Residents across Cambridge have had strong feelings about the citywide upzoning reform, the multifamily housing measure the City Council passed Feb. 10. There have been spirited conversations between neighbors, concerns about development and many op-eds written in Cambridge Day.
We had different takes on the original proposal and the final version. We each preferred different drafts of the legislation. Yet we both voted for a version that was not our first choice. Why? Because we cared more about addressing our city’s challenges and finding a compromise we could all live with. Sometimes leadership means compromise.
As a longtime housing advocate, councillor Burhan Azeem had long expressed interest in citywide zoning reform to address the housing crisis. The Housing Committee, which he co-chairs, forwarded a zoning petition that would have allowed six-story developments anywhere in the city. That version appeared to have enough votes to pass and was sent for discussion by the full council. Councillor Patty Nolan had argued consistently for lower heights, more open space, design review and a requirement that affordable units be part of any expanded development rights. We felt it was important to come together rather than pass a close vote. The final compromise was just that – a compromise.
Take design review. Neighbors understandably want new housing to fit in with the city they love. But design review has often been used to delay projects for years, to trigger lawsuits and to make development prohibitively difficult. As Azeem has pointed out, most of the buildings we cherish in Cambridge were built before design review was added in the 1970s.
Height was another point of debate. Nolan cared deeply about ensuring that new developments fit in neighborhoods better and had affordable units. The compromise lowered the base zoning height to four stories from six, and made additional heights require a large lot and inclusionary zoning.
Each of us has been criticized for not pushing harder for what we individually wanted. But what stands out to us is that, unlike in Washington, D.C., where compromise seems impossible, here in Cambridge we managed to collaborate. We agreed on the fundamental goal: to address long-standing housing challenges by allowing multifamily homes citywide, ending single-family-only zoning and making it easier to build.
We also share residents’ concerns about green space, building height and the ways new construction may affect their neighborhoods. Change is difficult. Growth is difficult. But we are living through a housing shortage in which rents are extremely high, and the entire region is rezoning. Communities from Lexington to Watertown to Revere are permitting housing at levels not seen in a generation. Cambridge is continuing to do its part.
Of course, there will be fine-tuning. We are committed to data-informed decisions and to making adjustments as we learn more. Early results are mixed: Demolition applications are up, but building permits are down. Financing is difficult, and developers are still learning the new rules. Before the reform, we saw larger units consolidated into fewer homes; we should examine whether that is still happening and consider policies to limit it if necessary.
Parking remains a concern. Many new projects propose little or no parking, but new residents often still expect to get street permits. We are committed to taking action to make it easier for residents to get around without cars including a citywide shuttle system in collaboration with all the existing shuttles by institutions including MIT, Harvard and corporate interests.
We are grateful to our colleagues and to the residents who engaged in this debate, even when it was contentious.
Change is never easy. We know that not everyone loves the look of new developments, and there will always be local impacts that are hard to absorb. But housing is desperately needed. From U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren to governor Maura Healey, leaders at every level – including an expert panel of urban planners convened by the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee – have acknowledged the urgency of building more homes.
This reform is not the end of the story. We will continue to evaluate its effects, revisit our goals, and adjust as necessary. For now, we are proud that the Council chose collaboration over gridlock and compromise over further polarization. Leadership involves risk, and we took it.
The writers are Cambridge city councillors. This post was updated Sept. 30, 2025, to remove a sentence about council votes.
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.
Did all 9 councilors vote for height? no. the only way to evaluate effects is to have bad practices move forward and then revise. Then it becomes too late. This means we get stuck with the mistakes which then become precedent. that is why mass and main in Central Square, the tower that was used as the poster child for the new corridor scale by Azeem, has opened Pandora’s Box. The problem is one-size-fits-all as-of-right. Cambridge used to have 13 districts now reduced to three or four. I highly doubt this is considered compromise over polarization. Polarization and divisiveness continue with the lack of transparency, backroom deals with developers at the table, and lack of real investigation leading to a better solution than Councilor Azeem’s, Siddiqu’s and McGovern’s single track push without such consideration. We need to change council NOW for fact-based practicality, sustainability, transparency.
Wow.
What an incredible display of cognitive dissonance from Councilor Nolan.
to answer: all 9 councillors voted for the 6 story height with affordable housing. That was the case for the “3+3” proposal, which allowed 6 stories as of right on ALL parcels as long as there was Affordable housing- which Nolan, Sobrhinho-Wheeler, Wilson and Zusy voted for. And the “4+2” proposal which allows the same 6 stories as or right with affordable housing, on lots over 5000 SF. So all 9 councillors voted for allowing 6 stories as of right.
