In addition to hosting an afternoon panel of urban planning experts, Cambridge city councillors sat before nearly three hours of public comment on an ongoing multifamily zoning petition during an Ordinance Committee meeting Wednesday. More than 150 people gave comment, with opinions generally supporting one of three actions: pass the current “four-plus-two” proposal; pass a “three-plus-three” alternative; or stop the current process altogether.
When the conversation picks up next week, it is for a policy discussion among elected officials and staff that takes into account public reaction to changes in multifamily-zoning proposals.
The “four-plus-two” proposal would allow for four-story buildings citywide with a bonus of two stories if the building includes at least one affordable unit for every five units. The proposal is a reduced version of the original six-story zoning proposal and has received support from A Better Cambridge, a self-described pro-housing organization. The idea of four-plus-two was also favored by multiple members of the Planning Board who felt six stories would be too tall.
“While this proposal has already been watered down more than I’d like, I urge you to pass this compromise ordinance,” resident Emma Bouton said. “As a young renter, I struggle to imagine being able to continue to live in Cambridge long term and raise a family here without significantly more affordable housing being built all across the city. People are struggling to pay skyrocketing rents and are getting pushed out of the place they love.”
The “three-plus-three” alternative – also called “three-plus-three-plus-three”– was brought to the table by councillor Ayesha Wilson and supported by the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, to allow for three-story buildings with an additional three stories if the building includes at least one affordable unit for every five units. The additional “plus three” refers to the additional three stories that the Affordable Housing Overlay allows for if the building is 100 percent affordable, an AHO bonus that applies in the same way as a “four-plus-two” plan.
The stated goal of the alternative is to ensure that upzoning does not contribute to tenant displacement.
“Four-plus-two, as is, would be a bold action, but it would result in the demolition of many triple-deckers, where many people access naturally occurring affordable housing,” activist Banti Gheneti said. “I support ending exclusionary zoning as well as limiting setbacks, but if the goal is affordable housing, three-plus-three-plus three is what we need.”
Several residents also urged the council to stop the current process altogether and start over in the spring. This option is supported most vocally by councillor Cathie Zusy as well as the Cambridge Citizens Coalition, a residents’ organization. The stated concerns have generally been that the process is rushed and lacks analysis on how new zoning will affect housing production, transportation, trees, climate and infrastructure.
“Given all the comments and controversy around the upzoning, the responsible and courageous action, in my opinion, is to pause and submit a better proposal,” Jack Silverson said after a meeting in which Zusy invited planning experts. “Having listened to the seminar this afternoon, it’s apparent to me that in the next year, there will probably be very little building going on in Cambridge or anywhere else. Given the high interest rates and all the rest, why not put this year to good use and do a proposal where people from all spectrums will feel like it addresses their needs?”
Some residents pointed out the lack of broad representation in public comment, an issue that has been raised by city councillors as well.
“I’d like to remind the City Council that it is the most representative body of Cantabrigians that exists, measurably more democratic and informative than any public comment session,” resident Daniel Maskin said. “Please do not give undue credence to public comment or use it as a way to measure general public sentiment.”
The next Ordinance Committee hearing is Thursday, treated as a continuation of this hearing and so taking no public comment. The City Council has until mid-February to vote on the current iteration of the zoning reform – otherwise, as some residents hope for, the proposal will expire.
This post was updated Jan. 12, 2025, to correct a quote by Banti Gheneti and to clarify that Gheneti is not a current resident but considers themself an activist.
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.
I agree with Wilson that “We’re not hearing from some voices, and that lack of representation is not okay.” The voices of renters and people who want to rent in Cambridge are _severely_ underrepresented during a typical council meeting. 66% of housing units in Cambridge are rented, yet the number of speakers at the meeting who rent is a lot lower. And guess what: most renters are FOR more construction in Cambridge (makes sense, more construction does not allow landlords to simply increase the rent each year)
As far as homeowners (and I am one of them): when one buys a home in Cambridge, one does not buy a lock on the entire city and should not be able to block new construction. Want to control what gets built? Buy the neighbors’ lots of land and feel free to keep them empty.
