The successes of Affordable Housing Overlay zoning described in an annual report Monday pleased Cambridge city councillors, but there were concerns about other properties that had either rejected development offers or were “under continued review.”
“There’s a lot of things to be excited about and proud of in here, as well as some things that could be done better,” councillor Marc McGovern said, noting that two of 16 sites in the report had accepted offers for affordable-housing development. “It does say to me that as good as this has been, there’s tweaking that needs to be done, because we’ve lost out on far more than we gained.”
The report was presented at the council’s sole summer session by the Community Development Department and City Manager’s Office boasting 16 total sites under “active review,” 13 of which were evaluated and added to the docket this year. Six additional sites are in development, with a total of 616 multi-bedroom units approved and underway.
Within the 16, five total offers were made, out of which three were rejected by sellers or walked away from by the city’s partners, nonprofit developers such as Homeowners Rehab Inc. or Just A Start. Another seven are “under continued review,” meaning locations are still being vetted before an offer is made or withdrawn.
“In some cases, we’re looking at things that are fairly prospective, but we’re reporting them here wanting to keep the conversations going, because we’re looking at a lot of different opportunities and trying to assess which are the best,” housing director Chris Cotter said, explaining some of the properties appearing in the report.
The annual report provides a summary of activity under AHO zoning adopted in October 2020 to help developers create permanently affordable homes in a quick, cost-effective way in areas of the city where they lack. The report is required to show evaluated and confirmed sites and give a description of each project underway or completed.
Although the zoning was adopted with language calling for a review in year five, some councillors are looking to make changes in year three, seeking to build higher along major roads and in squares.
More family units
Four projects – Jefferson Park Federal, North Cambridge; 52 New St., Neighborhood 9; 49 Sixth St., East Cambridge; and 116 Norfolk St., The Port – have completed AHO community and advisory design review processes. Construction began at 116 Norfolk St. in December, while 52 New St. and Jefferson Park Federal will begin construction in a few months and 49 Sixth St. begins construction in early 2024, once funding is secured.
The fifth site, 102 Sherman St., Neighborhood 9, restarted its community process after a redesign; the sixth site, 1627 Massachusetts Ave., in the Baldwin neighborhood, began its Planning Board advisory design process last month.
The housing is designed with all types of tenants in mind: 62 units will be studio rentals, 116 will be one-bedroom apartments, 238 will be two-bedroom apartments, 174 will have three bedrooms and 26 will have at least four bedrooms.
“It was exciting to see that of the 616 units, about 438 of them are two-, three- and four-bedrooms,” McGovern said. “We were so desperate for those larger units.”
Councillor Dennis Carlone received the report with optimism, but wanted to know more about the cost of the finished projects. “What are they per unit, or per bedroom or per square foot – whatever is the best way to tell the story?” Carlone said, warning that he planned to put forward a policy order calling for accounting of such things as money spent on projects and what community benefits have come back.
Geographic spread
Other councillors looked at the locations of the housing. Patty Nolan hoped the six undisclosed addresses would fulfill better the “geographic spread” of affordable housing intended by the zoning.
“One of the key rationales for the Affordable Housing Overlay was to have West Cambridge have more of these, and so far that hasn’t been as successful,” she said.
Still, two newly accepted sites are “‘in the neighborhood,’ as we think of traditional neighborhoods,” McGovern said, looking at the 37 Brookline St., Cambridgeport, home of the late artist Peter Valentine, and a Blanchard Road site in the Cambridge Highlands on the Belmont line, a small commercial building being developed by B’nai B’rith Housing. The placing of properties in such residential areas was not something the council was seeing before this report, he said.
McGovern highlighted a concern from the community that residents weren’t feeling that their input on AHO projects and throughout development was valuable, and councillors and other city employees would follow their own ideas instead of collaborating with the neighborhoods.
“All of these projects have gone through community meetings and Planning Board meetings, and all of these projects have been revised based on that information,” McGovern said. “I know that’s a big concern for people, but so far this has worked and projects have changed and projects have evolved, and people have been listened to.”
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.
This is a joke right?
“It was exciting to see that of the 616 units, about 438 of them are two-, three- and four-bedrooms,”
The real question is how many are NOT two bedrooms? Does anyone really believe a two-bed apartment is appropriate for long-term raising of families which consist of more than two people?
