Clarity about the possible consequences of a petition to end exclusionary zoning is needed. Cambridge’s Community Development Department has not provided enough information for the City Council and the public to make good decisions.
The A Better Cambridge organization claims that ending exclusionary zoning will increase the housing available to low- to moderate-income residents. They also suggest that the demographics of Cambridge mean this will particularly benefit people of color.
City councillors Paul Toner and Patty Nolan propose amending the ABC proposal to limit the area subject to rezoning and reduce the required inclusionary units from the current citywide standard of 20 percent for projects of 10 or more units to 10 percent.
A proposal that has support within the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition restricts projects of nine or fewer units with the presumption that this will result in more projects with 20 percent inclusionary housing.
We need to see how each of these would work. CDD needs to estimate the cost of new units built because of the zoning proposed by A Better Cambridge. We need to know if the claims for this proposal are correct.
I believe the cost of new, or newly renovated units, will mean pricing (sale or rental) that excludes buyers making less than 150 percent of area median income. That would mean that apart from required inclusionary units, ending exclusionary zoning will not create housing for people with low to modest incomes.
Let us say that all new housing includes 20 percent inclusionary units. Inclusionary units provides housing for households making 50 percent to 80 percent of AMI; if a lot with a single-family house on it is sold and the house is replaced with a nine-unit building, the result will be that the number of high-income units will have gone to nine from one. This is an increase in gentrification. If the new building has 10 units, two will be inclusionary; one high-income unit has been replaced by two modest-income and eight high-priced units. This, too, is an increase in gentrification.
Under current conditions, the inclusionary units would go to households with incomes in the 50 percent to 80 percent AMI range. Only a low-income household holding a housing voucher would be eligible to occupy a new inclusionary unit. Unfortunately, there needs to be a major increase in the number of available vouchers to make the rezoning benefit low-income households.
ABC also argues that the end of exclusionary zoning will result in so much new construction that market forces will lead to lower housing costs in Cambridge.
City staff needs to estimate how many units have to be built before market forces drive the cost of housing down. The number may be so high that ABC’s predicted benefit will not occur for a generation. It is challenging to predict the future cost of housing correctly. It would help if staff estimates how long before the predicted new construction produces enough units to lower market costs. Is the estimate one to three years? Three to 10 years? Ten to 30 years? At City Council meetings, advocates for the proposal say they believe it will generate modest-cost housing for them. They, and we, need to know if this is true.
Henry H. Wortis, Berkshire 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.
The long-term solution to Cambridge’s housing crisis is the construction of more affordable housing. The people in Cambridge who are most rent-burdened (spending 30% or more of their income on housing) are households making less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI). As many comments in this stream say, an Affordable Housing proposal might address this issue but the current proposal to end Exclusionary Zoning is not an AHO proposal. In fact, some people think it will hinder the existing Affordable Housing Overlay.
Because land and construction costs are so high, all new market-rate units resulting from the current proposal will be affordable only to households making more than 100% of AMI, meaning inclusionary housing is required to achieve affordability. This would happen if only projects of ten or more units were built by the new zoning. Further, households making less than 50% of AMI don’t have sufficient income to move into inclusionary housing unless they receive a rent voucher from the city. To make the voucher system meaningful, the city will need to substantially increase the number of available vouchers through a new municipal voucher program.
As the number of new affordable units resulting from an end to exclusionary zoning will not help the most needy, the city should build social housing. Social housing is typically government-owned housing that rents to low, medium, and high-income occupants. Because it is government-owned, it benefits from preferential interest rates and a lower required rate of return. Further, rent paid by high-income residents helps subsidize the low rents for less affluent residents in the buildings. Unlike classic low-income housing projects, which require annual government funding, social housing covers annual costs with income from rent.
Social housing is widely used and very successful in many major European cities, such as Paris and Vienna. It is only now being introduced in the US, for instance in Maryland, Washington, and Georgia. This year, Governor Healey included money for pilot social housing projects in the budget. Cambridge should seek these funds and initiate a long-term multi-year program of investment in social housing.
@Henry Wortis to say that the solution to our housing crisis is for the city to build public housing is just to not acknowledge the reality of the situation. The new public housing development at Walden Square is projected to cost $80 mil for just under 100 units. If the city wanted to build enough housing on its own, we’d have to spend the entire city budget on public housing development for at least a decade just to get through the people that are currently on the waitlist.
