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.
This commentary makes a number of misleading statements. It is ironic to state that we should learn lessons from other cities but then ignore lessons that we have already learned.
Housing Supply and Affordability:
Increasing housing supply can help moderate price increases, even in high-demand areas like Cambridge. The claim that Cambridge cannot build its way out of high housing costs oversimplifies a complex issue.
Upzoning Effects:
Research shows that upzoning can increase housing supply and contribute to affordability over time.
A study of New York City found that upzoned districts experienced a 4% increase in housing units seven years after upzoning, with more intensively upzoned areas seeing an 8% increase.
Market Dynamics: Research indicates that market-rate housing construction can help stabilize or even lower rents in surrounding areas.
Comprehensive Approach: While studying other cities’ approaches is valuable, Cambridge has already implemented progressive housing policies with promising results: An increase in affordable housing.
For once, it would be nice for these naysayers to offer actual solutions. Instead, they just complain about any and every effort the city makes to address a real crisis.
I Googled the question: Does upzoning decrease housing prices in dense cities?
The results showed that broad upzoning will increase building in the most profitable areas but will not decrease prices. Upzoning increases the value of scarce land and so increases prices.
The Google AI summarizes the results below.
“While upzoning in dense cities can potentially lead to increased housing supply and theoretically put downward pressure on prices, research shows mixed results, with some studies finding no significant impact on housing prices, while others indicate a potential increase due to factors like speculation and gentrification, meaning upzoning alone may not always decrease housing prices in dense urban areas.”
“Key points about upzoning and housing prices:”
Potential for increased supply:
Upzoning allows for more development on a parcel of land by loosening zoning restrictions, which could lead to a larger housing supply and potentially lower prices.
Mixed research findings:
Studies have shown varying results on the impact of upzoning on housing prices, with some finding no significant change and others indicating a potential price increase.
Gentrification concerns:
Upzoning in certain areas could lead to gentrification, where new development displaces existing residents and drives up housing costs.
Speculation impact:
If developers anticipate increased demand due to upzoning, they may speculate on land, further pushing prices up.
The housing crisis stems from a shortage of homes. More housing is needed, and it’s illogical to argue against building more as part of the solution.
While some raise concerns, they overlook success stories where rezoning has reduced rents and ignore Cambridge’s recent policies that have increased affordable housing development.
The concerns about investors is misplaced. Why does it matter if an investor owns some property as long as rents they charge come down? It’s ironic that wealthy homeowners, who benefited from timely property purchases, criticize others for investing in real estate.
Cambridge needs more rental units. Investors developing or owning rental properties isn’t inherently problematic if it leads to lower rents. Building more rental units is key to achieving this goal.
Calls to “step back and study” are delay tactics. Cambridge has already demonstrated success in creating affordable housing. Other cities are looking to Cambridge as a model for how to create affordable housing.
Families need homes now, not more studies.
Ms. Blier is 100% correct. The proposed Cambridge upzoning would only result in enrichment of developers, increased pressure on our infrastructure, worsening traffic, and increased property taxes. It’s estimated that over 1 MILLION people wish to move to the Boston area; providing hosing is a regional problem, and Cambridge is already following the guidelines of the MAPC (ahead of the guidelines, actually). // Those who wish to densify Cambridge may instead wish to move to a dense metropolis rather than change this city into one.
Frank: Thanks for writing. A couple of points: Because of land (and housing) speculation here (and elsewhere) simply adding more housing does not bring down housing costs, but may actually increase costs. Vancouver learned the hard way. They added more housing than any other city in North America and the costs of housing rose rather than fell.
I urge you and others to read the work of Vancouver urban planner, Patrick Condon. Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality, and Urban Crisis and an overview of the book here: https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2024/07/19/Patrick-Condon-Why-Housing-Costs-So-High/
Australian Economist, Cameron Monroe is saying much the same thing in his book, The Great Housing Hijack. His specialty is n property and urban development as well as environmental economics.
We should build housing that fits specific needs, and not promote a plan that will fuel investors’ interests. The province of Ottawa found that 85% of its condos were purchased by investors – see HERE. According to the Cambridge Property database 55.1% of our current condos are owned by local residents (61,723 units – they have owner exemptions). While those owned by non-residents comprise some 112,010 condos or circa 44.9% are owned by someone who is NOT residing in them. Often they are financially benefitting from these rentals, adding to the prices renters have to pay.
If one looks at another metric we see another potential problem: There are 64,957 single-family, two-family, and three-family homes in the Cambridge Property Database, and 45,846 of them have resident exemptions. This means approximately 70.6% of these homes are occupied by their owners. This could dramatically change if we open up our housing stock (and very valuable land here) to investors, encouraging them demolish homes, especially in less expensive areas to built larger single family housing or larger more expensive luxury condos, forcing out current residents, and transforming our current relatively more affordable apartments into units out of reach of most current Cambridge residents.
Instead we could prioritize building on our vacant lot. Currently we have a range of vacant lots identified as follows Residential Development Land (130 lots ): Commercial Development Land (390 lots): Industrial Development Land (440).
Envision Cambridge specified we should focus on higher heights and density on the corridors. If we really want to add the largest numbers of housing, we should prioritize adding height minimums on corridors (as one city has done) so that if you want to rebuild here, you would be required to meet to a specified height – say 6 or 8 stories and need (say housing not labs or commercial).
The point is that other cities have been careful to study the kinds of outcomes they want specifically to bring down housing costs and to get the outcomes they want. Some have chosen to focus on affordable housing or apartments or allowing more housing to be built on 1, 2, and 3 family lots. Note: recently Brookline found that some residents were adding auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs) as in-law suites, defeating the purpose of the change.
As to New York City: a study released by Village Preservation analyzing census data for NYC neighborhoods between 2010 and 2020 found that neighborhoods with high levels of new housing construction overwhelmingly saw a rise in the White share of their population, and drops in the Black and Hispanic shares. Cambridge residents, City Councillors, and city staff are deeply committed to our maintaining and promoting racial and economic diversity in the city. So any new housing policy must reflect this goal, and actively promote it.
I am about to post another blog with some of this data on my site, people are welcome to read this one and others now up on Cambridge Housing at: https://www.suzanneprestonblier.com/civic-blogs
@Suzanne Preston Blier
It may seem counterintuitive but building market-rate homes can benefit everyone, including middle and low-income renters.
The basic principle is that increasing housing supply creates competition among landlords, often leading to lower rents.
