Many cities have begun to upzone as they seek to add housing at levels that will enable middle-income individuals to live there. Six examples provide us with particularly interesting parallels: Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; Chicago; Los Angeles; San Francisco; and Vancouver, Canada. We also have several other international examples. It should be noted Cambridge is far denser than Minneapolis (with 35 percent of its housing stock made up of single-family homes on 59 square miles), Austin (with 41 percent of its housing stock made up of single-family homes on 305 square miles) and Chicago (with 79 percent of its housing stock made up of single-family homes on 234 square miles).
Cambridge, at 6.8 square miles, is already one of the densest cities in the country for our size. It is an old city (founded in 1630 – the first planned city in North America) and includes a rich heritage of well-built, attractive, desirable and sustainable homes. Residents care deeply about retaining its diversity and supporting lower- and middle-income residents. Currently the city has only around 3,770 single-family homes (6.5 percent of its total housing stock of 57,894 units), well below other cities. As one of the oldest, densest cities in the country with highly sought housing next to several similarly desirable cities with universities and a large number of biotech and tech companies with sizable numbers of well-paid employees, Cambridge has a unique set of factors that make it impossible for us to build ourselves out of our expensive housing situation.
Most residents support city upzoning changes that will allow more multifamily housing across our various districts citywide, ending single-family-housing-only districts. Such a change, put simply, would enable more housing to be built incrementally as some cities have done. One thoughtful local avenue to get there is the Donovan Petition for Housing Affordability submitted in 2021. Another is the Ronayne Petition submitted earlier in 2024.
Upzoning policies in other progressive cities An overview of how progressive cities across the United States and elsewhere have chosen to address the need for more housing at lower costs provides for an important base for understanding some of the variables in play.
Planning: Most cities have done planning to encourage specific housing types be built. Vancouver has shifted to rental properties only as the most pressing local need. Minneapolis has added height and density to corridors only. Vancouver is also seeking to increase the supply of community housing. San Francisco has delimited distinctive designated housing type goals: low-income (25 percent), moderate-income (15 percent), above-moderate-income (7 percent) as well as planned projects with formal review with a focus on underutilized and vacant lots. Cities such as San Francisco and Boston are acquiring residential properties to keep then affordable. Somerville has created a detailed plan for the types and forms of buildings that can be built in each part of the city.
Single-family housing districts: These properties have received a variety of approaches. Most of the cities cited here simply allow multiple family housing to be built on formerly single-family housing-only properties. This approach led to the greatest amount of new housing citywide in Chicago (a slow but steady approach). Most of these cities increased the number of homes allowed on properties in formerly single-family zones and allow up to three units per lot (as in Austin). Cities allowed an increase in the number of allowable building units (up to three) on existing single-family properties only if key criteria are met for design, setbacks and other factors, as with Austin, Chicago and Portland. In Los Angeles, the Planning Board chose to maintain most single-family-only areas existing without the inclusion of apartments here because of the potential negative impact of too much burden on infrastructure.
Building heights: No other city allowed “as of right” height increase in residential neighborhoods. Minneapolis requires a variance to increase max heights from one- and three-family homes in residential districts. There is also an allowance here for three to six stories on major corridors as well as a minimum height requirement for commercial and mixed-use corridors near traffic hubs. Minneapolis allows building additions to existing buildings that are not subject to height requirement, unless they exceed existing floor area by 100 percent or more. Los Angeles is pushing only taller, denser buildings in neighborhoods where apartments are already allowed.
Setbacks: In most of the cities addressed here, front setbacks are consistent with neighbors (for neighborhood look). In Portland, side and rear setbacks are fixed at a maximum of 5 feet from property lines. In Austin, buildings in residential districts are limited to a maximum of 40 percent of lots.
Design review and oversight: Some form of design review and oversight is required in all the progressive cities addressed here, except when the permit process is already in play (Minneapolis). In Chicago, researchers found that streamlining the process for permits had a negligible impact on housing starts.
Preservation: Several cities with important historic architecture and/or an interest in environmental factors have established preservation criteria. Vancouver encourages in lower-density areas of the city the renovation of existing “character” homes along with a focus on more family homes. Austin incentivizes the preservation of existing homes and keeping them out of landfill with “preservation and sustainability bonuses.” In Minneapolis, additions to existing buildings are allowed unless they exceed the current floor area by 100 percent or more.
