A moment of reckoning around Affordable Housing Overlay zoning changes
This Monday the Cambridge City Council will vote – 6-3 – the Affordable Housing Overlay 2.0 into law.
All of us who are for more quality affordable housing like to keep the 3 Ds of development in mind: density, diversity and design. We all want density, because more people means a richer culture, a more robust economy and the pleasure of human interaction. From a casual nod and a hello as we walk the avenue to an exchange that leads to a long and meaningful friendship, we all want diversity because, well, Cambridge is already very diverse and we want more of that. Diversity – contrary to what a xenophobe might say – makes us stronger, more resilient and tolerant, and brings people together, introducing ideas and cultures to the city. And that can’t be bad.
Everyone wants design to play a role in our living spaces. Design determines how well or not-so-well we live, from the front stoop we sit on as we have our morning coffee to the sidewalks we use to walk around this most walkable city, and from the amount of light that reaches our homes to how connected we are to the street downstairs. I would go further here and add that Cambridge, that most European of American cities, is a world-class city precisely for its design and the efforts of our antecedents to preserve its unique, special and particular characteristics. I am not speaking only of colonial-era red brick buildings, ivy walls or irregular sidewalks (also made of red bricks). I am speaking of the corner of Columbia and Harvard streets and the Columbia Market, I am speaking of Paddy’s Lunch on Walden Street. Of the Cantab Lounge and that stretch of mom-and-pop retail stores; the stores that haven’t been priced out of the neighborhood by the national chains – yet. I am speaking of the perennial and ubiquitous triple-decker whose height so elegantly lines up with Cambridge’s astonishing canopy and must have been planned to align that way by those who came before us.
The AHO 2.0 may get good marks on the density front, but fails on the diversity and design fronts. It does not mandate that we make our city more inclusive, so it is entirely possible that a young, white low-income couple who are software engineers will be just as eligible for affordable housing as an elderly couple of color. We know that discrimination is baked into our society. From applying for a job to filling out a tenant lease, it’s harder if you’re a minority. Moreover, the law doesn’t mandate socioeconomic diversity and could – and in the past has – further concentrated the poor among the poor, a sure recipe for downward mobility.
On the design front, anyone can see that the proposed top building height – up to 15 stories – is not only brutally out of sync with just about every neighborhood in Cambridge and sure to incur the wrath of the public when said buildings start to rise, but proof that this City Council took the easy way out, ignored the public and caved to the demands of developers.
This map, provided by the city (with thanks to Daniel Messplay of the Community Development Department) shows that the Affordable Housing Overlay 2.0 spreads through about one-quarter of the city. The pink areas show where 140-foot buildings (or 12 stories) will be erected. The bright red areas allow 170-foot buildings (or 15 stories). Look at where you live, where others live and what we are at risk of losing. I am speaking of the very fabric of our particular neighborhoods and the “thing” that makes us engage in our civic lives as good citizens working (and playing) as we build our communities over time, for each other and for those who will be here when we’re gone.
In three weeks a new council will be voted into office. On Nov. 7, I urge you to vote like your neighborhood depends on it – because it does. Hopefully this new body will have the talent, intelligence and willpower to rescind AHO 2.0 while meeting the city’s Envision goals for affordable housing through gentle density with midrise buildings not more than six or seven stories high along our corridors and squares.
That would be a legacy worth leaving for future generations.
Federico Muchnik is a candidate for Cambridge City Council
Thanks for sharing the map! I hadn’t seen that before. Very exciting change.
Recognize that isn’t the point of your article but the logical inconsistency between saying density is great but building up is bad design is hard to engage with!
For what it’s worth, I wish there had been more engagement on the design front. I don’t mind 10-15 stories at all as long as the design fits into the fabric of the neighborhood (I’d be all for red brick!) Unfortunately “design” is instead just used as a fig leave to argue for “no to little change”.
Maybe after the election shows the level of support for these exciting changes, we could have a good faith engagement on design. I’d be all for that!
