Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
As my run for Cambridge City Council continues, I have been door-knocking and asking residents what they want to see. When it comes to housing, most people have told me they supported multifamily zoning citywide but believed it would be limited to residential-sized projects, maybe quadplexes, not used to propose 80-plus-unit apartment buildings across the city with limited oversight.
I attended a forum hosted by A Better Cambridge to discuss the future of housing in Cambridge with 14 other candidates, all of whom had filled out a questionnaire in advance. At the forum, candidates were asked if they supported changes such as the Feb 10 upzoning. A dozen of them either said yes (Burhan Azeem, Dana Bullister, Ned Melanson, Marc McGovern, Patty Nolan, Sumbul Siddiqui, E. Denise Simmons and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler) or “generally yes” (Ayah Al-Zubi, Peter Hsu, Louise Venden and Ayesha Wilson).
Only four – Tim Flaherty, Stanislav Rivkin, Cathie Zusy and me – opposed parts of the new zoning.
If three-quarters of the candidates support the zoning changes, how come less than half of the residents I have talked to approve of it? It might be explained by the affordable housing component of the ordinance – the requirement that projects should include 20 percent affordable units – because the same number of naturally affordable units are often destroyed by these new developments.
This zoning was passed with a promise to increase affordable housing, yet at least two candidates that voted in favor of it – McGovern and Siddiqui – expressed willingness in their questionnaires to consider lowering the current 20 percent inclusionary zoning requirement. I am strongly against reducing this, as it was the reason it got passed to begin with.
The questionnaire on zoning didn’t stop there: Further questioning included discussion over the future of “walkshed” squares and corridors, including “phasing in greater density within a quarter mile of corridors or within half a mile of squares.” The discussion for this zoning goes as high as 18 stories. Yes, 18!
If you think this would only apply to major roads, think again. McGovern stated “If someone lives within a quarter or half mile of transit, then why does it matter if they live on a corridor or side street?” and continued to state support for “at least 18 stories on Mass Ave. We already have buildings of those heights in Central. I think we can go to 10 to 12 stories for ‘as of right’ development in the surrounding areas, depending on location.”
This is the heart of the issue: There is a growing gap between what residents are asking for and what many candidates support. At the doors, I hear again and again that people want growth, but they want it done thoughtfully, with real neighborhood input, and at a scale that makes sense for Cambridge’s character.
When most candidates support zoning changes that most residents I’ve spoken to oppose, it might be a sign that City Hall is listening more to developers and outside groups than to the people who live here. If we want trust restored, we must slow down, revisit the impact of February’s changes and build a zoning plan that puts neighborhoods first. Cambridge deserves growth that strengthens communities, not one-size-fits-all policies that risk displacing them. As your councillor, I’ll fight for growth that strengthens neighborhoods, not policies that hand our city to developers.
The writer is a candidate for Cambridge City Council.
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.
This editorial is riddled with inaccuracies and distortions.
Zion seems to think only affluent homeowners count as “residents.” The piece invents a false divide between “residents” and “developers,” ignoring that many renters support more housing. He might try speaking with poorer residents once in a while.
Sherin misrepresents Cambridge’s upzoning as allowing 80‑unit towers citywide when it mainly permits modest multifamily homes.
It also falsely claims affordable housing is being lost, overlooking projects that include affordable units and evidence that added housing helps ease rent pressure.
Height limits are exaggerated, and public opinion is mischaracterized—the majority of residents favor more housing.
Overall, the piece reflects a preservationist NIMBY bias rather than a factual policy analysis.
Hi – I rent here and want a place to live. I think people who live in apartments are people. That’s the fundamental bedrock issue here. Do we want to build meaningfully more housing, or not?
Very informative post. Note: the new zoning underway by the current Council for Cambridge Street and Mass Ave (Porter Square to the Arlington Border) goes to 18 and 20 stories, no setbacks, green space, parking etc. Gone will be local stores. And residents will have to foot the bill for infrastructure changes. None of this is in Envision or the new city design criteria. Enough!
Mr Sherin, please do not confuse your personal opinion for public sentiment, or even a sound policy for our city. I want my son to be able to live in Cambridge once he finishes college. At the current construction levels and rental prices, he won’t have a snowball in hell chance to afford even the tiniest place. Why do we need to put up with this? Taller buildings are ok, really!
When the median price of a 1-bedroom apartment in Cambridge is $2500, realistically how much “naturally affordable” housing is there anyways?
The few projects that have been proposed since the zoning passed have been pretty modest, and displacing few people. Western Ave is replacing a funeral home, and the Ellery Street building by the Library has been vacant of tenants for years.
Landlords that owned “naturally affordable” apartments in the past were always able to sell them to make a profit, same is true now.
The 20% requirement is not what caused the MFZ to pass, that had been law for years. Lowering the percent may end up increasing the volume of affordable housing if it makes larger projects more economically viable. 20% of 100 is lower than 10% of 300, after all.
@avejolt
“There will be no setbacks, green space, or parking.”
False. All corridor proposals maintain setback requirements, ground-level open space, and public realm design standards.
“Local stores will be gone.”
False. Rezoning aims to preserve and expand retail frontage through mixed-use development. Higher density also supports local businesses by bringing more customers.
“Residents will have to pay for infrastructure changes.”
