Most of us agree instinctively with the argument that “it’s too expensive to keep things the same” (letter, Aug. 11). It is a powerful truth in Cambridge, a city grappling with an affordability challenge that has priced out families and left lower-income earners particularly vulnerable. But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and the current City Council’s interpretation of this mantra is dangerously simplistic. They continue to hammer on policies that threaten to replace our city’s unique character with a bland, one-size-fits-all model of urban development. We can and must address the housing situation, specifically for low-income residents, without sacrificing the very qualities that make Cambridge a place worth living.
Advocates for a pure “build, baby, build” strategy argue that any opposition, regardless of its basis, is a barrier to progress. This position is a false choice, pitting a vague notion of “progress” against “preservation,” suggesting that thoughtful, design-driven development is a luxury we can no longer afford. This is a false and deeply flawed premise. The true cost of their approach is not measured in dollars, but in the loss of our urban fabric. A rush to build without a moderated, design-driven approach to housing leads to uninspired, contextually inappropriate buildings that disrupt the aesthetic and human scale of our neighborhoods. Our historic triple-deckers and side-by-sides, which once provided natural density and affordability, were not built with the cold, purely economic logic of today’s developers. They were built with an eye toward community and place.
Furthermore, relying on the market to solve our affordability challenge is a flawed strategy. The current policy, which hinges on inclusionary zoning – requiring a small percentage of new, expensive units to be affordable – provides a slow and insufficient trickle of relief to our most vulnerable. This approach serves primarily to provide market-rate construction, actually increasing the market-rate while offering only token solutions to the most vulnerable residents. It puts the onus on developers to be our social saviors, rather than on the City Council to implement a thoughtful, economically sound housing plan.
Often cited by pro-build advocates is the idea that other cities, such as Austin, “did it.” The notion that Cambridge can parallel Austin’s building boom is a misplaced fantasy. Consider the data: Austin, with a land area of more than 300 square miles, has a population density of approximately 3,200 people per square mile. Cambridge, by contrast, with a land area of just 6.4 square miles, is already one of the most densely populated cities in the United States, with a density of nearly 18,500 people per square mile. We are six times the density, on 1/50th the land area. This is a 300x problem. The policies that work in Austin’s wide-open spaces will not magically solve the complex, finite-space problems of Cambridge.
Residents of this city have chosen to live here for a reason. They do not want to live in a city like New York or Shanghai; if they did, they would have moved there. Our unique character is a feature, not a bug, and any housing policy must respect that. We must find solutions that work for a city of our specific scale and character, not a generic urban model.
A more effective and equitable path forward begins with practical, proven economic methods for creating genuinely affordable housing for low-income residents. We should be dedicating significant public funds to our Affordable Housing Trust, allowing it to acquire land and build housing directly for low-income residents, bypassing the unpredictable whims of the market. We must explore and invest in land banking, in which the city buys and holds property strategically for future, nonprofit-led affordable development. A wealthy city such as Cambridge has the power to fund and build affordable housing at a meaningful scale – we just spent $299 million on the Tobin school – and does not need to wait for a private developer’s luxury hotel to make it happen.
The real challenge is not whether we can build more housing; it’s whether we have the political will to do so with dignity and purpose. We must reject the notion that progress and thoughtful, design-driven growth are mutually exclusive. It is time to replace the simplistic rallying cry of “build, baby, build” with a robust, community-centered housing strategy that values economic equity, architectural integrity and the enduring character of our city.
Unfortunately, the current council has demonstrated time and again that it is not equipped to execute such a plan. Their continued reliance on flawed, market-based policies proves they are incapable of leading Cambridge toward a more equitable future. The residents of this city deserve better, and the only way to achieve it is to elect new leadership in November who will champion a housing policy that reflects our values, not just economic projections.
Joe Adiletta, Walker 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.
@Joe Adiletta
“Residents of this city have chosen to live here for a reason. They do not want to live in a city like New York or Shanghai; if they did, they would have moved there.” Thank you for speaking for me. It is a surprise to me that I could just pick up and move to Shanghai, if only I liked its density! (huge sarcasm warning)
Seriously though, “build!” is a good slogan for our city that just removed its exclusionary zoning and allowed to actually build apartments. I fully support higher buildings everywhere. As someone who grew up in a 16 stories apartment building, I urge you to not be scared of people like me. We need housing close to where the jobs are. That’s our Cambridge charm: its smart people, working and living in this awesome city.
Excellent points here. Thoughtful planning matters!.