I would love to know how Mr. Bahmutov *knows* what all the renters who aren’t speaking in public comment think. Myself, I try not to claim that I know what anyone else is thinking unless I have actual information about it, like their own statements. I might speculate, of course, but I label it as such; I don’t claim that I can read minds.
As to “more construction does not allow landlords to simply increase the rent each year”, that assumes facts that are most assuredly not in evidence.
Re: 3-3 proposal
Can we stop with the “naturally occurring” language? Caves are the only “naturally occurring” shelter.
Triple deckers aren’t “naturally” affordable. These renters are talking about building that still happen to be affordable. And with supply pressure created in current regulatory landscape it is ONLY a matter of time before those also become unaffordable.
Here is my analogy. Uber/lyft are convenient to get around. They are much more convenient than taking the T or any public transportation. So just like the housing advocates who want to add 4,6,8 stories all over place in Cambridge thinking that will drive down rent(haha! ) let’s get thousands of more uber on the street. It will drive down prices so everyone can uber around wherever they want to go. Same concept as adding more housing, right? Simple!
HeatherHoffman I listened to the comments made but the public during the council meeting. I would say that half were made by people who started with “I am long time resident of Cambridge in my house…” and half were by “I’m a renter”. So already skew from 34% and 66% distribution.
And guess what the vast majority of home owners had on the modest upzoning proposal? “The sky is falling” is an understatement. Meanwhile every renter who spoke had a variation of “I cannot afford to even rent here and my friend / doctor / sister moved away because they gave up, please allow more construction”.
The difference in public opinion is pretty start between “i got mine” and “our city is failing people who live here or want to move close to jobs, schools, etc”
EastCamb The analogy is incorrect: a bus is much better for the city as a whole, just like multi family buildings are better when more people need to live in close proximity in the city. A better analogy is a bus: people enter the bus and pay for their seat. Then they put their feet / arms on the seats next to them screaming “the bus is full, no more passengers”. Sorry, no. You got your seat and your seat only. The other seats are not yours to control, just like you should not tell everyone how you must have a say if an apartment building is built on a plot of land next to yours.
Housing at all costs advocates are exhausting, disruptive, and unrealistic.
Modest proposals make sense. This is a mature, crowded city (one of the densest in the nation) in a region with a broad housing crisis.
Cambridge will not individually solve the regional housing crisis.
Cambridge could improperly build and destroy what makes it great.
Cambridge should allow homeowners the freedom to build further density within reason.
I’m quibbling over here, but it strikes me as cheeky to call ABC “a self-described pro-housing organization” while calling triple C “a residents’ organization”. The phrasing “self-described” implies that the reality is actually something different.
Meanwhile, describing the Triple C as a “residents’ organization” is both charitable and misleading. I’m a resident. They don’t represent me or anyone I know. If their policies were enacted it would force my friends out of this city. At best they’re an organization of property.
This is a long winded way of saying that language matters.
Exclusionary zoning, originally implemented to segregate neighborhoods, has led to a severe housing shortage.
This discriminatory practice has primarily benefited homeowners who have gained wealth from artificially inflated property values.
Addressing this issue requires increased housing construction.
Critics of zoning reform often cite community concerns, but their arguments lack credibility given their vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Research demonstrates that zoning reform effectively reduces rents.
A community’s true character is reflected in how it cares for its vulnerable members, not in preserving homeowners’ wealth or excluding lower-income residents.
Supply and demand dictate housing prices. High prices result from demand exceeding supply. The solution lies in increasing supply.
The Uber analogy is flawed. Housing and transportation have different dynamics.
(Ironically, relying solely on on-demand car services could reduce vehicle numbers, traffic, and pollution while improving street safety.)
Consider this analogy: If food scarcity made proper nutrition accessible only to the wealthy, the poor would struggle to survive.
Similarly, maintaining low housing supply exacerbates the current crisis.
Continuing to restrict housing supply is counterproductive and worsens the existing housing crisis.
@bahmutov Great analogy about bus seats.
