Cambridge is a special place. It has a foundation of longtime locals and every year attracts new residents, many drawn by our jobs and our universities. I came first for work, joining a startup in East Cambridge in 2013. When that didn’t work out, a group of colleagues and I started another company in 2015 and eventually set up our office in the Brickyard building near Danehy Park, where we’ve been ever since. I’ve lived in Cambridgeport and (with a stint in Colorado in-between) now rent in The Port on Plymouth Street. My now-wife came to Cambridge for grad school. We met for our first date at Lamplighter Brewing on Broadway.
We’re now expecting a baby girl in January!
This morning we walked to 1369 Coffee House and saw sidewalks full of kids on their way to school. We imagined dropping off our daughter there in a few years’ time, taking her to local playgrounds, coaching her sports teams and directing her plays. We pictured investing in this vibrant, diverse community and becoming an even deeper part of it.
We also face challenges that anyone building a family has to think about. What if we want to have more kids? Could we afford a bigger apartment? If we save up to buy a home, will we ever be able to afford one here, or will prices keep growing out of reach?
This isn’t meant to be a sob story. We’re both working professionals fortunate to know that we can always move if we have to. A February report named Boston-Cambridge-Newton as the most expensive metro area in the country to raise a child, so just about anywhere we go would be less expensive. We’ll be fine, but it’s an example of the choices facing all the young families in our community.
Some will stay, many will leave. A Boston University study found this year that people aged 26 to 34 are leaving Massachusetts in large numbers. That’s net out-migration, meaning more young families are leaving than arriving. It’s hollowing out our communities – leaving behind primarily the very well off, longtime homeowners and the segment of the working class able to secure affordable housing.
It doesn’t have to be this way! We can make a difference by making it legal to build multifamily housing and by incentivizing affordable housing as part of larger developments.
I understand that some Cambridge residents worry about how new multifamily buildings could change single-family neighborhoods. Our city is changing whether we build or not. What type of change do we choose? If we keep restricting housing, we’ll get change in the form of more rising costs and a hollowed-out middle.
I saw this firsthand during the two years I lived in Telluride, a Colorado mountain town. Telluride got more popular over the past few decades, but local laws put lots of restrictions on new housing construction. Few units were built and housing costs skyrocketed, even beyond what we see today in Cambridge. Many full-time locals living and working in the town got priced out. What was once a healthy mix of full-time residents, second homeowners and tourists turned into mostly just the very wealthy, vacation renters and locals lucky enough to win lotteries for affordable housing. The middle got hollowed out.
We can choose a different future. If we allow more housing to be built, we’ll retain more young families who are invested in our community. Our people are the best thing about Cambridge. Let’s let more of them stay!
Ty Wilson, Plymouth Street, 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.
I wholeheartedly support this letter and its vision for Cambridge. The author captures the essence of what makes Cambridge special – its vibrant community, diverse population, and unique charm.
The letter thoughtfully addresses the challenges facing young families in Cambridge, particularly the high cost of living and housing affordability.
It’s refreshing to see someone acknowledge these issues while also proposing solutions, such as allowing multifamily housing and incentivizing affordable housing in larger developments.
The author demonstrates a deep commitment to the community and a desire to see it thrive. Their call for action is not just about personal benefit, but about preserving the diverse, dynamic character of Cambridge for future generations.
This letter serves as an important reminder that cities like Cambridge need to evolve to remain inclusive and vibrant. By supporting affordable housing initiatives, we can ensure that Cambridge remains a welcoming place for people from all walks of life, including young families, students, and longtime residents alike.
I’m not sure that replacing every 1-, 2-, and 3-family home with a 6-story apartment building is the recipe for middle-class prosperity. Seems more likely that those new buildings will be owned by outside investors rather than by the families that live there. Cheaper rentals, while important, are a recipe for short-term financial comfort, not long-term inter-generational wealth building.
Ty is absolutely right. We need more options for young families.
For those most concerned with home ownership, consider that more and more affordable rental housing is needed to support home ownership too. Even if you make good money, it’s hard to save for a down payment when you’re paying 40, 50, 60% of your income just for rent.
Ending exclusionary zoning legalizes all multifamily housing—both condos and apartments.
