An election for Cambridge City Council takes place in November. Seven councillors who voted for the Multifamily Housing Ordinance are running again. (So is Cathie Zusy, the lone vote against the ordinance.) To the extent that I understand the vision of those seven, which is challenging, I disagree with it. Their vision seems to me to be mainly one word, “more.” Most Cambridge residents probably disagree with that vision – but it has taken fewer than 2,400 votes to elect a councillor in a city of 120,000 people because so few people vote.
Cambridge is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States. The 2019 Envision Cambridge report, a lengthy wish list without priorities, suggested adding 12,500 housing units, which means adding about 25,000 people. Has the council made it clear to residents and voters how many more people it wants to live in Cambridge? When I asked officials about this, they responded that the city does not project population growth and so they won’t discuss population. Is this the vision of the council?
If one uses Google Maps, one can see that The Port section of Cambridge is dotted with green back yards. The new Multifamily Housing Ordinance would allow developers to construct buildings in any of those green spaces, with minimal setbacks and no requirements for parking. Does eliminating green space make Cambridge more “livable,” which is supposedly a priority in the Envision report? Is this the vision of the Council?
A recent letter in Cambridge Day (“Where is the affordable in this housing?,” Aug. 9) notes, as do other sources, that creating more housing does not necessarily mean more affordable housing. Expensive housing is often profitable, and many people can afford to pay. One Cambridge home is on the market for $35 million. Is the vision of the council to encourage more development of costly housing?
Winn Development is planning to build a housing project at Walden Square that includes a 250-foot tunnel covering a road, despite opposition by thousands of people. The Affordable Housing Overlay allowed this project to be built by right. Are more poorly designed projects such as this one part of the vision of the council?
Many neighboring cities and towns have a lower percentage of affordable housing than Cambridge. Arlington and Belmont, for example, each has only 6 percent subsidized housing compared with 12 percent in Cambridge. Is the vision of the council that Cambridge should fix the affordable housing problems that neighboring towns fail to address?
Whether you agree with the council or not, wouldn’t it be a good thing if the councillors responded to reasonable questions raised about the Multifamily Housing Ordinance and made their vision clear?
Andy Zucker, Winslow 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.
The claim that Cambridge’s housing vision is just “more” totally misses the point.
The Multifamily Housing Ordinance isn’t about chasing growth for its own sake, but about fairness and livability.
Cambridge is already unaffordable because decades of restrictive zoning kept supply low while demand soared.
Allowing more multifamily homes people stay here instead of being priced out.
Fears about “bulldozing green yards” are greatly exaggerated (fearmongering is a typical NIMBY tactic). The ordinance reduces arbitrary barriers, not open-season on backyards.
While not every new unit is subsidized, more housing at all levels eases pressure and prevents only the wealthy from buying in.
Pointing to one unpopular project or to Belmont’s failures is no excuse for inaction. A better example of failure is the exclusionary zoning that caused the crisis.
Cambridge can’t freeze in amber. It must grow smartly, inclusively, and sustainably or risk becoming a city only for millionaires.
Plus, this commentary leans on distortions.
More housing at all levels lowers costs. A major study confirms it:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
The Walden Square project wasn’t opposed by “thousands.” Federico Muchnik’s petition had barely 1,000 signatures, padded with fake names and people from out of state—even Texas.
The Multifamily Housing Ordinance wasn’t some hasty scheme. It was years in the making, with a clear vision and goals spelled out here:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing
Don’t like the vision? Fine. But pretending it doesn’t exist is false. Misleading the public won’t solve Cambridge’s housing crisis.
> One Cambridge home is on the market for $35 million. Is the vision of the council to encourage more development of costly housing?
The thing you don’t mention here is that the $35MM house is a victorian mansion on 1.2 acres of land. If your concern is that the new zoning will create more of these, worry not.
As for Walden Square, something being unpopular doesn’t mean it’s bad (but in this case, “thousands” means about 1500 unverified signatures). Are aesthetic preferences more important than affordable housing for 100 families?
> Is the vision of the council that Cambridge should fix the affordable housing problems that neighboring towns fail to address?
Only looking at housing supply and not demand misses half the picture. Cambridge has added tens of thousands more jobs than homes for the last several decades, we are absolutely not doing our fair share in addressing the housing crisis.
This commentary leans on distortions.
