Zoning changes along Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street won Cambridge Planning Board recommendation Tuesday after some hesitation and lengthy discussion.
The rezonings in the two petitions would incentivize active ground floors with uses such as food halls and nightclubs, encourage open space and, in a city struggling for more housing, extend height limits.
Massachusetts Avenue could see up to 12 stories of residential uses along its length, and up to 18 stories of residential in Porter Square in exchange for increased open space requirements and minimum retail density; Cambridge Street could see up to eight stories of residential uses along its length, and up to 10 stories in parts of Inman Square; up to 12 in the Webster Avenue and Windsor Street area; and up to 15 stories in the Lechmere area.
The two petitions, presented by Community Development Department staff, are the result of multiple working groups, studies and community meetings conducted over the past few years, including Envision Cambridge, the Mass Ave Planning Study and Our Cambridge Street.
Many of the specific zoning changes are the same or similar for both petitions, including permitted establishments uses, setbacks, design standards and open space requirements. CDD staff presented the petitions for joint review, though some members of the public recommended separate consideration for the two corridors.
Massachusetts Avenue changes
While most permitted uses in the Massachusetts Avenue corridor would remain, additions in the rezoning include hotels, craft retail establishments, food stands and food halls, and nightclubs and theaters allowed previously only through a special-permit request process. Welcoming these establishments was an effort to “remove barriers to uses that fit well within the corridor and would contribute to a vibrant mixed-use environment,” senior zoning manager Evan Spetrini said.
The petition would allow for greater height for residential projects with an increase to eight stories for residential-only buildings and up to 12 stories for mixed use projects with active ground floors. Examples of “active use” establishments allowed on the ground floor of those larger residential buildings would be all institutional uses such as day cares and libraries, all retail and consumer services, and some medical and professional office spaces, such as a dentist or attorney’s office. Banks and lab spaces are not included. The petition does not propose change to nonresidential height and density.
Zoning around Porter Square, in a Porter Square Overlay District, allows for greater height under “planned unit development” standards meant to make a neighborhood feel cohesive. New zoning would allow up to 18 residential stories on Massachusetts Avenue in some areas, with a retail requirement and a minimum of 20 percent of lot area dedicated to open space. The special permit also allows parking for multiple uses to be pooled into one facility.
Yard setbacks and upper-story stepbacks under the new zoning differ based on the lot lines with fronts on a primary street (Massachusetts and Somerville avenues) vs. a secondary street (all others in the area). Front yard setback dimensions were designed to enhance sidewalk space and encourage street trees, and the upper story stepbacks create “comfortable transitions toward the lower height limits in the surrounding neighborhoods,” Spetrini said. There are no side yard setbacks required along the primary street.
The effort to encourage open space on the mixed-use corridor was balanced with the concern that too much space could take away from street activity, CDD staff said. For buildings eight stories or less, no open space is required. For buildings that reach nine stories or more, 15 percent of the total area of the lot must be open space, 10 percent being public or “publicly beneficial” – defined as visually accessible to the public. Existing zoning on most of the business corridor has no open space requirement.
Beyond dimensional standards, the proposed zoning also sets some design requirements. Using an example of a 12-story mixed-use building, 20 percent of the total facade must be clear glass, which increases to 50 percent for the ground story. Ground story heights are set at a minimum of 15 feet, and each use must have an entrance directly on a primary street. Other design standards, which vary by project square feet, include recesses, street trees, floor plate limits, balconies and front yard usable areas.
Cambridge Street corridor
Many of the proposed changes to zoning in the Cambridge Street corridor are the same as the Massachusetts Avenue petition, with a primary exception being height limits. Residential height limits increase to eight stories from six in some districts, and up to 15 stories in others, all with the provision of active ground floor uses. The greater height limits are focused in the major Inman and Lechmere squares that bookend the corridor.
There are more dedicated primary streets in the Cambridge Street corridor where active uses are emphasized: Cambridge Street, North First Street, Hampshire Street, Monsignor O’Brien Highway and Prospect Street. Setbacks are largely similar to Massachusetts Avenue, with slightly larger front yards to make up for the narrower sidewalks on Cambridge Street
Stepbacks are established above 75 feet, as opposed to 100 feet on Massachusetts Avenue, and vary based on district so buildings with upper stories are set back further from the primary streets. “All of this is to allow for additional housing potential without being too overbearing on the main corridor,” Spetrini said.
Open space requirements are similar to the Massachusetts Avenue proposals, with taller buildings required to have more open space, some which needs to be public or publicly beneficial. Design standards are also the same.
Public comment
The board got 93 comments on the Massachusetts Avenue petition and 89 on Cambridge Street before the meeting, and then came spoken testimony: Some people expressing frustrations about changes from the previous meetings to the final petition, namely on height allowances, some revealing concern and even distrust in the planning process. Some called for additional community meetings and more engagement with neighbors.
“To be honest, I feel misled,” said Gordon Moore, who was involved in previous meetings. “What we were presented, and what was the last opportunity for us to dive in deep, is very different from what’s being presented now.” Spetrini explained later that the planning process allowed for “broad-strokes ideas,” while the petition required a “much closer look” with the priority to allow for more housing space.
The greater height allowances raised the common concern that major neighborhoods would be changed. “We want people in the neighborhood, we want to develop that site. We have wanted that for many, many years,” Mariette Murphy said. “But this is so inconsistent with the neighborhood.”
Other points of concern included the lack of parking, setbacks with neighboring abutters, specific open space requirements and the financial feasibility of larger projects during an economic downturn. Joshua Gerber, a member of the Envision Cambridge working group, noted the final petitions reversed Envision’s call for smaller, more affordable retail space sizes, which could lead to more storefronts only chains or large establishments could afford.