There is plenty of research supporting this. I encourage you to read this report from NYU:
ASummary of Supply Skepticism Revisited: A Review of the Latest Research on the Relationship Between Housing Supply and Affordability
https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Working_Brief_1.pdf
It reviews substantial evidence that building more housing, even market-rate, does, in fact, bring down housing costs.
We have a housing crisis because there is not enough housing. It is not a mystery.
It is illogical to argue that building more housing is counterproductive.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
The exclusionary zoning you defend has a history of segregating neighborhoods by race.
Many such policies were originally adopted to keep minorities out of white areas.
Even today, these practices disproportionately affect racial minorities, who are often priced out due to lower incomes.
Facts show that zoning reform can create affordable housing, even with market-rate development.
Cambridge has already demonstrated success in this area, significantly increasing affordable housing through new policies.
Those opposing reform often overlook these successes.
Calls to “wait and study more” offer little comfort to families in immediate need of housing.
> Cambridge has a unique set of factors that make it impossible for us to build ourselves out of our expensive housing situation.
We built ourselves into this situation by courting office and lab development over residential development for decades, and we’re still continuing that pattern. It’s not “impossible”, we just aren’t making strides to do it.
Take, for example, the new Takeda building going up at 585 Third Street in Kendall Square. When it’s completed, it is expected to support 2,000 permanent lab jobs. Can you think of a single development in Cambridge that would support 2,000 new, highly-paid residents?
“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?”
Keeping the housing stock effectively frozen across large swaths of Cambridge while the city has seen tens of thousands of new high paying tech and biotech jobs has not created housing affordability in Cambridge. If new housing “promotes even more gentrification” why did rents in Minneapolis grow at a slower rate than the rest of Minnesota following their upzoning?
“Minneapolis’ success in building new apartments has enabled the city to substantially add to its housing supply and keep rent growth low. From 2017 to 2022, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12% while rents grew by just 1%. Over the same period, the rest of Minnesota added only 4% to its housing stock while rents went up by 14%. (See Figure 2.) Both Minneapolis and the rest of the state experienced population growth (1% and 3%, respectively) and household growth (10% and 7%, respectively), but despite increased demand, Minneapolis was able to limit rent growth by building more housing.”
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability
The same thing happened in Auckland, New Zealand:
“…in 2016, Auckland, New Zealand, upzoned approximately three-quarters of its residential land, precipitating a boom in housing construction. In this paper we investigate whether the zoning reform reduced housing costs, adopting a synthetic control method to specify rental prices in Auckland under the counterfactual of no zoning change…Six years on from the reform, the synthetic control from our preferred empirical specification implies that rents would be approximately 28% higher under the counterfactual…Our findings support the proposition that large-scale zoning reform can enhance housing affordability.”
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/our-research/docs/economic-policy-centre/Can%20Zoning%20Reform%20Reduce%20Housing%20Costs.%20Evidence%20from%20Rents%20in%20Auckland.pdf
I think the simple explanation is that housing scarcity contributes to higher prices. When new housing is built, people move into the new housing from other existing homes, creating vacancies in the existing housing stock that cause landlords to be more hesitant to raise rent.
One additional point: my understaning of the author’s preferred zoning reform proposals (the Donovan and Ronayne petitions) while perhaps being improvements over the current zoning, would not allow housing to be built at a scale which would generate inclusionary units, which is an important city goal.
Interesting discussion. I appreciate the analysis or even looking at issues beyond just the unit count. The Envision goal of 12,500 seems basically arbitrary then and now and any count was interrupted by Covid and economy. Plus Envision included “super-inclusionary” which was later eliminated. did that skew the numbers?
I don’t think the goal is to warehouse people in tall sq incongruent boxes in the middle of blocks cutting neighborhoods in half, but trying to integrate and include those in need into the areas near transportation and amenities. It is not an either/ or. I personally think that setbacks and open space needs to be looked at as families need space, light and air, trees (and places for trash cans), and the projected 4 story may be OK with additions for inclusionary. Given (non-conforming) lots, I would think smaller buildings are easier. (economy and material costs not withstanding). How more 100% affordable in neighborhoods? instead of a single monolithic structure have a few more of smaller buildings?
The way the new proposal reads is the new height limit is 75′ from 65′ for flexibility. Under the AHO 75′ triggers 13 stories as of right anywhere. what about this detail? Is that right? are people missing that?
What is missing from this whole discussion is the lack of design review and oversight- something council and developers want to get away from– stream-lined unbridled regulations–. Design is not aesthetic or subjective. It is a certified profession with strong principle. One can get away with anything if the design is good and neighbors/ abutters have buy-in and feel part of the process.
Frost Terrace is the poster child for preservation of three historic houses, addition of new affordable housing that fits into the neighborhood. It was the end product of neighborhood input, historical commission oversight and specific funding. It may have been painful at the time, but the end product has been touted as a great success. We are eliminating review, and in the case of the historical commission, any weigh-in on height and massing which used to be in its jurisdiction. This has consequences for the fabric of the city.
I for one am concerned about the 18 stories floated in Porter sq “because Central sq is looking at that”. Not good enough. there is more space in Porter sq- but what about a different proportion? instead of singular 18 stories we have a combination of massing– 9 and 9, 11 and 7, 10 and 8-or even a cluster of 6-6-6– something to keep it a bit more human scale. Then there are the cheap plastic materials VS quality facades. This is community benefit helping new buildings assimilate. Notice, I am not talking about NO housing but HOW the mechanics and DESIGN works. The goal of more housing is the same.
But I would also like recognition of square boundaries. If Central Sq is looking at 18 stories (which residents don’t want), how far up Mass Ave does the Central sq boundary go?
The boundary of Central is now extended several blocks to capture more 18 story buildings where regular zoning is 10-12. Few residents between Central and Harvard identify with either sq but are on a stretch with its own identity. This is shoe-horning more height which doesn’t really seem fair. this section was down-sized years ago by the Anderson Petition, something CDD should be aware of. Or does that get thrown out with each new reiteration?
I would also like data on how many projects were held up by the review process. I suspect we hear more from the whiners than from those who comply, take advice and move forward. Most reviews are done by staff in a couple of days by either Planning Board or Historical Commission.
