The Cambridge City Council passed a Multifamily Housing Ordinance allowing developers to construct four-story buildings “by right” on any size parcel and six-story buildings on lots 5,000 square feet or larger if 20 percent of units are affordable. The idea was to increase affordable housing and lower overall housing costs, but it’s having the opposite effect as developers convert older multifamily units into luxury condos selling for $2 million and more. We’ve seen this firsthand in our neighborhood.
Since the ordinance passed, more than 100 demolition permit inquiries have been made. Many of these homes are structurally sound and attractive. Tearing them down undermines the city’s climate and sustainability goals by generating significant waste and pollution through unnecessary demolition.
The ordinance requires no green space, instead approving 15 percent “private open space,” meaning roof decks and side decks, and 15 percent “permeable space”: think pathways with pavers. Trees and natural vegetation help mitigate flooding by taking up water and promoting cooling and cleaner air. This loss of vegetation will have long-term detrimental impacts on our city.
The ordinance also removes all significant oversight by the zoning board and the Historical Commission, calling only for a review of plans without real authority to alter them.
Proponents argue that building more luxury housing will lower costs for everyone. But from 2010-2015, when Cambridge added 3,447 residential units, condo prices rose 50 percent, home prices nearly doubled and rents went up 50 percent. Since 2015, we’ve added another 5,615 units and prices continue to rise.
The successful Affordable Housing Overlay quickly added 700 affordable units to the development pipeline with more coming. By contrast, this ordinance simply allows unbridled development everywhere, jeopardizing what makes our city so wonderful – its neighborhoods, livability, diversity and history. And it produces very little affordable housing while demolishing existing affordable units. The MHO needs to be amended or overturned.
Melissa Burns, Sarah Hill and Susan Donovan, Franklin 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.
Well, well, well, no surprise here. Another not thoroughly studied feel good initiative goes wrong. Predictable outcomes will continue to worsen until the warm and fuzzy feelings goes cold.
The multifamily zoning reform is achieving the goal of increasing affordable housing. So far there have been three proposals under the new zoning that if built would have inclusionary affordable units. 60 Ellery st would have ~6 inclusionary units, and both 84-86 Ellery and the spears property would each have ~15. (The exact number of inclusionary units is not known, for now I’m assuming 20% of the proposed units will be inclusionary; the requirement is that 20% of the floor area be set aside for inclusionary affordable units).
So in total that is about 36 inclusionary affordable units as a result of the zoning reform, which would be created at no cost to the city. To see the difference between the old zoning and new zoning look at 2-4 Soden St, across the street from the proposed Spears development. It is clearly better for housing affordability to have six story buildings with inclusionary units rather than more developments like 2-4 Soden St.
“But from 2010-2015, when Cambridge added 3,447 residential units, condo prices rose 50 percent”
And how many jobs did we add in the same time frame? If I had to guess, I’d say a lot more than 3,447.
Just right now across two developments we’re going to be adding another 3,000+ high paying lab jobs to Cambridge’s workforce. Those people will need places to live, and they’ll likely be looking close to work, which only increases the demand for housing in Cambridge.
The anti-housing crowd never seems to take issue with that, spending zero political capital on opposing commercial development.
This letter is mostly false.
> Since the ordinance passed, more than 100 demolition permit inquiries have been made.
The city has issued seven demolition permits since the MHO passed.
> Tearing them down undermines the city’s climate and sustainability goals by generating significant waste and pollution through unnecessary demolition.
Most existing structures are heated with gas or oil. New structures are built to a very high standard and have zero or near zero operating carbon. The environmental break even of a new build is under a decade. New builds are required to retain stormwater.
> The ordinance also removes all significant oversight by the zoning board and the Historical Commission
The ordinance made no change to the Historical Commission. In the last few weeks the CHC has blocked approximately 140 new homes, including 18 income restricted 3 bedrooms.
> Since 2015, we’ve added another 5,615 units and prices continue to rise.
Prices would’ve risen faster without supply.
There is a City Council committee hearing on Thursday about limiting unit size. That would be a much better approach to this concern than reinstating exclusionary zoning that banned apartments in the wealthiest, whitest Cambridge neighborhoods. Cambridge’s housing shortage and skyrocketing rents call for an abundance approach.
The three six-story multifamily proposals that have had historical review to date have each included from $5 to $17 million worth of affordable housing. To say the multifamily zoning is not encouraging subsidized inclusionary homes is incorrect.
It’s also incorrect to say multifamily zoning does not require ground-level open space—it does.
Finally, it’s very misleading to say there have been 100 demolition inquiries. The inquiry is about historical significance. If a building goes for sale and 20 potential buyers ask if the building is historically significant, those each get counted. If a homeowner asks about their own home, that also gets counted.
The writers compare housing construction and prices and for the 15 years of 2010-2015 to the following 9 year period, apparently expecting that new construction during these periods should’ve lowered prices. But all of those years were before multifamily zoning (MFZ) was enacted, when residential buildings were limited by caps on height, size, number of units and many other restrictions.
