On Monday the City Council is set to pass – and finalize – the most consequential Cambridge zoning change in decades, the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions, Parts 1 and 2. The changes include streamlining permitting, simplifying some of the zoning code, standardizing requirements and allowing multifamily housing in every district of the city. The current proposal would allow four stories of residential building by right with an additional two stories allowed automatically for buildings on lots larger than 5,000 square feet provided the project includes some affordable housing (which means they comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements of 20 percent of units affordable, likely to middle-income residents), called “four-plus-two.”
I worked on the four-plus-two compromise before us – and respect all of us who worked collaboratively to amend the original proposal. I am glad those amendments gained broad council support, including mine. But there is a better proposal that gets us closer to our goals that I also support, which is the option presented by councillors Ayesha Wilson and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler. That option, “three-plus-three-plus-three” without lot restrictions, is a better way forward for the city. That option accomplishes the goal of allowing multifamily housing in every neighborhood and gives a greater incentive – three stories instead of two – to choose to build a project with affordable housing. The city’s projections (which are estimates, but broadly do provide a good comparison between scenarios), show three-plus-three will produce more units of housing and significantly more affordable units in the medium term of the next five years, and within 15 years. More as in 550 more units and 260 more affordable units by 2040. That is a meaningful difference.
Furthermore, in pure economic terms, under three-plus-three land prices should go up a little less, making it easier for affordable-housing developers to compete for properties and keep unit costs lower. Those who claim that very little will be built under the three-plus-three versus the four-plus-two have not been out in our neighborhoods, like mine in West Cambridge, and talked with neighbors who know of specific properties primed for development that will be built under either option. I have been out and have talked to small developers who confirm that three-plus-three is as much of a game changer for infill lots as four-plus-two.
I believe three-plus-three gets us going in the right direction. And we will know pretty soon whether the type of housing we hope to see gets built. If three-plus-three proves insufficient in creating more market-rate housing, we could change to four-plus-two. If, however, as feared four-plus-two leads primarily to luxury development, it will be more difficult to downzone to three-plus-three to get more of the affordable units we crave and desperately need.
I am aware some people think of me as a Nimby because I voted against Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. They don’t remember that I proposed we include provisions to ensure a small percentage of units for middle income; ensure sustainability in projects; and monitor geographic distribution of affordable housing across the city. None of those provisions passed, so I voted no. But now each of those are central to city affordable housing discussions. I am also proud to have sponsored the first policy order in 2020 to start the long process of allowing multifamily zoning across the city – which has culminated in Monday’s vote.
If we want to be intentional about retaining affordability, especially in neighborhoods, we need to zone to require it. If by relaxing development standards we are incentivizing housing development, we should use those incentives to increase overall housing and affordability through inclusionary zoning. I encourage all who care about housing and affordable housing to urge the council to support the three-plus-three option.
Patricia Nolan, Cambridge City Council
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 author cites small differences in the CDD numbers in order to make the case for a more restrictive zoning policy. These numbers are, importantly, measures of zoned capacity rather than housing projections based on financial feasibility, which is why you see pro-housing councilors pushing the 4+2 plan. Importantly, the numbers cited here compare 4+2 with a minimum lot size to 3+3 with no minimum. This is a completely artificial constraint imposed because of anti-housing councilors. CDD has 4+2 plan with more market rate housing capacity and the same income restricted capacity in both minimum lot size cases. It’s difficult to take this seriously when the author pushed against the original proposal which would have created more market rate AND inclusionary, and for the 5000 sq ft minimum lot size (and voted against the AHO). The amended law is nonetheless a big deal, and voters will reward councilors who have consistently pushed for housing affordability.
Both of these plans mark truly amazing progress, and Cantabrigians should be incredibly proud and happy to be passing one or the other on Monday!
Also, no one who votes in support of either should ever be considered a NIMBY. :)
Homebuilders have said consistently that they need extra height to offset the high costs of construction in order to build small multifamily homes instead of fewer very large, very expensive homes. A 3-story limit will prevent a significant amount of additional housing but will not prevent redevelopment or displacement—we have many examples of redevelopment taking place NOW, under the status quo, that is not held back by the 3-story limit.
The 5,000 sq ft lot restrictions will block some housing, a tough compromise to accept. That said, it’s very difficult to build a six-story building with the required setbacks and open space (let alone 9-story under the AHO), so allowing unlimited lot size doesn’t actually open up all lots to taller buildings.
The council debated 3+3 and voted on it. It was rejected.
Under 4+2, two types of properties will be built: 4 story and 6 story. The decision between the two will be made on economics and feasibility. Under 3+3, there are four story projects that won’t pencil. Those projects won’t be built to 6 stories because developers would’ve made them 6 stories in the first place.
Maybe next the council can work out a way to upzone lots under 5k sqft.
I don’t think Councilor Nolan is a NIMBY for voting against the AHO for those particular reasons.
I instead look at her actions: she voted against AHO three times, opposed the 2072 Mass Ave development, opposed dropping the 5k sq-ft minimum only to flip at the last moment and praise it as “the bold action we need” in 3+3 (paraphrasing), opposed reforming neighborhood conservation district boards – etc.
On numbers – Councilor Nolan spent significant time at the committee meeting casting doubt (those pesky denominators) on CDD’s projections, only to cite them as good projections in the above letter, when a different angle was in play.
Councilor Nolan’s brand is Good Government. I respect her for that. But sometimes the inconsistency reads as a facade to back away from policies she recognizes as meritorious and instead edge toward policies she and her landed neighbors, not all of Cambridge, benefit from most.
Just take a stroll down Huron Ave and look around.
I agree that both the 3+3 proposal with no lot size minimum, and the current 4+2 proposal are both significant improvements relative to the status quo, and I appreciate that counselor Nolan has worked collaboratively on this effort. I prefer the 4+2 proposal. I am skeptical that six story buildings with inclusionary would be economically viable on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet with the current building code requirements mandating two means of egress.
“Three-plus-three” risks underbuilding. “Four-plus-two” spurs more housing due to a higher base allowance, vital for Cambridge’s crisis. 20% affordability mandates remain.
We can adapt later, but bolder, faster action is now crucial. A higher base promotes quicker building and affordability.
Councilor Nolan justifies her vote against the AHO by citing concerns about middle-income units, sustainability, and geographic distribution. However, these arguments typically serve as proxies for NIMBY sentiments
for the record: I did not oppose 2072 Mass Ave. I asked the developers to meet with the residents of the low income residents living next door who had questions. And as I noted, I have taken many votes in favor of housing. INcluding sponsoring the policy order that led to ending parking minimums. https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2932&MediaPosition=&ID=14214&CssClass=. and the policy order to start the process to allow MF houses everywhere. https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2757&MediaPosition=&ID=13192&CssClass=