“Our historic triple-deckers and side-by-sides, which once provided natural density and affordability, were not built with the cold, purely economic logic of today’s developers. They were built with an eye toward community and place.”
This is pretty much revisionist history. We didn’t get thousands of identical floorplans by taking “community and place” into consideration, triple deckers were built because we had a need for housing and they were cheap and easy to build.
Triple-deckers were, at the time, considered poor-quality, cheaply built, even a “menace to human life”, according to the State Housing Committee in 1911.
I don’t think YIMBY policies are necessarily at odds with social housing. They probably both have a place in helping produce affordable housing. And, since they’re both pretty broad policy umbrellas, I bet it’s possible for our community to select the best of both.
Going into this election, it’s great to hear more people talking social housing. But I worry that leaving it all up to the City would mean a lot of waiting. Universal Pre-K was in the works for about 20 years. I’m curious what the simplest/easiest version of social housing looks like. Could people start a giving pledge that involves leaving their homes to a land trust? Could neighbors pool capital to buy residential or commercial spaces and keep them affordable? Surely there are things we could all do to help move the ball forward here in the interim.
If “the real challenge is not whether we can build more housing”, why bring up Austin as if we couldn’t possibly build more housing?
You say that inclusionary zoning is just a “token” gesture, but realistically, how much housing could the city provide on its own? We could dedicate every penny of the city’s budget to building housing, and we’d get what, 1,000 units a year out of it?
The primary cause of this housing crisis is a mismatch of supply and demand. About 25 years ago, there were about 100k jobs in Cambridge. Fast forward to today, and that number is closer to 150k. Our population has only grown by ~20k while employment has grown by 2.5x that amount. All those new, highly paid employees are now competing with existing residents for a pool of housing that just isn’t growing fast enough to keep up with demand.
If the new zoning creates 30k homes like it’s expected to, we’ll get a lot closer to equilibrium, while providing ~6k permanently affordable homes. Hardly a “token”.
It’s remarkable how much this repeats about half the talking points of a parody of housing opponents, down to “we aren’t exactly like other locations, so evidence doesn’t apply to Cambridge.”
Housing delayed is housing denied. You’re advocating for delay.
Real progress means expanding housing for all, not pandering to affluent nostalgia. “Preserving character” cannot be a license to exclude new residents or block urgently needed homes.
The author seems unaware that Cambridge’s historic triple-deckers were once innovations for a growing city that, at the time, faced NIMBY opposition. They are not status-quo relics. Accommodating a growing population is part of Cambridge’s character.
Cities evolve to meet demand, and Cambridge must do so again as it adds jobs. The housing crisis is a supply and equity problem.
Restricting growth only fuels exclusion, rising rents, and loss of diversity, while boosting current homeowners’ property values. Maybe that’s the “character” being protected.
We need to elect leadership that will work for all the people of Cambridge, not just for the affluent.
Recent letters invoking “vision” follow the NIMBY playbook: delay, delay, delay. Zoning reform has been years in the making. The claim that our city is a unique snowflake is also classic NIMBY.
This romantic view of triple-deckers as Cambridge “character” ignores their origin. Theye were a solution to a housing crisis much like today’s.
The zoning practices they defend stem from explicitly racist policies. When those were outlawed, economic barriers like single-family zoning took their place.
To invoke “character” now, while some residents pay half their income in rent, is callous.
Nostalgia should not be an excuse to trap others in poverty. True vision means building a more inclusive, equitable Cambridge.
The writer is correct that IZ is a bad policy. It stifles projects that would otherwise get built and we shouldn’t be relying on private developers. IZ is an attractive policy because it shifts the cost burden of income restricted housing from wealthy property owners to renters, who enjoy higher rents.
The city needs a better strategy for housing production. There are a lot of tools we can use, like shifting housing demand to other towns by improving transportation, buying new apartments on the open market, or building 40b developments in non-compliant towns.
This letter seems to reflect disregard or lack of understanding for how most people actually live.
It’s nice to have the economic means to choose to live in New York, Shanghai, or Cambridge, but many don’t have that choice. They are here because that’s where the jobs are. Wanting Cambridge to stay exactly as one imagined it forces others into unaffordable rents or punishing commutes.
Our community should care more about the struggles of others than about preserving personal preferences.
The true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Expecting disadvantaged people to suffer just to satisfy one’s own aesthetics is simply heartless.
@cantabrigand Your claims about IZ are not supported by facts.