Right now, A zoning districts are optimized for building $3M single-family mansions. If we instead allow ten 1,200 sq ft homes, they will certainly be affordable to many more Cambridge families—and we will get two subsidized affordable homes as well via inclusionary zoning. It’s hard to think of a more no-brainer, pure upside policy.
This is an excellent letter, very well said. Imagine how wealthy you need to be to be able to raise a family comfortably in Cambridge these days. Do we really want to continue on this path of Cambridge getting more and more exclusive over time? Wouldn’t it be better if more people with normal incomes were able to live here and raise families here? I can imagine how the current arrangement of creating three jobs for every home might work just fine for people who bought homes here decades ago, but for renters, for young people who are looking to settle down and live here long term, for people on the affordable housing wait lists, it’s not working.
The essence of what makes Cambridge special will disappear when there are no front yards and is dominated by four story buildings built shoulder to shoulder. We are currently pushing the population density so that people who don’t live here now can only enjoy reading the history of what we were.
I think a lot of what makes Cambridge special is the people, and as Ty says, we are in real danger of losing more people, including long time residents, as prices continue to rise. People can value different things about our city, but I certainly don’t think low rise buildings are what makes Cambridge special – you can find that in suburbs anywhere.
We’re not even at our historic peak population-wise, even as the country’s population has obviously grown. I suspect we aren’t even building enough currently to keep up with new household formation from kids who grew up here and want to stick around the area, but are ready to move out of their childhood homes.
I get that change can be unnerving, but the high and ever-increasing cost of housing here is actively hurting the 2/3 of the city that rents, right now. It’s not a theoretical harm; it’s currently hurting most city residents.
@Doug Brown and @Fourmacks: Stop with the hyperbole, misleading claims, and drama.
No one is proposing to replace “every single-family house with a multi-story building,” nor will there be 4-story buildings “shoulder to shoulder.” Regulations still exist.
The AHO promotes affordable housing—ensuring people have a place to live even if they can’t afford to own it. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.
Should the majority struggle to afford housing so a few wealthy people can “enjoy history”? That’s just as absurd.
Cities have always evolved. Why should current residents get to halt progress simply because they’re here now?
This kind of alarmist, distorted rhetoric is typical of NIMBYs opposing change.
I know two different families who own triple deckers on larger lots in N Cambridge. Currently they rent to 6 families below market since the units are rather older. Both have met with different developers to see what they could do under the new zoning proposed by the city council. One developer suggested to add more space to each floor and create 3 large condos estimating they could get $2 -$2.3m each unit. The other developer proposed a plan for 6 condo units estimating $1.2-$1.5m per unit.
Both developers said if the cost of the land had to be included the sale prices for the units would be even higher.
Both plans remove 6 affordable rental properties from the market and 2 huge trees that shade multiple houses.
Would this qualify as “cheaper housing” for young families? Looks to me like more displacement and even higher land values.
@kdolan, while you may have encountered a few developers exploiting the situation, that doesn’t invalidate the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) or the effectiveness of affordable housing plans overall.
It’s essential to understand that affordable housing is mandated for new multi-family developments under the AHO.
Such scare tactics are typical of NIMBYs trying to obstruct necessary developments.
What truly isn’t working is the current restrictive zoning, which hinders young families and workers from securing housing in our city. If you’re highlighting potential issues, let’s address that one too.
We are facing a housing crisis; families need homes. We must not lose sight of this reality due to a few unfounded claims.
@frank D My examples illustrate how this proposal to eliminate single family housing zoning actually acerbates the displacement of affordable units and works against the affordable housing overlay. It will increase land values and displacement even more than what we have been experiencing. The housing crises is regional, not solvable by Cambridge City Council theatrics. Anyone telling you they will make our housing prices more affordable is flat out lying to you
@kdolan Anyone claiming that eliminating restrictive zoning won’t create affordable housing is misinformed or lying
Analyses of the current proposal shows that the new amendments could lead to over a *30-fold increase* in net new affordable homes.
This isn’t speculation; it’s basic economics—supply and demand. Ample research and the experience of many other cities show that increasing housing supply results in more affordable options. Those are real results.
This argument is grounded in research and hard evidence, unlike the stories that you are telling.
@kdolan. No.
The link between exclusionary zoning and affordable housing shortages is well-documented. Many cities have successfully increased affordable housing by modifying zoning laws.
