In a landmark zoning reform, the Cambridge City Council voted Monday to allow for four-story buildings to be built as-of-right in all residential areas, with an additional two-story bonus for buildings with inclusionary units on lots of more than 5,000 square feet, among other zoning changes.
As expected, eight out of nine councillors supported the change, with only Cathie Zusy voting against it.
With the vote, Cambridge joins cities such as Minneapolis and Charlotte, North Carolina, as well as a handful of states including Oregon, California and Maine in reforming long-standing single-family zoning laws.
The new zoning ordinance bans single- and two-family zones, dubbed “exclusionary zoning” by city officials and residents alike for preventing denser and cheaper housing, with the intent of addressing the city’s housing affordability crisis. This particular reform is the culmination of nearly 20 meetings starting in March, with discussions of multifamily zoning stretching back to at least 2021.
A compromise decision
Other versions of the multifamily zoning ordinance considered in this past year included six-story zoning and three-story zoning, both ultimately rejected. The eight supporting councillors emphasized the importance of compromise in the process toward a zoning reform they agreed was necessary.
“We should all be proud and happy that we will pass the most far-reaching zoning change in Cambridge in decades and become a model for the country,” councillor Patty Nolan said.
“It has been a hard process to get to this point and the final product is not perfect, but it is a compromise that we have arrived to, and it has been done in good faith,” said councillor Ayesha Wilson, who previously advocated for a “three-plus-three” zoning plan.
“I know that there are a lot of people in the audience who do not want this to pass and will be upset by the fact that I will be voting for it,” councillor Paul Toner said. “But the reason I’m voting for it is because several councillors made a commitment to me to work with me on the four stories and the 5,000-square-foot minimum.”
“The petition before us is an amalgamation of all the different values of our city councillors,” said councillor Burhan Azeem, who previously advocated for six-story zoning.
“You know, we are going through a housing crisis. It’s the No. 1 issue from everyone from the governor to the former vice president Harris, former president Obama, to all of our senators. A huge part of that is building housing and actually allowing for that in a way that really means something and will lead to change,” Azeem said. “This is a huge step forward in that direction that’s taken a lot of energy and a lot of time, and I’m proud to be doing it in a way that will build lots of housing of all types.”
The zoning change is projected to add 3,590 homes, including 660 affordable homes, by 2040, according to the Community Development Department. Inclusionary units are set to be affordable to residents earning 50 percent to 80 percent of the area median income.
According to Community Development projections, the rejected three-plus-three plan would have produced 550 more units (which includes 260 affordable units) by 2040 compared with the current version. The original six-story plan would have produced 1,290 more units (which includes 260 affordable units).
Resident input
Before the vote, Cambridge residents spoke against and for the zoning reform, as they have throughout the process. Supporters cited the need for more housing to be built to increase housing affordability, with many expressing gratitude to the City Council.
“With housing scarce and costs exploding, it’s clear that real action is needed to allow more housing to be built here in Cambridge, as well as in high cost urban areas across the country,” resident Ty Wilson said. “A year ago, I was skeptical that political action was possible. Over the past year, this council has shown me that real change is possible.”
Meanwhile, critics expressed concerns around topics such as infrastructure, tenant displacement and green space. Some public comments reflected a larger, unsettled debate around whether market-rate housing helps keep housing costs lower.
While the council’s recent zoning efforts such as the Affordable Housing Overlay target building affordable housing specifically, councillor Marc McGovern said that Monday’s zoning reform is intended to address affordability especially for residents who “earn too much money to qualify for subsidized housing but are still paying over 30 percent of their income on rent and are thus rent burdened and consistently facing the prospect of having to move as prices go up.”
“Those are important folks to our community,” McGovern said. “We can’t just have a community of folks who can afford $2 million homes and folks who qualify for subsidized housing.”
Critics of the decision, including Zusy, largely said that they are in favor of multifamily zoning conceptually, but took issue with the specifics and advocated for starting the process over. In other cities, single-family zoning bans have been divisive and are now leading to lawsuits, some successful, from unhappy residents.
An amendable decision
Regardless of disagreements on whether this zoning change will help with affordability, the effects will likely be gradual. The zoning reform does not mandate taller buildings, it simply allows for them – so any increase in density will require a combination of homeowners selling their properties and developers having financing to build housing in the face of inflation and high construction costs. In Minneapolis, for example, regulatory and financial barriers seem to have dampened the impact of the legalization of duplexes and triplexes in 2020, though Minneapolis’ zoning change was also more modest compared with Cambridge’s.
