A first attempt at zoning language that would allow for apartments of up to six stories in all residential areas of Cambridge was requested Monday by the City Council as a starting point for discussion. In addition to that unanimous draft zoning request to Community Development Department, councillors passed amendments requesting analyses for alternative proposals.
Cambridge zoning laws allow for single- and two-family zones, which are generally in western parts of the city. The proposal eliminates such zones, which city leaders have called “exclusionary zoning,” and introduces a citywide six-story height limit.
The zoning proposal includes other changes to encourage development. It reduces setback requirements – mandated space between the borders of a property and the building itself – but maintains requirements on how much of a lot must be open space. It also modifies existing inclusionary housing policy, replacing a developer density design bonus that comes with building affordable units. Instead, there might be a requirement that buildings with 10 or more units must set aside 20 percent of its units as affordable.
Draft language was promised “possibly as soon as the next meeting” by Iram Farooq, assistant city manager for community development – and it appears on the upcoming Monday agenda for discussion.
The council’s vote is an early step in a process that, after language is drafted, will involve multiple community meetings, Planning Board and Ordinance Committee hearings and another council vote on a finalized language.
Toner and Nolan alternative
Analysis of on an alternative zoning proposal was asked by councillors Paul Toner and Patty Nolan. This alternative would restrict buildings without special permits to four stories in current single- and two-family zones; nine to 10 stories on main corridors; and 15 to 25 stories in squares.
“The issue that’s getting the most attention has been the six-stories issue,” Toner said. “All we’re really asking for is information about how much housing we could possibly produce if we had nine to 10 stories in our main corridors, 15 to 25 in our squares.”
The amendment seems to respond to concerns from residents of current single- and two-family zones in public comments and letters to the council.
“Six stories citywide,” Toner said, “except in the residential A and B districts – that’s where we’re hearing the most angst.”
Toner further requested analysis on what would happen if the inclusionary requirement was decreased to 10 percent to 15 percent, citing concerns that the 20 percent affordable unit requirement dampens development.
“I have heard over and over again that 20 percent is a real barrier to building in the city,” he said. “And to the public commenter who said, ‘Why wouldn’t we go higher? Other places are going higher.’ That’s actually not true. San Francisco rolled back its inclusionary zoning because it was having such a negative impact on building.”
Toner and Nolan’s amendment passed, although councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler voted against it and vice mayor Marc McGovern expressed concern over the plan to exempt certain areas from six-story zoning.
“We’ve heard many times that there are certain neighborhoods that already have taller buildings, therefore that’s where the taller building should continue to go,” McGovern said. “But I do want to point out that those neighborhoods have not always had taller buildings, and decisions were made to put more density in certain parts of the city. And now to say that we designated some neighborhoods as more desirable and didn’t put density there a hundred years ago, so we’re going to continue to not put it there? That feels not quite right to me.”
“I believe that every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution,” he added.
Wilson’s alternative
Swinging in the other direction on inclusionary housing, councillor Ayesha Wilson introduced an amendment asking for analysis on a revision that would apply new zoning relief to projects that are 10 or more units or larger than 10,000 square feet, which is the threshold for inclusionary requirements. The effect would be loosened zoning restrictions for projects with 20 percent affordable units.
“A zoning change like this really will impact the greater part of our city,” Wilson said. “The important piece is that we look into the inclusionary units and how we are able to maximize the affordability of our housing across the city.”
Wilson’s amendment aligns with feedback from residents such as Carolyn Magid, who expressed concern on Monday that the new zoning will lead to displacement, as well as part of a circulating petition by the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition.
“These zoning changes, including building as of right, incentivize developers to tear down naturally occurring affordable housing like triple-deckers and replace them with larger buildings where they can charge much higher rent,” Magid said. “Why should we make it easier for developers to displace lower-income residents and not even be providing any new units for them? At a minimum, the zoning proposal should be amended to apply only to buildings over nine units.”
Wilson’s amendment passed unanimously. In response to both amendments, multiple councillors agreed with the need for further analysis to create a model which is, as Nolan phrased, “robust, replicable, understandable, and fully transparent to the city.”
This post was updated Sept. 20, 2024, with a link to draft zoning language from the agenda of the Sept. 23, 2024, meeting of the City Council.
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.
Im sure the six story buildings in our neighborhoods will be beautifully designed and not covered in teal plastic siding like the previous ones.
lol what the heck is “naturally occurring affordable housing” other than caves I suppose
I just want to second Marc McGovern’s logic here. We need more density everywhere there’s public transportation, and just because we chose 50 or 100 years ago not to allow that density then, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t now.
Again, who does the City Council and the Zoning work for, the interest of the current residents or the interest of the speculators, investment fund managers, hedge funds and corporate money? I seem to remember that its the Residents who vote around here, that corporations etc are not supposed to be the tail wagging the dog of government.
A good chunk of the property owners are NOT residents in the city. These non-residents seem to have an awful lot of influence on the decisions of the council.
Let’s be logical, the finance world and the corporate world is obsessed with constant growth, bigger cities means less power to the people living in them and more ability to sneak past the rules and regulations since a larger population allows it to easier to split the vote when it comes to getting their candidates into office and control of government.
@Cambridgejoe That’s gaslighting. The housing crisis is real, not a creation of the financial sector or a conspiracy. People need homes.
We can’t solve it without building more housing. Everyone knows this, and there’s nothing wrong with six-story buildings.
NIMBY zoning rules, enacted just a few decades ago, caused this crisis. It wasn’t always like this, and it doesn’t have to be.
Denying homes to essential workers to protect wealthy homeowners’ property values is callous and short-sighted. A lack of affordable housing harms the local economy.
Read the news. The United States is facing a serious housing crisis that is not a fiction or conspiracy.
The core issues are:
1. Insufficient housing supply, particularly in high-demand areas
2. Restrictive zoning laws that limit new construction
To address this crisis, we need to:
1. Build more housing, including multi-story buildings
2. Reform zoning laws to allow for increased density and diverse housing types
3. Prioritize affordable housing for essential workers and low-income residents
NIMBYism and overly restrictive zoning rules have contributed significantly to the current situation.
These policies often protect existing property values at the expense of overall community well-being and economic growth.
Patti Nolan continues her streak of being a major disappointment. Paul Toner was already well-known as a NIMBY.
The callousness that certain councilors have towards the lower income workers and young families who make this city function is startling and disappointing
@cambridgeresident. Agreed.
And how about this attitude that we shouldn’t build affordable housing because developers will make money? Are they supposed to build houses for free?
Has anyone given thought to how this huge influx of residents – should this be voted yes – will impact our schools and city services?
The increase in cars on streets that cannot handle the current traffic? Mass Ave as a one lane main road would have to be widened.
This is a very poorly thought out proposal that will drastically change Cambridge for the worse.