More housing at all levels lowers costs. A major study confirms it:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
The Walden Square project wasn’t opposed by “thousands.” Muchnik’s petition had just over 1,000 signatures, not “thousands.” He admitted he didn’t know most signers’ addresses and only estimated 70% lived in Cambridge, meaning many may not be local.
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/07/09/affordable-housing-additions-at-walden-square-move-forward-with-planning-board-misgivings/
The Multifamily Housing Ordinance wasn’t a hasty scheme. It was years in the making, with a clear vision and goals:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Zoning/multifamilyhousing
Don’t like the vision? Fine. But pretending it doesn’t exist is false. Misleading the public won’t solve Cambridge’s housing crisis.
Pointing to the $35 million mansion on a huge lot is disingenuous. That mansion is not the result of the Council ending exclusionary zoning earlier this year. In fact, under the old zoning, mansions were the most likely outcome in certain neighborhoods because multifamily housing was illegal.
It’s odd to find the idea of abundance controversial when Ezra Klein, the popular New York Times columnist, just wrote a book dedicated to it and used abundant housing to increase housing affordability as a primary example. That should be the goal for Cambridge.
Even just looking at affordable housing, proposals under the new rules since February have included around 40 subsidized affordable homes—a $40 million dollar value to Cambridge—at no cost to taxpayers!
Read about the thousands of Cambridge families on the affordable housing waitlist, and it is clear why we need more homes.
https://cambridge-housing.org/cantwait/#flipbook-df_8673/1/
Also, the number claimed to oppose appears to be based on a petition that doesn’t verify identity or existence of the signatories.
Oh, look, another post from the regressive, anti-housing Make Cambridge Great Again crowd.
The letter asks a legitimate question…what is the vision…and it can’t be just “build more non-stop.”
Cambridge will never solve the region’s housing shortage. AND relative to neighboring cities/towns we are doing more than our share of affordable…income restricted…housing. We should rightfully take pride in that.
In my view, the council should be guided more clearly and rigorously by the Envision Cambridge Report which from the city’s own website… “is a roadmap to the year 2030, setting out a pan to promote inclusive and sustainable growth.”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/envision
It lays out a future vision that is broader than housing and centers environment issues as well as the social fabric of the city, urban form, mobility and other issues that need to be in balance with housing.
I’d like the city council to recommit to the other goals in Envision Cambridge. In BALANCE with housing.
There’s no point trying to convince people in the “build build build” cult. But all of this is still exclusionary to older people who cannot walk up stairs, have issues with parking in the winter, or really any time of year. To say say “just take the T or ride a bike” is ageism.
> One Cambridge home is on the market for $35 million. Is the vision of the council to encourage more development of costly housing?
The thing you don’t mention here is that the $35MM house is a victorian mansion on 1.2 acres of land. If your concern is that the new zoning will create more of these, worry not.
As for Walden Square, something being unpopular doesn’t mean it’s bad (but in this case, “thousands” means about 1500 signatures with no guarantee the signers are Cambridge residents). Are aesthetic preferences more important than affordable housing for 100 families?
> Is the vision of the council that Cambridge should fix the affordable housing problems that neighboring towns fail to address?
Only looking at housing supply and not demand misses half the picture. Cambridge has added tens of thousands more jobs than homes for the last several decades, we are absolutely not doing our fair share in addressing the housing crisis.
@GrandArch Your comment assumes everyone drives. But many people, especially the elderly, can’t. Building housing near public transit helps them stay independent.
In fact, the AARP supports transit, bike lanes, and walkable neighborhoods to help older adults age in place.
If you’re truly concerned about the elderly, consider their actual needs, instead of using them to justify anti-housing arguments.
What’s the alternative for seniors and others being priced out of Cambridge? Is the plan to not build housing at all?
I just want to add my perspective to the conversation.
Saying we should “help seniors by helping them drive” doesn’t really make sense. A lot of us can’t, or simply don’t want to, drive anymore. What we actually need are walkable neighborhoods and good public transit, not more parking.
Cambridge also hasn’t done its share when it comes to the housing crisis. The city keeps creating jobs, but new jobs mean we also need new housing. That seems pretty straightforward.
And about the idea that seniors can’t handle stairs, that’s what elevators are for. Is the suggestion really that we need a bunch of single-story housing instead? Or is that we do nothing? Doing nothing won’t address a real housing crisis.
@mjk Cambridge is not trying to solve the region’s housing shortage; that’s a straw man argument. We are trying to solve OUR own housing shortage compared to jobs and people living already here and struggling to afford it.
