A report on progress seen by Affordable Housing Overlay zoning showed a rise in all-affordable projects over the past year, to 25 sites first assessed in the just-passed 2024 fiscal year for construction compared with 13 cited at this time in 2023.
There are 10 “actively underway” developments to create affordable homes in Cambridge according to the report seen Monday by the City Council and two more expected to begin the process in the fiscal year that began July 1: at Corcoran Park in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood and at 2072 Massachusetts Ave., near Porter Square. That was site was first proposed outside the overlay zoning in September 2020 and withdrawn in August 2021, and now will be tried within the AHO.
Three overlay projects made it through the process in the report period in preparation for construction, though a funding commitment for one of those – the development at Walden Square II in North Cambridge – is newly paused for Planning Board design concerns to be considered.
Another three are under constriction, and four more are searching for financing.
The 10 developments underway will create more than 725 affordable units, according to the report from the city’s Community Development Department.
[documentcloud url=”https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25033596-080624-aho-annual-report?responsive=1&title=1″]
“You look at inclusionary housing, which has been around 30 years and has created 1,500 units, give or take,” said vice mayor Marc McGovern at Monday’s summer meeting of the City Council. “You look at the AHO that has been around three years – and we’re looking at it 700 in the pipeline. It’s pretty fantastic.”
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. Though the zoning was set to get a five-year review, an amendment was instead passed in October that changed height and open space rules for the all-affordable buildings.
The amendments, 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.
Similar to a year ago, councillors were interested to hear about sites that are labeled as “rejected” in the report or where a developer “decided not to pursue.”
The answers vary, housing director Chris Cotter said, including some where builders of affordable housing – usually nonprofits – got outbid for a parcel. In other cases agencies may just prioritize land that has more potential. “There is a bit of a vetting,” Cotter said, with developers choosing to walk away from a site “that would then be challenging to move through the funding pipeline.”
The council accepted the report with McGovern suggesting that future versions show where projects are on a map. Part of the point of the overlay zoning was to make it possible to build all-affordable projects anywhere in Cambridge and stop it from being massed in specific neighborhoods such as East Cambridge and North Cambridge.
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.
Good news!
Is all of Fresh Pond Parkway part of AHO2? I don’t think that’s the best example of a road to build high density buildings on.
Still want them to add River Street to AHO2 that feels like a better option
Dear cportus,
Yes, you are correct that all of Fresh Pond Parkway was included in the AHO2 corridors, even the areas that are currently zoned for one- or 2-family residential. Similarly, all of Concord Avenue is included, even though much of Concord Ave is also zoned for 2-family residential.
The result is that certain large parcels in these areas (the Honda dealership, the former BB&N athletic fields, Cambridge Self-Storage, the National Guard armory, and the Harvard Observatory, all of which directly abut existing one- and two-family homes) could be built with no set backs, minimal open space, unlimited FAR, and heights of up to 140′.
As urban planning, this was clearly an unintended oversight. But as political theater designed to cause maximum harm to those neighborhoods who questioned both the original AHO and AHO2, this was precisely what the Councilors who proposed and passed the ordinance intended.
Never doubt the ability of Cambridge voters to vote against their own interests.
We stifle all conversation that isn’t about creating lotteries to aware very few people with below market rate housing.
Meanwhile, our streets are more dangerous than in the past 20 years, we allow people to destroy public spaces, and our infrastructure is collapsing.
Yet all anyone wants to talk about is how we can make another 700 units for lottery winners.
I thought you supported ending single-family and two-family zoning in Cambridge, Doug.
The public Envision Cambridge process called for 3,175 additional affordable homes by 2030. Even adding those 700 new homes in the pipeline, we still fall far short of that goal, with only 474 so far. That’s why the AHO amendments were passed.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/envision/Housing
Envision also called for 12,500 new market-rate homes, and we are nowhere near that goal either.
We need meaningful zoning reform to meet our agreed-upon housing goals.
here again, we have Envision trotted out when it was never ratified and is full of contradictions. It also said there should be height and setbacks in consideration of neighborhood context and a good design review. It also acknowledged the historical commission as part of the process, yet all the upzoning conveniently ignores review in favor of streamlining fast projects. what happened to the understanding (and zoning) that nearly 3/4 of the city is already zoned for multifamily housing in the C-districts? All the yapping is about a sliver of A and B districts, some of which also includes the national register historic district of Brattle St. So if you want to tweak and reconsider other issues, why not just rezone those two districts that are written for single family housing? We actually don’t need city-wide rezoning. it was bulldozing councilors (no pun intended) and CDD who ushered in oversized buildings without considering the 13 districts and WHERE these building are going. Indeed a map of intention is definitely needed. McGovern seems to think that is a novel idea. And Envision is hardly a viable guideline, just a want list… and poorly conceived and executed at that.
I’m looking at all of the sites Doug mentioned, and I don’t really see an issue with any of them being developed with large scale projects. I’d much rather see housing on Fresh Pond Parkway than a car dealership. New residents in the locations mentioned would have easy access to a large park, groceries/services, and a new school. It’s hard to imagine a better place for housing in Cambridge.
The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is working—great news for Cambridge, which needs more affordable housing for workers.
@Jason: The answer to our dangerous streets is to make them safer, not to deny people housing.
@Doug Brown: Affordable housing does *not* cause “maximum harm” to current residents. How does living near a four- or six-story multifamily building harm anyone? Is living near a car dealership better?
This is just wealthy people defending their property values.