Cambridge is looking at the possibility of four stories as a base for its citywide multifamily zoning, a reduction from the initial proposal of six stories.
In a vote Monday, the City Council voted to ask for revised zoning language from Community Development, which, if voted through in February, would allow for four-story buildings in all residential areas with an additional two stories if the buildings include affordable units (a plan dubbed “four-plus-two” in presentations).
Currently, some residential areas of Cambridge – generally in western neighborhoods – restrict building to single- and two-family houses. Monday’s revision is part of a series of lengthy discussions put forward to end exclusionary single- and two-family zoning and incentivize building more housing as part of addressing a state and national crisis.
The request for amendments was initially made in a motion during Thursday’s Ordinance Committee meeting by councillors Burhan Azeem, Sumbul Siddiqui and Paul Toner. The amendments represent a compromise, as the councillors who proposed them had disagreed on details such as building height.
The “four-plus-two” plan, added by city staff as an alternative to several plans proposed by councillors, also got some support during a Planning Board hearing Dec. 17.
“What you’ll see today is a result of listening, it’s a result of compromise, it’s really what policymaking in this chamber is about,” Siddiqui said. “It’s an area of process, and I think these amendments reflect that.”
The revisions make changes to setbacks, the space required around a building on a property. The original proposal removed all setback requirements, a contentious decision for some. In a compromise between existing zoning and the original multifamily proposal, the new language will add back a 5-foot requirement for side and rear setbacks.
Additional changes include requiring that lots be 5,000 square feet to build above four stories, as well as calling for a regular five-year review to assess the impact of zoning changes. The new language will also clarify that buildings built by the Affordable Housing Overlay, which allows for taller buildings for 100-percent-affordable developments, will be limited to nine stories in residential neighborhoods.
Hesitated over amendments
Several councillors hesitated on the amendments. Azeem, who has favored fewer restrictions on development, said Thursday: “By setting a minimum of 5,000 square feet, we’ve gotten rid of 70 percent of lots. It would be difficult for me to vote for this one.”
On Thursday and again Monday, councillor Ayesha Wilson brought up the possibility of allowing for three stories with an additional three for developments with affordable units, with the concern that the current plan would displace existing tenants.
“We need to make sure we’re not adding to displacement and keep inclusionary housing alive,” Wilson said.
In the end, all councillors except Cathie Zusy voted for language to be drafted around these new amendments. She pointed to current development trends that include Affordable Housing Overlay construction: 76 projects in progress to produce 5,301 residential units, 987 of them affordable.
“I question whether we really need to let down the guardrails and let developers determine where we grow,” Zusy said. “I continue to believe that most development should be smart growth, along transportation corridors, and I worry that in trying to solve one problem, that this proposal will create other problems.”
“Not some Christmas Eve surprise”
A recurring concern in these meetings is outreach to residents. Although the council has received several hundred public comments and emails, Wilson noted, “We’re not hearing from some voices, and that lack of representation is not okay.” Councillor Patty Nolan also noted her desire for the city to be better at informing residents, with many of the night’s 40-plus speakers seeming to think that final zoning was being voted Monday.
“This was not some Christmas Eve surprise that we were plotting on the people of Cambridge,” Toner said.
The next opportunity for spoken public comment on the new amendments is an Ordinance Committee meeting Jan. 8.
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 seems a reasonable approach for the current time.
Because nothing says Love Thy Neighbor more than wealthy people denying poorer people housing.
The Christmas Eve surprise, Mr. Toner, is the inventive ways some council members find to keep poorer people out of their neighborhoods.
This entire mess is because the CC chose to put this important, historic change into a Zoning Petition process which has prescribed procedures and timelines. Which is very confusing, even to Councilors, with ever changing meetings and public comment opportunities.
Then the Ordinance Chair McGovern failed to remember the Committee cannot direct CDD to do anything. So he shoved 9 brand new Amendments from 12/19 to the 12/23 CC meeting with a Late Order. And very clearly explained the need for a vote on 12/23 and that they wanted the public to only refer to the amended petition. Which gave the public no time to process all the new proposed amendments.
This is very poor way to “make the sausage” and craft legislation, so it should be no surprise that residents are confused by these rushed procedures when the entire City was shut down for the Holidays.
Not only are they confused, they are outraged.
I’m a resident and I am not outraged.
Negative opinions about the multi-family zoning reform process are often strongly held and loudly proclaimed, but poorly supported.
