Let’s spark more housing
Cambridge, Boston and Somerville, to name a few cities that are “pro housing,” have a serious housing production problem. Cambridge has kept up in some manner by thoughtfully requiring housing as part of rezoning for lab development. If you ask why housing has to be required, it’s because “developers” build only what they can make money on, and outside of small-scale luxury flips, large housing projects do not “pencil out,”or make money.
Land costs are a factor, but it’s far more complicated. Some have also blamed the hot lab market for developers choosing commercial over residential, but six months ago financing opportunities for labs all but disappeared, and some say lab is oversubscribed. With that market challenged for now – other than previously financed construction that will get finished but probably not rented – I thought immediately of how to move the dial on housing.
To blame any one factor for costs would be wrong, and I lack the deep knowledge to argue which of many costs could have the most impact. We know high-rise housing is most expensive and that the most efficient construction is below 80 feet, uses wood and has parking at grade. How much height makes high-rise construction workable is a difficult question. Cambridge is also not a market where developers often risk putting hundreds of units online at once.
The big developments are worth supporting, though, as they produce large numbers of inclusionary units. I was proud to be able to help permit Market Central (first called Mass+Main) and the 55 Wheeler project, which combined account for well over 150 permanently affordable units. Market Central was also required to have three-bedroom units, which was precedent-setting. It was also the first 20-percent-affordable project. The tallest building was just under 200 feet and benefited from existing surface car lots along with a low parking requirement imposed by the city. Wheeler Street, which also had the 20-percent-affordable requirement, was below 80 feet in height with not very deep underground parking.
I cannot think of any other large housing developments since, other than those required by lab construction.
New housing also helps support a declining retail market in our once-vibrant squares and retail corridors. The City Council was right in eliminating parking minimums, but some parking is necessary – and it alone won’t solve the problem.
My experience is that large holders of housing, or at least most, are okay with modest returns, but housing – meaning maintenance, management and capital improvements – are costly. In talking with several developers and architects, I find a consensus that one average-sized unit of housing built with union labor – which I’m all for – costs $650,000, all-in. When people see condos sell for more than $700,000, you can see why.
I believe in housing supply. (I grew up in an apartment building and managed to stay in Cambridge because my mother worked a miracle on a condo opportunity.) When I owned a two-family in the Highlands, I saw how my rents decreased significantly because of housing built in the Quad and at Alewife.
The city should more aggressively track the effects of drastic supply increase on the immediate rental market. The Highlands neighborhood is uniquely suited to show how supply works.
I urge the City Council, mayor, vice mayor and city manager to work with the development community, the governor and lieutenant governor and surrounding communities to see what tax incentives or other relief could or would move the dial to get market housing developed with required affordable units.
Local and state governments could provide combined relief. Zoning may help in some cases, but it is not a fix-all. Let’s roll up our sleeves – together – and be ready to spark housing production when interest rates come down.
Anthony D. Galluccio is a Cambridge resident and partner at Galluccio & Watson LLP, and a former state senator, mayor and chair of the Cambridge School Committee. He is a longtime board member of the Hildebrand Family Self-Help Center in Cambridge.
I’m glad to see Galluccio highlight the need for more housing, the high cost involved in building housing, and the importance of large developments that can support inclusionary affordable units.
I think the zoning issue is a lot more than “zoning may help in some cases”, however. There are very very few underdeveloped parcels in Cambridge where the zoning would allow a 50-unit-or more apartment building.
I followed the Our Cambridge Street neighborhood planning process closely, and at the end of the process, CDD was trying to pitch a zoning plan in which a typical parcel could theoretically be built into a 16-unit apartment building. That’s not very many units, and given how high construction costs are, there’s not very many parcels along Cambridge Street whose owners would jump at the opportunity to develop!
North Mass Ave is about to go through a similar rezoning process, and I hope dearly that they work to make *actually large* developments possible. Tax incentives as Galluccio suggests may be helpful, but rezoning doesn’t cost the city a single penny, and if we keep doing the bare minimum of rezoning to make ourselves feel like we’re making progress, we’ll keep seeing extremely sluggish numbers in our housing production.
Central Sq stands out as the largest area in the city where housing can be built. Yet after decades of study there has been zero action. It is possible to satisfy nearly 1/3 of our housing goals outlined in Envision along the Mass Ave corridor of the Central Sq overlay let alone the Osborne Triangle and neighborhood edge sub districts.