Housing is needed. It is not an overnight fix. We do have to look at other progressive cities where we may adopt approaches that will help us. Council and CDD began with a cemented one-size-fits-all with arrogant fringes. It is good to see them pull up and consider what long-time residents and renters are actually worried about (although a limited effort so far)- also that of teardowns, displacement of those lower-income owner-occupier homes for market-rate. the 80%/ 20% will never catch up to what is needed in affordable housing but will do wonders in gentrification and the high-demand of the city.
Here’s some quotes from the NYU report, for your convenience:
“Most recent research finds that new housing construction leads to decreases in nearby rents (or in the rate at which rents are increasing).”
“● Asquith, Mast, and Reed (2023) looked at the effect of new, large market-rate apartment buildings across 11 cities and found that “the average new building lowers nearby rents [within 250 meters of the new building] by 5 percent to 7 percent relative to trend, translating into a savings of $100 to $159 per month.”5The researchers used random variation in the time it took developers to complete buildings to isolate the effects of new construction from other trends in the neighborhoods.
● Similarly, Li (2022) used the same methodology to examine the effect the development of large market-rate buildings in New York City had on nearby rents. She found that for every 10 percent increase to the housing stock that new high rises add within a 500-ft ring, residential rents for the buildings in that ring decrease by 1 percent (as opposed to rising). The decreases were seen for nearby high- and medium-rent buildings, but were not significant in nearby low-rent buildings.
There is much more in thr report. The bottom line is creating more housing can and does create more affordable housing, even with market-rate developments.
It common sense that creating *more housing* is a critical step in fixing a housing *shortage*.
How convenient that wealthy home owners who benefitted from exclusionary zoning are now arguing against change.
The one thing they don’t do is offer any solutions.
I dont think we should looking at San Fran and Portland as examples. Have y’all been to San Fran city area? Blocks and block of San Fran have homeless people camped on streets. Waymo driverless cars navigating people jaywalking and pedestrians navigating needles on the sidewalks. It makes the 1 block of central square looks like Disneyland.
What I dont get it why all these “progressives” have their eyes set on just Cambridge? Why dont they take their game-changing ideas to any of the neighboring towns? Dont we already have the highest density and highest share of affordable housing? It will probably have a lot more impact if you turn Chelsea or Revere into a city like Cambridge than turn a city like Cambridge into the Seaport.
The commentary by Ms Blier makes, in my view, many good points…especially that city leadership ought to be looking at the experience of other cities when it comes to the actual results of upzoning and unintended consequences.
Just to note that the 6-stories-by-right proposal being considered is not expressly written to add affordable units. IF a developer chooses to build beyond 9 units, only then does the inclusionary mandate kick in. My money says that if this passes as is, we’ll likely see an increase in market rate/luxury housing. The land costs in Cambridge will increase and present another challenge to building much needed affordable or middle income housing.
@Suzanne Preston Blier Good to have a debate with evidence. I don’t agree with your conclusions, some of which I find a little oversimplified.
1. Demolition and redevelopment is not guaranteed or simple.
Existing homeowners and condo owners would need to agree to sell, and Cambridge has regulatory processes that can slow or restrict development.
2. Mass displacement of current residents is unlikely.
Many people have strong ties to the community and would not easily uproot their lives, especially given the tight housing market.
3. New development would not exclusively be luxury housing.
Cambridge has tools like regulations, a lengthy approval process that guides development and promote affordable housing construction by streaming lining the process.
4. Increased housing supply can have benefits.
Vancouver is just one city. Studies in other cities show that market-rate development can help moderate rent increases compared to areas with less new construction.
5. The argument that ending exclusionary housing has racist implications seems strange to me.
Exclusionary zoning has historically been associated with racial segregation and discrimination. Ending such policies is generally seen as promoting equity rather than perpetuating racism. I don’t see any reason to over turn that viewpoint based on one example from one NYC neighborhood.
@mjk
For the reasons outlined in my comment, I doubt we’ll see a land rush of luxury property development—it’s an oversimplification of a complex market.
Zoning reforms like those proposed here have successfully reduced rents in other cities. Even market-rate developments can lower rents by increasing supply.
Addressing a housing shortage requires building more housing.
Cambridge, so far, has done well using a market-based strategy to boost affordable housing. Other cities are looking to Cambridge a model for doing so.
The only people complaining are wealthy home owners. Go figure.
FrankD>>”The basic principle is that increasing housing supply creates competition among landlords, often leading to lower rents.”
This is a common – and understandable – fallacy. If the region were short of eggs a million a day, importing 5,000-10,000/day won’t have any effect whatsoever on the shortage nor demand. We’re short of housing in the Boston metro region by a MILLION or more. Cambridge cannot build enough to satisfy this need.
It’s also worth noting that Cambridge has increased our population by ~20,000 since 2000. Despite this enormous growth, housing prices have skyrocketed. This reality disproves the so-called “supply/demand argument.”
@pscambridge Hard to know where to begin with your fallacies.
You say:
“Despite this enormous growth, housing prices have skyrocketed. This reality disproves the so-called ‘supply/demand argument.’”
Reply:
What? That exactly proves the supply/demand argument. More people mean more demand. Insufficient housing means limited supply. Rising prices are a textbook example of supply and demand in action—basic economics.
You say:
“We’re short of housing in the Boston metro region by a MILLION or more. Cambridge cannot build enough to satisfy this need.”
Reply:
Is anyone claiming Cambridge alone must solve the housing crisis for the entire Boston metro area? No.
The housing crisis is nationwide. EVERY community, including Cambridge, must do its part. Many cities, including those in the Boston area, are implementing zoning reforms to build more housing.
What isn’t doing our part? Opposing every proposed change to the status quo meant to address this crisis.
@@pscambridge
Let me remind you that studies show that increasing density via zoning reform does, in fact, reduce housing costs.
Here is a whole report summarizing those studies:
https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Working_Brief_1.pdf
So, despite claims that it can’t work, it, in fact, does work.
Is anyone else amused by this?
This forum is filled with “experts” pointing out flaws in Cambridge’s housing crisis solution.
Yet these same experts offer no alternatives or solutions.
It’s difficult to believe there’s genuine concern for middle and low-income housing.If there were, wouldn’t these “experts” propose ideas?
Instead, they only criticize attempts to change the status quo that has increased their property values.
One has to question their real motives.
This is a great read thank you Suzanne. A couple of things I noticed:
1) We really do not want people seeking variances for anything … really ever. The legal threshold is way too high and it is almost indefensible in court should someone inevitably appeal. For all of our relief seeking needs (a it pertains to buildings) we should look to the Special Permit … which is not really all that special. I would add that you need clear achievable criteria to be taken seriously.