City finances just don’t have the ability to address the scale of this housing crisis.
“The long-term solution to Cambridge’s housing crisis is the construction of more affordable housing. ”
According to CDD, this proposal will produce ~900 more affordable units by 2040 relative to the status quo, at no cost to the affordable housing trust fund. And more than half of households currently living in inclusionary units make less than 50% AMI. The AHO is great, but the amount of homes it can create is limited by the amount of public money that is available. We need other tools and solutions as well, and market rate housing and inclusionary affordable units are crucial components of what is needed. We have been adding three jobs per home for four decades in Cambridge, so there are a lot of homes that are needed.
Regarding social housing, I completely agree that social housing along the lines of what they have implemented in Montgomery county Maryland is something we should explore. My understanding is that efforts to do that here are already underway:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/09/16/new-force-in-cambridge-affordable-housing-redevelopment-authority-starts-10m-fund/
The housing committee hosted Paul Williams, one of the leading proponents of social housing programs back in the spring, and he spoke favorably about this proposal, because zoning reforms allowing more housing would make social housing more effective. How is a social housing program supposed to be effective with all of Cambridge’s current exclusionary zoning restrictions? If more density is allowed, then public money can produce more affordable homes. My understanding is that the kinds of projects that are called social housing in Montgomery county would not qualify for the AHO because they still cross subsidize their affordable units with market rate units.
So much gaslighting happening here. Just to be clear:
1) Exclusionary zoning is not driving the affordability crisis, at least not here in Cambridge. As some commenters point out, what is driving demand in Cambridge is excessive commercial development, for the very reasons that Heather cites; namely, it makes the City’s balance sheet look good.
2) Only 6% of the city has single-family zoning in place, and even those zoning districts allow some multi-family projects (townhouse developments and ADUs, for example). Eliminating single-family zoning is an important political statement, but let’s not forget that we were already doing much much more than most other cities are to allow dense urban development.
3) Despite many claims, the AHO hasn’t built any new housing, and it certainly hasn’t provided 2000 new units. Every project currently held up as an AHO project was proposed prior to the passing of the AHO. Many have been rebranded as AHO projects because unlike 40B projects, AHO projects don’t need to show a pro forma or limit their profits to 20%.
4) The new proposal will weaken the AHO by giving the same incentives to market-rate developments.
5) Nothing in either the AHO or the new Multi-family proposal will add any new units for middle-income folks. It will, however, drive up land costs, making it harder for middle-class families to buy homes here.
6) As a result, in the future, most Cambridge housing will be rental housing and will be owned by outside investors, not local residents.
@Doug Brown. Yes, there is gaslighting. You should know. You just tried it.
Here’s the reality:
The argument that exclusionary zoning is not contributing to Cambridge’s affordability crisis overlooks how such zoning limits housing supply by restricting diverse housing types.
Even with only 6% of the city zoned for single-family homes, reducing these restrictions can significantly increase housing availability and diversity.
Your comment claims the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) hasn’t produced new units. However, it has facilitated proposals for over 700 affordable rental units, demonstrating its impact.
The concern about incentives for market-rate developments weakening the AHO ignores how mixed-income projects can enhance overall affordability by integrating affordable units.
Additionally, while middle-income housing remains a challenge, inclusionary zoning policies aim to address affordability across income levels.
Lastly, while rental housing owned by outside investors is a valid concern, increased rental availability provides more immediate housing options in a high-demand market like Cambridge.
@Doug Brown What you’re saying isn’t correct.
Upzoning and the AHO work together to increase the supply of affordable housing and make it more accessible.
Upzoning can increase housing supply by up to 20% compared to areas without it. Supportive policies like the AHO can direct that increased supply toward affordable housing by streamlining approvals for such projects, creating strong incentives for developers.
Research shows this can stabilize housing markets by increasing supply, which can help stabilize or even lower rents in surrounding areas as well.
In short, evidence supports that Cambridge’s new policies will increase affordable housing.
What’s your suggestion for addressing the housing crisis? Do nothing?
@Henry Wortis That’s your solution? The city should build public housing? That’s not a serious suggestion.
