Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writers.
There is no NIMBY in Cambridge. We all live within blocks of restaurants, small businesses, luxury apartments, and community-supported housing. As Cantabrigians, we support affordable housing and want our public servants and working families to live here, too. We value diversity and understand that not everyone has equal access to wealth or homeownership. Our city has always prided itself on collaboration and creative problem-solving. We now need to work together to address the affordable housing crisis.
Unfortunately, our City Council, with the exception of Cathie Zusy, has convinced itself that there is only one way to solve the housing problem: by giving developers free rein through the misleadingly named MultiFamily Zoning legislation. This law dramatically expands the size of buildings allowed on residential lots while stripping residents of their right to review and mitigate harmful impacts — for example, the destruction of trees, loss of open space, solar obstruction, and parking shortages.
The idea that for-profit developers will voluntarily build affordable homes for firefighters, teachers, or city workers is wishful thinking. They are not building Section 8 or rent-to-own housing; they are building six-story luxury buildings filled mostly with expensive studios. Since this zoning passed, demolition permits have more than doubled as historic and modestly priced homes are being torn down. At best, the new projects will replace — not increase — the number of affordable units, all while reducing neighborhood livability.
Cambridge, home to Harvard, MIT, and a booming biotech sector, is one of the most profitable real estate markets in the country. This is not a simple supply-and-demand problem—demand here is virtually infinite. Allowing unrestricted high-end development will never make housing more affordable. Instead, it drives up land prices, pushes out middle-income families, and replaces our community with transience.
A real solution requires thoughtful, citizen-driven planning. We must recognize that increasing density everywhere indiscriminately is not the same as creating affordability. Cambridge can responsibly add housing by focusing density along major transit corridors, as proposed in Envision Cambridge: A Plan for the Future of the City. We can adopt neighborhood-specific zoning that respects local character and infrastructure capacity while still increasing housing options. And we must empower residents — not investors — to shape how their city grows.
To create genuine affordability, Cambridge needs to partner with nonprofit housing organizations that build Section 8 and mixed-income developments designed for long-term community stability. We should promote ownership models — like limited-equity cooperatives, rent-to-own programs, and city-backed low-interest mortgages — that help working families build equity and generational wealth.
Instead, the current zoning approach is inflating land values and putting homeownership further out of reach. About a quarter of Cambridge’s housing is owned by senior citizens, much of which will enter the market soon. Under the new rules, each parcel is now valued as a potential site for a luxury apartment building, only large developers and investment firms can afford to buy property now. Home ownership is the mechanism to pass down generational wealth and is the biggest factor in the wealth disparity in the Boston area. The new zoning shuts out young and lower-income families and turns Cambridge into a city of renters with little stake in its long-term future.
Cambridge cannot solve this problem alone. We are the second-densest city in Massachusetts and one of the top 25 densest in the country, with just 6.4 square miles of buildable land. Between 2015 and 2023, Cambridge added 5,823 new housing units — a 12.5% increase in our housing stock — and yet prices continued to rise. This proves that luxury development does not create affordability. We need a coordinated regional plan that includes surrounding cities, ensuring that every community contributes to affordable housing production.
We created CARE Housing because many Cantabrigians felt unheard and uninformed about the scope and consequences of recent zoning changes. We believe that Cambridge can increase affordable housing without sacrificing our neighborhoods, environment, or quality of life. But that will only happen if residents, not developers, guide the conversation.
We must elect city councillors who listen to citizens, who understand that zoning is a tool for balance — not a blank check for profit — and who are committed to evidence-based, inclusive solutions. Cambridge’s future should not be dictated by the highest bidder. It should be shaped by the people who live here, love this city, and are determined to keep it a diverse and livable community for all.
The writers founded CARE Housing – a citizens group that supports Affordable Responsible and Equal Housing.
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.
We can’t solve the problem alone, but we can be leaders in solving the problem that we are helping to create.
We added ~50k jobs in the last 25 years, but nowhere near the same number of homes. That is the primary reason for the huge price increases, and it’s something we need to reckon with.