Public-good fees: Portland has set up special fees for developers and owners (a system development calculation) based on the number and type of unit being built and provides fee waivers for affordable accessory dwelling units or rentals. Vancouver has decided it must address speculation in housing. In Hong Kong, the transit department develops and manages its properties for housing, with profits reinvested in public transportation. In the Netherlands, the government buys rural land, upzones it and sells it to private developers. In Japan, the government provides lower-cost housing for employees to occupy for set periods; when the occupants move on, others replace them. Employers also provide employee housing.
Summary: Does Cambridge want more housing, or housing that is affordable to middle- and lower- income people that also maintains the livability and look of our historic neighborhoods and does not promote even more gentrification? This is what the city must decide. Does the free market make housing cheaper? Economist Cameroon Murry and political scientist Joshua C. Gordon write that they are not convinced. In Cambridge the highest rents and salaries are now in East Cambridge, which also has the highest number and density of new homes built. Many of the East Cambridge units likely were bought by investors who do not live here. In the province of Ottawa, Canada, 85 percent of newly built condos have gone to investors.
It is time for the city to step back, study what has been done by progressive cities elsewhere, and address both safeguards and potential impacts of any zoning decision.
See examples here of zoning for new housing in other U.S. and international cities.
Suzanne Preston Blier is a Harvard Professor who teaches a course on Cambridge history and civic matters and also leads several groups in the city.
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.
Frank+DWH+EKM-Anon: Seems like some of you support evictions and champion higher priced housing. Those are not my values. Asquith et al. & Furman do not address Cambridge specifically, but there is damning evidence of this and higher home prices in Vancouver, Ottawa & elsewhere. On my views, you are incorrect: rezoning to allow multifamily housing citywide is something I long have championed. I also strongly support housing affordability. The current radical upzoning proposal has no requirement for inclusionary (affordable) housing and will likely lead to larger single-family McMansions and far more expensive multi-million $$ homes and larger housing costs in most neighborhoods citywide.
Of note: many of the “anonymous” persons here have real names/IDs known to folks, & these appear to include several Somerville residents, an academic, condo investor etc. I do not support doxing, but Cambridge is big enough for people to differ, to be insightful, & have cordial discussions with real names and identities. Note too: a Somerville social media post related to this discussion states how luxury housing has led to the high prices of 1 BR apartments. I agree completely.
@Suzanne Preston Blier,
Our community values affordable housing and supporting vulnerable members.
Your claims about higher housing costs and evictions lack evidence. You suggest learning from other cities, yet ignore clear evidence contradicting your assertions.
Using hyperbolic terms like “radical zoning” undermines your credibility.
The fact is that evidence shows zoning reform can effectively reduce housing costs as this study very clearly shows:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
I note that you don’t dispute any of the conclusions of this study. Nor do you have any counter arguments. Instead, you just keep repeating the same debunked claims over and over.
Our community values affordable housing and supporting vulnerable members.
Your claims about higher housing costs and evictions lack evidence.
You suggest learning from other cities, yet ignore clear evidence contradicting your assertions. Using terms like “radical zoning” undermines your credibility.
Evidence shows zoning reform can effectively reduce housing costs, this study very clearly concludes.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
@Suzanne Preston Blier The study posted by @DWH333 shows that your claims about evictions and higher housing are wrong.
For convenience, here again is the author’s summary. This is a direct quote and I’ve capitalized the important points
“Although “supply skeptics” claim that new housing supply does not slow growth in rents, our review of rigorous recent studies finds that: (a) INCREASES IN HOUSING SUPPLY REDUCE RENTS OR SLOW THE GROWTH OF RENTS in the region; (b) in some circumstances, NEW CONTRUCTION ALSO REDUCES RENTS or rent growth in the surrounding neighborhood; (c) while new supply is associated with measures of gentrification, it HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HEIGHTEN DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS; and (d) the chains of moves resulting from new supply free up both for-sale and rented dwelling units that are then OCCUPIED BY HUSEHOLDS ACROSS THE INCOME SPECTRUM, and provide higher income households with alternatives to the older units for which they might otherwise outbid lower income residents.”
As you can see, your claims about displacement and luxury housing due to zoning reform are not supported by evidence.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
Frank/EKM (fellow academic). Definition of Gentrification: “a process that can lead to eviction when wealthier people move into a neighborhood, causing rising rents and displacement of current residents.” On the T&F article: No mention of Cambridge, MA or Vancouver or Chicago or Portland or Austin (those are the specific cities I addressed, re their recent detailed, controlled upzoning. The SF example references an area that had been destroyed by a major fire. Fortunately, we have not had that happen here – and hopefully won’t. The Minneapolis example refers to market rate housing on corridors. This is what we should be doing (per Envision). 6 stories (75’) in our residential neighborhoods is “radical” not only because the average house height is 2.5 stories but also because it will lead to demolitions, higher housing prices, & evictions, because we are so small in area and so dense already. Somerville has a terrific plan (form-based). We should be following their model. Time to move on. Write your own opinion piece.
