In response to Cambridge city councillor Burhan Azeem (“It’s too expensive to keep things the same,” Aug. 11), I agree: Cambridge cannot afford development stagnation. At the same time, we must recognize the choices that brought us here and the responsibility we share to shape a better future.
Our housing challenges are not accidental – they reflect a century of decisions. Recent zoning changes, such as citywide upzoning and the removal of parking minimums, carry both short- and long-term implications. Yet zoning is still too often handled in a fragmented way, property by property, even as Azeem supported in his opinion piece. A stronger approach would ground debate in data, transparency and the realities of residents striving to remain in our city. As we plan for growth, we must also ensure that vulnerable elderly and disabled residents have safe access to their homes and parking compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Growth is essential, but growth without vision risks eroding the very qualities that make Cambridge great. Zoning must reflect clear, long-term goals. Calls to “build taller apartments” deserve thoughtful consideration, but they must be paired with strategic planning, thoughtful design and frameworks such as Envision Cambridge to guide us forward.
The city’s own data underscores the need for clarity and accountability. For example, reports from the Community Development Department describe “robust” development in some contexts and “limited” growth in others – leaving the public without a clear picture. At the same time, Affordable Housing Overlay projects such as 52 New St. and Jefferson Park Federal show meaningful progress, yet these successes are not always highlighted in citywide conversations. Honest and consistent accounting is essential if we are to build public trust and make sound policy.
Looking ahead, new zoning initiatives – whether along the Massachusetts Avenue corridor or in Porter Square – should be evaluated not as stand-alone proposals, but as part of a coherent, citywide strategy.
Finally, maintaining public trust requires strong ethical standards. Cambridge cannot afford to keep things the same. This November, we need reform-minded councillors who can make decisions with discipline, foresight and integrity. All candidates should commit to grounding their work in facts, data and a long-term vision – rather than short-term pressures or special interests. To support this, the next City Council should establish a clear process to report and resolve conflict-of-interest concerns locally, before they escalate to the state level.
Young Kim, Norris 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.
I am not a member of Cambridge government, but I am a resident. I am not sure why the author of this letter thinks the vision for housing development is unclear. What could be clearer than literally 40 linked presentations and resources at https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing? If you want to summarize the housing goal in Cambridge in one slogan, it would be “build more housing quickly”.
I strongly agree with this policy. Some might not like this goal, but let’s not pretend it is not clearly stated. And judging by the numbers of people who struggle to find affordable housing, Cambridge desperately needs to work towards achieving this goal.
This commentary tries to dress delay up as “vision” and “coherence.” But Cambridge doesn’t need more reports. It needs homes. Our housing crisis isn’t a mystery: Decades of restrictive zoning and stalling have strangled supply and sent prices through the roof.
Development will always be lot by lot. Demanding a perfect master plan before building is just a tactic to freeze change and protect the status quo. Great for homeowners watching property values soar. Devastating for renters and families being pushed out.
What kills Cambridge’s character isn’t new apartments. It’s losing the people who make the city vibrant. More delay means a city only the wealthy can afford.
Jefferson Park and 52 New St. prove what’s possible when we actually build.
The solution is not to hide behind “thoughtful delay”. It’s to do the obvious: permit taller buildings, cut the red tape, and let Cambridge grow.
Which conflicts of interest is Mr. Kim talking about? We’d be hard-pressed to find councilors who don’t live in housing, nor can we get landlord money out of politics. A voluntary pledge to refuse landlord money would be welcome. However I don’t think this is realistic, as landlords are a powerful political constituency and owe their profits to exploiting years of exclusionary zoning.
It would be helpful for him to spell out these concerns and how he believes they can be addressed rather than leaving us to guess.
What is actually being proposed by the author here? The only actionable item (conflict of interest reporting) is not borne out by the body of the letter. Is there any actual instance of clear conflict of interest here that should have been investigated, or is this just another mechanism to slow down housing growth? Based on the author’s previous letters to this site, seems like the latter.
Judging by another letter published today, it seems like a coordinated effort to get people to write about the “lack of vision.” Commentaries need substance, not just slogans.
I dunno, from the headline it sounds like this regressive, anti-growth push has a slogan right there for the taking:
Make Cambridge Great Again
“Recent zoning changes, such as citywide upzoning and the removal of parking minimums, carry both short- and long-term implications. Yet zoning is still too often handled in a fragmented way, property by property”
Is a really weird argument. Stating two examples of city wide zoning changes (really positive ones that this author seems to oppose) but yet immediately claiming that zoning is happening “property by property.” This is internally contradictory.
The ADA also does not in fact mandate building or preserving parking, as some seem to increasingly be trying to suggest. It only mandates that where parking exists it must also serve disabled people. Are there any examples where parking has been built recently without any ADA mandated parking? I certainly can’t think of any.
I am left unsure what ‘vision’ this author really suggests except to build less new housing and build it slower.
.
I agree that we have a vision — Envision Cambridge Housing Goals — yet “maximal construction at all cost” is neither clear nor sustainable. I am not arguing against growth — I am arguing for growth that is holisic, accurate, accountable, and sustainable.rooted in facts.. That is the consensus we should be building together.
We must start with transparent accounting of the housing units produced since 2019 under every available tool by comparing the 2018 Affordable Housing Stock baseline to the 2025 update which should be available by now. Yet CDD’s own presentations in June joint Housing & NLTP Committees conflict with two year old 2023 updates, undermining trust. If the agency entrusted with meeting our goals cannot honestly show what’s been done, we need City Council policy adjustments — not just moving goalposts to 2040. Why do we have process if we are going to ignore them?
I will cite development examples on the next comment.
We have AHO projects like Jefferson Park Federal and 52 New ST that are under construction; 2072 Mass. Ave. is in AHO Process; Lesley parking lots and Frost/Roseland portfolio are in early planning; Cambridge Point started state reviews; and 2400 PUD units are permitted but not yet built. We should take stock of all these units before layering on more piecemeal zoning changes.
While citywide reforms such as the AHO and Multifamily Housing have passed, Council is now advancing corridor/square-specific zoning — Cambridge Street, North Mass. Ave., Porter Square PUD. This patchwork approach risks conflict and confusion instead of a coherent framework.
Already, the MFH is creating controversies for 60 & 84 Ellery St., A.J. Spears Funeral Home on Western Ave and the Harriet Jacobs House at 17 Story St.
Finally, any City Councillor with a real estate interest that could benefit materially from zoning amendments should recuse themselves. Transparency and ethical governance are essential.