“This is all dependent on financing, on cost of materials, on people’s willingness to sell their property or coordinate,” Toner said Monday. “So I do expect some change. I don’t think it’s going to be rapid change. I think we are in a position where we can work to manage that change.”
Maurice Cox, a former leader in planning departments in Detroit and Chicago, also predicted a gradual change during a January Neighborhood & Long Term Planning committee meeting.
“The building permits won’t start flowing just because you adopt this policy,” Cox said. “My experience in Charlottesville was that it was important to take a bold, decisive act and then watch how the response is in real time, knowing that it’s going to be a lot slower and incremental than you think.”
Furthermore, the zoning ordinance is still amendable. In an earlier meeting, chief of planning strategy Melissa Peters told the council, “If, after some time, the type of development that’s going up is not consistent with the objectives that the council decided, you could always change the zoning again. This is not a permanent change.”
The city has already begun the process of mitigating the effect of the zoning change on solar panels, addressing a concern that taller buildings would block sunlight on neighbors. In terms of what’s next on the city’s zoning agenda, the council is looking to allow for denser and taller buildings in squares and corridors, such as Massachusetts Avenue.
This post was updated Feb. 11, 2025, to correct a reference to average median income for the area,
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.
Go Cambridge!!!
Bravo! I am very proud of our city council. This is a great day for anyone who wants to live in Cambridge.
This landmark zoning reform by the Cambridge City Council is a commendable step toward addressing the housing crisis. By eliminating discriminatory exclusionary zoning and incentivizing affordable housing, Cambridge is prioritizing inclusivity and sustainability.
The projected addition of nearly 3,600 homes, including 660 affordable units by 2040, underscores a commitment to diverse housing opportunities across income levels.
This reform positions Cambridge as a leader in tackling the national housing shortage.
we’re putting our house on the market for $4 Milion dollars. Anyone interested. You can be now build 8 $1 million dollar unit o. our lots. It’s bargain price. Let me know if interested.
I hope the wealthy homeowners “pitied” by Councilor Zusy will be alright. She claims they are “terrified” of shadows falling on their multimillion-dollar homes.
This attitude highlights why we have a housing crisis. It was disappointing to hear such a winner-take-all attitude in a progressive city like Cambridge.
It’s encouraging to see some councilors express concern for less advantaged individuals.
Hopefully this will encourage other cities in the region to adopt similar reform. We can’t fix the housing crisis on our own, but it’s good that we’re being a leader here.
A positive step for the city. Still a long way to go.
Note: Inclusionary housing is for people at 50-80% AMI (not 90% AMI). See
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing.aspx
On the left, click on View the current Housing Program Income Limits.
I agree with Councilor Wilson that her 3+3 proposal would have been better, because it would have had 260 more Inclusionary units, which is 40% more Inclusionary units than what was passed.
It is important to have a significant amount of Inclusionary housing as part of the new zoning, otherwise our city demographics will skew even more to higher income people. 20% Inclusionary helps a lot with that, and 100% affordable housing can not be the only source of affordable units.
Counting imaginary inclusionary units is a favorite Cambridge past time. Inclusionary zoning alone will stymie or block a lot of potential housing in the city. So the Zusy crowd can rest a bit easier I suppose. This is a great first step but the next step should be to reduce inclusionary zoning back to 10% or remove it all together. As a tax it’s 4-5x what we tax commercial developers and has cratered our housing creation since it was increased in 2015/16.
The economic middle class and lower middle class have been leaving the city for the last ten years. House rich and cash poor.
This poorly thought out zoning reform will just exacerbate the movement. Real estate taxes have risen substantially in the last five years. That will continue at an increasing rate. Cambridge spends funds on absolutely foolish projects. Just look at the City of Cambridge Daily Update.
In the coming years, many middle class families will be even more house rich and cash poor. They will sell at high prices. That means their neighbors’ taxes will rise even more because of the increased assessed values. Those neighbors will be selling.
In the next twenty years, Cambridge will be a city of mostly wealthy single family homes, AHO, and expensive condos. The middle class won’t exist. Is that the city we want? I certainly don’t.
People are foolishly dreaming that this rezoning is going to solve the affordable housing problem.
What’s harder, changing zoning rules or now finding the labor to build? I worry there’s just not enough skilled labor to build that many homes so quickly. What does it cost to build new in Cambridge today, $400/sqft? I have to think if demand to build goes up, prices go up.