“Still, two newly accepted sites are “‘in the neighborhood,’ as we think of traditional neighborhoods,’ ”
REALLY? Central square is a “traditional neighborhood” is it? Isn’t that a photo a the top of development underway in the Central Square area? Isn’t there Washington street apartments? Temple place apartments? Central House?
How about we hold off on the self-congratulatory puff pieces until Cambridge figures out a way to spread the load more evenly (I’m looking at you, Strawberry Hill), reduce the amount of stress on Area Fou…oppppss….I’m sorry …. The Port (problem solved?) and build units that ACTUALLY serve multi-generational families?
Unless we want to move the not-all-disruptive-to-the-people-who-live-in-the-immediate-area Starlight theater to……ohhhh I dunno…. Strawberry Hill?
I wish the headline focused on the positive of the report. 616 new, 100% affordable units, of which 200 are 3 and 4 bedrooms. Great results so far, but still room for improvement.
We should also keep in mind that 212 of these 616 affordable homes are not new, they are being substantially renovated or rebuilt (at Jefferson Park and on Norfolk St.). Still great, of course, but important to know in terms of understanding the too-slow rate at which we are adding affordable homes.
So while we should definitely celebrate our progress, at the same time, we need to know that we are not creating enough new affordable homes to meet our affordable housing goals and thus the need to expand the AHO.
Also, while I fully support building family-sized affordable homes, 2/3 of the 6500 households on the CHA waitlist with a local preference (4,488 of whom live in Cambridge–the others either work in Cambridge and/or are Veterans) have applied for studios or 1 BRs.
Out of curiosity what are our affordable housing goals? Do we have market rate housing goals too?
The main factor limiting affordable housing development in the city according to the city’s own CDD staff s that this radical, ideologically driven City Council voted to end parking minimums. That has limited the edge affordable housing developers once had over market rate and commercial developers. So what did the Council do instead to counterbalance this – they proposed the most radical citywide up-zoning in half a century – increasing the heights of buildings allowed to 12 and 15 stories citywide without design OVERSIGHT by the Planning Board. They and the neighbors can make “suggestions” but no developer is required to follow them, and the city will not force them to.
I grew up in a two-bedroom apartment in Boston. It was…fine? Two parents and one kid is not an unusual family. Lots of families would love to live in a 2br they can afford.
@Sam Noubert “The real question is how many are NOT two bedrooms? Does anyone really believe a two-bed apartment is appropriate for long-term raising of families which consist of more than two people?”
Similar to Jess, I lived in a two bedroom apartment for my entire childhood and I genuinely wish I could find a similar place at a similar price now.
Building density where there is already transit, services, employment, and retail options actually makes a lot more sense to prioritize than densifying areas like strawberry hill that are less connected and have fewer surrounding options for employment and shopping. I also think it’s interesting you focus on that neighborhood, which has small lot sizes and is predominantly middle class, and not the mansion zoning for the super rich of west Cambridge. As you can see here strawberry hill already has a higher density than West Cambridge despite being further from rapid transit: https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Massachusetts/Cambridge/Population
If you want to play this game at least focus on the right targets.
@Williard I suggest you look into the cost of building parking, ending parking minimums makes housing more affordable.
@Slaw Exactly.
@Willard Cities across the United States are adopting a strategy to enhance affordable housing by eliminating parking minimums.
This approach has gained popularity due to its effectiveness. The imposition of parking requirements contributes to heightened housing costs.
How exactly is “the main factor limiting affordable housing development in the city” supposedly ending parking minimums for market-rate housing when that vote only took place last October? https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/10/25/parking-minimums-are-ended-in-cambridge-giving-choice-to-eliminate-or-rent-out-spaces/
@Patrick, Envision called for 12,500 net new homes and 3,175 net new affordable homes by 2030. See pp. 152-53.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/compplan/envisioncambridgefinalplan/Sections/envisioncambridgehousing.pdf
it’s interesting that Envision gets trotted out to make certain points while being ignored in others. It also calls for a certain amount of parking, open space, consideration of neighborhoods.
Is 20% still the amount of each building that will be affordable?
This specific zoning is for buildings that have only affordable units in them – that are 100 percent affordable. Cambridge does still have a program for inclusionary units in which 20 percent of the square footage is to be set aside as affordable.