Allowing developers to build four-story buildings as of right and without review or recourse in all Cambridge neighborhoods, including a two-story bonus for inclusionary units with 5-foot side and rear yard setbacks, justifiably terrifies many residents. It feels wrong. As a way to solve rising demand and high prices, it feels ham-handed. And to allow developers to ignore neighborhood input and threaten homeowners’ assets and neighborhood integrity gives developers unfair power. There are other ways to do this.
As our urban planning professors from MIT and Harvard told us weeks ago, we cannot trust private developers to fix municipal problems with a market-based approach to affordable housing.
I am in the camp that believes high-rise development belongs along transportation corridors and squares and in transition districts (parking lots and one- or two-story buildings, at neighborhood edges), as recommended by Envision Cambridge’s 2019 strategic plan for the City. I think development shouldn’t be as of right without review except for projects of 75,000 square feet or larger – very large projects.
There are better solutions such as:
- Incentivize low- to middle-income development with inclusionary requirements, which we do, and by further subsidizing those units with a Cambridge Housing Production Fund – paid for by our local universities, banks, corporations and philanthropic individuals.
- Create a Cambridge Land Trust that homeowners can contribute to and a toolkit that would help current property owners improve their old housing stock, preserving their naturally affordable units.
- Ask that Harvard and MIT house more of their graduate students. Many who testified in support of the multifamily housing zoning proposal were their students, or recent graduates, who want to stay in Cambridge. I, too, want them to stay, but the city can’t build a $1 million unit for each of them.
- Study underutilized lots in Cambridge. Many of them could support higher, denser development.
- Engage neighborhood associations in helping to solve the problem; they know their neighborhoods best and should help to guide conversations about the difficult tradeoffs. According to a recent community survey, creating more affordable housing is the No. 1 priority of Cambridge residents. Now let’s do the hard work of identifying the best sites for it.
(As one example, in my own community of Cambridgeport, I recommend development in the “transition districts” that Envision identified along the railroad tracks along Albany Street; where there are low commercial buildings on Sidney Street; and along Memorial Drive.)
If you think the discussion of the multifamily housing proposal has been contentious, just wait until new box developments (maxing out floor-area ratio) are permitted that block homeowners’ light.
Yes, if the results are problematic, this ordinance can be repealed, but only after a lot of damage has been done (physically and psychologically) that can’t be undone. This is one ordinance that gives preference to developers over homeowner rights.
For these reasons I will vote no on Monday. I pity those homeowners who will have no recourse to stop having their homes cast into shadow by luxury units. And all because the City Council and Community Development Department were not willing to work harder to develop better solutions.
Cathie Zusy, 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.
> threaten homeowners’ assets
There we have it folks. The mask comes off.
Councilor Zusy has benefited from a supply restriction and now she’s worried that her windfall may be a little bit smaller. She bought her house for $278,000, the equivalent of $576,000 today. The assessed value is just shy of $1.9m and estimated value is $2.25m (redfin/zillow). Meanwhile, she maligns developers who actually produce housing. Your assets are doing just fine, Councilor.
At the same time the 3C claims that this proposal will drastically increase land values. Which one is it? They can’t have it both ways.
It should come as no surprise that I will not be voting for Councilor Zusy in November. I invite you to do the same.
By naturally affordable units you mean 100+ year old junk because nothing has been built in a 100 years, right?
This is the kind of garbage policy you are still trying to peddle to Cambridge.
Unfortunately everyone else has figured out the game. This reads like nothing but crocodile tears for millionaires.
Everyone has figured out that the goal of your proposals is not reasonable dialog and community input, but total and complete obstruction.
This city belongs to all of us and tomorrow the people will speak.
“Justifiably terrifying?” Are we talking about the same thing?
The threat of “contentious” discussions is also strange. If she wants it, Councilor Zusy has a role to play in helping residents who may be nervous about change adapt to it, instead of telling them their “terror” of *apartment buildings* is justified.
More generally, I do think it’s a problem when an elected leader’s instincts are to empathize with multimillionaire property owners losing “their” sunlight (no one owns sunlight?) rather than rent burdened people trying to figure out how to afford the latest increase. Homeowners are going to be fine.