Ilan, I recognize you are likely being sarcastic but that’s actually a great illustration of why even market rate housing helps. The demand for 8 $1M units was there last last year, last Friday and still today. They were coming. In the counterfactual over time 8 potentially more affordable units would have been squeezed out because it was so hard to add to the housing stock (I’m sure we can list many many expensive conversions that were already happening in our neighborhoods). Now 1 house can be replaced by 8 units. Meaning there are 8 fewer units elsewhere that need to be squeezed out. That’s why this helps.
@cportus +1
New market-rate housing creates a “chain effect,” freeing up older, less expensive units. This ultimately lowers housing costs.
Predictions of increased costs after zoning reform are not supported by evidence.
Exclusionary zoning created the housing crisis, so removing it is part of the solution. Kudos to Cambridge for leading the way.
An important step in the right direction.
Money always wins, not people and this zoning is all about wealth creation, not housing. Those worrying about the price won’t buy a $1 million 1 bedroom unit @7% interest. The new buildings will be owned as investments by wealth, real estate LLCs, and private equity. All profit-driven, i.e., rents will go up, units per sqft will increase, with no open space or parking. The city’s infrastructure cost will increase, as will the city’s residential tax base, a necessity now that commercial land is scarce,i.e., no commercial tax base increases like in the last 20 yrs.
I’m not fooled by the pretend democracy of Cambridge. The well-intentioned City Councilors ramming the zoning down our collective throats do not dare put it up for a public vote. Too scared of rejection. They are suppose to represent us at large but only cater to their money constituency—the silent voices.
Money wins.
PS: You call me by my first name, but don’t give yours. At least I own what I say.
As supporters pat themselves on the back, I hope you all read comments from the Globe’s two different reports on this. This up-zoning was tried in the press and on the radio before residents even heard of it. Same will be the towers on corridors making every place look like Alewife, Kendall Sq or Seaport. This next phase, already way down the road, should take time to look at concerns now they have the reassurance that Part I passed.
The Globe comments from “outsiders” are rather objective and interesting. And most have real questions and trepidation at this plan that missed the mark on so many issues. I appreciate Councilor Zusy’s commitment to principle instead of feeling obligated to the lobbyists. I also find this article lacking due to simplistic explanation of opposing concerns. Very one-sided and lacks objectivity.
The complaints of “pretend democracy” really ring hollow to me here. Most of the councilors were elected on platforms that included building more housing, this isn’t some bait-and-switch that nobody could see coming.
We already struggle with turnout for our municipal elections. Putting any remotely-controversial proposal up for a public vote would distill it down to even fewer voices, the people that are the most involved in local politics. That seems much less democratic than the elected council doing what the residents of Cambridge elected them to do.
And @Pete, I’m self-aware enough to know that the people arguing in the comment sections of local newspapers aren’t exactly representative of the population as a whole lol.
City Councilors have a ‘mandate’ to vote for the upzoning because they supported more housing while campaigning, and if it went to a public vote, it wouldn’t be democratic. Idiocracy is alive and well.
@cwec
I agree. Putting a proposal on the ballot is dumb. Some years only a 30% turnout for our municipal elections. That’s what 70& of our registered voters think of democracy. Shameful and pathetic.
Getting back to the zoning change. As I’ve said, most of the people living here ten years from now will be wealthy, AHO housing people, and young condo owners. No middle class. Land rich, cash poor.
If you want to see what can happen, look at both Highland and Reservoir Streets in Cambridge. Two cases of one buyer owning two lots with houses on both lots. Tear down the houses and have one house on both lots.
The zoning is well intentioned. But, it is unrealistic. There are a lot (really a lot) of wealthy people (and institutions) who want to own in Cambridge. Buying up two lots with houses on both, tearing them down, and rebuilding only one, is going to happen.
CWEC- no, but sometimes outside voices bring up very real issues. they don’t live in this bubble driven by entitled students and youngsters who will pass through after 4-5 yrs. I’m wondering why people who have helped shape the city, who invested 40 yrs ago, who are property owners who rent out, who care about the character of the city (a swear word, I know), are disregarded. At what age do residents become obsolete?
“Buying up two lots with houses on both, tearing them down, and rebuilding only one, is going to happen.” Existing zoning doesn’t preclude this and down conversions are already happening. In fact in the many areas of the city where the zoning code is less dense than the existing housing stock the code is encouraging down conversions. While this proposal doesn’t preclude down conversations (I think the city should) it will make them less appealing as building multifamily housing is significantly more profitable.
I don’t understand the complaint about “what age do residents become obsolete.” Over 60% of Cambridge residents are renters. They are residents. Also, 4–6 story buildings hardly qualify as “towers”.