The housing crisis is about supply and demand. Studies show that new housing, even market-rate, reduces nearby rents, and new developments also include affordable units. The idea that costs simply get passed on to renters is false.
IZ guarantees that new projects include homes affordable to a wider range of residents. Without it, developers wouldn’t create low-cost housing, and rents would still rise.
Cambridge is adding jobs and must also add housing. Your plan shifts responsibility to other communities, which is NIMBY thinking. If every city took that stance, nothing would get built. We need real action to meet a real crisis—not passing the buck.
“Shifting housing demand to other towns by improving transportation” is not a realistic plan.
The state now requires towns to increase housing density near commuter rail stations. But many towns are suing the state to block this, driven, of course, by NIMBY opposition. And those towns face their own housing crises.
Other towns are not going to build housing for Cambridge workers, no matter how politely we ask.
Likewise, the idea of “buying new apartments on the open market” is not feasible. Cambridge simply does not have the budget for this, precisely because of the high cost of housing.
These proposals suggest either a lack of understanding of current events or, perhaps worse, another page from the NIMBY playbook: advance unrealistic alternatives in order to create uncertainty and delay.
I’m glad to see this letter and its thoughtful ideas for solving the housing problem. The city needs to step up and invest in affordable housing. Giving free rein to massive developments is not the answer.
Cambridge has already more than doubled funding for the Affordable Housing Trust, and the Trust lends funds to affordable homebuilding nonprofits like HRI and Just-A-Start to buy land and build homes. The City has also undertaken a process to identify other lots suitable for building affordable homes and actively assesses the possibility of buying properties as they are listed for sale, although often concludes that such purchases are not the most efficient use of limited funds due to the cost of renovations and limited federal and state funding.
Vice Mayor McGovern categorized some of the funding and other efforts to provide more affordable homes to Cambridge families who need them last week.
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2025/09/09/vice-mayor-responds-to-candidate-in-cambridge-theres-been-no-retreat-on-trump-social-services/
Describing zoning reform as “free rein for massive developments” is typical NIMBY exaggeration and distortion.
Zoning reform simply removes unnecessary barriers while preserving the regulatory process. Oversight remains firmly in place, contrary to claims suggesting otherwise.
6-story buildings are not “massive development”. Building housing to keep up with job creation isn’t either. Such claims are propaganda and do not reflect reality.
Thank you Mr. Adiletta for this excellent, thoughtful and constructive piece which encapsulates the opinions of so many people I have talked with who are already being adversely directly affected by the new Multifamily zoning ordinance or are generally concerned with the detrimental impact it will have on our city if left unaddressed. You offer well thought out solutions such as an emphasis on creating genuinely affordable housing for low-income residents funded with public funds to grow our Affordable Housing Trust and its impact. As you stated “the residents of this city deserve better, and the only way to achieve it is to elect new leadership in November who will champion a housing policy that reflects our values, not just economic projections”.
@Nancy
“ so many people I have talked with who are already being adversely directly affected by the new Multifamily zoning ordinance” – I’m sure you can provide multiple concrete examples of such harm. And no, potential “shadow from 6 story building half a mile away” does not count.
Don’t let affluent homeowners claim multi-family zoning reform is bad. They want nothing to change in their comfortable, privileged world and they don’t care how much you pay in rent.
This November, we must elect candidates who serve the whole community, not just protect the winners.
The real measure of our values is how we protect the most vulnerable, not how we cater to the tastes of the affluent.
Cambridge officials and activists and developers keep forgetting that we are a small 6 Sq mile area of land, not the 319 sq miles of area of Austin that’s being thrown around as an example.
Name ONE CITY in America with our size that this sort of thing has been done for that isn’t a disaster. NAME ONE.
This is one of the 10 oldest Cities in the Country, and the smallest footprint (smaller than when it was founded!)
Additionally we do NOT have the infrastructure for the sort of growth people are talking about. Our Water Supply alone is facing major problems with regular droughts and inability to store enough drinkable water. Electrifying without more support structure and power sources is also a looming issue along with sewage. Fix what we have before adding more.
@CambridgeJoe
Dozens of cities show zoning reform lowers housing costs. NYU economists confirmed this in a broad study across U.S. cities: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
Cambridge isn’t unique, housing supply and prices work the same here as they do elsewhere. If they didn’t, these economists wouldn’t have seen these results.
And the only people claiming that we don’t have the infrastructure are the people who oppose zoning reform. City planners don’t agree. They should know. This is their job.