The housing crisis has been decades in the making, and we need a variety of tools to combat it effectively. This is just one of them. I do look forward to Councillors Zusy’s enthusiastic Yes votes for any future upzonings in squares and corridors, and her anticipated support for taller, denser housing development on underutilized lots across the city.
Ok. Let’s get down to hard the hard concept : several councillors personally have the potential to benefit from these changes in regards to property they own.
Just as we should as voter citizens know who works for who outside of their jobs as councillors, and may have a conflict, so too who owns investment property should be on the record.
(and again the character limit, clumsy data input and inability to correct what we write here in the feedback on posts and articles gets in the way of good grammar. I realize the error in my above first sentence).
Unless you sell your property the increased value only helps increase your taxes. The city has hundreds of old multifamily homes from before they were forbidden. Many that are 4 stories. It’s really okay. Let’s build some new ones to make homes for new residents.
Sorry, it scares you but truly the sky won’t fall.
At least Councilor Zusy is honest about priorities—she priorizes protecting the interests of wealthy residents.
Zusy “pities” wealthy homeowners. How about some empathy for people struggling to get by?
It would be refreshing to have council members prioritize the broader public good over entrenched privilege.
I am very disappointed you are a councillor from Cambridgeport as this neighborhood exemplifies what is wrong with current zoning.
Just walk down Magazine street. There are plenty of 4-6 stories buildings right next to single families.
Incredibly disappointing to have such a conservative perspective representing us.
More market rate housing does not decrease property values.
The people who need rents affordable to them make under 60% AMI per year, not tech bros.
Sigh. More grumpy folks who simply want more luxury housing, increased housing costs for everyone, and displacements of existing renters and other residents. There is no evidence this mess will bring down housing costs (except a tiny fraction for the wealthy at the top of the food chain).Who will pay for the added infrastructure & increased taxes to support this mess? It is those of us of lesser means. Zusy has the temerity to stand up to the pro-developer, investor lobbying interests. Good for her! She gets my vote.
Many residents are struggling, with many paying 50% or more of their income on rent.
Yet where do Zusy’s sympathies lie? She “pities” wealthy homeowners concerned about shadows on their $1M+ homes. How “terrifying.”
This reflects a political climate that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy over the needs of the disadvantaged.
Politicians should serve the greater good and protect society’s most vulnerable—not side with the privileged.
“ignore neighborhood input and threaten homeowners’ assets and neighborhood integrity”
This is one of the more troubling things I’ve ever seen a councilor put into print. What threat are homeowner’s assets subject to?
I also have no idea what this means:
“I think development shouldn’t be as of right without review except for projects of 75,000 square feet or larger – very large projects.”
Are you saying only small project should be reviewed and 75k sqft projects should be as of right?
This letter could have been written 20-30 years ago and would have made just as much sense. Kathy you’re a councilor now not an activist. Time to find middle ground.
AvJo: There is ZERO evidence that a citywide housing upzoning for LUXURY housing will bring down renter prices. Indeed renter and other housing costs are likely to increase as property values & taxes rise due in large measure to outside investors targeting the city. Shades of the Oklahoma land rush? Mark my word there will be very little inclusionary built in the residential areas. And note, the City appears to have said the same thing in stating that it is the major avenues where most housing likely will be built. Zusy is right to oppose this because it appears she seems to care about doing smart things to address housing costs and other needs.
I admire Councilor Zusy for standing up for her principles with integrity. Other councilors succumb to bullying from within and lobbyists without using political maneuvering to shape deliberation. Left out is deeper citizen engagement.
Since when does owning a house make you wealthy? what about those who inherited (likes councilor McGovern), who share their triple-decker, and many who sacrificed to buy? (like Councilor Azeem)? What about house rich and cash poor? Many long-time tenants live in these older houses, which last longer, and have maintenance programs that the “wealthy” don’t need. Yes, these assets are threatened.
Old houses can be re-configured, even heightened without ruining community fabric. This ordinance ignores flood zones, infrastructure, neighbor’s solar energy costing thousands.