^^^^ Always the solution in Cambridge….
“Central square can take it”!
Yes to housing, prioritizing workforce housing. But citywide up-zoning is not the issue or even the best move. Developers already do spot zoning and special permitting for new housing – in North Cambridge and elsewhere. The problem is that many owners of commercial property don’t want to build housing because the return is less. Cambridge still has no city plan nor any means to prioritize housing on the rare available properties. Companies come in with large numbers of employees but are not even required to come up with a plan to provide area housing and transportation. Rather than riding the neo-liberal “just say more” meme that has brought higher housing costs here and elsewhere, it might be better to try something new. Maybe give down zoning a try. Then when someone wants to build one can at least say, if you want to go taller, make it housing.
Always the refrain from anonymous weirdo local posters “not in my back yard” or “evil developer and profit$” cowardice is very on brand.
And for the record Central Square can not only handle development it needs it terribly. 4000 units easily.
Great comments. Yes only way to revitalize squares and bring down rents is supply. I wonder if rather than butter knife zoning we create a housing special permit that allows a housing project over a certain number at 20 percent affordable could avoid rezoning and present zoning relief to the planning board ( community process required). That said i agree the business corridors must have more allowed height and set back relief. However, I avoid touching the 20 percent affordable becauae its such a carrot for other forms of relief or subsidy. Great discussion.
ClarkSR,
Cambridge has been practicing the ancient exclusionary art of down zoning for the last half century. They did it using classic tropes like the ones you’re spouting and now to make any project pencil one has to rezone areas of the city to make our regressive inclusionary housing strategy work in conjunction with massively increased able, materials, and regulatory costs Cambridge heaps on. If there is any “meme” at work here it is the entrenched ideological elitist who bought for $50/sqft, claims indigenous status, and espouses the moral bankruptcy of evil developers. It’s so over used it’s literally white noise to me … if you want Lexington or Manchester by the Sea they already exist and they beckon you to their shores.
@Patrick. The downzoning point was satire but glad to see you steamed. FWIW: 1) I support greater height in Central Square for housing (but may rethink that now); 2) The real question is how we as a city that has no plan can get housing built instead of (or in addition to) more commercial buildings in our small 6 SqM footprint. Add to this all the great new well paid employees looking for housing and the problem becomes even tougher. We are becoming increasingly a “have” and “have not” city. Kids who grew up here can’t afford to come back to live here. Not many people can afford the $$ million+ condos that likely will be generated by some of this. What is your answer to the real financial question of cost? Will Central Square become less expensive to live in with your plan? I know it may make things better there, but will this bring down actual housing costs for average folks here. The latter is a good goal; but citywide up-zoning is proposed with the pretense of bringing down housing costs and it won’t because the city is in such demand by investors and others.
just for facts none of the large housing projects have been condos. The luxury condos are flips in low density neighborhoods. Your right about the haves and haves nots and its been like that for past 40 years. Its definitely more exacerbated. I grew up in condo which was a custodian unit in an older building. It kept us here. If you look at the least “ gentrified or better said most diverse areas its the alewife quad area where there has been alot of new housing with inckusionary and also 100 percent affordable. What percentage of new enployees or grad students want to live in Cambridge is a good question. You will see the budget challanges in next two years as lab slows and commercial values drop. Lab is an easy target as to gentrification but gentrification was flying in the 70s and 80s pre lab. Our location is attractive. The good news is that not everyone wants to live here no matter how much we happen to love it. Its pretty simple as to the agree or disagree with housing as a priority and does supply matter. Thanks for support of mass and main if you did. I dont think the sky fell. I dont think it changed the culture of the square either. Central proper left on its current path is a challanging thought.
Thank you Anthony. I know lots of young people – new residents and others – who would like to buy here but simply cannot afford to. This is why we need 2-3 bedroom condos that are affordable. There are almost zero SFH available even at the super insane prices. I hear of little interest in studio apartments. As to labs – you are correct, but my sense is that those labs already here will stay. The problem now is the increasing office vacancies and the impact this will have on city finances. In short we need to look at the whole picture and where the need is. The huge costs of buildings (materials, labor, transport) remains a ongoing problem.