I’m a data scientist in the private sector. I know data. That is why I know that isolated examples don’t mean much compared to comprehensive studies.
The T&F article included research on multiple cities. It did not find evidence that upzoning led to demolitions, displacement of lower income residents, and evictions. That is your speculation and it is not supported by evidence.
6 story buildings are “radical”? Only if you support exclusionary zoning that has limited building height.
Exclusionary zoning created the crisis we are in and the only people complaining are those that have benefitted from the status quo.
I agree. Time to move on and let families have housing.
Cities are complex, and no solution is perfect. However, the article shared by DWH demonstrates that the negative outcomes you predict are not inevitable, contrary to your presentation.
It also provides examples of successful zoning reform.
What’s the issue with six-story buildings? This isn’t the 19th century. Personal aesthetic preferences shouldn’t obstruct housing for families in need. Such an stance seems elitist.
SPB starts with a conclusion and works backwards from there. Her conclusions fly in the face of basic economic theory, empirical data, and are examples of the worst kind of statistical malpractice. No wonder Harvard’s reputation is in the dumpster.
@Suzanne, Cambridge is facing gentrification whether we rezone or not (though the body of evidence points to upzoning as a method of combatting said gentrification). Cambridge is a desirable place to live, in no small part due to its proximity to good public transit and access to high-paying jobs.
As I’ve pointed out in this thread already, we are currently in the process of constructing new labs that will add thousands of high-paying jobs to Cambridge, but we are not adding any where near a similar amount of housing, and that has been the trend for decades.
Upzoning means more Cantabrigians, it means fewer per-capita vehicle miles traveled for the region, it means more affordable housing, and more choices among market-rate housing.
Your concern that upzoning will lead to more single family homes seems very out of place to me. Single family homes aren’t banned on any residential parcel in Cambridge, to my knowledge, and upzoning land won’t increase the likelihood that someone will build a single family home there. In fact, it should be the opposite, since the upzoned land will likely be more expensive than its current state.
Keep in mind, higher land prices does not necessarily mean higher housing costs, because the number of homes will increase as well. Take, for example, the house currently for sale at 2 Garden Terrace. It’s a single family home for sale at $6.7MM. Let’s assume that it gets upzoned to allow six stories, and the price doubles to $13.4MM. If it was built to the same density as the apartment building at 991 Mass Ave over The Cellar, it would be able to support 30 units.
That cost of $13.4MM spread across 30 units is a per-unit land cost of $446k, plus cost of construction. Now, I find it very unlikely that the cost of construction would add $6.2MM to each unit, meaning that from one single parcel we’d be lowering the cost of housing while also increasing the inventory of housing. That’s not to mention that 30 units would require 6 units of affordable housing under the city’s Inclusionary Zoning rules.
@cambridgeresident You’re spot on. @Suzanne Preston Blier repeatedly cites the same examples while disregarding broader evidence.
This exemplifies confirmation bias: cherry-picking data that supports preexisting beliefs while ignoring contradictory information.
The housing crisis stems from insufficient supply due to exclusionary zoning. It’s economically illogical to deny that increasing supply is crucial to the solution.
Alarmist predictions about developers causing mass evictions and leaving only luxury housing behind are typical fear-mongering tactics used by those resisting change.
Ironically, Cambridge is already being gentrified and dominated by luxury housing. Without zoning reform, this trend will only intensify.
FrankAnon. Glad to know you are a data scientist in private market. I would love to talk. Let’s meet! NB: in Cambridge zoning by any name did not “make” this problem. For one thing, East Cambridge has the most expensive housing and the most new housing.
M.NiceAnon: No one said the likely bad outcomes are inevitable, but that is the trends we are already seeing here, and that is also why other cities try to preclude bad outcomes with planning and detailed zoning requirements (including design oversight and other specifics).
CRAnon: Nope. I start with the data every time and see where they lead to. For ChatGPT it is the city’s own database. On economic theory read: try something fresh: https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/pricing-upzoning-the-great-debate
CWECAnon: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For the moment we are adding some high paying jobs but not housing. We are meeting our current Envision housing goals and are on target to reach our 2030 housing goals. Alas, we are also likely to lose jobs shortly (with decreased housing needs): Read HERE We are likely to face some pretty staggering losses.