@GrandArch Poobah of Cambridge – one way cheaper housing helps older parents in their golden years, is that it allows their children to live closer to help with every day tasks and see each other more often. Right now _every_ young person is thinking about moving out of Massachusetts because it is simply unaffordable to find a place to live.
I can also ask questions: Why are you so afraid of new neighbors? Why should Cambridge only be a city that rich people can afford to live in? Do you recognize Cambridge has an inclusionary housing program mandating new affordable units cover at least 20% of floor area in all new developments over 10 units? Do you know the difference between a road and a parking lot?
“The new Multifamily Housing Ordinance would allow developers to construct buildings in any of those green spaces, with minimal setbacks and no requirements for parking”
Oarking requirements are probably the most detrimental piece of US zoning by far when it comes to green space https://pelr.blogs.pace.edu/2023/04/24/climate-resilient-development-at-the-local-level-addressing-the-overabundance-of-parking/
Mixing in the complaint about removing parking minimums with he complaint about green space gives the game away.
@GrandArch Poobah of Cambridge
Most Americans outlive their ability to drive by about 10 years https://usa.streetsblog.org/2025/01/23/survey-boomers-dont-accept-that-they-wont-be-able-to-drive-forever Many disabilities preclude people from ever driving in the first place.
A society that caters exclusively to drivers is ableist and ageist, and leaves people entirely dependent upon cars completely stuck when they for whatever reason (age, ability, cost, etc.) can no longer drive.
Literally posted today by the Boston Streets Cabinet and directly relevant: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOWgkFlEvdR/
Eliminating single-family zoning is fine — but that is not the same as minimal setbacks, no parking requirements, reducing green space, and increasing building heights.
Is a population of 150,000 a good target for Cambridge, as informed people say is likely with current policies? What is the Council’s vision for traffic with a large increase in population? What will be the impact on climate resiliency as green space declines? The city’s website now claims more than 15% of housing is affordable. What is the Council’s target figure? Increasing population by 30,000 might increase the percentage of affordable housing by one percentage point, to 16%, optimistically assuming 20% of new housing is affordable. Is that the Council’s vision? What reduction in housing prices does the Council envision by, say 2030 – if indeed a reduction is realistic, given that most new housing will be market-rate?
The initial question is reasonable: what is the detailed vision of the City Council?
The initial question is unreasonable and misleading. Cambridge’s housing reform does have a vision: Removing arbitrary barriers that keep prices high and push out moderate-income residents.
1. Build new housing to reduce costs. Studies show that even market-rate housing lowers costs. Plus, new developments include affordable housing.
2. Build near transit. This reduces car dependency and traffic. Blocking housing forces people to drive in, increasing traffic. This has been explicitly stated and is policy.
3. Maintain regulations that protect green space. Claims that development will harm climate resilience and green spaces are NIMBY fear-mongering. A regulatory process remains. The reforms just remove arbitrary barriers that prevented housing growth.
These goals, plans, and vision has been articulated. The outcomes are supported by research and proven in other cities.
Pretending there’s no vision is simply false and serves only to block new housing.
@Andy Zucker “Target population” talk and price predictions are distractions. No one knows gas or tomato prices in 2030 either. Housing must keep pace with job growth.
What we do know: more jobs + restricted housing = crisis. More housing = lower costs—even market-rate housing, as proven in other cities. NIMBYs ignore that data.
No one is building on parks. Reforms just allow multi-family where only single-family was allowed.
Taller buildings? They add density near transit, which means fewer cars and less traffic. That’s real climate action.
Since you want numbers:
• Old policy: ~350 affordable homes in 15 years.
• New reforms: 660–1,580 by 2040.
That’s a vision, that’s progress. The endless questions? Just delay tactics.
@AndyZucker without changing setbacks, parking minimums, height restrictions, etc, ending single-family zoning is essentially meaningless.
I think you have things a bit backwards here. We’re not targeting a population number, we’re targeting catching up with the housing shortage.
You know there are ~150k jobs in Cambridge? That’s tens of thousands of people coming in from out of town to get to those jobs. If we increase population without increasing jobs, we’ll probably actually reduce traffic, since fewer people will need to drive to get here for those jobs.
Focusing on the percentage of the housing stock that is affordable is missing the forest for the trees. In your scenario, sure, maybe only 1% change in percent affordable, but that represents 6,000 new, permanently affordable homes.