I don’t buy the argument that zoning reform will lead to luxury housing. Multifamily housing is more practical for developers, and Cambridge has policies to support affordable housing.
But you can’t build affordable housing without building housing. More units will drive down costs—basic supply and demand. Developers are incentivized to build multiunit housing, making it the logical choice.
Zoning reform will also boost the local economy. More density means more people, more customers, and more spending at local businesses—especially when residents aren’t spending everything on rent.
@Pete I don’t think it’s supported by data that young people and students are driving the politics in Cambridge. Obviously there are a lot of outspoken young people, but if state data is any proxy for local voting demographics, older people turn out more for elections than young people, and it’s not particularly close. Renters also tend to have lower turnout than homeowners.
If you show up to council and committee meetings, you’ll notice the attendees follow the same pattern. I just don’t see that people that bought 40 years ago are being disregarded by the council. Not getting everything you want legislatively doesn’t mean that you’re being ignored (and notably, this zoning change got cut back fairly significantly due to concerns from some residents).
Smart, smart move. Among the benefits: Too many people work in Cambridge and suffer through soul-draining daily commutes only because there is no place for them to live here. More housing will not happen overnight, but as it does people will move into town and lessen the commuter traffic one car at a time. I hope the rest of the country is watching.
@Barkolab makes a good point—Cambridge is experiencing job growth. Without more housing, new workers will have to commute, worsening traffic. Higher density reduces reliance on cars.
Long-time homeowners haven’t been disregarded. This has been a multiyear process with many compromises based on resident feedback. Not getting everything you want doesn’t mean you were ignored.
We clearly need more housing. The only ones “hurt” are those who profited from exclusionary zoning. It’s ironic to hear them criticize developers for making money in real estate when they’ve done the same.
Barkolab,
You are correct. As housing is built, more people (and particularly those who work in Cambridge) will move to Cambridge.
But, you and so many others are missing the point. Because of the high cost of land and houses in Cambridge, the vast majority of any new housing built, will be up market housing. There will be no middle class housing. Four story condos for those who work in or near Kendall Square will be the norm.
Continued in next post.
The small number of expected new housing projects won’t make any real difference in the number of cars coming in to the city. In fact, this city should stop spending money on foolish “green projects.” It is virtue signaling. Until China and India stop spewing coal gas into the atmosphere, nothing is going to happen.
Finances are in a precarious condition in Cambridge, and are going to be more so in the next five years, forcing some more economically middle class residents out of the city.
Stop with foolish “green projects” and spend the funds to let every child who is eligible for Cambridge Summer Camp be able to go, rather than only those who win the lottery. I’d rather have all the kids go to summer camp, than be precluded from doing so because of the lack of funds, funds which are spent on virtue signaling projects that are not going to make any difference.
Under the old zoning, 350 new housing units were expected by 2040. Now, that number has increased tenfold to 3,590, including 660 affordable homes.
This isn’t virtue signaling or a “green project”—it’s real housing in a city that desperately needs it. The housing crisis exists because there aren’t enough homes. The solution? Build more.
Frank, the “350” number is incorrect. I’ve seen this figure used to illustrate the low number of units that would be added under current zoning and to thus justify the whole sale deregulation of building requirements. It’s a dramatically underestimated projection.
The CDD used this figure for months and only after they were called out on its gross inaccuracy by residents (thankfully) did they revise the projection very late in the process.
The projections under current zoning (based on actual development log data) is more accurately estimated at ~4200 units by 2030 and ~7000 units by 2040, nearly achieving the Envision Cambridge target without any deregulation/developer handouts. (https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4157&Inline=True)
@Old Boy
“Green projects” = preserving the remains of stable climate on the planet, just so we are clear on what it means. And living closer, with less driving is a great way to lower greenhouse gas emissions (transportation is the largest greenhouse gas emitter in Massachusetts).
I’m no expert but have read some of the literature, i.e. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00420980241298199 -This suggests that the change will promote gentrification and leave housing prices unchanged or increased.
Questions:
1) The direct beneficiaries of the new rules are people who do not live in Cambridge but will in the future, yes? And developers, right? Current Cambridge residents will benefit only indirectly, to the extent that more housing makes the world more egalitarian, which is desirable, yes? Has anyone presented an argument that these new rules will provide *direct benefit* to *current* Cambridge residents?
2) If we increase the population, how are we going to avoid traffic gridlock 100% of the time?
3) What is the thinking behind removing all requirements for parking?
Overall, does this change mostly benefit people who live in Cambridge today, those who may live here in the future, or developers looking to make a quick buck?