This zoning petition has a “prescribed procedure and timeline” because those are requirements followed for *all* zoning petitions.
The “changing meetings and public comment opportunities” were held to meet the demands of opponents who want residential buildings to have less height, less width, less length and fewer lots eligible to hold them. All of the newly-approved changes to the proposal moved it in the direction the opponents wanted, although not all of the changes they wanted were approved.
The changes were discussed by the Ordinance Committee on December 19th and the City Council on December 23. These were *not* days on which “the entire City was shut down for the Holidays.”
Right up until the last municipal election, a group of zoning-reform opponents declared they were about to flip the Council and take back “their” city. The voters did not agree with that plan. The professionally-conducted 2024 Resident Opinion poll found that 66% of Cambridge selected the high cost of market-rate housing as the #1 issue they wanted the City to work on in the next two years.
By a vote of 8-1, the Council sent the compromise version of the multi-family zoning reform to the City Manager for drafting into an ordinance. That draft will be the subject of hearings, discussion and possibly amendments over the next 6 weeks. Although reform opponents may be “outraged” about this turn of events, there is little justification for the “confusion” they are trying to stir up.
What @James Zall said. Opponents of zoning reform disrupt the process, then complain it’s chaotic—pure hypocrisy.
It’s like Cambridge calling itself a progressive city that values people, yet many residents block much-needed housing just to preserve their kitchen window views.
I only see signs opposing this on mansions. People who already have more than enough continually try to prevent others from having anything. They lack all sense of compassion or shame.
Sorry cportus.
Unless you use your real name you’re just a bot and nobody cares what it thinks.
@James Zall- Agree, at least 66% of residents do say they are concerned with the high cost of housing.
But this zoning reform wont do anything to solve that problem.
What will you tell all the renters in 2 or 3 family buildings that get displaced by this misguided political theatre?
My Letter to the Editor titled “Late policy order on multifamily housing zoning petition didn’t go far enough” details why the Ordinance Committee and City Council actions were indeed “Christmas Eve surprise”.
Am I yet again the only one who is appalled by City Council not waiting to see the memo from the Planning Board “detailing which aspects lacked full support” even though as Mary Flynn, Chair of the PB summarized “We strongly recommend that multifamily be allowed in all districts”?
“Update from the Planning Board on discussions of allowing Multifamily Housing citywide” transmitted as CMA #6 – CMA 2022 #84 on 4/25/2022 was also ignored.
The Planning Board is dedicated volunteers and they recognized that fact and deferred amending languages to the elected City Council. City Council should reciprocate their action and take their recommendation fully into consideration.
Zoning reform in Cambridge promises increased housing and economic growth through higher density.
However, some residents prioritize personal preferences and parking over community benefits.
Ironically, those who oppose bike lanes citing business concerns also resist density increases that would benefit those same businesses.
This inconsistency suggests their primary concerns may lie elsewhere.
Sigh. We desperately need housing in Cambridge. The opponents seem to operate under the impression “I own my house, so I own the entire city!”, which denies everyone a chance to live close to jobs here. The change from 6 to 4 stories seems small, yet 6-story buildings have 50% more apartments than 4-story buildings, a giant drop in any housing built. Why are people so afraid of other people living close to them, I could never understand. But then I grew up in a 16-story tower, so I must be too alien to the historic spirit of Cambridge /s
@kdolan, your statement is false.
Zoning reform increases housing supply, which reduces nearby rents. The idea that zoning reform displaces lower-income residents is a debunked NIMBY myth.
Research confirms that zoning reform lowers housing costs.
The article “Supply Skepticism Revisited” (https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044) provides extensive evidence supporting this.
The housing crisis stems from exclusionary zoning limiting supply to meet demand. More housing is the solution. It’s illogical to claim that increasing housing supply would result in less housing availability.
Let me add that exclusionary zoning has its roots in racist policies to keep people of color and poor people out of certain neighborhoods. Sad to think that some Cambridge residents still think that way.
I would have preferred something more ambitious, but this would be a big change from the status quo. So as much as we urge compassion toward people who can’t afford a place to live, we should also have some compassion toward homeowners who don’t want too much change too quickly. It sometimes feels like we’re not doing enough, but Cambridge and Somerville are the densest cities in the Commonwealth, and with fits and starts, real leaders here.
Unfortunately “kdolan” I do live and vote here and, thus, my opinion matters just as much as yours. And more people agree with me than you.