Speakers in support of the two petitions emphasized increased housing as their top priority. “There is a deep need for more housing in Cambridge, especially in a moment when cheaper states and regions are increasingly unsafe ones for many communities,” Benjamin Johnson-Staub said.
One speaker described the lack of parking requirement as “an extraordinary breath of fresh air.” Justin Saif urged the board to consider the demographic of residents most likely to appear at a meeting, citing research that found participants are more likely to be homeowners and are “much older, whiter, wealthier” than average residents. “Please don’t let a small number of noisy people derail a very difficult and potentially promising project,” James Zall said.
Board review
One of the major hesitations from board members was the possibility that height limits could be further extended by Affordable Housing Overlay zoning, passed in 2020 and amended in 2023 to make it easier to build projects in which every home is affordable. “On the one hand, I want to support these petitions, but I also have a lot of fear around it,” board chair Mary Flynn said.
Jeff Roberts, CDD’s zoning and development director, noted the financing for affordable housing projects “don’t really promote or lend themselves well to taller, high-rise development.” While the department is in close communication with affordable-housing providers, Roberts noted that zoning is only one piece of that puzzle.
Board members deliberated on the specifics of open space, noting particularly the difference between visually accessible and physically accessible public spaces. Some questioned the economic feasibility of larger projects and the possibility that developments would fall short of the increased housing potential.
Many commended the proposal as a step in addressing the city’s need for housing. “This is an attempt to resolve a big problem we have,” board member H Theodore Cohen said. “And if it doesn’t work, then the city can amend it again.”
In two votes, all seven board members recommend the petitions to the City Council with a summary of their key concerns. The petitions await hearings with the council’s Ordinance Committee on Oct. 30 and Nov. 13. In the second, the committee will decide whether to recommend the zoning to the City Council – though the committee is “of the whole,” meaning every councillor is a member anyway, and there can be little difference between the positions heard as a committee discussion moves formally to the 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.
Good news. Cities must evolve to stay vibrant and inclusive. This change adds much-needed housing and removes burdens like parking minimums that drive up costs.
Some want to freeze Cambridge in amber, but NIMBY policies harm cities by limiting housing, worsening affordability, stifling growth, and deepening inequality.
Urban research consistently shows that restrictive zoning raises costs, slows economic activity, and pushes people farther from jobs and services.
It also fuels racial and economic segregation through rules like large minimum lot sizes and single-family zoning, which exclude low- and middle-income families from high-opportunity neighborhoods.
It’s encouraging to see Cambridge embracing needed reforms.
This is crazy. No one who actually lives here could possibly be in support of this. What is it about people that want to ruin anything nice?
People struggling to pay rent isn’t “nice.” What’s nice is providing housing for workers and families and supporting reforms that keep Cambridge diverse and inclusive. I live here and support that.
Who disagrees? The article makes it clear: opponents “are more likely to be homeowners and are much older, whiter, and wealthier than average residents.”
Wealthy people are doing fine. Others need our support.
@TheCambridgeObserver I want this. I want 10x more of this. I want my son to afford rent when he graduates. I want his teachers to afford to live in Cambridge. I want more nice neighbors and more businesses close to me. Much nicer than people trying to drive into Cambridge for jobs.
opponents are not all older white, wealthy homeowners. That continues to be ageist much like cyclists who focus on young able-bodied residents who forget about the disabilities act. At what age do elderly become obsolete? many people worried are those who inherited from generations, who are landlords to many renters paying affordable prices, who are property rich but cash poor, who live in neighborhoods of scale, community, history, who actually DO accommodate new construction infill (Tantamount to missing middle). Why do lower income people have to be warehoused in ugly buildings with no green space. the heavy-handed council is triggered by emotion, not practicality, sustainability, compromise. who wants to live in Kendall sq or Alewife? The process and this ordinance committee has been pre-determined from the beginning thanks to the expert political maneuvering of its chair and his sidekick.
@pete
Cambridge’s housing debate is about whether the city allows enough homes for the people who work, study, and grow up here.
Claims of ageism are a distraction. Protecting exclusionary zoning hurts everyone, especially older residents on fixed incomes and young families priced out of their own community.
Invoking the Disability Act is another red herring. Many disabled and elderly residents can’t drive or afford cars. Removing parking minimums lowers development costs, improving housing affordability. This vital for low-income seniors and disabled residents.
Being “property rich but cash poor” is a problem caused by housing scarcity, not reform. Allowing more homes of all kinds helps stabilize prices and keep neighborhoods inclusive.
Calling new housing “warehousing the poor” insults the many apartment dwellers who deserve decent, sustainable homes near transit and jobs.
Cambridge’s progress isn’t “heavy-handed.” It’s long overdue.
Is the Seaport a model of racial and economic desegregation? Did it reduce rents for workers and families? Does it have minimal people trying to drive in? Because development like the Seaport is what this zoning would allow, except instead of parking lots next to the superblocks, in Cambridge there are people next door whose lifelong homes will be seriously degraded.
No, don’t freeze Cambridge in amber, and don’t limit new construction to two-family condos with big yards. But there’s a way to balance increased density and avoiding boxing out small neighboring buildings. This proposal isn’t it.
I was in South Korea recently. Even though Seoul and other cities are dense with super high-rise buildings, many, if not most have underground garages some going down six or more stories. This is with public transportation functioning on a higher level than ours. Additionally, even the business district has beautifully designed pocket parks, many with mature trees that have been protected and cared for. Cambridge’s plan has none of these livability features.