The only people opposing zoning reform are homeowners who financially benefit from exclusionary zoning. Meanwhile, renters, who struggle with high housing costs caused by this zoning, are the ones advocating for reform.
In Cambridge, 65–67% of households are renter-occupied, while only 30–34% are owner-occupied.
The math is clear: a wealthy minority is leveraging privilege to block opportunities for the majority.
Claims of a “luxury land-grab” or “widespread demolition” due to zoning reform are baseless scare tactics, unsupported by facts.
When people say, “protect neighborhood character,” it sounds like code for “keep poor people out.”
Bahmutov- let’s say you do ultimately buy a place here. You select a great neighborhood and community and get to know the people. Then 1 month after you move, you find out that the next 3 houses next to you are being knocked down and they putting a 4 story mall there. You would be pissed too because that is not you signed up when you bought your house/condo. You thought it was zoned for residential but some advocates really felt we need to increase the commercial business and there the zoning laws are being thrown out of the window. People who did not have cars could drive far away so your neighborhood is the best place to put a glitzy mall open every day till 10pm.
That is what zoning laws are there for. All the argument about zoning laws to segregation of neighborhoods is complete BS. If you have the money you can live where ever you want want. If you don’t, live within your means of what you can afford, not what you would like.
Owning a house doesn’t grant control over the entire city or the right to prevent others from moving in. This attitude is akin to “pulling up the ladder” after climbing it.
Your mini-mall example is exaggerated and doesn’t reflect how development works in Cambridge.
Developments undergo an approval process. There aree3 policies in place to promote affordable housing, which s why they are changing the zoning
Exclusionary zoning originated as a method of neighborhood segregation.
When racial segregation became illegal, communities switched to economic segregation through zoning to achieve similar results. This is the practice you’re inadvertently defending.
Using unrealistic scenarios undermines your credibility. It’s important to understand the historical context and current realities of zoning policies.
Voice of a 30-year renting resident here. Stayed after grad school, work in Cambridge orgs and use public school. Bounced around as renters because of changing needs of local landlords.
IMO: half of all new housing should be affordable, but what is “affordable” probably needs to be updated. We wont all agree on what we love or want to preserve about Cambridge, but we should choose wisely what comes next. Balancing the democratic process with capitalism is always messy but we are here for it!
EastCamb: This isn’t a serious argument. A shopping mall or an abattoir bear no resemblance to a four or eight unit condo.
> All the argument about zoning laws to segregation of neighborhoods is complete BS.
What you’re claiming has no historical basis. After racially discriminatory zoning was overturned by SCOTUS in 1917 (Buchanan v. Warley), segregationists turned to single-family zoning as a way to keep their cities white. This is documented ad nauseam. You’re welcome to your opinions but not your facts.
> If you have the money you can live where ever you want want. If you don’t, live within your means of what you can afford, not what you would like.
No one is demanding to move into the Longfellow House. What people don’t want to do is pay 40%+ of their income because you’ve used the levers of government to expropriate your neighbor’s property. People can’t afford to live here because single-family zoning proponents and the segregationists before them worked hard to keep the undesirables out.
> Then 1 month after you move, you find out that the next 3 houses next to you are being knocked down and they putting a 4 story mall there.
This is silly but I wanted to address it anyway: You could sell your house to the mall developer and reap a windfall.
@EastCamb’s claim that “All the argument about zoning laws to segregation of neighborhoods is complete BS” overlooks some key issues.
Segregation among and within Cambridge neighborhoods — which is very real — is not created by the existence of households at different income levels. It’s created by City laws that designate different standards and rules for different zoning districts. These laws are rigidly enforced by the City and further strengthened by City’s laws and procedures that enable un-neighborly neighbors to apply their own interpretation of enforcement.
When supporters of the status quo criticize the multi-family zoning proposal as a “one size fits all” solution, they’re not referring to the size of buildings — they’re objecting to having the same zoning standards as everyone else.
Like @EastCamb, they’re “pissed because that is not [what they] signed up [for] when [they] bought [their] house/condo.” They refuse to recognize that their purchase of a home did not come with exclusive control of their neighborhood — other people who own or rent live in the neighborhood, too.