The cost of housing is not going to dramatically go down. The goal as I see it is to slow down its continuous and dramatic increase. The cost to build in Cambridge is significantly more than other towns. Land is about $400-500/sqft and non-steel construction is about $400-600/sqft with some minor exceptions. Inclusionary has all but killed non-PUD housing growth. The most popular type of build going on right now is down conversions; converting two family homes into singles. We are losing units not gaining. We need to change zoning dramatically to shift that trajectory. Supply will lower overall costs but it won’t make Cambridge “affordable” … whatever the hell that means. We can however add 12,500 units over the next decade, per our master plan, and slow the increases and provide more opportunity.
Patrick: If none of this proposed zoning increase will bring housing costs low enough to enable more city residents to purchase homes (or reasonably rent here – in essence make Cambridge more affordable), and instead likely will again increase land costs and nearby property values, then this notion of an up-zoning cure-all to gain a “dramatic” housing stock increase is a false flag. We can easily pass an ordinance to disallow the conversion of two-family or multi-family homes into single family housing. Why haven’t we?
You write “per our master plan,” Where exactly does this city “master plan” rest? Where specifically (streets, neighborhoods) does this “master plan” state that we shall add increased density, height, and infrastructure over the next X years. What specific streets and neighborhoods are marked on this so-called “Master plan”? Can you provide the link?
Alas said Cambridge city “Master Plan” does not exist. Note too that we are facing an environmental and climate change crisis. Already water from the city’s now under-capacity water pipes is filling resident basements. And most of our new housing is on city wetlands. While we do not have a city masterplan, we do have our Envision Report that speaks to specific climate change goals that must be addressed as a top priority. While this is not an either-or situation (climate vs housing) this all needs far more reflection than simply “add a lot more market rate (super expensive)” housing in this already super dense, investment haven city.
Single families being more profitable than multi family is direct evidence of under zoning. For the middle class to compete with get rich few, existing buildings have to be replaced with bigger buildings.
Banning SFH conversions won’t make other projects pencil out. It will simply cause existing buildings to become even more dilapidated. Surely we have enough of that already.
Clearly you simply don’t want new neighbors. You would accomplish far more than your ideas ever would by heckling our youth to go west and leave this town to wither at the vine.
Clark,
First thing I never said “If none of this proposed zoning increase will bring housing costs low enough to enable more city residents to purchase homes..” that’s your interpretation of what I wrote. What I did say is that affordable is subjective and building a ton of housing will not substantially lower costs but will slow down the increase in prices. It is a very common argument you’re making and I’ve heard it since I moved here 15 years ago. Essentially what you’re saying is if the prices don’t go back to 1975 why bother? The answer is that as a regional issue the State needs more housing. Further we have pockets of exclusionary zoning that should and will be eradicated. We also have areas within dense transit nodes that have single story buildings and are dying commercially. These areas will also be upzoned very soon. We also have a master plan it’s called “Envision Cambridge” and is the work product of CDD, Consultants, and is the brain child of the great Denis Carlone. In this master planning document it outlines the areas of growth and calls for the creation of 12,500 additonal housing units by 2030. If you’d like a link please head on over to CDD’s website and look under planning. I understand your desire for more study … it’s very on brand for Cambridge. However worry not rezoning is coming soon and it’ll be spectacular. You can critique, reflect, point out its flaws, and grumble to your hearts content. There’s a little something for everyone.
The most efficient construction has no parking at all. Building parking costs tens of thousands of dollars per space. Simply eliminating parking will reduce the cost of housing considerably.
Patrick – Here again is what you wrote “Building a ton of housing… [will only] “…slow down the increase in prices.” Alas, this too is NOT likely to happen and more likely will do the opposite. Have you looked at NYC housing prices? We are a target city and our prices will likely rise even more as we add more up-zoning if it is not done carefully.
Hear me out: If up-zoning is not done strategically (and for relatively small sections of streets at a time) it will be a mess. Not only will it significantly increase property costs (values) but will make housing costs more expensive for everyone –newcomers and current residents alike. When you go from a single-story building to an 8-story building, the value of that property escalates dramatically. You may have some housing in it for the multi-million-dollar investors (international among these) or wealthy retirees (or it could be labs), but this will not help the new workforce wanting to live in the city or those who grew up here wanting to move back after college.