@pete,
Please do not be afraid of taller buildings. They are the only way to solve the housing shortage in Cambridge. Right now we have a compromise: taller housing buildings allowed along the main streets. I would prefer taller buildings allowed everywhere. I am ok with this decision. It is the outcome we have reached through the discussion and council deliberation process. Please do not impugn the process with accusations of “the lack of transparency, backroom deals with developers”. You say that it was a bad process, but you simply do not like the outcome.
If this was a compromise there was a clear losing side. Patty was a decent councilor for a while, but never stands her ground. She should have worked with other council members for a zoning change that worked.
Also to Azeem’s point. Most building built before 1970 were not being funded by international corporations but were normally local projects.
The City Council is pursuing reforms proven elsewhere to lower costs. Don’t be misled by NIMBY hyperbole about “canyons” or “one size fits all”, or “luxury developments” (ironic coming from someone in a luxury home).
Zoning reform simply removes artificial barriers the wealthy used to keep others out. There’s still a regulatory process.
Wealthy opponents aren’t looking out for renters or future residents. Their pushback protects only their own property values. They don’t care how much you pay in rent.
Apparently, a majority of city councilors were determined to quickly pass drastic city wide zoning reform which significantly increased building height & eliminated most oversight & setbacks. Basically, they had the votes & the plan was to push it through as quickly as possible; in spite of overwhelming, valid community concerns. I am grateful for the work from a minority of city councilors (including, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson & Toner) who helped to modify these drastic changes to include requirements for affordable housing & minimum lot size for buildings exceeding 4 stories.
There was basic consensus from the community for 3 story buildings & multiple units per building city wide. However, there were many unanswered concerns from constituents particularly around height, affordability, environmental impacts, oversight & setbacks. While I am grateful that some concessions were made – such wide reaching reform should have required a robust community process & significant consensus.
Developers should NEVER have been included in the deliberations or conversation at the committee level, and urban planners that were consulted should have been from efforts in other mid-sized communities (Looking at the gigantic territory of Austin as a success as something to compare our tiny 6 square miles is a ridiculous thing to do).
“Sometimes leadership means compromise,” you say, Patty? What kind of compromise is it to completely abandon the city’s commitment to green space, canopy, setbacks, stormwater resiliency, solar access, neighborhood input, design review, historic preservation, neighborhood diversity, and family-oriented, middle-class housing? The housing crisis is not Cambridge’s alone to solve, and a year’s worth of thoughtful consultation with actual experts, as Cathie Zusy recommended, might have allowed us to come up with a much more reasonable, nuanced and effective solutions that don’t in one drastic step obliterate the unique and diverse characters of our different neighborhoods. What was the rush? Why sell this whole historic nearly-400-year-old-city down the river in one season’s panic? There are already a host of affordable housing units going up in many areas of the city. Corridors near public transportation where parking is already constricted should have been slated for development 1st.
kdolan- please explain what you mean by cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, it’s likely taken as a simple insulting was in support of the 3+3 proposal but it did not get a majority vote.
Those of us who bought homes and raised families in traditional leafy residential areas of Cambridge have been sold out by this Council to the developer-financed ABC PAC and their non-resident allies. No design review! No neighborhood input! No thoughtful planning! Yes, multifamily housing can and should be allowed in all districts, but the developer-by-right, demolish-and-build-tall-baby-build tall, sunlight-blocking free-for-all that this Council has unleashed on all of us who invested our lives and futures in this city’s modest, sunny, tree-lined, two and three-story family neighborhoods is unconscionable.
our “zoning” leadership destroys historic districts ought to be the op ed’s title.
Trying the same thing again and again expecting different results is sometimes called insanity when it is simply careless. Cambridge City Council adopted Inclusionary Zoning in 1998 and an Affordable Housing Overlay in 2020. Neither law has created expected numbers of homes, and Cambridge has fallen behind in building 12,500 additional housing units by 2030 set in 2019.
The MultiFamily Housing zoning change lacked consideration of neighborhood amenities, access, services and knowledge of actual housing needs for the thousands of people of all ages and low to middle incomes who leave each year. Rather than focus on overcoming the high costs of financing and construction slowing affordable housing development, the Council decided to let the Market decide what to build. Of course, developers at all levels must make some margin above their costs to remain in business, so denser development necessarily drives high end housing or properties jammed with small units and cheaper materials.