As @cwec noted, it’s not remotely feasible or affordable for the city. That’s why it’s using incentives for the private sector instead.
FrankD, @cwec, and some others have confused classic public housing projects with social housing. Social housing is significantly cheaper to build and much more successful to run than classic public housing. As an introduction, here are two New York Times articles;
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/magazine/vienna-social-housing.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/business/affordable-housing-montgomery-county.html
@Henry Wortis, I understand what social housing is, but it’s unrealistic as a solution to Cambridge’s housing crisis.
The social housing model is similar to the AHO/upzoning plan: both increase density with mixed-income buildings, where higher-rent units subsidize lower-rent ones. However, the AHO/upzoning model is more effective, offering at least 50% of units for households earning up to 80% of the area median income.
Social housing, while cheaper than public housing, is still far more expensive and less feasible than Cambridge’s current market-based model. It requires significant city spending on land acquisition and construction, which is beyond the city’s budget.
Moreover, implementing social housing would need new state-level programs and funding, which don’t currently exist. In contrast, AHO is a city-level policy that doesn’t require state intervention.
It’s easy to find appealing ideas in the media, but deeper research often reveals complexities that make them unworkable.
Of course, the push for social housing could just be the typical NIMBY tactic of delay, delay, delay.
In short, social housing projects will create the same kind of mixed-income buildings that the AHO is creating. Only it would be more expensive, take way more time, and be less effective at creating affordable housing than the AHO.
@Henry Wortis I’m genuinely curious, did you read that second article you sent? The “social housing” (which is self-admittedly public housing by another name) is still 70% market rate housing. I just don’t understand the opposition to upzoning here with IZ as a tool to increase affordable housing.
The article on Vienna that Wortis cites explains that “… Vienna prioritizes subsidizing construction, while the United States prioritizes subsidizing people, with things like housing vouchers. One model focuses on supply, the other on demand. Vienna’s choice illustrates a fundamental economic reality, which is that a large-enough supply of social housing offers a market alternative that improves housing for all.”
Vienna started its program in 1919, focusing on boosting construction to improve supply, which led to lower rents. Cambridge spent most of that time choking off supply, while the need for housing has increased. Cambridge residents shouldn’t be asked to wait another century for the City to correct that mistake.
The article on Montgomery County’s efforts notes that “this is what a housing shortage looks like, and inclusionary zoning on its own can’t solve it. Requiring developers to include affordable units in their projects creates affordable housing only if developers are building in the first place.” Here in Cambridge, they *can’t* build very much, and that’s why our Council’s proposal includes lowering the barriers that prevent multi-family housing.
Wortis’s dreams of social housing require the kind of upzoning that the Council’s plan includes, and cannot happen without it.
@Henry Wortis Social housing inherently requires upzoning. Your plan to use social housing as an alternative to upzoning overlooks this crucial point.
Oops. It looks like @Henry Wortis didn’t do his research.
James Zall and AvgJoe make the point that the proposal to end exclusionary zoning is an opportunity. I agree. I would add that it is not a solution. In its present form, it permits developers to purchase single-family homes and renovate or replace them. A developer could build 100% high-price market housing, increasing displacement.
To benefit the low and modest-income residents who are most burdened by the high cost of housing, the end of exclusionary zoning must be packaged with provisions that 1) maximize the construction of inclusionary units, together with 2) a well-endowed voucher program that funds access to inclusionary units to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income, and 3) the start of a program of social housing, the low cost-long-term construction solution to Cambridge’s housing crisis. Supporting an end to exclusionary zoning without supporting this three-part package is an endorsement of gentrification.
@Henry Wortis, I believe you misunderstand. What you suggest is exactly what the AHO aims to achieve.
Ending exclusionary zoning increases housing construction, while the AHO specifically incentivizes affordable housing development.
You claim, “A developer could build 100% high-price market housing, increasing displacement.” This is not happening.
In fact, the AHO has already proven successful in fostering affordable housing and is expected to continue doing so:
– Developers have proposed over 700 affordable rental units due to the AHO.
– The rate of affordable housing development has risen from about 40 units per year before the AHO to an average of 200 units per year under it.
– By early 2024, 727 units were underway through AHO projects, with a dozen more under review.