NOTE AGAIN: Envision is NOT a Master Plan; it is a longish set of often contradicting goals, with far too few specifics as to “where” and “how.”
You seem to be doing fine with spot zoning (your plan for Central Square) and special permitting; that is not what concerns me, since your projects at least will get some constructive critique from the neighbors and at the Planning Board, BZA. My problem is with those who think we should simply UP-ZONE the whole city willy nilly with no real thought as to what this means on the ground and the likely problems that will accompany this in terms of housing cost increases, new infrastructure needs, the failed transport system, and the environment.
CambridgeResident – single family residences are more profitable because there are so few of these in the city. You remove more of these by tearing down the few thousand remaining and those that do exist will become even more valuable (and profitable). And almost none are in bad shape. I do love my many new neighbors, but sadly, today I and others are seeing more and more empty homes here as increasingly housing in Cambridge has been gobbled up by outside investors who have no plans to live here.
Slaw – simply eliminating parking is not/will not make housing here less expensive. But let’s wait and see what the results are when the city finally does an impact study on our recently passed bill to remove minimum street parking. How many of the new homes have seen price decreases for purchasers? In a couple I have seen, the price points have been super high!
Clark you seem to thinking only of the increased value of improved real estate and not the cost that go into that improvement. Building more housing will not dramatically increase the cost of existing housing; no where on the planet Earth has this been the case. Cambridge already trades at $1000/sqft below Harvard, $2000/sqft in West Cambridge, and $1100+ in areas neighboring Davis. There is a reason the most permits pulled in 2023 were for down conversions. There is no zoning mechanism we can adopt to stop them and everyone with cash wants the same thing; Single family house, new construction, @ roughly 4k sqft with garage parking. By not rezoning places like Central Square we’ve made Cambridgeport, The Port (see also: Area IV), Mid-Cambridge, and Riverside the most lucrative down conversion spots in the City. There is literally nothing for sale there. NYC is always the comparison and kudos for not going full Manhattan on me, but its a poor comparison. Cambridge is 6.32 square miles NYC is 54,555 square miles for starters. Size aside NYC has arcane rent controls, even less incentive to build, and only glamour projects like the worlds tallest “skinny” highrise on billionaires row to point to as “getting it done” on housing. Cambridge, for now, doesn’t have rent control but a dante’s inferno-esque regulatory scheme that adds at least $200/sqft to any build.We can fix that. Further, no one in their right mind would build to 8 stories … at 70′ (see also: six-ish stories) the building regs change as do materials, fire requirements, and a whole host of other building code related requirements that make the building much smaller before it gets bigger. Envision is a master plan … thats what it was advertised as and with a series of studies, plans, and other materials all found on CDD’s website it makes what 99% of planners would consider to be a master plan. Cambride isn’t and can never be an engineered community as you suggest it aught to be. There is no benefit to go street by street, house by house, as stated we are only 6.32 square miles. We have places of industry, academia, traditional residential enclaves, and for the most part a multi-family mixed use designation. I’d also suggest looking up what “spot zoning” is and isn’t the law is pretty clear and unless I’m putting a rendering plant next to your house in an exclusively residential zone it likely isn’t spot zoning. Central Square has a plan … its had one for over ten years…and a plan before that, and one before that going back 50 years. No one is suggesting anything that is either “willy” or “nilly” … also I’d like a tour of these alleged foreign investor owned properties … I am an attorney and I am making a formal legal declaration of shenanigans to that claim.
Patrick: Huh? Are you trying to gas-light this? Or?? If it costs more to acquire property because property values have increased, then new housing will be more expensive, because the land prices have increased, as will taxes. This is what continues to make it more expensive for young people to live here. The “willy nilly” came from the original article’s “spark more housing” reference, which suggests to this reader he is proposing a broad citywide up-zoning (not one property or area exclusively). Terrific that Central Square has a plan (e.g. you are not asking for spot zoning) and all you need to do is to follow the rules or ask for a special permit. Note for you and others, however, that the whole point of the AHO is to allow increased height exclusively for affordable housing, not market rate, so that AH0 developers can purchase properties without existing competition from market rate and commercial property purchasers. When we did away with parking minimums, several AHO developers said that this ordinance, it made it more difficult for them to compete with market rate developers (this concerns is in the record). In short, very decision comes with impacts.