I agree developers won’t willingly build affordable housing (that’s why we have the 20% IZ requirements), but restricting the number of units that can be built on a site will only ever make prices go up, because developers aren’t charities, they won’t take on a loss.
Like it or not, this zoning has been the result of residents, not developers. We’ve made our voices heard, we elected this council, and we showed up to the public meetings to voice support.
Appreciate the thoughtful and balanced perspective. I care about affordability and community. I also agree that the we need to dramatically change the City Council so we can address the financial, safety and housing issues that face our city – this council , with the exception of Zusy and Nolan, is not up to the task
Cambridge’s multifamily zoning reform is not a blank check for developers, It’s a necessary step toward making room for people who have long been priced out.
For years, restrictive zoning has limited new housing to small areas, driving up costs across the city. The new rules expand options for renters, families, and workers who deserve to call Cambridge home.
Developers still face review under existing building, tree, and environmental standards. Adding more homes across more neighborhoods helps relieve pressure that has excluded all but the wealthy. And developers should not be expected to build homes at a loss. They are in business to make money.
Cambridge’s progress depends on shared responsibility, every part of the city must do its part to welcome new neighbors to solve a real crisis.
“turns Cambridge into a city of renters with little stake in its long-term future.”
You are mistaken. There are many life long residents who are and have always been renters. We have a lot at stake in how this City operates. Please do not be dismissive of us.
Thank you for the balanced and thoughtful perspective. As the article perfectly alluded to, we need a new council and replace radical ideology, with sensible perspectives that takes into consideration the residents of Cambridge that are committed to building community.
There’s lots to comment on here, but I’ll focus on paragraph 7. It commits a common error — mixing up time periods.
The current zoning, which allows more housing, especially multi-family, has only been in effect for eight months. Several buildings have been proposed; none have been built. Current zoning is NOT, as alleged here, “putting homeownership further out of reach,” nor “shut[ting] out young and lower-income families.”
The previous zoning, more restrictive and in effect for over 50 years, allowed less housing to be built and effectively closed off parts of the city to more homes, for a longer time (which the authors wish to continue). Restrictions on home-building mean fewer homes, which means higher rents and prices, not lower (as another common error would have it).
Also, the authors say they want to privilege home-owning over renting to reduce cases where young and low-income residents are displaced, but since home-owning requires more money, that won’t work.
Well written article.
The multifamily zoning will increase the cost of housing here in Cambridge for everyone because it increases the cost of land.
This was echoed by the panel of local developers that spoke before the Housing Committee, also by the panel of experts convened by Councilor Zusy.
So many issues AvgJoe- you need many tens of thousands of affordable units to bring down prices. Cllr. Azeem has stated he helped make 750. That’s great! But rents won’t move. In fact, landlords have had their taxes go up on average 10% over the last year. That very often increases rent, and why did taxes go up? Because everyone’s property value went up, because now everything can be 4, 6, 12, 18 stories. In addition, the environmental standards you reference are laughable. Let’s build density, but let’s build responsibly, let’s be honest with residents (renters and owners alike) on who qualifies for affordable housing, how much other housing needs to be built to actualy lower rent for those who don’t qualify for affordable housing, and how the developers are now asking for only 10% inclusionary housing, because it’s just too expensive to support 20%. I support affordable housing, I don’t support misinformation or more luxury units.
@LL Cambridge needs more affordable homes, but focusing only on subsidized units ignores the bigger issue: total housing supply.
Decades of research shows that adding all types of housing, even market-rate, slows rent growth and frees existing homes for middle-income residents. And you don’t need “many tens of thousands of units”. There is zero evidence for that claim.
Likewise, claims about property taxes are misleading. Cambridge’s rate is moderate and offset by commercial revenue. Rents depend far more on supply and demand. The city already has strong green-building and zero-net-energy standards, so dismissing them as “laughable” ignores real climate progress.
The solution is not “do nothing”. The policies that were in place before made a few people wealthy but created a housing crisis for many.