– Under the city’s plan, 3,175 affordable units will be built between 2018 and 2030.
The city’s plan to combine upzoning with the AHO is clearly creating affordable housing.
In fact, the Cambridge policy is being looked at as a potential model for other cities facing housing affordability crises.
Your assertion that Cambridge’s policies will promote gentrification is simply untrue. It has already proven to be false.
@Henry Wortis You keep mentioning “low-cost,” but social housing is not low-cost—it’s far more expensive than the city’s market-based approach.
The AHO is both cost-effective and efficient. At least 50% of units in AHO projects are reserved for households earning no more than 80% of the area median income.
Most residents (98%) in AHO developments earn under $78,500 annually.
That *is* affordable housing, plain and simple.
Henry Wortis has skipped over the barriers standing in the way of his “three-part package.”
(1) City laws can prohibit buildings that do not meet requirements but cannot require property owners to undertake building projects that they cannot or don’t wish to undertake.
(2) Cambridge is looking into its own voucher program but that would require permission from the state legislature. Adding this as a requirement would greatly delay action on the housing shortage.
(3) The start of an undefined new social housing program is described by Wortis as “long-term.” See #2.
Wortis declares that “supporting an end to exclusionary zoning without supporting [his] three-part package is an endorsement of gentrification.”
In fact, his proposal is an endorsement of the status quo, extending unjust exclusionary zoning, gentrification, and harmful economic effects on residents and local businesses.
@James Zall So true. What Henry Wortis is doing is a classic NIMBY tactic. Offer an alternative long-shot plan that can’t be obtained on any reasonable timeline. In other words, delay, delay, delay.
I was recently made aware of a report by the non-profit Institute for Policy Studies, entitled “Billionaire Blowback on Housing.” It is online at https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/billionaire-housing-disruption-report.pdf
A quote from it, “Typical solutions involve simply building more housing. But a focus on expanding housing supply through for-profit development misses this key driver of the housing crisis: as wealth concentrates in the hands of billionaire investors, their predatory investment and wealth-parking in luxury housing defines our housing markets today. We call the consequences of billionaires increasing control over real estate the billionaire blowback. This report, jointly published by Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies, highlights the role of the billionaire class in driving our housing emergency and outlines the policy solutions we need to protect the public interest.”
After the AHO was passed, the push by this class of “investors” to abolish all zoning safeguards was predictable. Who after all would dare to look behind the sacrosanct “affordable housinng” mantra to see what special interests might be at work on their own behalf.
” the end of exclusionary zoning must be packaged with provisions that 1) maximize the construction of inclusionary units,”
That’s what this proposal already does. Staying with the status quo misses out on the opportunity to create hundreds of affordable homes at no public cost.
” a well-endowed voucher program that funds access to inclusionary units to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income,”
Municipal vouchers are an idea worth exploring, but it is complex and there’s no reason it should hold up zoning reform. Where does the money come from? If the proposal is to take money from the affordable housing trust fund, that would come with the trade off of less money for AHO developments, and this idea seems to not have won over the members of the Affordable Housing Trust:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/04/29/city-funded-housing-vouchers-face-resistance-legislatively-and-from-wary-members-of-trust/
” 3) the start of a program of social housing”
In a sense we already have a small scale social housing program in Cambridge:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/09/16/new-force-in-cambridge-affordable-housing-redevelopment-authority-starts-10m-fund/
I’m guessing what Henry Wortis means is something larger in scale. It doesn’t make sense to me to say no to zoning reform until we get a large scale social housing program up and running because, again, zoning reform is needed anyway to make a large scale social housing program successful. And of course, it’s likely going to take a while to get such a social housing program established and operating at a scale where it really makes a difference. Zoning reform is complicated enough on it’s own without the demand that two other major legislative projects pass along with it. We need more housing yesterday.
“Supporting an end to exclusionary zoning without supporting this three-part package is an endorsement of gentrification.”
To me doing nothing is an endorsement of gentrification. We’ve been creating three jobs for every new home for decades and this is something that can and should be addressed urgently. Other ideas are also worth considering but given the complexity and the length of council terms it makes more sense to consider them one at a time instead of in one incredibly complex omnibus type of legislative package.