These limits prevented builders from keeping up with Cambridge’s growing need for housing, which led to exceptionally low vacancy rates, with soaring prices and rents. Housing costs did not rise because of or even despite the construction; costs rose because zoning prevented the building of more units per lot. Requiring fewer units on higher-priced land produced the expensive luxury homes that the writers say they dislike, but more of those would result from their plan to amend or repeal multifamily zoning. (1 of 2)
The results of restrictive zoning have been known and documented for decades. They were certainly not caused by the adoption of MFZ – little or nothing has been planned and built in the 6 months since then.
MFZ follows the same approach as the very successful Affordable Housing Overlay, which still took about two years to complete its first homes. The AHO, too, produced hasty calls for amendment or repeal. Following that advice then would’ve lost our city at least 900 permanently affordable homes, just from plans announced to date.
Among many other similar studies, Boston Indicators reports that “Greater Boston’s current affordability crisis has largely been caused by insufficient production…. The main culprit has been state and local government—specifically, municipal over-restriction of homebuilding as well as a lack of state leadership to allow and plan for the needed housing.” (2 of 2)
This letter contain inaccuracies and flawed logic.
The data cited ignores the fact that Cambridge’s skyrocketing prices stem from decades of severe housing shortages, not from building too much.
Without expanding overall housing supply—including market-rate units—wealthier households will simply outbid others for the limited homes that exist, accelerating gentrification.
The Multifamily Housing Ordinance’s by-right zoning helps reduce red tape and encourages more homes to be built, which over time stabilizes prices and relieves pressure on existing lower-cost housing.
Stopping new development will only make the affordability crisis worse.
And there is no logic behind statements that affordable housing was built and prices still went up. Thr problem is not enough housing was built. It feels weird to have to explain that.
@cwec, I believe the 3,000 new jobs you are referring to is a statewide number, not a Cambridge number, and follows the loss of 5,000 tech jobs for a net loss of 2,000 high-paying jobs across the state. The new administration’s funding cuts have hit biotech and tech companies in Cambridge, who have been forced to lay off workers. Cambridge specific jobs data would be helpful if you have it.
Our June letter wasn’t published until August. Since then, a new policy order requires the city to evaluate the outcome of the first 6 months of MHO. There have been 135 historical significance inquiries, one per property, a 10-fold increase over past years according to the Historical Commission. The city’s report should illuminate how many rental properties are being generated vs. lost, and how many luxury condos are being built at what size and price. However, none of the new 4-story buildings will include affordable units. They replace naturally affordable housing units with luxury condos, resulting in a reduction of affordable units.
The three 6-story buildings one commenter estimates will produce 36 affordable units would also produce 180 units out of reach for middle-income people. Given the initial tepid response, the City Council is now considering lowering inclusionary to 10%, which could incentivize more six-story buildings with even fewer affordable units.
The bottom line is that Cambridge needs affordable housing, not more luxury condos. We need to maintain green space and reduce the number of cars in the city if we take climate change seriously. We appreciate the city’s expansion of bike lanes to make it safer to travel by bike. However, those who purchase luxury condos will come with cars, and with no parking requirements, they will all be vying for limited on-street parking. This is another challenge I believe the well-intentioned MHO failed to consider in its original form.
@justin saif Our letter did not say there’s no ground level open space, we said there’s no green space requirement. Open space that’s permeable doesn’t provide the cooling and water uptake benefits that green space does. In Riverside, most basements are already wet during storms. Removing all the vegetation and building out to 5 ft from the property line will increase localized flooding for surrounding neighbors. Green space is absolutely critical—more critical than the 3000 sq ft $2.5 million condos proposed for Riverside, which don’t serve the neighborhood or the middle class. I worked in clean energy for decades, and served on Cambridge CPAC for years, so I also understand the importance of energy efficiency objectives for new construction, but that’s only part of the sustainability equation.
@SEH2025 I’m not referring to any state number, I’m referring to specific projects within Cambridge.
585 Kendall, completing in Q2 2026, is expected to support 2000 permanent jobs upon completion.
290 and 300 Binney are expected to complete in 2026, and are each similar sizes to the Kendall project, meaning thousands of more new jobs.
Alewife Park, also under construction, adding again hundreds of thousands of square feet of lab/office space.
In 2009, the total employment in Cambridge was around 106,000. In 2013, it was 151,000. Even if we shrink slightly in the next couple years, that is an enormous amount of growth, and housing has not kept up with it.
@SEH2025 New market rate homes are needed as well. New homes are typically a little more expensive than older homes, but it is a mistake to assume that middle income people don’t benefit from new market rate homes. What happens when new homes are built is that people move into the new homes from other existing more affordable homes in the area. That frees up those other existing homes, which become vacant, putting downward price pressure on those more affordable homes. Studies like the one below have documented this moving chain effect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119021000656
Building more housing improves housing affordability across the price spectrum:
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2025/07/31/new-housing-slows-rent-growth-most-for-older-more-affordable-units