2) The “hang-up” on affordable housing trespasses a bit on virtue signaling to me for a couple of obvious reasons. First, Cambridge has a ridiculously high inclusionary requirement at 20% that has slowed down the private market considerably. As one watching that unfold in 2015 it was clear that while there are many advocates for affordable housing in Cambridge it wasn’t lost on me that many also knew that by going from 11%-ish to 20% would absolutely thrash middle market development (builds from 10-80 units) or what some call “in fill” development. Second, Cambridge has since adopted two versions of the AHO which have been fairly successful but has now pinned zoning in the city for everyone else. This is a narrow and thoughtless planning scheme for the City and it is very clearly rooted in the same “progressivism” and signaling of virtue that is more interested in being morally “correct” than being factually accurate. Lastly, have you read the “reports” that said 20% is viable and working? It is the poorest form of study written by a philosopher at MIT (why not have their real estate school take a swing?) who has been CDD’s go to for years to validate anything and everything they do. In short its nonsense and we shouldn’t rely on it.
3) Some have rightly commented that while some of your comments are maybe a bit loosey-goosey with facts, you do present some valid arguments … You do not however, offer any counter position other than two failed petitions your advocacy group has brought forward. To save you time I’ve a few bullets that are no nonsense, non-Cambridge destroying, and easy to implement changes for you to opine on whilst sipping a latte in Harvard square … please, hold on to your beret and monocle:
1) Increase height to four stories in all districts areas by right. Allow for six stories by special permit with the criteria being related to being to achieve actual … realistic/reasonable open space and setback requirements that are not some anachronistic equation and isn’t 20’+. Meet the criteria and you get your SP. You kids might appeal … but as we say in the real world if you don’t want to wrestle don’t weigh in.
2) Eliminate FAR … its dumb and I’ve personally killed it in a few areas of the city already and so far the universe has not up-ended. Use dimensional controls.
3) No height limitations in all squares. You will need to take a deep breath but no one is ever likely to hit more than 24 stories so who cares? Or at least provide a path that isn’t related to the afore mentioned virtue signaling nonsense a few “housing advocacy” groups are aiming for.
4) Reduce Inclusionary Zoning to 10%. If the City wants more have the City participate in that. You already have the AHO which already heavily throws its weight on the scale. It is a hard for my gentle Cambridge friends to say but you need market rate housing … a ton of it … It might actually be good to say that in the privacy of your homes a few times a day.
5) Allow for a reduction in open space to 15% of lot area by special permit. The criteria being that you can put the area elsewhere in the building or that you make some other concession in instances where it just doesn’t make sense to have common decks etc.
6) Remove the lot per dwelling unit calculation. This is another antiquated control that is meaningless in light of building codes and health codes. I think it was originally devised to keep out the Irish yet I made it into Cambridge despite it. ha!
There is more you can do to tweak zoning and people can hem and haw over where a special permit is required. The last pearl of wisdom I’d leave is to audit CDD. This is an organization that operates more like a think tank than has anything that resemble an urban planning team. When it comes to success they are the Washington Generals of planning. Have they ever provided a report or feedback where they didn’t give themselves an “A?” ISD is treated like the outcast step child of development and yet they are the one interpreting zoning for what actually matters: a permit. These organizations at minimum should be in the same building and when it comes to zoning changes I care more about what Peter McLaughlin or Olivia Ratay thinks than Jeff Roberts or Iram Farooq. We could also spend a year talking about the regulatory nonsense of Article 19, PTDMs, Article 22 review, Green Roof zoning, BEUDO, Embodied carbon zoning, the specialized stretch code, and net zero … but alas those medallions of virtue (and little else) are likely a little to cherished to be brought up just yet. Hope all is well … I’m loving this conversation if you cannot tell … and best of luck to all; may the odds be ever in your favor.
@FrankD. Haha. Good point. So true. So much expertise and opinion about any proposed change to address a real crisis. But not one word about how to address the housing crisis.
Funny how all their energies are directed to maintaining the status quo, period.
@DWH333. Exactly. Suzanne Preston Blier and others cherry-pick an example or two that fits their narrative but ignore a larger body of evidence that does not.
It’s pretty clear that this opposition to zoning reform has nothing to do with finding solutions or the truth. It’s all about people defending their privilege.
@EastCamb
“ What I dont get it why all these “progressives” have their eyes set on just Cambridge? Why dont they take their game-changing ideas to any of the neighboring towns? Dont we already have the highest density and highest share of affordable housing?”
Well it’s probably because this is the Cambridge Day, and the “progressives” in question live and vote in Cambridge. We’re also not the densest, though that’s a meaningless metric.
Cambridge has been one of the most significant drivers of the regional housing crisis, as far as different municipalities go. We’ve added multiple times more jobs than homes over the last few decades, and we’re still continuing to do so.
The new Takeda building on Third Street is expected to support 2,000 permanent jobs. The new lab building going up on McGrath where the old car wash was is expected to support 1,000 permanent jobs.
I don’t think we’ve built 3,000 new homes in the last five years, and that’s just what we’d need to support two new lab projects. We’re _still_ contributing more to the problem than the solution, and that’s why we focus on what our own city is doing.
@cwec
Cambridge is not alone in addressing housing issues. Cities nationwide, including our neighbors, are implementing strategies to increase housing supply and reduce costs.
Our discussion about Cambridge is due to this being Cambridge Day. Our city aims to lead in these efforts, driven by our growing job market and vibrant economy. However, we must also protect those who might be negatively impacted, hence the emphasis on affordable housing.
A society’s worth is measured by how it cares for its most vulnerable members. I think it is important to remember that.
In other words, @cwec. I agree. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I just wanted to point out that we are not doing this alone.
I want to thank everyone for the comments. I really appreciate the praise, but also the overall politeness of the discussion. I will address here only the people who opposed this piece, where it makes sense.
FrankD: Why Anonymous? you have posted many times, saying mostly the same thing- anonymously. Come back with your real name. It’s the new cool thing! I welcome you (or others) to read my various blog posts where I do offer ideas that are more likely both to get better results (find them at CCC or on my professional site under Civic Blogs). These blog-engaged ideas would not increase land values (property values, taxes, and housing costs). Unfortunately that is what this radical up-zoning would do.