It’s nice to see progress but we need to do more.
Housing needs should take precedence over resistance to change. Cities evolve constantly.Cambridge today differs greatly from its past iterations.
Exclusionary zoning, invented to keep certain people out of certain neighborhoods, has halted the ability of cities to change to accommodate changes in population. It is why we have a housing crisis.
It’s unfair for current residents to oppose progress once they arrive. This is especially true when it comes to providing essential housing.
Blocking needed homes is far from compassionate. Neither is forcing neighbors to spend half of their income on rent.
@Mr Nice- no doubt you are devout in your belief, but the chants and incantations you post incessantly are just lovely prayers misapplied to the conditions here in Cambridge.
You have no knowledge how development and land use really works. Which could be forgiven if you weren’t just outright lying to a very vulnerable constituency that believes you, and that Cambridge housing rents will be reduced by adding supply here.
Maybe thats exactly why you don’t use your real name.
@kdolan Belief isn’t the issue here—it’s about facts and evidence.
Research on zoning reform shows it reduces rents. For example:
This study did an extensive survey of American cities. They found that allowing more density through zoning reform lowers rents.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
Another study across four cities concluded that zoning reform reduced housing costs.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
So, yes, I’m informed. I rely on facts, evidence, and the expertise of land-use researchers.
Your arguments, by contrast, seem based solely on personal assumptions without supporting evidence. Your ad hominem attacks further undercuts your credibility. When you don’t have logic or evidence on your side, you attack the person.
Facts and evidence don’t lie, kdolan.
We have a housing crisis because of a lack of supply and high demand. It’s basic economics that you increase supply to lower cost.
It takes some twisted NIMBY pretzel logic to argue that building more housing is a problem in a crisis due to lack of housing.
Progress not perfection. Hopefully this will help.
Let’s remember we have not just a housing, but also transportation problem- if we had better public transit, people from anywhere could more easily get into, out of, and around the city. It’d be great if every new resident biked, but this will add thousands of cars, too.
Too much growth and our infrastructure will buckle- trees, green spaces and history will be lost, too little and inequity soars and stagnation sets in.
Again @ Mr Nice- exactly who are you?
Because until you tell us your comments here are meaningless.
@bahmutov Because most people don’t like ground floor apartments and ground floors are often used for retail and or parking 6 floors rather than 4 would really be closer to 66% more housing (2/3 rather than 2/4).
Greater progress would include building six-story structures, which are entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, some community members oppose such developments, effectively limiting housing opportunities for others. A vibrant local economy benefits everyone, and while Cambridge has created many jobs, it must also address the housing shortage. Indifference to the needs of others is deeply troubling.
About 40% of Cambridge households do not own cars, demonstrating that driving is unnecessary for many residents.
Enhancing public transit with dedicated bus lanes and more frequent service would greatly improve accessibility. While the MBTA is increasing bus frequency, dedicated lanes would further strengthen the system.
Isn’t it funny how some people oppose bike lanes because of unwarranted claims of harm to local business. Yet, some of the same people (like Paul Toner) oppose increasing housing density, which would be a big help to local businesses. More customers means more business. The hypocrisy is head-spinning.
This is a good start, let’s see how our infrastructure fares.
As Joe points out, even if half the new residents come with cars, that’s a disaster on many levels.
Let’s build up a range transit options at the same pace as density. Let’s maintain green space and trees. Let’s build near the T and expand the T. Let’s maybe think about building on the golf course. Let’s knock down ugly buildings to build bigger ones but keep the historic ones.
And by the way, no one I’ve met is opposed to more housing, many reasonable people are opposed to unregulated housing.
@MrNice- you should actually read these studies, not the summaries that you plaster everywhere.
None of them suggest rents lower with statistical significance.
None of them suggest their findings are scaleable.
All of them reference the variables
and difficulty in accessing data.
Not only is it an oversimplification to justify your claim that building more will lower rents in Cambridge, its deceptive.
@kdolan False. You need to read the studies. I’m going to help by quoting the studies directly.
The authors’ conclusions are crystal clear: increasing housing supply reduces rents. Are you suggesting the authors don’t understand the results of their own study?
Here’s their conclusion, in their exact words:
“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.”
(It doesn’t get any clearer than that.)
Another quote from the same paper:
“The current evidence accordingly gives little support for the claims of supply skeptics.”
(That’s you, @kdolan.)