“Slaw – simply eliminating parking is not/will not make housing here less expensive. But let’s wait and see what the results are when the city finally does an impact study on our recently passed bill to remove minimum street parking. How many of the new homes have seen price decreases for purchasers? In a couple I have seen, the price points have been super high!”
it literally does because again building parking costs tens of thousands per space. if you don’t have to build it it saves tens of thousands in building costs compared to if you did, reducing the price. While prices might still be high they would be even higher with parking requirements.
Also MAPC has studied this and found that parking is consistently overbuilt in the Boston area compared to actual utilization and that this results in higher housing costs: https://www.mapc.org/news/new-study-finds-off-street-residential-parking-overbuilt-across-metro-boston/#:~:text=Boston%20–%20New%20research%20by%20the,higher%20rents%2C%20fewer%20housing%20units
@ClarkSR – two points:
(1) Most housing in Cambridge is multi-family; I believe over 50% of housing units are in buildings that are at least 4-unit buildings, and it’s probably a lot more when you include triple-deckers. When you build more units of housing on a single plot of land, the amount of land value paid by each household goes down because you’re splitting it more ways.
(2) I don’t think you’re correct that broad upzonings broadly increase land values. In fact, this recent paper noted that a broad upzoning in Houston had the effect of slightly *reducing* land values, probably because the value of the land was driven by a housing shortage and the upzoning alleviated that shortage: https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/effects-minimum-lot-size-reform-houston-land-values
I buy that spot upzoning of a single parcel or area increases the land value of that small area, because you’re giving that small area a special privilege. There’s a famous paper by Yonah Freemark which came to that conclusion by studying Chicago. But the more parcels you upzone, the less special the privilege is, and the less it affects land values (here’s a theoretical analysis explaining the principle: https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/building-up-the-zoning-buffer-using-broad-upzones-to-increase-housing-capacity-without-increasing-land-values/).
We shouldn’t see upzoning the city as a special favor to landowners – we should see upzoning the city as the way we get housing built. We need to build housing.
Slaw: I will await a (hopefully) forthcoming study to see the impacts of ending minimum parking on bringing down the price of homes here. So far, I have not seen it.
Angstrom: a couple of things. 1) Our city taxes are based on the financial potential of property. So, say if you live in a SFH home that had a former basement apartment, and your next door neighbor lives in an identical home (same plan, same year, same SF) but his basement is turned into a large bedroom for their daughter (a family member), the city taxes your property more, than your neighbor because it is seen to have more financial potential. Ditto, say another neighbor renovated their house and added a condo in the rear, the total property value would now be much higher, which also will impact (raise) the property values of all the near neighbors. So they will have to pay higher taxes each year (particularly bad if they are on fixed income, or are very young just starting out). The value of land is not driven by housing shortage but rather the amount of value that the property holds for interested buyers (everywhere, including investors, for whatever purpose) plus how that value is determined by city accessors. Cambridge is a very “hot” (in demand) city because of our 2+ universities (and their increasing numbers of staffs and grad students), plus the growing number of number of labs here, plus the historic nature of the city (its “charm”/”style”) plus its proximity to Boston and the airport. Adding “willy nilly” more housing (e.g. without a specific street-by-street plan) will simply add to the increased property values/costs/taxes and will not likely to make it easier for young people working here who want to live here or kids who grew up here who want to move back. There is a big difference between Chicago and Cambridge in terms of size (Chicago has a vast acreage, much of it not very dense) and “demand” (the interest of people moving/living there). For this reason, Chicago has relatively low rents compared to Cambridge, NYC, SF and other cities that are much more in demand.
.
ClarkSR it is basic math. If adding parking costs tens of thousands of dollars per space, requiring it inherently raises the cost of housing. If it costs tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, to do something, not having to do it will save tens to hundreds of thousands in building costs.
Of course there are other things inflating housing prices in greater Boston that it will not address but why mandate something that makes it even worse?
Slaw – in the past developers could/would regularly remove parking by special permit. And in some zoning petitions, it was removed from commercial areas. But on the cost factor differences – take it up with the AHO developers, they are the ones who said it made a difference in their ability to purchase properties ( e.g. compete with market rate and commercial). This is why we need to be more serious about looking at consequences and outcomes.
