Long-fought change in building affordable units becomes law, affecting heights and open space
A rally at Cambridge’s City Hall on June 17, 2021, calls housing a human right. (Photo: Marc Levy)
After a year of debate, meetings and refinements, changes to height and open space rules for all-affordable buildings were approved Monday in Cambridge in a 6-3 vote that surprised no one, but offered an end to the bitter condemnations and accusations hurled from one side to another.
“Like my colleagues, I recognize that the six-to-three vote is inevitable,” councillor Dennis Carlone said. He and the other votes against – Patty Nolan and Paul Toner – took the opportunity to restate their positions, while councillors in favor seized the chance to explain the significance and value of what was decided.
The amendments to the three-year-old Affordable Housing Overlay zoning, called AHO 2.0 by many, increases the by-right height of buildings with 100 percent affordable units to 12 stories along the city’s main corridors such as 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, and to 15 stories in Central, Harvard and Porter squares. For these projects, design review by city officials become suggestions, not potential deal-killers.
Several of the city’s nonprofits, including builders of affordable housing, spoke in favor of the changes as making it more likely they could compete with market-rate developers for sites and projects, likely adding a few residential towers citywide over the next several years.
The general lack of funding for such projects is expected to limit AHO 2.0’s impact, but backers say that’s why passing the changes was so urgent.
“Tonight, we have an opportunity to prioritize the thousands of people who live or work in Cambridge that are on the affordable-housing waitlist. We have an opportunity tonight to add another tool to the toolbox to help increase our affordable-housing stock. We have an opportunity tonight to do what we can to help maintain the diversity of our city. We have an opportunity tonight to prioritize people over aesthetics,” councillor Marc McGovern said. “It is a great opportunity.”
Councillor Burhan Azeem said 616 homes had been built under the original zoning. “I imagine 616 families in front of us today that got to live in our city, just seeing them fill up an auditorium,” he said.
While Nolan noted that Azeem was getting a little ahead of himself by putting the homes’ construction in the past tense – most are still in the pipeline and for various reasons are not prime examples of what the new laws can accomplish – she also hit on a message shared by all councillors: “The simplistic message that this vote is either or for or against affordable housing is deeply wrong and corrosive to our community.”
Residents’ rhetoric
Residents’ rhetoric around voting the amendments have included allegations of racism or classism, because opposing the amendments meant keeping out people of other races or lower income, or corruption, because favoring the changes could mean being in the pocket of developers who will profit from the projects.
A little of that was heard among the more than two dozen public comments Monday on the amendments. “I checked records of campaign donations for City Council members and discovered a correlation between a councillors’ funding from lawyers for developers and his leading the push for AHO 2.0 amendments. That represents to me a conflict of interest,” one speaker said. Another said she was disturbed that the amendments seemed crafted to guarantee a green light for a single project – at 2072 Massachusetts Ave., near Porter Square – that tried a different path to construction but was withdrawn in August 2021.
There is at least one project waiting for these amendments to pass, but it’s in Central Square, said Dan Totten, a legislative aide for councillor Quinton Zondervan who resigned to become a candidate for City Council. That project has been “on the table for a year because the numbers don’t work under the current AHO,” Totten said. “They are waiting for the day the zoning passes. I would bet you within a week or two we’re going to hear something about the site.”
Injury on both sides
Opponents on the council spoke of their issues with the amendments, from them jumping the gun on the five-year review written into the original to fears of a “Russian roulette” in property values that could expose the city to a lawsuit, but also about the tone of debate. “The amendments will do nothing to promote mixed-income housing, which is what Cambridge needs most,” Nolan said, while noting that each of the opponents have “a long, solid, documentable history of supporting affordable housing.”
“I do hope that we can move on after this vote and get beyond this notion of ‘You’re for it or you’re against it,’” Toner said. “The notion that any of us is just anti-housing is unfair and unnecessary.”
McGovern responded that he’d been “called more names by people in the public” suspicious of developer riches – which he found particularly dismaying because apart from his political career he’s a social worker who’s never earned more than $55,000 in a year. “I agree, people should watch what they say, but that’s a two-way street,” McGovern said.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui cautioned against a back-and-forth on the tone of the past months.
“I get it, folks. There’s been a lot of things said in the community. But let’s be collegial,” Siddiqui said.
Vitriol could continue
When the vote was taken, Carlone, Nolan and Toner were opposed; in the majority were Siddiqui, McGovern, Azeem, Zondervan, vice mayor Alanna Mallon and councillor E. Denise Simmons.
But with elections coming Nov. 7 and the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning a key topic – challengers have suggested starting the next round of discussions, and that the next council could rescind the changes – Nolan suggested that Monday’s vote wouldn’t be the end of the vitriol.
“I have not said those things,” Nolan said in reference to allegations of doing developers’ bidding. “I think everyone here has to pledge then to tell surrogates not to either, and that has not happened – on both sides.”
This post was updated Oct. 17, 2023, to correct a speaker’s quote from their printed notes.
This is an unequivocally good thing. Larger buildings will not harm a single person in our city and the increased density will improve the vibrancy of our neighborhoods as well as bring much needed support to our local retailers.
Long fought? You mean quick and easily passed no?