“Further, it is important to remember that the arguments supply skeptics make, and much of the research those arguments have spurred, focus on the effects new supply has on its surrounding neighborhood.”
(This highlights that studies cited by supply skeptics often overlook the broader, city-wide effects.)
“There is little controversy that new supply helps to reduce rents or slow rent growth and displacement for the larger city or region.”
(This confirms that when viewed at the city level, increasing housing supply clearly decreases rents.)
The paper surveyed studies from cities across the U.S.—hardly limited in scope. Is that not scalable enough?
Here’s another study, spanning four cities, which also found that allowing more housing significantly slowed rent growth:
Study: Flexible Zoning Helps Contain Rising Rents.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
It’s deceptive and it’s gaslighting to claim that housing supply has no effect on rent when the researchers themselves explicitly state the opposite.
@q99Research shows relaxing zoning laws reduces housing rents, which is Cambridge’s goal. However, some people oppose this approach.
The claim that no one is against more housing is inaccurate.
“I’m not against more housing, I’m just against what you need to do to get it” effectively means opposing more housing.
BTW, Cambridge IS trying to build more housing near public transit. But people oppose it.
AvgJoe – As I keep asking people, please be ready to back your on-line statements with reference to public documents.
Please provide Policy Order number and date that asked CDD to draft Multifamily Petitions with the goal of reducing housing rents.
I, for one, is not against more housing as City can’t remain static. But I am for reasonable growth based on good urban planning, accurate current housing data and thorough analysis of the need for housing as well as impact study of any proposed solutions.
Cambridge is trying to build more housing everywhere, not just near the public transit. If it was so, we don’t need to eliminate exclusionary zoning; all we need to do is amend residential zoning along mass transit corridors.
@yckcambridgeday –
In your last paragraph above, you wrote, “we don’t need to eliminate exclusionary zoning; all we need to do is amend residential zoning along mass transit corridors.”
Why do you think we should keep exclusionary zoning in areas that are not corridors? Do you see a public benefit to retaining this harmful, unjust policy? Who do you believe should be excluded, and why?
@James Zall -@ AvgJoe claimed “Cambridge IS trying to build more housing near public transit” and if that is the reason for MFH Petitions, then that doesn’t justify elimination of Res A and Res B regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
ZO has been evolving for the last 100 years and removing “exclusionary zoning” needs to be done with more careful urban planning in accordance with City’s Master Plan and thorough impact analysis. I am against “Tear it down and mitigate the negative impact later” reasoning.
@yckcambridgeday References to public documents have been shared multiple times in these comments. These include published research papers demonstrating that ending exclusionary zoning reduces rents.
Since you may have missed them, here they are again:
Supply Skepticism Revisited:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
Study: Flexible Zoning Helps Contain Rising Rents:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
The Impact of Exclusionary Zoning on Manhattan Condo Prices:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/429979?journalCode=jle
Zoning reform is one of several measures Cambridge is pursuing to lower housing costs, all of which depend on enabling more housing construction. This is why the city is working to end exclusionary zoning.
@yckcambridgeday
Historically, exclusionary zoning has perpetuated racial discrimination and inflated property prices.
It has long been used to exclude lower-income people—disproportionately racial minorities—from affluent neighborhoods. Supporting research includes:
The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4083588/
Understanding Exclusionary Zoning and Its Impact on Concentrated Poverty:
https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentrated-poverty/
Additionally, housing costs account for over 30% of the Black-white racial wealth gap:
https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/RacialWealthGap_2.pdf
Do you feel comfortable defending policies that uphold these inequities?
This video feels pretty relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hhwRQvvcA&list=TLPQMzExMjIwMjQB5-30B-eLTQ&index=2
@yckcambridgeday
Cambridge is addressing its severe housing crisis by relaxing exclusionary zoning—the very cause of the crisis.
You question whether the city’s zoning changes aim to lower housing costs. The city has explicitly stated this on its website about multifamily zoning.
It says the purpose is to “encourage the creation of permanently affordable housing.”
The FAQ further explains that the new zoning is intended to “solve the housing crisis and remove historic inequities in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.”
Additionally, it states:
“The intent of the petition is to allow the creation of new market-rate housing to alleviate overall demand for housing and to build multifamily housing that will be required to create permanently affordable housing units.”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing
So, yes, the city has publicly documented that the zoning changes aim to create affordable housing. Your claim to the contrary is false.
What is your explanation for the city’s motivations? Can you “back your statements with reference to public documents”?