For you, I reread Asquith, Mast, and Reed (2023) and they provide great counter evidence to your points. For example they “…found that the areas receiving new construction in the eleven cities they studied were already gentrifying by the time the new buildings were constructed. They did not examine how the new construction then affected the gentrification trends….If new buildings add a significant number of apartments to the neighborhood and are occupied largely by wealthier, better educated households, that alone (all other things being equal) may lead the neighborhood to meet common definitions of gentrification.” Yes gentrification is already happening here. We do NOT need more gentrification!
Their study also notes that “Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability program (MHA), which relaxed zoning regulations in 33 neighborhoods to allow denser new development, but also required either a set aside of affordable units or contributions to an affordable housing fund. They found that the policy actually reduced new development in rezoned areas, and that new development shifted to lots just outside of the rezoning. In addition, Freemark (2020) examined how rezonings affected new construction when Chicago upzoned a large number of parcels in 2013 and 2015. He found “no evidence for short- or medium-term increases in housing-unit construction,” even five years after the rezonings were implemented.” Thank you for doing my homework for me!
On Market Dynamics: Trickle Down Economics Theory does not benefit the less well off, nor does Trickle Down Housing Theory!
DWH333 – Why anonymous?! Be brave, use your real name. in the meantime, reread the Minneapolis report, they have approached this with far more constraints and oversight than simply “leaving it up to investors and developers” to divey up land here for their own benefit. Parts of New Zealand have recently rethought their earlier upzoning. Auckland has recently chosen to shrink densification areas and expand “character areas” read: HERE HERE
AvgJoe Why Anonymous? Be brave! In the meantime, nothing is “guaranteed or simple” as you say, especially not in this radical up-zoning proposal. This upzoning is simply a mass experiment on a gross scale ignorant of the unique facts on the ground in Cambridge. Since there are so few vacant lots, there WILL be demolitions and evictions. Every person evicted or with a lease termination will face a situation similar to having a spouse die (psychologically). Some may be able to get on our affordable housing list and wait the X years to find public housing (AHO) here, most won’t. More supply can have benefits, but only if done thoughtfully, with specific criteria, and oversight (not happening here). “Exclusionary here” was done to address the toxic factory land sites. Read Charlie Sullivan.
CWEC East Cambridge: And your real name? We have now 30% vacancy rates in our offices, and some biotech and infotech are moving elsewhere. If these fine new companies find Cambridge so stimulating, the should be willing to acquire land, build housing and transport them where ever they can find reasonably priced land. Employers in Japan do this. More of this is being done on the West Coast. We could turn the vacant offices into something productive – art studios? Performance practice spaces? Storage units for the unhoused? Lots of possibilities.
Patrick Barrett: Thanks for using your own name. Hope you are well. You never call back anymore.
1.Alas we DO want people seeking variances. Frost Terrace is a great example of 40B (with BZA approval) and a lot of great neighborhood input. If we don’t want variances, than CDD should either get off their butts and do something like the dormer solution that just passed, or take the great model of Somerville and do a city plan, and a real form-built plan for each type of building zone. Our city (staff) simply have failed to advocate for or do this. It is almost as if they like having every project or zoning became a massive fight between residents and staff/councillors and developers, then they get to blame us the residents for their failure to do real planning. BTW every architect trains on a daily basis in their programs on responding in their plans to critique for various patrons. No different now. We need to keep Design Oversight from the smallest structures to the largest.
2. On a high inclusionary (20%) – or super inclusionary (35-40%) in Envision (this latter on which the city’s housing builds are based), how else do you propose bringing down housing here, without demolishing the very sustainable and currently more affordable historic homes of the city, leaving tenants on the street. I would propose using the model of down zoning the corridors to current heights and require that any new building must be X stories (6-8 stories – depending on the area) and then offer help to make that possible (tax relief, loans etc). We are going nowhere too fast with the present and proposed efforts.
3. You are stating falsehoods. CCC was only responsible for 1 petition (Donovan) – and we still support it. The reason it was not moved forward is because the pro-builder allied group wanted to both assure builders would have a big opportunity here, and because we have this “thing” in place about hating on West Cambridge, so the Housing Committee chose to take the zoning from the nearly most dense part of the city (C-1 – East Cambridge – those who are most angry with what the city is doing to their neighborhood – and apply it to every other neighborhood and district, so that we would all hate them even more. Where is your advocacy and that of other “haters” for a real city plan – what Envision was supposed to be.
Note all our property values will rise, along with taxes, & we know who and why to credit with this.
4. answered in two. Where is your plan to make Cambridge housing to actually make the city more affordable, and the answer is NOT simply building more luxury multi-million-dollar homes. Note too the market trend here is for conversion of 2 family into 1 family and the demolition of small 1 family into much bigger 1 family. This is happening citywide.
5. Open space now is not even green space. It includes porches and roof tops. Fine that you now have trees, but trees and green space is vital to health and cognitive growth. Just today the house featured in the globe has tree cutters out there cutting them down. This zoning if passed will be disastrous for the environment, and worse for city residents. You now have trees, so should those living here.
6) Note maintaining the lot per dwelling unit calculation (but increasing the number of dwellings allowed on the site) is precisely what brought the best housing results elsewhere. Why would we want to remove it?
(7). Yes – a BIG YES to auditing CDD. It does no urban planning, celebrates in obfuscation and lack of clarity. Often is dishonest in its responses. And does a real disservice to both the City (staff), the Council, and most especially the residents (whom they think of as the Enemy).
@Suzanne Preston Blier
The “why anonymous?” question is irrelevant. Let’s focus on facts and ideas.
Your comments contain cherry-picked examples and unsubstantiated claims presented as certainties.
No one is suggesting building only “luxury multi-million-dollar homes.” It’s oversimplified to assume people will leave their homes solely due to developers’ offers.
You say upzoning is a “massive experiment.” Yet, you ignore evidence of its effectiveness while emphasizing potential negative outcomes.
You mention reports like Asquith, Mast, and Reed (2023) suggesting possible gentrification but disregard findings on reduced rental prices.
Once again, you offer criticisms without proposing solutions.
Exclusionary zoning was the real “massive experiment,” resulting in a severe housing crisis and gentrification.
finally, it is hypocritical to warn about potential gentrification from upzoning while ignoring that exclusionary zoning, which you defend, has already caused gentrification.