AvJoe- I am getting tired of the NIMBY/ Wealthy false arguments repeatedly brought up. It is unfair. Many of the concerns are from generational home owners who actually keep their units affordable. They are the keepers of naturally occurring AH. So why are they constantly lumped with the super wealthy when they are middle class property owners? They are being barraged with developer offers that sound so generous. Next, that AH triple decker is torn down replaced by 3 units of luxury housing. That is not an even swap and is happening in the denser established neighborhoods (Cambridgeport, Port, Riverside, North Cambridge) evicting residents and forcing folks out while corporations, foreign investors excel. One-size-fits-all IS a problem because not all locations can accommodate the plan. Cambridge should buy units one by one when they are available for its inventory for various programs.
Calling this reform a “sellout” is obstruction disguised as concern. The real issue is whether we keep zoning that excludes families and preserves privilege in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
Cambridge hasn’t abandoned green space or historic preservation. Those protections remain. A process is still in place.
As for developers: the people who build houses should be in the planning to build houses? This is another example of an unrealistic suggestion designed for obstruction.
Another year of “consultation” is just a delay. The crisis is urgent, and restricting housing to transit corridors only deepens inequality.
It’s ironic for wealthy residents to claim support for diversity and middle-class housing while defending the very status quo that has been destroying both.
Real leadership means acting now, before Cambridge becomes a museum for the wealthy.
Trying the same thing and expecting different results is sometimes called insanity when it is simply careless. Cambridge City Council adopted Inclusionary Zoning in 1998 and an Affordable Housing Overlay in 2020 then removed many other exclusionary zoning requirements. These efforts have failed to create desperately needed affordable homes.
Why further reduce zoning requirements across the City when Inclusionary Zoning and AHO have not met goals? MultiFamily Housing zoning lacked careful consideration of neighborhood amenities, access, services and a rational basis of knowledge of housing needs of the thousands of people of all ages and low to middle incomes who leave each year. The Council decided to let the Market decide what to build, and developers must make some margin, so denser development necessarily means either high end housing or properties jammed with small units and cheaper materials or hybrids.
The current free for all is wasteful and will not create housing we need.
Compromise is valuable, but not when it ignores verifiable facts. The Housing Committee should have advanced a truly unbiased six-story zoning petition, grounded in sound data, instead of relying on flawed consultant analysis provided by CDD.
Multifamily zoning risks destroying pre-1900 buildings we cherish while disregarding the housing goals in Envision Cambridge and creating de facto 2040 goals.
The Council keeps layering amendments without waiting to see results from the Affordable Housing Overlay pipeline or new multifamily reforms.
Taxpayer CAHT funds are being disbursed to for-profit firms, contrary to its intent, while parking rules were stripped without addressing accessibility, deliveries, or transit alternatives.
As-of-right provisions negates residents’ concerns about height, green space, and neighborhood impacts,
Leadership should mean holistic, data-driven policy grounded in transparency and accountability—not piecemeal zoning built on shaky analysis and rushed politics.
Those of us who bought homes and raised families in leafy residential areas of Cambridge have been sold out by this Council to the developer-financed ABC PAC and their non-resident allies. No design review! No neighborhood input! No careful urban planning! Yes, multifamily housing can and should be allowed in all districts, but the developer-by-right, demolish-and-build-tall-baby-build tall, sunlight-blocking free-for-all that this Council has unleashed on all of us who invested our lives and futures in this city’s modest, sunny, tree-lined, two and three-story family neighborhoods is unconscionable.
The obvious question to ask all these councillors :
You live in the city, do you live in a building that is 6 stories or taller that is multiunit and has no parking spaces?
Or do you live in a smaller single family, duplex or 3 decker building that will be razed for one of these new constructions?
Or next to a building that this will be happening to that will drop shadow onto your building?
What is good for the general public under these rules should be good for you. Right?
@Cambridgejoe if you don’t want a taller residential building next to you, feel free to buy that plot of land and not build it. Otherwise, please let us move on with our lives here in Cambridge. We have lots of jobs, lots of people commuting in, and we need more housing built. Period.
@Pete your complaint that triple deckers can be converted into luxury condos was also true prior to the multi family housing zoning reform. Honestly, that was the most likely scenario for property changeovers, because it didn’t require going through the process of applying for zoning variances.
Upzoning makes those kinds of renovictions less desirable, because land costs will increase and make the margins on flips smaller.
@lvenden IZ still had to work within the existing zoning laws. If it’s already difficult to build new projects in Cambridge, adding a 20% affordable requirement on those projects will not spur more housing to be built. AHO passed in 2020, right when the real estate market got very messed up by COVID, supply chain issues, and interest rates that are still affecting construction.
If you are falling short of your goal to construct new homes, making it easier to construct new homes is an obvious strategy.