Cambridge is at an inflection point. While its economy continues to boom, housing has become entirely unaffordable. Studio apartments often go for more than $2,500 a month, and the cost to buy even a one-bedroom home is approaching $1 million. The underlying cause of this unaffordability is a debilitating housing shortage, a result of decades of underbuilding. We have not built nearly enough homes, and now are short tens of thousands of units. In such a system, housing becomes a landlord’s market, with prices becoming what the wealthiest bidders are willing to spend rather than what the average Cantabrigian can afford.
The primary obstacle to sufficient home construction in Cambridge is its antiquated zoning code. Like most cities in America, Cambridge has maintained extreme restrictions on the types of homes that are legal to build for nearly a century. In fact, much of even its current, insufficient housing stock couldn’t be built today – including the triple-deckers that dot the city.
This system restricts our ability to increase density in response to community needs. Aspiring homebuilders have to pursue exceptions to city code, leading to yearslong delays and elevated costs that get passed to renters and buyers. As long as we keep these outdated zoning laws intact, rents will only continue to rise.
Over the past several months, the City Council has been considering changes to zoning laws that would unwind many of the most egregious restrictions. The citywide upzoning proposal would allow dwellings to be built up to four stories tall everywhere in Cambridge. To encourage these buildings to include affordable housing, those that include such units can go even higher. Other modifications include reducing setback requirements and retooling how we measure open space on residential lots.
Together, these reforms would enable a meaningful amount of multifamily, multistory housing to be built. While the ongoing amendment process has stripped out some of the most impactful reforms, it remains a strong policy that the city urgently needs to adopt.
While the codes being addressed drive up living costs, they have another, hidden impact: They constrain possibilities. What I love about Cambridge – and what makes it truly stand out – is the diversity of experiences available. Within walking distance of just about everywhere is a greater range of restaurants, shops and public spaces than most Americans have within a 30-minute drive. Add to that a growing bike infrastructure and strong transit network and you get an urban experience unlike almost any in the country. But without embracing reform, we increasingly limit this lifestyle to only the very rich.
To preserve and expand this vibrant urban experience, we should focus on strengthening Cambridge and welcoming new residents of all backgrounds. More people would make our city better and enable us to push forward projects such as transit expansion or park improvements that make life better for all of us. In the coming weeks, the council will take a series of final votes on the upzoning proposal. It has the chance to show constituents that members understand both the magnitude of the housing shortage and the opportunities that come with it. I hope they do.
Sean Hart, Windsor Street, Cambridge
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
The real bullying here is a privileged homeowner defending their wealth at the expense of disadvantaged people—or perhaps some just don’t want to live near those who are less fortunate.
Character is measured by how we care for the vulnerable in our community. This is a failure of character.
Deceptive rhetoric from someone feigning concern for the disadvantaged while actually safeguarding their own wealth and status.
Similar to the Cambridge Citizens Coalition. They claim to support affordable housing but primarily focuses on neighborhood preservation, effectively excluding lower-income residents.
Suzanne thinks our government is her personal homeowners association whose job it is to protect her bad taste in urban form and planning.
She’s lost the debate and I suggest you all just let her scream into the void.
Selfish individuals who prioritize their personal preferences and wealth accumulation at the expense of others’ well-being, causing long commutes and high rents, are particularly reprehensible.
Agreed. Time to ignore the crying and misinformation.
MrNice– She’s president of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition.
@cantabrigand
I know. That’s why I mentioned the CCC. She has a long history of opposing affordable housing.
The Cambridge Citizens Coalition website address should be mendacity.com
It refers to Cambridge “luxury” housing plans.
Cambridge does not have a plan for luxury. That is the term made up by the CCC and has no basis in reality, as we all know. It is part of their scare-mongering strategy to keep non-wealthy people out of their neighborhoods.
They say “Cambridge first, profits second”. But apparently it is OK for them to profit from rising home values due to exclusionary zoning.
What they really mean is:
“Protect our wealth first, everyone else second”
@MrNice. Ha. Good one. So true.
It might be a fun exercise to look at the property of those are most against this zoning and match up current zoning with proposed to see whether their home could exist at all under the current conditions. (spoiler: nope) I have been enjoying the conversation and the typical hyperbole that goes with it. Suffice to say all you really have to do is march on down to ISD and pull the occupancy data for 2024 and it will show you why this is not only needed but a decade plus late.
Suzanne Blier somehow doxxed my account here and emailed me personally with my address and IP address, accusing me of bullying and a “crime”.
Suzanne, this is absolutely unhinged behavior. I have not bullied you, I have merely pointed out what you have said and publicly disagreed with you. Tracking someone down, emailing them in a threatening manner because they disagree with you on a public forum is absolutely not the kind of behavior that is civic minded, or productive.
Doxing with the intent to intimidate is actually a crime.
Commenting in public forums is protected speech, particularly when it involves expressing opinions, engaging in discussions, or responding to others’ comments.
This is especially true in contexts that invite public discourse, such as social media platforms or community boards.
However, doxxing, the act of publicly revealing someone’s private information without their consent, is considered to be a crime in many states.
Telling someone that you know where they live, if the statement is made in a threatening tone, could reasonably be perceived as a threat under certain laws.
I suggest everyone who received these emails contact the police. Cambridge day also clearly has real security vulnerabilities that need to be fixed.
Indeed. This appears to be a potential threat. Tracking someone down to their home after a online disagreement is concerning behavior. This sounds like something for the police to consider.
It took a few days for the Harvard Police to publish their logs. Today they posted reports through January 6. You can read them yourself: https://www.hupd.harvard.edu/public-police-log
There is no report consistent with Suzanne’s story. On January 2nd someone at the School of Public Health (90 Smith St, Boston) reported “annoying emails” to the HUPD, so it’s clear that they log incidents like this.
Why is Suzanne’s report absent from the police log?
Either that, or email addresses are shared with the authors of Opinion columns, which is not disclosed in the Ethics Policy of the Cambridge Day.
This is misinformation, and a wholly unfounded conspiracy theory that refers to a body that is no longer functioning: There is no Cambridge News Matters, and it is not the parent organization of Cambridge Day. Suzanne Blier used information available in every instance of commenting through the WordPress platform since Cambridge Day began publishing on it in 2009. That setting was changed several days ago after commenters complained.
Again, this is conjecture and untrue. The author has chosen to imagine things rather than ask and understand.
I’m sorry, Marc, I jumped the gun on the accusations there.
Regardless, from my position, it was not obvious that my private information would be visible to other users, and that private information was used by a user to send me a threatening message, encouraging me to no longer participate in discussions.
Again, I apologize for my error there.
Thank you, and no worries. I do want people to know that the site isn’t funneling private information to any organization (and would not). This issue resulted from only a technological weakness that has been addressed, and with new funds from the board Cambridge Day can address other long-waiting tech issues too.
I appreciate it. If possible, would you delete my previous comment with the links? I’m implicating a person there that has absolutely no reason to be dragged into this.