@Suzanne Japan is not exactly well-known for it’s great work culture. I, like many other people, don’t want my housing to be tied directly to my employment. I don’t want to be made immediately homeless at the same time I’m dealing with joblessness.
Where are you getting 30% vacancy rates? The most I’ve found for Cambridge is 14% as of Q4 2023, it’s undoubtedly gone lower since then.
Regardless, it is not the responsibility of employers to do city planning, that is the responsibility of the city. We have, for decades, courted many more high-paying jobs than homes that we can put those highly-paid employees into. We have brought this problem onto ourselves, we should be the ones trying to undo the damage.
FrankD (no name): no point to respond again.
CWEC: You ou make some good points. Japan is sometimes cited as having helped to address housing in part because they also have lots of government funded housing. Perhaps a better example would be Vienna, but it is so different from Cambridge (as a national capital, with good transport, and fact most Austrian residents live near the capital. That said Vienna had great success in lowering rents by purchasing apartment buildings and keeping rents low. See HERE. Note this is also what Boston is now doing and it makes good sense.
The 30% city office vacancy rate was state in one of the official city meetings addressing concerns for the financial well-being going forward. I have mentioned this number in public with Councillors present and have received no push back. Boston is in even worse shape.
On employer housing: point well taken, however for area college students, doctoral students, post-docs, and interns, we could and should expect these institutions to do far more. Moreover, if we look elsewhere (and cities that have FAR areas, and FAR LESS density already, this is happening, especially where attracting talent can be difficult, including tech hubs like San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin, Texas, where companies like Meta (Facebook) and Tesla are building planned communities with below-market housing options for employees.
Happy to meet/talk further with you. My email is pretty available.
Thanks Susan this is helpful.
Another idea might be more higher buildings along mass ave- eg porter mall is just one story. Or the fresh pond mall could fit hundreds if not thousands of higher rise units near the T above the Whole Foods. New alewife station also can and should have housing.
Space near Jerry’s pond too.
I also think we should go back to the idea of taking one golf hole or two and we could basically solve the whole housing problem with hundreds if not thousands of units and inconveniencing a small handful of residents who golf, while also saving water during the drought.
(The rest of the golf course could be made into a more accessible park but I know that’s not a popular idea.)
@Suzanne Preston Blier I don’t need you to respond. However, I do need to correct
several flawed arguments and misconceptions in your arguments.
Let’s address them point by point:
1. Gentrification and Development
You misinterpret the findings of Asquith, Mast, and Reed (2023). While they acknowledge that new construction often occurs in areas already experiencing gentrification, this doesn’t mean that new development causes or exacerbates gentrification. In fact, research suggests that new housing supply can help mitigate displacement pressures.
2. Market Dynamics
The comparison to “trickle-down economics” is a false equivalence. Housing markets operate differently from broader economic policies. Research shows that increasing housing supply across various price points can help stabilize or even reduce housing costs over time, benefiting a wide range of residents.
3. Zoning and Development
Your interpretation of the Seattle and Chicago studies is selective. While some specific policies may have had limited short-term effects, broader research indicates that allowing for increased density and housing production generally leads to improved affordability and access.
4. Comments about “anonymous” posts:
Dismissing arguments based on anonymity rather than addressing their substance is a logical fallacy. The validity of an argument should be judged on its merits, not the identity of its author.
5. Vacancy Rates and Office Conversion
The suggestion to convert vacant offices into housing or other uses is actually a good idea that many cities are exploring. However, this doesn’t negate the need for broader zoning reforms to address housing shortages.
But it is also important to keep in mind that not all office buildings are suitable for conversion due to layout, access to natural light, or plumbing configurations
6. Inclusionary Zoning
Your support for high inclusionary zoning requirements (20-40%) may actually hinder housing production.
Most research suggests that more moderate inclusionary requirements (10-15%) are more effective at producing affordable units without significantly deterring development.
7. Environmental Concerns
The claim that upzoning will be “disastrous for the environment” is false. It is not supported by evidence.
In fact, denser urban development can be more environmentally sustainable by reducing sprawl and promoting efficient use of resources.
In conclusion, while you raise some valid concerns about community input and planning processes, many of your arguments against zoning reform are based on misinterpretations of data or flawed assumptions about housing markets.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
In short, Cambridge faces a severe housing crisis. The arguments against addressing this issue rely on misconceptions and flawed assumptions about housing markets.
Focusing solely on potential flaws while disregarding evidence of benefits is unproductive.
Instead of defending the status quo that contributed to this crisis, efforts should be directed towards finding solutions
@Suzanne can you point to me where you found that number? I’m not seeing it anywhere in any document on cambridgema.gov.
There was an RFI that went out this summer that lists our lab vacancy rate at 9.9% and retail at 2.6%. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Images/CDD/Planning/8496bishopallendrive/20240731_Central_Sq_Rezoning_RFI.pdf
This document on Lab and Office space has the vacancy rate even lower, ranging from about 5-8%. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2022/callenderetal/finnltp_edlabusespresentation20221207.pdf
I agree that offices that have been long vacant should be converted to housing where possible, but the unfortunate reality is that it’s not an easy process. The layouts of office buildings don’t often lend well to the layouts required by housing.
If we’re going to continue to court these big new office and lab buildings, we should be building as much or more housing. Increasing the rate of housing construction will lessen the crunch on our housing stock and alleviate the stress it puts on our transportation systems. Even if we could require companies to build housing for their employees, if they build it out in Lincoln we’re going to be putting thousands of vehicles on the road trying to squeeze into Cambridge. If those employees are local, they’ll be much more likely to walk, bike, or take the bus or the T.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
Your approach has shifted from a selective review of research to proposing unrealistic alternatives.
Cambridge’s market-based approach stems from financial constraints in directly developing housing.
The likelihood of local companies building planned communities is low, and even if implemented, would minimally impact the housing shortage.
Your initial criticism of crisis-addressing efforts relied on cherry-picked examples, disregarding contradictory research.
Now, you’re suggesting impractical solutions. Meanwhile, families urgently need housing, not distant future plans.
@Suzanne Preston Blier Your proposals are unrealistic.
Office-to-Housing Conversions: Converting office space into housing is far more complex and costly than it may appear. Office spaces and residential buildings have fundamentally different requirements. Also, your stats are inaccurate—by Q4 2023, the office vacancy rate was 14%, not the 30% you cited.