For context, the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is designed to build housing near public transit, but it is insufficient to meet demand.
Exclusionary zoning has a deeply racist history and continues to perpetuate racial segregation and inequality. There is no justification for maintaining it today.
Apartheid by Another Name: How Zoning Regulations Perpetuate Segregation
https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/apartheid-by-another-name-how-zoning-regulations-perpetuate-segregation
The argument that these changes will lead to unchecked development is unfounded fearmongering. Development will still require approval processes. This is a classic NIMBY scare tactic.
In a comment yesterday, yckcambridgeday tried to claim that the Council’s goal for multi-family zoning is to allow more housing near public transit which, he claims, “doesn’t justify elimination” of exclusionary zoning restrictions in other parts of the city.
In fact, the Housing Committee asked CDD to help draft zoning amendments for multiple purposes, including: to allow more housing and to eliminate exclusionary provisions.
The median value of a single-family home in A-1 districts (the most restrictive) is about $5.5 million. In B districts (the third most restrictive), the median value of a single-family home is about $1.7 million. Those prices clearly exclude many, if not most, Cambridge residents. Cambridge’s laws should not perpetuate the exclusion of so many of its own residents.
As you say, “removing exclusionary zoning needs to be done” with care and planning. It is. The Council and city staff have been working carefully since at least 2021 on this issue. Even the Planning Board now agrees that:
“Zoning should allow for an equitable range of housing types and unit sizes in all
residential districts. In other words, some neighborhoods should not be exclusively
limited to large, single-family and two-family homes while other neighborhoods allow
more variety in housing types. There is no compelling reason to prohibit multifamily
housing and townhouses throughout the city.”
I wish you all a Happy, Healthy and Auspicious New Year!
I want to clear the air and avoid negative assumptions about my statements as we start the new year.
I am not defending inequitable policies or debating exclusionary zoning. My focus is on how the MFH Petitions were developed.
I am not referring to published research papers but rather to the Cambridge housing data such as Annual Housing Stock Update 2024 which was released on 12/11 after projection of the housing developments to 2030 was completed based on 2023 data without factoring in all the developments in the pipeline or potential development sites. If there is any CDD document that shows how any of research papers fit Cambridge’s unique characteristics, by all means let me know.
I’m not questioning whether the city’s zoning changes aim to reduce housing costs, as that wasn’t specified in the Policy Order.
My main point is that a Policy Order directing the City Manager to collaborate with CDD on zoning amendments should clearly define measurable goals. CDD must first show that the current Zoning Ordinance (ZO) can’t meet those goals. If it can, why amend it?
Furthermore, CDD needs to demonstrate that the proposed amendments can achieve these goals without significant negative or unanticipated consequences. Currently, CDD’s reliance on outdated data, excluding AHO impacts, and using a growth rate influenced by COVID-19 led to the conclusion that the city can’t meet the Envision 2030 housing goals, even with the MFH Petitions.
Finally, when CDD is amending MFH Petitions, it must carefully factor in Planning Board’s concerns when their report is submitted to the City Council.
Exclusionary zoning is often criticized for needing a gradual phase-out to avoid “unregulated growth.” Let’s be clear: this is pure nonsense.
Eliminating exclusionary zoning will not lead to a “wild west” of unchecked development. Developers won’t have free rein—there will still be approval processes and regulated growth. Claims to the contrary are misleading.
Some argue the city hasn’t done enough research or impact studies. That’s equally baseless. The city has worked on these plans for years, and Cambridge is recognized as a model for creating affordable housing.
Concerns about the supposed negative consequences of zoning reform are also unfounded. Extensive research shows zoning reform reduces housing costs. The only “negative” impact is on wealthy homeowners worried about slower property value increases.
@yckcambridgeday suggests “CDD must first prove the current Zoning Ordinance (ZO) can’t meet these goals.” This is absurd—the current ZO created the housing crisis.
Claims that research from other cities doesn’t apply to Cambridge are another red herring. Studies from across the country show that zoning reform works. Cities operate on the same economic principles. The “our city is unique” argument is a classic NIMBY delay tactic.
Exclusionary zoning is a discriminatory practice that has fueled a severe housing crisis. Denying people housing or forcing them to spend disproportionate amounts of income on it is morally indefensible. It’s selfish, plain and simple.
Don’t buy into the scaremongering about unregulated growth or insufficient data—it’s all fiction.