Cambridge has had decades to update its zoning code to remove exclusionary zoning and allow for modest density increases throughout the city, remove nonsense Levittown-esque dimensional requirements from the code, as well as using city land to build housing.
None of those things have been done or even seriously discussed.
We live in a city that cherishes its historical character and simultaneously has a zoning code that makes most of that character illegal to build.
And so here we are with the AHO, the only politically feasible option (barely). CCC and others only have themselves to blame.
Two software engineers will absolutely not qualify for affordable housing, what a ridiculous statement. And if you want to support more local businesses, density is will only help. Look to Montreal whose urban areas(ex. the Plateau neighborhood) are about 2x as dense as Cambridge. Their local retail is far healthier than ours because they have built and continue to build dense residential and retail. They’ve also seen success in embracing bike lanes and pedestrian streets rather than focusing on parking.
The diversity point of this argument is quite misinformed, in my view. First of all, as multimodal points out, it is quite difficult to imagine a household of two software engineers become income-eligible for any of this housing, so the strange analogy does not hold. Second, and more importantly, people of color are disproportionately more low income, due to structural racism, and fair housing prohibits us from explicitly including race, so income is an effective ways to serve this goal.
Related to socioeconomic diversity: the AHO does vary in the levels of income. In fact, one criticism of the AHO might be that it does *not* produce enough deeply affordable housing, as many affordable housing units are targeted at households making up to 60 or 80% AMI. The author articulated a valid desire that these buildings are not isolated from other parts of Cambridge, as has historically happened with many public housing developments. However, at least for the latter point, this is not a concern of these amendments, given the corridors and squares in question, so I don’t quite understand the criticism being articulated.
Finally, re: design – this has been discussed to death in many other places, so I won’t reiterate, but I will simply note that it is not a giveaway to market-rate developers – these are 100% affordable housing buildings –, and more that we have an affordable housing crisis and more units are desperately needed, which larger buildings in appropriate neighborhoods would allow for. I will also note, connected with this, that I think there is substantial disagreement about whether this will indeed destroy the “fabric” of the community. Many of my neighbors and I completely disagree with this assessment, and believe that the AHO, among other tools to address affordability, in fact helps us preserve the fabric of our communities by helping prevent the displacement of so many valuable community members who would otherwise have to leave Cambridge due to astronomical costs.
I am certainly interested in discussing further on the design question, because I do think that some of the concerns are well-founded and do deserve consideration as buildings are developed. Regardless, in my mind, they do not weigh at all, in the balance, against the passage of the AHO, among many other desperately needed tools to mitigate our affordability crisis.
Wow, that is an amazing map. Thanks to the author for providing it. The best part I think is that it allows areas around Concord Ave, Mt Auburn, and other streets in the western part of the city to finally start doing their part to provide dense, affordable housing, the way we here in Central Sq have been doing for a long time. When the buildings in those areas start going up and more people start moving in, I think it’s going to really bring the city together, and make some of those neighborhoods feel less like the wealthy enclaves for homeowners that they currently feel like. This will do a lot to alleviate the division we’ve seen in local politics for the past few cycles.
I hear the concerns about diversity, but other commenters have pointed out why they are unfounded. In practice subsidized housing tends to be a great way – the only way – where lower income people of color can afford cities as pricey as Cambridge. As for the concerns about design, that’s something that you can work on as you go. The first step is housing more people, bringing them into the community, and having their voices and input for how to design neighborhoods that aesthetically and functionally serve the people who live there.
It is true that Cambridge will look and feel different as these changes are implemented, but that’s far from a bad thing. Cities evolve and grow, which is precisely how they stay “world class” as opposed to falling into the category of a “boutique museum” that only the wealthy can afford. I for one am excited to see how our neighborhoods evolve, given the incredible “bones” they have to begin with. They can be built on to create something truly unique and incredible, something fitting for the 21st century.
So thanks to the author for this informative piece, and let’s get out there and elect a city council that can implement this bold vision!