On 2 Garden Terrace. Great example. This is a beautiful home now for sale at $6.7MM. It could well go for $8 million. The most likely purchaser is one of the very well paid upper echelon folks in the biotech or infotech industry here. They most likely want to keep it as is, and will throw in another $1million for interior renovations. But say zoning changes to 6 stories. They will likely do the same. If they DO want to demolish it, since it is over 50 years, they would have to go to CHC for permission first and approval of the design. With that we would get to know some of the important history of this home which might be enough to warrant a landmark study: https://historycambridge.org/articles/the-history-of-garden-street/
But let’s say the CHC decided that demolishing this beautiful home was fine and they could build to six stories, they probably would stop at 4 stories (for cost reasons) and build two MEGA Luxury condos here each going for at least $5 million each (to recoup the cost of the investment PLUS the cost of demolition and building itself. Then we could wait another 85 years to recoup the environmental impacts of the demolition and rebuilding itself. IMPORTANT NOTE: the new owners could do that even without the upzoning, simply by going to the BZA and asking for a special permit. Would they give it perhaps, but is it worth demolishing an expensive single family home to build two very expensive large condos that would increase property values of the houses nearby.
@Suzanne Preston Blier.
The efforts to address the housing crisis are more comprehensive than your article suggests.
Upzoning is part of a larger strategy to tackle housing costs in Cambridge.
Evidence shows that upzoning, when combined with policies like reduced parking minimums and streamlined permitting, is an effective part of the solution.
While initial development may focus on higher-end units, increased supply benefits the entire market over time.
Cambridge’s plan includes new regulations and streamlined approval for developments with affordable units.
The results are promising, with a significant increase in affordable housing development.
Instead of obstructing progress, it’s time to support Cambridge’s successful efforts to address this crisis that affects everyone (except wealthy home owners).
@Suzanne Preston Blier
Also, your concern that higher-end units will displace mid to lower income residents has been addressed and debunked in the “T and F” study.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
Quote:
“the chains of moves resulting from new supply free up both for-sale and rented dwelling units that are then occupied by households across the income spectrum, and provide higher income households with alternatives to the older units for which they might otherwise outbid lower income residents.”.
In other words, if wealthier people move into the new supply of units, that frees up other units for middle to lower income residents.
In fact, quote:
“New supply…has not been shown to heighten displacement of lower income households.”
You don’t seem willing to acknowledge any evidence that others present. So, why offer to meet people for a discussion over coffee?
NICE:U.R.TIRING. Seriously? “new supply” does not “heighten displacement of lower income households.” True in many places, unless of course, as in Cambridge, the displacement comes because their current homes are demolished after the tenants have been evicted or their leases terminated. Please get serious!
In the meantime: Please read two new blogposts I wrote today. The first is what urban planners have to say:
9 Upzoning Lessons for Cambridge and Other Urban Centers
The second is the Powerpoint from Upzoning Presentation at the Porter Square Neighborhood Association Meeting (11.21.24) HERE
@Suzanne Preston Blier
Displacement is occurring due to rising property values, which are driven by limited housing supply caused by exclusionary zoning—not by the elimination of single-family zoning.
The council has only recently voted to approve that plan, and the final proposal has yet to be decided.
Are you using displacement under the current exclusionary zoning to argue that future zoning reforms will cause displacement? Seriously? That’s quite a leap in logic.
As for the zoning reforms already enacted, they’ve led to a significant increase in affordable housing development—over 700 affordable units are now in progress, compared to just a few dozen before the reforms. Well done, Cambridge!
The elimination of single-family zoning is projected to increase new housing units from 1,440 to 4,880 by 2040.
Currently, only 1% of developments are large enough to require income-restricted units.
Cambridge cannot create affordable housing options with increasing supply.
Cambridge has already enacted some reforms and incentives for building affordable housing. It is working.
@Suzanne Preston Blier Are your blog posts as in-depth and impartial as your comments here? :)
Oops, typo. I should have written:
Cambridge cannot create affordable housing options WITHOUT increasing supply.
Obviously.
@Suzanne, There’s really no evidence to suggest that we’ll have reduced need for housing in the near or long term future of Cambridge. Even if all of the currently-under-construction lab projects sit empty permanently (which is unlikely to happen), we’ll still have a housing shortage. There is tons of latent demand for living in Cambridge, as we’ve built many times more jobs than homes in the last several decades. WFH trends are reversing, too.
And no, one cannot “simply” get a Special Permit to turn that house I mentioned into 30 apartments. Even a cursory reading of the zoning ordinance would show you that any such special permit would never have a chance at getting approved.
And again, your concern that multi-family homes will be reduced to single-family mansions is more of a risk today than it would be if the whole city was upzoned to six stories.