq and the corresponding zoning language the City drafted? It’s been sitting there for just about 10 years.
Patrick you make good points that the Council should also allow more market-rate housing. They are also working on that, and that is also a fight. But why should that stop them from separately allowing more affordable housing?