Many of us would like to see different standards for different districts — whether based on income, race or ethnicity — and whether called “context,” “neighborhood design review” or any similarly vague term — removed from Cambridge’s laws and procedures — in fact and not just in law.
“All the argument about zoning laws to segregation of neighborhoods is complete BS.”
It is actually pretty basic history: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/
https://www.bostonindicators.org/reports/report-detail-pages/exclusionary-by-design
“As part of Boston Indicators’ new Racial Wealth Equity Research Center initiative, we commissioned Amy Dain, among the region’s leading zoning experts, to research and write this new special report. Based on extensive review of local planning documents, state reports, and press coverage over the past 100 years, the report finds widespread use of zoning as a tool of social exclusion against residents of color, especially Black residents; lower-income and working-class residents; families with school-aged children; religious minorities; immigrants; and, in some cases, any newcomers/outsiders at all.”
“If you have the money you can live where ever you want want. If you don’t, live within your means of what you can afford, not what you would like.”
Segregation by income is also segregation, and class is highly radicalized in the US. Your argument only proves the point.
I am one of several residents who urged the council to stop the current process altogether, and I believe I am the only one focusing on the key issue: flawed housing projection analysis to 2030 which relied on data from the 2023 Annual Housing Stock Update and excluded Affordable Housing Overlay projects in residential districts.
I encourage you to review the housing projection analysis shared during the CDD’s presentation to the Ordinance Committee in November 2024. The analysis concluded approximately 70 new units would be built by 2030 under the current zoning. However, the Walden Square II Project, which is located in the Residence C-2 Base Zoning District and recently received funding from the Cambridge Housing Trust, will provide 95 units on its own—more than the projected total of 70 new units. This indicates CDD is rushing to meet Ordinance Committee’s timeline
@ EastCamb,
This is a proposal to change residential zoning, nothing to do with commercial buildings. And even if a store opened next door to me, wow it would make my life… simpler since I would be able to walk to yet another local business. Let’s build apartment buildings everywhere, they would help many people who already live here or commute here for jobs, and I bet the character of the neighborhood would only improve.
yckcambridgeday: Respectfully, that isn’t a key issue in any interesting way. The line of argumentation goes: I believe the housing production estimates over five years are too high, therefore we should continue to under produce housing. This is the housing policy equivalent of saying “I don’t wear my seat belt because my cousin got into a car crash and survived because he was thrown clear of the explosion.”
cantabrigand: With due respect, I can’t believe how you could have drawn such line of argument from my comment. My line of argument is the foundation of a society. Whether you agree or not, once we agree on rules, regulations, master plans or whatever through our societal body, be it household or all the way up to federal, we must go through proper process to change it.
We established Zoning Ordinance a century ago and we have process in place to amend it.
We established Envision Cambridge in 2019 setting goals for 2030, with Housing Goals being one of them.
When we want to amend ZO, we must first prove that the amendments are warranted to meet the goals.
CDD’s analysis showed that we will not be able to meet the 2030 housing goals in the residential districts under current ZO or even with the Multifamily Housing Petitions. But I am pointing out that their housing projection in residential area is faulty because they did not account for AHO developments, such as Walden Square II project, in residential districts. CDD must provide analysis based on the latest and complete data.
If Envision Cambridge Housing Goals are insufficient to meet the current housing needs, then that is whole new ball game and we must first update Envision Cambridge following proper procedure.
What would you say the Housing Goal should be? – sky is the limit is not the answer. We need measurable goals so we can assess the success of the amendments.
@yckcambridgeday 70 affordable units or 95 affordable units?!!! Cambridge has 22k (that’s 22 thousand) individual application for affordable housing! Saying we should not upzone Cambridge because we already hit our laughable goal of 70 units in this situation is just a delaying tactic. https://cambridge-housing.org/applicants/
@yckcambridgeday is right that the City Council must follow established procedures in changing the zoning code, and they are. Redoing the Envision report and setting a housing goal before passage are not among the procedures established by the legislature.