There are obviously better ways to support affordable housing development than mandating that space be saved for storage of automobiles.
Cambridge lacks a homeless housing plan. At a recent city meeting to determine and solicite ideas about what to do with empty or surplus city own property, my comments in the workshop on utilizing the properties to address homeless housing needs were excluded from the reporting back to the main meeting body, a violation of the meeting’s protocols. The workshop facilitator denied giving my workshop comments and input atmosphere at the main meeting gathering. This is typical of the exclusionary practices being dealt out to those most impacted by Homelessness here in Cambridge and elsewhere in the land.
Finally, the Cambridge Community Development Department has been a proponent of excluding the homeless sector in Cambridge of the federal,state,local, both public and private resources that would grant them the homeless a better life with decent housing. Their hypocrisy borders implicit bias when it relates to them respecting the rights of the homeless to decent housing.
Yours In Peace
Hasson Rashid
Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT)
Coordinating Secretary
Cambridge,MA
This guest column doesn’t qualify “affordable housing.” Often the earmarks of affordable housing, besides being an abysmally low ratio that does not actually meet the needs/demands of lower income people (but always hailed as being great for being more than the bare minimum we are told we don’t even deserve)–are priced at AMIs much higher than what most lower income people can actually afford anyway. Usually this is at or even above 80% Area Median Income. 80% AMI is far beyond what a Section 8 voucher can absorb or even qualify to take (which voucher holders are disproportionately held by Black families and disabled people) will cover. The general 80% AMI in Boston metro is also close to double the AMI of Black and Latinx households in the area. So when we price “affordable” units at that rate–we are largely excluding those BIPOC households and it becomes a form of red-lining by proxy. So if the housing largely is priced for that range level of income, it’s not actually affordable to many of us for whom affordable housing should be for. I see a lot of use of the term “workforce housing” which usually covers households that make between 80-120% AMI–and conveniently are largely white and able-bodied. The term “workforce housing” even came into vogue along the housing it caters too, because people didn’t want to be neighbors with what they considered the “undeserving poor.” So let’s be real about the dog whistles implicit in this language and who the housing is for and who it is not for. When a mere 20% of housing is “affordable” (and again not even really THAT affordable) and the other whopping 80% of housing is high end luxury housing for prestigious white collar professionals–that increases the COL for people in more run down and naturally affordable housing. Study after study show that’s the case–increasing supply increases demand and speculation and while it may in the long term (we’re talking years if not decades) help lower overall costs for the already relatively financially secure and privileged–in the near term, it puts pricing pressures on lower income people and leads to our increased rent burdens and displacement. Trickle down housing does not work for poor people, anymore than any other trickle down economic scheme.
Great point on the inclusionary incomes. I wish there had been more attention to the incomes when the city increased the percentage. The incomes are even more important than probably the percentage. I suggested requiring three bed units and both lowering and increasing the income to catch more residents . Unfortunately the focus is always about more units not filling the need bu way of income and bedrooms . Great point though.
Gaslighting? No … adults do not believe in or practice such things. The reasons offered for the AHO and the actual reason why it works in some places and not others are not related in anyway. The AHO will not spread affordable housing in areas where the percentages are low any more than it will create newer opportunities other than the obvious areas where affordable housing is 30-40 the total housing stock. Our zoning is a total mess and has been for too long. The parking minimum reduction was not done to “make housing cheaper” but to address the larger issue of prioritizing cars over development the city needs. I use Central Square as an example of our systemic failure in zoning and housing because it has about 40 years of “planning” and study that have largely gone ignored. It also has the lowest density allowed in any commercial district and is restricted to 55′ in a BB zone which is also the lowest anywhere in the City. Filing for a special permit to get a project approved in Central Square that isn’t Article 19 related is a fool’s errand. I’d also argue further that Article 19 is hot garbage. That Central Square is an “area of special planning concern” and any project over 2000 sqft have to go through at least one ring of fire is absolute nonsense. Central Square needs a re-write immediately. Anyone celebrating our current zoning laws or pointing to them as if they’re a stone tablet brought down from the mountain either 1) doesn’t use the zoning ever, or 2) simply wants the world to stop spinning, or 3) a combination of 1 and 2 with a smattering of classic elitist let them eat cake-isms.