The city fails to provide follow-up, measure success and make departments accountable for implementing the many housing policies and incentives enacted by the City Council (“Cambridge has filled only 17 of 48 affordable units in nine months since 40 Thorndike tower opened,” July 8).
Passing zoning reforms and offering developers opportunities to build more units on a site if 20 percent are affordable should result in the construction of a larger number of residential units. City management must explain why the lease of 40 Thorndike has fallen far short of expectations despite evidence of strong demand. More importantly, the failure of city staff to respond to requests for information is quite simply unacceptable.Policymakers deserve to know why implementation of policies falls short of goals, and the public has a right to know as well.
I have pointed out the dramatic drop in the issuance of residential unit building permits in this publication (“Will the multifamily housing citywide proposal make a difference?,” Nov. 11), and since have seen updated data thru June 30. While the units permitted have increased, I have repeatedly requested information on the dates permits were issued, permits that remain active and the date those permitted units began construction and dates units were completed. Tracking how many permitted units have actually broken ground and were issued occupancy certificates is necessary to ensure city departments are fulfilling their roles. Without access to this complete data on the net units completed, it is impossible to measure the success of generous housing policies.
Likely 40 Thorndike is one of many projects that have not met lease goals. More troubling is the probability that permitted projects poised to deliver hundreds of housing units are stalled due to high construction and finance costs. While the Community Development Department recently identified these obstacles, it fails to state the magnitude of the problem and seek specific remedies. Vague references to obstacles will not inform development of policies and programs to overcome them.
Louise Venden, Rogers 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.
Same with bike lanes (ebikes, mopeds, scooters, hoverboards,…) BUY HOW do you enforce when the regulations and technology keep changing? That’s probably the biggest challenge for all law enforcement…be it ICE, CPD, or CHA.
And then please don’t forget our 6-year drought and the incredible wildfires, including those of Linwood (7 miles away) last year.
It’s time to stop writing short-term ordinances and regulations, and took focus on working TOGETHER with our current environment – not expand!
What zoning reform did 40 Thorndike utilize?
Zoning reform and bike lanes are not “short-term” fixes—they’re long-term solutions to the housing crisis and essential steps toward a more sustainable city. Both are backed by housing and transportation experts and take time to show full impact.
That said, bike lanes do bring immediate safety benefits, with a quick drop in accidents involving bikes, cars, and pedestrians. That’s a short-term gain on the path to long-term change.
The biggest challenge regarding ICE and CBP is micro mobility tech? What?
Cambridge is adding jobs at a much faster rate than housing and has been for a while. Cambridge not growing up in terms of housing means the Boston area growing out. That is far more environmentally destructive.
Lets see if reality finally sets in for the YIMBYs.
You can scold CDD all you want like Simmons and Wilson did, you can write a million op-eds, you can try to keep track of building permits and continue to vote for housing advocates, but its not going to help.
CDD has explained the dynamics of development and what they can or cannot control, experts and developers testified at Committee meetings how high finance rates, land costs, and now tariffs and labor shortages are suppressing development.
Cambridge has no control over any of these market realities, and no amount of zoning reforms will spur more housing as long as these barriers exist.
As noted above, it’s true that city government can’t control interest rates or tariffs. It also can’t make builders decide to apply for a permit, nor force property owners to sell to someone who will.
Cambridge did, though, amend laws that prevented the building of multi-family housing on many lots. Those legal restrictions were in place for decades; they were reduced only five months ago. The current economic conditions are not permanent, nor as static or indefinite as our outdated zoning laws were.
Assuming that fluctuating economic conditions are more important than reform of misguided laws is not a good path forward — especially amid the noise of election-year jockeying and ill-grounded promises.
Let’s be clear—this is an administrative issue, not a zoning one, no matter what the NIMBYs say.
Sure, things like high interest rates, tariffs, and labor shortages affect development. But that doesn’t mean Cambridge is powerless or that zoning reform doesn’t matter.
In fact, recent efforts to roll back restrictive zoning are laying the groundwork for more housing once the market improves. These changes won’t fix everything overnight—but without them, we’d be stuck. And we need new housing.
Cambridge can’t control global economic forces, but it has done what it can locally. Brushing that off misses the point: these reforms are a crucial step toward solving the housing shortage and preparing the city for real progress.
Kdolan, while I agree with your statement about the obstacles faced by housing developers, there are ways the City can help. Boston’s Accelerator program offers financing and equity support to bridge cost gaps. Cities may apply for infrastructure grants and use district improvement financing to pay for costly road, sidewalk water and sewer infrastructure. Cities may also employ means to partner with developers on building housing.
Whatever side of the zoning debate you fall on, providing transparency for building permits is a good thing, for the reasons explained in this letter and many others. Other cities have an online database where anyone can look up active and past permits. Why doesn’t Cambridge?