Folks, six votes to three is no landslide. Last night’s council session demonstrates there’s room for improvement with an AHO 3.0. What was ratified yesterday is one of the most divisive pieces of legislation most of us have ever seen. That’s not bold leadership and it didn’t unite us. What will? Negotiation, compromise, continued discussion until all parties can vote 9 to 0 (or 8-1) for a plan that all Cantabrigians feel good about. The seismic changes to our urban landscape which the overlay allows and which impacts fully one quarter of Cambridge ought to be earned through an undeniably large majority vote which last night did not deliver. The takeaway: the policy order is not a done deal. Not with a new council coming in three weeks. In a way, the brief timeline between last night’s council decision and the election may be salutary for us all. With last night’s decision a recent memory in the public’s mind, we will get to see for ourselves who is in, who is out and, by recalling how they voted on the order, who had it right and who didn’t. At the very least, on November 7th we’ll know that much.
Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
Candidate for City Council
Those outside the hallowed enclaves of West Cambridge are tired of decades of “studies” performed by “consultants” which are then never acted on. Councillors are elected to make this city function for the people. Eliciting endless studies is not leading. It is performative nonsense. The councillors doing it know that, too. Do not be fooled by them.
And to patty’s point about middle income housing. Yea, it’s a huge problem. And then when enacted (whatever that may look like, I haven’t seen a proposal), the city will just end up drawing another line in the sand and excluding another group of people just above it. All the AHO is, is a loosening of zoning restrictions in order to make construction competitive with market rate. How can councillors be so blind to the fact that the code of this city is what is driving everyone out?
The changes needed are not even out of line with what Cambridge already is. That is the most ludicrous part of the entire argument. If Cambridge had ~20-25 years ago allowed low/midrise apartment buildings by right city-wide, we wouldn’t be in this mess. No need for towers.
But here we are. Bring on the towers.
It has been a long slog in trying to get council to understand the ramifications of their blanket policy. That is not to say that tall buildings aren’t appropriate everywhere. some could fit nicely. But there hasn’t been any discussion of infrastructure, electrical, any consideration of context, grocery, bottleneck transportation in congested places. In short– no study, modeling or identification of places where buildings could go. that was the basis of the amendment made on the floor rejected in favor of the broader ideology of housing for everyone who wants to live in Cambridge, which is basically unrealistic. This version of AHO still won’t build the amount of units expected. what then? more amendments for taller buildings? Stop and plan.
Also– it never ceases to amaze me how defensive and thin-skinned a particular councilor is. He is “unapologetic” (even offensive) in his advocacy yet if someone pushes back even a little he turns into a victim. “oh yeah? what about you?” His style has never been conducive to civil discourse, because in many cases, there is no compromise. Might makes right. Please do your homework for the elections and see who is the grown up in the room.
Federico 6-3 votes ARE traditionally “landslides” on a 9 member council. I really need you to start making sense friend.
“All the AHO is, is a loosening of zoning restrictions in order to make construction competitive with market rate”
This sentence is patently false. There is no parity or even “competition” among private and affordable housing development. They’re financed differently, they’re economics are massively different, and more importantly AF won’t be available to 90% of the people moving here … so where is the “solution” or even acknowledgement of this? The whole “competition” argument is just not true.
Not talking about financing. These plots of land are not reserved for market rate use. Affordable developers need to compete with market rate developers for that land. The AHO enables the economics to be more likely to work out for the affordable developers.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. I usually agree with you. I find myself extremely frustrated with the city’s inability to admit that there is massive need for market rate zoning reform.
Not reserved for market rate or affordable use *
What I’m saying is the completion bit is a farce. That being said Quinton’s ex-aide is likely talking about the supreme liquors building. It’s been in trouble for a while now. The elevator shaft going to no where is a sure give away. Love that he is feigning that he has an inside track. Just like he pretends he actually helps people or does anything substantial. Levy you really need to filter this stuff a bit. Three nonsense articles back to back and you know more than most what a nightmare that guy is.
One challenge is that those who opposed the amendments while calling for civility often take umbrage when someone corrects the record.
For example, it’s misleading to say that the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay amendments will not create mixed income housing.
According to CDD, 100% of Area Median Income is $149,300 for a family of four. Proposals under the AHO have varied, with some creating homes affordable to families earning 30%, 60%, or 80% of AMI, meaning incomes as low as $31,150. A income range from $31,150 to $149,300 is a significant mix of incomes.
CDD already has a separate middle income rental program for households earning 80-120% of area median income. 120% of area median income for a family of six is $207,830. https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/forapplicants/middleincomerentalprogram
At one point earlier in this discussion, an opposing councillor said we should focus on helping those most in need. One of the AHO proposals (116 Norfolk) will provide homes for recently unhoused residents.
These zoning amendments will provide hundreds more affordable homes for Cambridge families. Thank you to the Councillors who supported them!
Requiring 9-0 votes is a recipe for never changing anything. Why should it take 9 votes to change things but just 1 to keep the status quo? Completely unserious.
Really glad these amendments passed, and grateful to the 6 councillors who voted in favor.
Change is hard. Being homeless is even harder. These amendments will make it easier to build a few more affordable homes in Cambridge. That’s a good thing, and we made it easier to add or preserve open space in the process. Democratic self-government is hard. Unlike our state and national governments, Cambridge can be proud that our City Council manages to get stuff done even so. Unanimity is not the goal, though it’s always nice when it happens. Progress towards justice is the goal, and we definitely made progress last night.