Can any of the “geniuses” promoting this major upzoning for height and density in other people’s neighborhoods explain why River Street and Western Ave – major corridors in every sense of the word – have been excluded from this proposal? That’s a real mystery to good ole’ Bono. (Some have speculated it might be because Marc McGovern – despite being a key proponent of this amendment – doesn’t want to risk pissing off his own neighbors in what may prove a close election, where he has some real competition in his own back yard from candidates not so keen on 12 and 15 story buildings in Cambridgeport and Riverside…) But, Bono is sure there’s a “good explanation.”
The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay has design guidelines created specifically for it.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2020/affordablehousingoverlay2020refiled/zngamend_aho_designguidelines_20200728.pdf
CDD has stated that it will update these design guidelines to take into account the amendments, I believe at a Planning Board meeting where the author of this piece gave public comment.
Poor Bono, I would welcome taller buildings in my neighborhood and have.
IT is a worthy goal to have diversity and affordable housing, but I have many concerns. Cambridge is the 4th most populous city in MA after Boston, Worcester and Springfield which have land areas of 33 to 40 sq mi. We are only 7 sq mi. The population growth from 2000 to 2020 was from 100k to 120k a 10% increase. The AHO approved building 10000 homes by 2030 which means an increase in around 20k people at least with perhaps as many as 10k vehicles. in just 7 years.
Given overcrowding with a lack of parking spaces, increased traffic congestion and pollution with attendant environmental consequences, this trend is unsustainable. Commuting times have gotten worse, especially on Fresh Pond Parkway and Memorial Drive during rush hours.
We will have 12-15 story buildings that will benefit only developers while we lose quality of life. in Cambridge. To make matters worse, the new bike lanes have taken away parking spaces.
I am against all new development – affordable or otherwise. There has been tremendous overbuilding in Porter Sq, French Pond, at Walden and East Cambridge.
Do we really need to accommodate all comers to Cambridge? There are other cities around that will be better able to accommodate them. Diversity is a wonderful goal but we can’t have everything. I am a left leaning liberal, but see what is happening in San Francisco, once the best city in the US. I see a ruinous future down the road without careful city planning. Let us not destroy our city.
@Poor Bono Publico, thank you so much for bringing up these points! I live near River St and Western Ave, and strongly believe they should be included in the AHO 2.0 upzoning proposal. I am very curious as to why they are not! The theory about them being in McGovern’s neighborhood as the reason for their exclusion is a very interesting one, and the logic behind it makes tons of sense! I would really love to hear a response from Marc himself on this, as I’ve seen in the past he sometimes replies to the comments here.
Mike g, we chose the corridors we did because there were more developmental opportunities there. I would happily have taller buildings on River and Western. For anyone to suggest that I’m being NIMBY is laughable. I have never voted against taller buildings in my neighborhood.
Actually Marc when C2 was proposed which would have brought taller buildings to your neighborhood you didn’t support it at all. Maybe it is more of a political calculus thing?
River St and Western were both massively down zoned in 2001 if anyone is interested to know. It was reclassified ba-3, C, and C-1 which devastated retail and made it essentially multifamily residential. When the western Ave bike lane was done the DPW did such a horrendous job protecting businesses during construction they all but closed. The same will happen to River St.
Patrick, that was my first term on the Council and I admitted it was a mistake. You know I support tall buildings in Central, such as Mass and Main (Market Central). You and I have had many conversations about it.
Right so it was your first term and you deemed it too politically treacherous to support or even voice a positive opinion on something you say you believe you now believe in.
Yes we have spoken on the subject often but you kind of twisted your position again and suggest that no residential building can be taller than an AHO building. So your position over time has kind of moved more toward a Zondervan/CresA position of affordable housing or nothing?
To that point if you are now a true believer file an amendment Monday night to include River St and Western Ave.
I triple dog dare ya.
“we chose the corridors we did because there were more developmental opportunities there”. was that AHO 1 or AHO 2.0?
Is that to say there are too many multi-family houses and density on these corridors? Have you been to any of the arbitrary corridors chosen to see if they have the same conditions? I suggest that you councilors haven’t really visited the designated areas to see what is feasible or not. Some places may very well be able to take taller buildings, but if Western Ave and River St don’t have the capacity, why would some of the other places chosen? that is part of the anger over this one size fits all plan. you did not listen, just fulfilled an agenda before AHO 1 was fully studied, as written into the first ordinance. That point was ignored without due process couched as “amendments” which aren’t tweaks but complete re-writes changing original intent.