Employer-Provided Housing: This approach is oversimplified in the context of Cambridge. While some tech companies in other cities have built planned communities, Cambridge’s limited space and high density make this unfeasible. Additionally, developing communities on peripheral land would only increase traffic congestion by adding more cars to the roads.
We need practical solutions to the housing crisis. Cambridge has already made significant progress through effective policies, creating affordable housing developments and serving as a model for other cities. There’s no reason to second-guess these efforts.
The housing shortage—caused by exclusionary zoning—requires zoning reform as part of the solution. Unrealistic plans and half-baked criticisms only perpetuate inaction and maintain the status quo.
P.S. Stop the nonsense about calling people out for having anonymous userids. This is about facts and evidence. Having to resort to attacking people underscores the weakness of your arguments.
General note. I have had preliminary confirmation for the 30% office vacancy rate. This came from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and was reported to me by a Councillor. I have a phone number to confirm. I thank everyone who asked.
Frank unknown
1.Gentrification: False: I never said new construction started gentrification re. the AMR report, I quoted it correctly that it can continue gentrification, exacerbating an already bad situation. The same thing is happening here and will continue to do so. Let’s address them point by point:
2. Market Dynamics: false. It was CDD that offered the trickle down analogy. I cited earlier key studies that show adding more luxury housing results in increased housing costs.
The comparison to “trickle-down economics” is a false equivalence. Housing markets operate differently from broader economic policies. Research shows that increasing housing supply across various price points can help stabilize or even reduce housing costs over time, benefiting a wide range of residents.
3. Zoning and Development: off base. I simply detailed their specific policies & cited a study on related results.
4. “anonymous” posts: get real. Be civic minded.
5. Vacancy Rates and Office Conversion: False: I did not propose converting offices to homes, but NYC has done some. I support zoning reform, to say otherwise is silly.
6. Inclusionary Zoning: Misconceived. I am ambivalent on inclusionary except that it has brought us the greatest number of affordable units, and often across diverse neighborhoods. The point on high inclusionary is that this is the number that was used by CDD to determine our 2030 housing outcomes.
7. Environmental Concerns: False. Heat island impacts are directly related to shade trees. Green spaces and bushes are critical to cognitive development of kids. You remove these and serious problems (even death) follow.
8. Conclusion: glad you support planning & community input.
[9] “Severe problem.” This is a global, national, and regional problem. Fortunately, based on CDD data, we appear to be on track to meet our 2030 housing goals even without this radical upzoning. Instead, we should simply allow multi-family housing in every district.
CWECON unknown.
On 30% office vacancy: I have preliminary confirmation from a councillor that it was the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. I have a phone # to double check after the weekend. Thanks for asking.
On vacant offices: while NYC is doing some of this, it is difficult to convert them, but there are other city needs that could be accomodated – artist studios, practice spaces, non-profit locations etc that could be addressed effectively if we had a good policy in place.
On employee housing “in Lincoln” (etc): We would have to provide public transport – perhaps a combination of commercial, institutional and municipal support. Done in SF.
On adding housing: If we undertook a plan to add specific types of housing on the corridors (likely by down zoning) and in our vacant properties, we would reach a better result. And if we allowed/encouraged more city and other staff to work remotely 4 days a week or more, this would also have real benefits.
Joe unknown:
Approach: False. I have not shifted approaches. This opinion piece is simply a small part of what I have been addressing on this. There are diverse elements.
Market-Based upzoning. Mis-construed. Financial constraints will continue even with the push to demolish existing homes, because interest rates are expected to remain high, and we are not likely to see federal support for any more affordable housing. Do we want economic and racial diversity or not? If yes, we need a zoning plan that will support and promote this.
On cherry picking; False. I work hard not to do that. I cited specific cities and their approaches. Any errors, I am happy to correct.
On solutions: mis-construed: Families need housing, but so will those who will be evicted if this upzoning plan passes.
MrNice unknown
On office conversions, vacancy rates, and employer housing: see above.
On Cambridge housing shortage cause: nope – this problem is global & regional. But yes let’s simply urge council to support new zoning to allow multi-family homes everywhere. Currently the highest housing and rental prices are NOT in A & B districts (what you call exclusionary), they are in East Cambridge near Kendall as well as Inman Square and MIT. So exclusionary did not cause higher costs here.
On names: I urge using real names because that encourages more civic engagement and real discussions. Neighborhood listservs require real names, and it helps keeping things civil. It helps humanize discussions and helps one get to know people and where they stand.
I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize the findings of Asquith, Mast and Reed (2023) as “exacerbating an already bad situation”. It found new apartment buildings decreased the rent in nearby existing homes, that’s the headline of the study. The results of the study are summarized clearly in the abstract:
“We study the local effects of new market-rate housing in low-income areas using microdata on large apartment buildings, rents, and migration. New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially. If buildings improve nearby amenities, the effect is not large enough to increase rents.”
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/105/2/359/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext
DWH unknown (your posted MIT link suggests a student or affiliate). Note that this discussion of Asquith et al is not part of my original post, which was simply about approaches of other cities specifically to upzoning policies to achieve the best local results and are not decidedly NOT simply “let the market decide” (the Cambridge pro-builders approach). As to AMR the authors note “They did not examine how the new construction then affected the gentrification trends…If new buildings add a significant number of apartments to the neighborhood and are occupied largely by wealthier, better educated households, that alone (all other things being equal) may lead the neighborhood to meet common definitions of gentrification.” That is the crux of the matter. AMR did not say gentrification flat lined (stayed stable), or gentrification decreased, so my framing is pretty close. They use the term “significant number” to refer to new buildings occupied by wealthier, higher educated individuals.’ I used the framing of “exacerbated gentrification.” AMR add some “ifs” about amenities, but unlike in form-built planning we do not seek to add specific amenities in our plans. If you want me to change “exascerbated gentrification” to “added significant numbers to the gentrification,” I am happy to do so.
But, more importantly, what know in Cambridge specifically is that gentrification has been an ongoing problem, whether it is the conversion of two-family homes to very expensive SF homes citywide & especially in once poorer areas, or the acquisition of a majority of our new condo units by investors (people who do not live in them, but likely rent them out at a higher fee). We also know that the highest rents in Cambridge now are in East Cambridge where new residential buildings went up (many owned by residential investment companies). We also know, based on the city’s recent satisfaction report. that the LEAST happy residents are those living in East Cambridge, not only because of costs but also because of the noise, the mess the streets have become, the lack of parking, and the lack of amenities. East Cambridge C-1 zoning is what CDD chose to apply to the rest of the city, perhaps because they want everyone to be as unhappy as my friends in East Cambridge have stated they are.