Multi family zoning was already allowed in C1. This ordinance is over-reaching. This is not about the need but HOW. It is irresponsible not to consider both.
Many renters in Cambridge pay a large proportion of their income on rent. Someone who inherits or has owned a home for a while while has a big economic advantage. Did this really need to be pointed out?
There is ample evidence that upzoning reduces housing costs.
Research from NYU shows that an increase in housing supply slows the growth of rent in a given region, and can reduce rents in the surrounding area. Another positive effect of the new market-rate housing, is a “chain effect” — the movement of local residents into new units, which frees up older and less expensive units for other people to move into.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
A study of four cities by the Pew Foundation showed that upzoning reduced rents.
While nationwide rent increased 31%, these cities only a 1% -8% increase.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
Our one brave city councilor. We need more like her. Besides all the reasons she cites, the current explosion in density building in Alewife and Kendall have resulted in the MOST expensive rents in the city. The model being proposed will NOT solve our high cost of housing problem.
Most people do not understand what affordable housing even means. Let’s take one example: a one bedroom apartment going for $3000 as an affordable unit. The rent remains at the market level of $3000. The tenant pays 30% of their income and the government – both federal and local – pay the rest. For simplicity sake let’s say that the tenant pays $500 a month in rent, and the government pay the remaining $2500 a month. The landlord, or wealthy management corporation, continues to make market rate rent every month. What happens when the government cuts this funding? The current Cambridge housing plan does nothing to reduce rent. Rent control must be considered as a remedy to the problem of solving affordable housing.
All the new building in Cambridge, especially in Kendall Square and Alewife – now the most densely populated parts of the city –have done nothing to reduce affordability. These are the most expensive areas in the city and they have terrible traffic!
The current plan will allow one homeowner in a neighborhood to sell their property to a hedge fund who can develop that piece of property – as a right, without review -into a large rental unit. Imagine the tension this will cause between neighbors.
We do not have the infrastructure in place for the current plan to be implemented safely. Currently, our sewer systems overflow spilling sewage onto sidewalks and playgrounds every time it rains. Some people’s basements flood.
The current housing proposal being voted on today, gives our land and housing over to private equity and hedge fund investors. We are simply participating in a big way in the commodification of housing (like we are with healthcare). Until there are tenant organizations with teeth, the power imbalance will continue to grow. If you go ahead with this horrible plan I hope you will include a lawyer for each new building — attorneys who have expertise and can go toe to toe with large, wealthy corporations.
One important point that never get addressed is the philosophy and culture of having a great percentage of people becoming renters. Renters in Cambridge have no power, no rights – or very few. They may have a roof over their head, but renters walk on eggshells. Tenants don’t complain for fear of reprisal. Large impersonal management companies care about money.
Of course, fires in buildings are always something to worry about. Density, as well as no setbacks and clearances make structural fires more contagious. Think it couldn’t happen here? think again. Everyone knows from Covid that people living in apartment buildings were more vulnerable to disease spread – that’s why all the New Yorkers moved to Vermont. As well, people fled Cambridge.
@awesome7 I can’t tell if you’re referring to inclusionary affordable units or section 8 vouchers. This proposal is going to create a large number of affordable inclusionary units over time. These affordable units are provided entirely by developers, the government is not paying any portion of the rent (unless the tenant also has a section 8 voucher). The inclusionary units are set aside for households making between 50% and 80% area median income. An individual making 80% AMI (the highest income you could have to qualify for an inclusionary unit) would pay around $2,300 a month in rent. Individuals making less than 80% AMI would pay less. See
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Housing/incomelimits/hudincomeguidelines.pdf
This letter explains why rents, financial struggles, and homelessness is increasing in our city. Because our council members worry about rich homeowners first and everyone else second. Well, scratch that. Not even in the top ten.
@awesome7 I don’t think fires are really much of a concern here. The older buildings that will be replaced with new larger buildings have greater fire risk from old wiring and lack the fire protection systems that new large builds have, like sprinkler suppression systems and modern construction techniques.
Also, a very large majority of Cambridge residents are already renters, and it has been that way for a very long time.
NYC had a lower covid death rate than many rural areas: https://eig.org/rural-covid-19/