@Simpleximus People support upzoning because it’s essential for affordable housing, which requires more overall housing.
The AHO is designed to prevent land grabs by special interests and investors and steer construction towards affordable housing, which is *already has*.
Implying that upzoning causes problems without acknowledging how the AHO successfully addresses them is misleading—it’s gaslighting.
@Henry Wortis is proposing grandiose, long-term plans with the clear goal of delay. It’s almost cliché.
A bunch of rich old white people with generational wealth saying jobs and homes are bad. Can’t make it up.
displacement has already occurred. several years ago, a chinese investor purchased a mid-rise building with 27 units in Mid Cambridge. the tenants, many of whom are seniors living there for decades were evicted much to their detriment. The building was renovated and rented to market-rate residents. this took affordable “naturally occurring” affordable housing off the market. those senior residents ended up moving out of Cambridge. So the question becomes, at what age do long-time residents become obsolete in this goal of rezoning? Are they NIMBYs, racists, elitists, obstructionists or a large portion of Cambridge population deserving consideration?
@Pete The AHO directs increased inventory from upzoning toward affordable housing—and it’s working.
Interesting how the anti-upzoning crowd never acknowledges this.
Yes, they are NIMBYs. They oppose affordable housing with half-baked complaints, cherry-picked examples, and by ignoring existing solutions. That’s classic NIMBY behavior.
Meanwhile, many who deserve consideration are workers in need of housing. Forgive me if I don’t feel sympathy for wealthy homeowners.
Another sign of NIMBYism: Criticizing any effort to address the housing crisis but offering no solutions.
All that concern about gentrification with upzong is total nonsense. The status quo is gentrification. Do nothing supports gentrification.
The term NIMBY and NIMBYism inevitably tossed around by those who want to hit specific emotional reaction ‘buttons’ in people.
Throughout these conversations we see it used in this manner time and again, as a catch phrase, rather than approach actual facts. They are inflammatory in and of themselves.
There are no fast easy solutions.
Cambridge is a small City. We only have so much land. We are at historic high levels that we have not been at since the post WW2 boom. Large swaths of land and buildings have been allowed to be sold off to foreign investment firms and individuals of the extreme upper class, often thru a hidden web of shell companies, LLCs, hedge funds and real estate trusts that are playing a complex game as we are one of the few cities that didn’t fall apart during the last real estate bubble cycle in 2009.
They see us as a target, and easily divided by words like NIMBY because we are a well known as a liberal city in a liberal state and seen as the ‘heart of democracy’ and they seek to use that and our emotions against us.
There is some amount of a misinformation war being played at right here on a local level via the representatives of these “investors” and “developers” to make a mid-range financial killing in the market and sacrificing the long term interests in the city and keeping it stable and functional. Ten, Twenty years from now they will have ridden their bubble and if we play their game and fall for their catch phrases we shall find ourselves with a greater population, even less functional infrastructure and then financial crash that will hurt everyone that lives here and owns their home or condo.
Let’s stop falling to the inflammatory words and phrases and let’s not rush to do things that cannot be undone.
Yes look forward and understand, increased density has and will cost us more green space. Increased density means (with the city’s current push to be an ‘all electric city’) that we will have to invest in a substantially improved power delivery system as the current one will not cover another 10k or more housing units.
The same can be said with our Water Supply infrastructure, as the reservoir only holds so much water and does not deal well with the current weather patterns so we have to tap into the MWRA system when it proves inadequate.
The Battle between cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians has begun over our streets and parking and has proved a mess. And more people will mean more traffic, no matter what we do. The MBTA is already talking about rebuilding Alewife and its parking facility, and that inevitably will mean more traffic while it gets rebuilt, which could means YEARS, by folks that don’t live here but work here or pass thru here to get to Boston. We cannot shut down Cambridge at the borders and say ‘no more vehicles’ or in any way regulate the flow of traffic across said borders. We cannot become a ‘bicycle and pedestrian city’ like some want us to. State and Federal Laws would prevent such and is not going to change.
We also have an aging population that cannot be warehoused (or forced to leave when they hit 65) the way some of the younger population and developers in the city would like. We need to reform infrastructure to better handle folks with mobility issues, as well as people that are not financially able to constantly adapt or change their technology (believe it or not there are people who do NOT carry a Cell Phone!) Large amounts of the city sidewalks are NOT ADA compliant, and the ones that were once are in disrepair due to a lack of significant maintenance during the Covid pandemic.