Federico and his CCC friends should consider moving to one of the many surrounding suburbs where they can be happy, and let Cambridge try out something a little bit different. Or is their real agenda that most of these candidates are landlords that like high rents?
All this posturing aside Id like to understand what Fred here has against software engineers.
It appears the “son” of Carlone is just as incoherent. One of the reasons he was highly ineffective as a leader seems to be repeated in this rant as well. There are plenty of good reasons to object to the AHO and even more for the 2.0 version but none of that is articulated very well here.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to who wrote these amendments but none of the self professed authors have done a decent job explaining why it’s necessary so soon after the first iteration either.
How can it be that 15 stories is correct for Central Sq and also Porter? Many on this council approved Mass and Main which is 195′ (see also: 18’stories) was that porridge too hot?
If a developer proposed 18-24 stories of market housing today, as Twinning did in 2016, would that now be rejected because it “competes” with AHO heights?
Does it make sense to create a non-viable housing strategy to tackle a supply issue limiting market rate to below AHO height and densities where the AHO is highly unlikely to produce the requisite 12,500 units by 2030 the Council signed off on?
Does anyone know what they’re doing or is it collect a check, lock in the pension, and bail?
I hate to see you all fight over something so dumb.
I am kind of surprised Western and River aren’t part of this, so yes let’s include! I live a block from River and supported the AHO 2.0 concept always assuming that River was part of it.
Conversely Fresh Pond Parkway seems poorly chosen. Unfortunately that road is essentially a urban highway for commuters into Cambridge/ Boston and routinely a mess so I don’t think it in its current configuration could support better bus infrastructure to support greater density (as an example).
Now lest people think this should serve as an argument to “do more research” or “come up with a holistic strategy” or other tropes to delay, not at all. Any hypothesized harms or quibbles are outweighed by the demonstrable harm done caused by structural underbuilding. I am all for continuing to amend within this framework as we learn more (just like we are now doing with the original AHO amendment). That’s how you get things done.
That there are legitimate arguments about the content of the amendment even among supporters should show the author how the opposition of folks like him has failed as a political strategy. Unlike Charlie Brown and the football we aren’t fooled again. We know your reasonable sounding arguments about design and research and strategies are actually just delay tactics to make sure nothing happens because you like the status quo. It worked for 40 years. I don’t think it works anymore.
Patrick, would your position be to upzone for more market rate housing as well?
I’d be all for that but haven’t heard any council members articulate that so assumed there is not a constituency large enough for it
Correct. Many say they are for it but have never brought anything forward. I think, they think it’s too politically treacherous. We had a chance in 2013 for Central Sq but everyone ran scared. I just do not know how anyone can claim to be concerned about the housing shortage without addressing market rate. Affordable developers are never going to acquire properties in BB districts unless it’s through a taking or another pandemic like catastrophic event wipes someone out. Thus if our housing strategy is only about what gets one elected we aren’t really getting it done.
Design is a code for stifling zoning restrictions as a way to keep the status quo. I welcome the change for increased density. people want to live here in Cambridge, and we should have policies that enable that. Cambridge should not be a country club where existing residents and the wealthy use zoning to exclude prospective residents who want to live here. More density means more housing for people who want to be here.
@Federico Muchnik Economic diversity is diversity.
The AHO is not a blank check for developers to do what they want. There is still a regulatory process.
Denying people homes because you like the city the way it is is callous.
Cities always change and always will. All the changes up to the moment you arrived are OK but no more change after that? NIMBY nonsense.
There has been zero serious discussion to my knowledge of meaningful market rate reform, because apparently if you aren’t generational wealth multi millionaires living in west Cambridge but earn slightly too much money for affordable housing then you are not welcome in this city.
The practical reality of CCC’s position is to keep just enough labor around to keep their eateries open and that is it.