False. Developer-funded linkage and impact fees, along with cost-sharing programs, cover infrastructure tied to new development.
“None of this is in Envision or the new city design criteria.”
False. Envision Cambridge (2019) and the Citywide Urban Design Guidelines (2023–24) both call for denser, mixed-use corridors, mid-rise housing near transit, more affordable housing, and active public spaces—the very goals current zoning advances.
“Meet voters where they are” is how to win elections. With more than half of residents supporting his views, Zion and his slate should easily win 4 or 5 seats on the Council this term. Developer dollars shouldn’t be allowed to vote!
Very informative and accurate! Of course we all want there to be affordable housing for renters, but really, how many “actual” units turn out to be affordable…most are LUXURY. And people need to be made aware that the 20% inclusionary figure is not based on the nuber of overall units, it’s based on SQUARE FOOTAGE. The ordinance was written to fool people into thinking based on number of units. It was meant to divide renters from homeowners by fooling people. Wake up and do some research. Fact is, this upzoning is only going to help a very small percentage of renters (probably those that have a connection).
Lastly, this city is already busting at the seams as one of the densest cities in America…we can’t fix everything.
“Sherin misrepresents Cambridge’s upzoning as allowing 80‑unit towers citywide when it mainly permits modest multifamily homes.”
Could you explain how it mainly permits modest multifamily homes? It allows 6 stories with 5 foot setbacks on parcels over 5000 square feet, or 4 stories on smaller parcels. I would not call that modest.
“Height limits are exaggerated”
74 feet.
“public opinion is mischaracterized—the majority of residents favor more housing.”
I favor more housing. I do not favor 74 foot buildings with 5 foot setbacks citywide, including on narrow residential streets far from mass transit.
What I would call a mischaracterization is:
– the publicity which said this zoning would legalize the triple-deckers we already have. In fact, it allows 6-story buildings, and wider due to 5′ setbacks, which would dwarf neighboring triple-deckers.
– calling this multifamily zoning when most of the proposed units in progress are studios or 1 bedrooms which are too small for families
cwec – $2,500 would be considered affordable. The affordability requirement is that you make 50-80% of the median income. I believe the median is about $130,000, so if you make between $65,000 and $104,000 you pay 30% of your income towards rent. This is equal to $2,600 on the high end! I do not think that’s affordable either, but you need to use the same standard and realize the new inclusionary housing isn’t always affordable either.
Also Ellery was not vacant.
It would be nice if anti-development activists stopped spreading disinformation.
Cambridge’s new multifamily zoning allows up to six stories (about 74 ft) only on larger parcels (over 5,000 sq ft) that include affordable units.
Most lots are below that size. As a result, the zoning enables small- to mid-size apartment houses, rowhouses, and courtyard buildings, not “80-unit towers.” On most 3,000–4,500 sq ft lots, allowable height is four stories, with typical projects of 8–15 units in wood-frame or mass-timber construction.
The city projects about 3,590 new homes by 2040, including 660 affordable units—moderate, neighborhood-scale infill, not large-scale redevelopment.
In short, the NIMBY crowd is using fear mongering, not truth and reality.
Plus, surveys and public comments show broad support for adding more housing.
@L M N O
You can’t claim to support more housing while opposing the policies that make it possible.
“It allows six stories with five-foot setbacks on parcels over 5,000 sq ft, or four stories on smaller parcels. I wouldn’t call that modest.”
I would. More importantly, I’m not trying to block housing for families because of my personal preferences.
“In fact, it allows six-story buildings, wider due to 5′ setbacks, which would dwarf neighboring triple-deckers.”
A six-story building would dwarf a three-story one? That kind of hyperbole exposes the anti-development crowd’s real goal: blocking housing altogether.
If you oppose a building just three stories taller than its neighbor, you’re not supporting housing, you’re opposing it. The rest is double-talk.
@Cantab5
The City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires 20% of a project’s floor area (not unit count) to be affordable. Using floor area encourages more family-sized units rather than just small studios, producing larger affordable homes that serve a wider range of renters. |
The claim that “most new housing is luxury” is just propaganda. It ignores reality. Cambridge’s is projected to create 3,000-10,000 or more affordable homes through inclusionary zoning and other programs. That’s affordable housing for thousands of families, not luxury housing.
“Luxury housing” is also propaganda. It was a term invented by the anti-development lobby.
Cambridge is dense but still short on homes for workers, families, etc. Limiting new housing only worsens affordability and displacement. It created the crisis!
Numerous studies have shown that increased density lowers housing costs. Opposition typically comes from homeowners who profited from increased prices due to housing scarcity.
The anti-development crowd destroys its own credibility with distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies.
A six‑story building *dwarfs* a three‑story one? Please.
Every new unit will be “luxury”? According to who, the NIMBY crowd?
In reality, Cambridge’s 2025 plan aims to expand housing supply, improve affordability, and diversify unit types—not fuel high‑end development. Twenty percent of floor space will be designated affordable.
Eighty‑story towers all over Cambridge?? Impossible. Towers are permitted only on large, rare parcels.
So what’s the NIMBY solution to the housing crisis? Keep doing the things that caused it—because soaring home values made them rich.
Two rules still hold true:
1. The rich aren’t looking out for you.
2. People who lie to you aren’t trying to help you.