The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) mandates the inclusion of affordable units in new developments, directly contributing to the affordable housing stock.
City analysis indicates that the proposed amendments will significantly boost affordable housing availability.
Your anecdotes do not refute these established facts and data-driven projections.
@kdolan The housing crisis is indeed regional, which is why all communities must contribute to the solution.
Cambridge, where the situation is particularly severe, has a crucial role to play.
NIMBY attitudes won’t resolve this crisis.
MrNice the problem is NOT regional its NATIONAL. Please expand your viewpoint sources. Many Many other States are caught up in this problem, and a LOT of the problem is outside speculators (including a LOT of foreign companies and individuals).
@MrNice So sorry Mr Nice, but you’re confusing the AHO with the this new upzoning proposal. The AHO does have strict affordability requirements, its built with city/state funds. The upzoning proposal by Azeem has NO affordability components unless there are 10 or more units, in which case the City’s Inclusionary Zoning is triggered, 20% affordable in which the developer pays for the affordable units by raising the costs of the market units. And as local developers told the Housing Committee in June this proposal will not provide them with any reason to build 10 or more units to trigger the IZ.
Not one single community has seen an increase in “affordable” units by eliminating single family zoning. They have seen an increase in housing, but its market rate, not “affordable”.
Heres a study that looked at the effects of Minneapolis eliminating single family zoning. The costs of housing rose, especially in low cost neighborhoods.
https://www.planning.org/blog/9219556/measuring-the-early-impact-of-eliminating-single-family-zoning-on-minneapolis-property-values/
This study found that allowing upzoning with affordability requirements depressed the amount of new construction in Seattle
https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/Upzoning_with_Strings_Attached_508.pdf
Please post any actual studies that show how housing prices were actually lowered enough to be categorized as “affordable” by eliminating SFZ.
Its important to make the distinction between all the various terms and that everyone really understands the implications and impacts of this zoning change.
@kdolan The Cambridge plan you’re referring to is the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). It is comprehensive and includes zoning reform *along with other measures to incentivize and require affordable housing construction*.
Your arguments don’t consider the entire AHO and are moot because we have evidence of its success:
1. Since 2020, developers have proposed affordable housing projects totaling over 700 rental units.
2. The AHO could reduce affordable housing development costs by 10-15% per leasable square foot.
3. New developments are expected to serve over 2,000 residents, with 98% earning under $78,500 annually.
It’s counterintuitive to argue that Cambridge housing reforms won’t create affordable housing when they already have.
Here’s some reading that explains the AHO and its successes:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/13/cambridge-affordable-housing-policy-explained/
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/what-can-we-expect-cambridges-new-affordable-housing-overlay
@Cambridgejoe Yes, it is a national problem because cities all over the country have enacted the type of strict rules over development that we have here.
That is why everyone has to do their part. If people in Cambridge and elsewhere all say “let someone else fix it”, it will never get fixed, will it?
Essential workers who make our city run need housing. That means affordable housing here, where they work.
@Cambridgejoe Plus, the lack of affordable housing significantly harms local economies: High housing costs reduce residents’ disposable income, limiting consumer spending and local economic growth.
Businesses struggle to attract and retain workers, especially in lower-wage industries, leading to:
Unfilled job positions
Higher employee turnover
Longer commutes, reducing productivity
Business relocation to more affordable areas
Read this:
The Housing Shortage Is Hurting Almost Every Part of the Economy
https://www.investopedia.com/the-housing-shortage-is-hurting-almost-every-part-of-the-economy-8636226
The affordable housing shortage costs the American economy about $2 trillion annually in lower wages and productivity. Studies suggest GDP growth between 1964 and 2009 could have been 13.5% higher with better access to affordable housing.
https://nlihc.org/explore-issues/why-we-care
In short, a NIMBY attitude harms businesses in our city.
AvgJoe I think you’ve missed my posts in the vast forest of replies by others on this and other related editorial pieces/letters.
I don’t have a NIMBY attitude, I am totally surrounded by and living in a Multi-family dwelling and have been for most of the past 27 or so years here in Cambridge. Its one thing to bring in 3-6 story buildings that folks want to replace single family 2 story buildings with or to build such in delipidated sites and lots, and another to ok 15 story monstrosity complexes with 40-120 units like have been proposed in other parts of the city.