We need to work together without the use of hot button words, with diversity in mind and sustainability. Will what is built last 30 years? It seems some of our affordable housing stock is already crumbling from the last push to build new units in the city, with portions of it uninhabitable as has been reported in another article.
@Cambridgejoe, you have literally just written paragraphs upon paragraphs that amount to “not in my backyard”, confirming the label you’re complaining about. Wow.
What people need to think about, is that reactionary politics is extreme. It requires identifying a hated enemy, like wealthy developers and investors, automatically opposing anything that would benefit them. It is petty and self-centered, and it goes against all that our progressive city stands for.
Visionary politics requires us to think about more than the value of our own personal home or the architectural character of our neighborhood. I for one want to see this community continue to be open, welcoming, and forward-looking. In order to do that, we need to be aggressive about building more affordable homes now. If you don’t agree, perhaps a more insular town would be more to your liking.
So, let’s skip the points, “Scout” and ask you the important questions:
Do you see yourself living here in 5 years? 10? 20? Will you be here to see the consequences of your actions?
Do you have the money to spare to deal with the costs that will happen over time from these policies?
Or are you someone who works for an outside developer? A literal “scout” for someone else?
Do you pay rent here? Do you own Property? Do you work here?
Do you think in the long term? Do you pay attention to the history of the city? Do you pay attention to the costs of things or simply assume that waving a magic wand will turn million dollar investment per unit will somehow be a tab someone else will pick up so you can smugly pretend you are improving society by forcing out the existing resident and small property owners and letting shadowy offshore investors and corps buy things up?
You want to play with trigger words and insinuations.
Let’s go for the obvious – Who Benefits?
Do you make money off of these changes (Paycheck, profit, investments, personal sell and run of property you own?)
@Cambridgejoe, you’re wrong. I do not have anything to do with the real estate industry. I do, however, live in Cambridge and have for many years. I would like to grow old here, but it’s laughably unaffordable to buy a home in this city. That is the extent of my personal interest in this issue. The only way for us to make headway solving the crisis of affordability is to overcome the anti-housing movement.
scout is a nickname, the meaning of which I share with my friends only.
@Cambridgejoe
Your comment exhibits classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) rhetoric.
Let’s examine it:
Unsubstantiated claims: Your argument lacks concrete evidence or sources to support its assertions, particularly regarding a supposed conspiracy involving developers and investors.
Lack of solutions: You outline challenges but no viable alternatives or solutions are proposed.
Alarmist language: Your predictions of financial crashes and water supply concerns appear designed to instill fear rather than present factual information.
Ignoring evidence: Your comment overlooks the actual impact of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which has led to projects for 700 affordable rental units and increased proposals from 40 to 200 per year.
Flawed logic: Your “Who benefits?” argument mischaracterizes normal business practices as conspiracy. Developers naturally profit from building housing; the AHO aims to direct this toward affordable housing.
Critically, we must consider who truly benefits from maintaining the status quo: primarily wealthy homeowners like @Cambridgejoe.
Conversely, essential workers, their families, and the broader community lose out. The housing crisis negatively impacts local economies and diminishes the diversity that contributes to our city’s vibrancy.
Who benefits? Wealthy people benefit by maintaining restrive zoning, as they already have.
Ironic to hear wealthy homeowners criticize others for profiting from real estate.
At least developers create affordable housing. Some benefit simply by restricting housing access for others.
@Cambridgejoe
I rent and work here in Cambridge, and I intend to live here the rest of my life. I’d like to own at some point. I’m not a developer, I have no connections to any developers.
Under the status quo, all of your concerns about changes are already true. The cost of housing has exploded in recent years, long-time residents are forced out, and importantly, only large developers can afford to build here in Cambridge, thanks in large part to our zoning laws and other hurdles.
Hell, the status quo makes it difficult to build things that look like the rest of Cambridge. Last November there was a fire in a 6-unit apartment building in East Cambridge. Under the current zoning for that parcel, it would be impossible to build that same structure if it were proposed today, yet it had existed there for over a hundred years, harming none.