@Suzanne Preston Blier Your statement contains misconceptions and inaccuracies
1. The Housing Market
The assertion that adding luxury housing increases overall housing costs lacks robust support from comprehensive research.
Studies actually indicate that increasing housing supply across various price points can help stabilize or even reduce housing costs over time.
For example, your claim about Asquith, Mast and Reed (2023) is incorrect. They did not find that zoning reform made a bad situation worse.
Their study found a decrease in rents, flatly contradicting your claims.
In fact, most housing and urban planning experts argue for significant zoning reform to address urban housing shortages.
The comparison to “trickle-down economics” is a false equivalence, as housing markets operate differently from broader economic policies.
2. Environmental Concerns
While green spaces are important for cognitive development and mitigating heat island effects, this argument oversimplifies the complex relationship between urban development and environmental concerns.
Well-designed, dense urban areas can be more environmentally friendly than sprawling developments, especially when built near public transit, as Cambridge is doing.
Building housing developments in remote areas would be worse for the environment, increasing traffic, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Cambridge’s 2030 Housing Goals
The claim that Cambridge is on track to meet its 2030 housing goals without zoning changes is inaccurate.
4. Economic and Racial Diversity
While the concern for economic and racial diversity is valid, the argument that current zoning preserves this diversity lacks strong support.
Historically, exclusionary zoning practices have contributed to racial and economic segregation.
It is counterintuitive to argue that zoning reform has racist implications, given that exclusionary zoning has roots in racism.
Frank No Name: I am no longer going to respond here with you on these (most of these are already answered here or on my blog posts). Happy to meet in person (or by phone) to talk. If you can’t find my email, provide yours and I am happy to contact you.
Suzanne Preston Blier
Research consistently shows that restrictive zoning correlates strongly with reduced housing supply and higher property values.
Approximately 70% of residential land in many urban areas is restricted to single-family homes, limiting housing diversity and driving up prices due to scarcity.
Exclusionary zoning is a root cause of the housing crisis, necessitating thorough zoning reform.
Partial measures like planned communities are insufficient and may create new problems such as increased traffic.
While some homeowners may resist zoning reform to protect property values, it’s crucial to prioritize societal well-being. Housing is a fundamental human right, whereas protecting property values and aesthetics is not.
A society that values mutual care should work towards inclusive housing policies rather than maintaining exclusionary practices.
MrNice:No name. See my email to Frank: No Name. Everyone in Cambridge (myself included) supports allowing multi-family housing citywide. The problem with the current upzoning proposal is that it will lead to more gentrification, demolitions and evictions, and will increase housing costs citywide significantly. Happy to meet in person, by zoom, or by phone to talk it through.
@Suzanne Preston Blier,
Your arguments appear speculative and unsupported by evidence. Experts widely agree that exclusionary zoning contributed significantly to the housing crisis, necessitating zoning reform as part of the solution.
The logic is straightforward: a housing shortage crisis requires increased housing supply. Cambridge’s recent policies have demonstrably boosted affordable housing production, serving as a model for other cities.
Your letter and associated comments seem to present a biased interpretation of the research, overlooking studies showing that increased inventory, even at market rates, has reduced rents.
Presenting personal opinions as inevitable outcomes raises concerns about the sincerity of your engagement in this debate.
Cambridge’s approach, combining upzoning with regulatory incentives for affordable housing, is proving effective and being emulated elsewhere.
The city’s progress in addressing the housing crisis shouldn’t be dismissed, especially not based on the preferences of those who have benefited from past exclusionary practices.
In the interest of a constructive dialogue, I encourage a more balanced consideration of the available evidence and successful strategies in addressing housing affordability.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
The city seems to be making a sincere (and successful) effort to address the housing crisis.
What do you think is happening? Are these professionals all idiots? Or is it a conspiracy between Cambridge officials and developers?
The only conspiracy I see is wealthy home owners defending thier privilege.
@Suzanne Preston Blier
If you truly cared middle and low-income housing, you would offer realistic solutions to a real crisis
Instead, all you offer is criticisms of city efforts. When challenged to offer solutions, you propose things that have no chance of happening any time soon, if ever.
All I see here is someone defending the status quo that made them wealthy and led to the housing crisis.
Suzanne Preston Blier
Regarding anonymity, I see where you are coming from, and agree that it is important to be civil and respectful. I think it’s fine for there to be places online where real names are required, and other places online where names are not required. I am not affiliated with MIT, the reason that MIT was in the URL I posted is because that study is from a journal that is published by the MIT press.
My motivation for voicing my opinion here is that I am concerned about housing affordability, that’s what I thought we were discussing. Asquith, Mast and Reed (2023) found that new apartment buildings not only provide affordable units directly through inclusionary zoning, they also reduce housing costs for people living in existing apartment buildings close by. To me that is big win for housing affordability. There are dozens of other studies that find similar results, as is discussed in the NYU Furman Center report, which was linked to earlier and I’ll link to here again:
https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Working_Brief_1.pdf
So when you claim that this proposal will “increase housing costs citywide significantly” I just don’t think that is supported by the research, and it has not been the experience of Auckland, New Zealand and Minneapolis that have adopted similar reforms.
This link is a bit more comprehensive review of the literature, I think by the same authors:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
The NYU Furman Center article, previously shared, offers a comprehensive review of evidence demonstrating that rezoning and new development can lower housing costs.
It’s encouraging that Cambridge city officials are aware of this research and are taking appropriate action.
Opposition to rezoning single-family areas for higher density primarily comes from single-family homeowners.
@DWH333
The abstract of that article sums it up nicely:
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 in rents in the region;
(b) in some circumstances, new construction 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 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 light of this evidence, it is inaccurate to argue that upzoning will “increase housing costs citywide significantly”. The evidence does *not* support that conclusion.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
@Suzanne Preston Blier: I do agree that we should listen to the experiences of other cities.
These researchers have and they have concluded that upzoning can work. In fact, they go through the counterarguments presented here and do not find evidence for them.
@DWH333
Well, that seems clear. The “supply skeptics” here claim that zoning reform will inevitably lead to ills.
But researchers conducting a rigorous review of the literature show that those claims are false. Any they show that zoning reform works.
It’s time for wealthy home owners to stop standing in the way of efforts to address the housing crisis.