Two zoning petitions that could reshape much of Cambridge’s biggest traffic corridors and squares will come back to committee Dec. 2 instead of heading directly to the full City Council for a vote.
While council Ordinance Committee members generally supported the zoning changes Thursday, they raised concerns about unintended consequences.
The zoning petitions for North Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street, each coming out of 18-month community planning studies, would add homes through height and density, encourage active ground-floor business space and establish new urban design standards.
Councillors agreed that adding housing is important but expressed worry about how the changes might affect neighborhood character. Councillor Cathie Zusy stressed that while density matters, the area’s charm must be preserved.
“I don’t want to give up Cambridge’s magic with this zoning,” said Zusy, referring to neighborhood greenery, open and public space, and historic character. “I don’t want to give up a livability as we densify.”
Zusy stressed the need for reviews on taller buildings rather than allowing them by right, warning against “designing by zoning rather than by design.”
Taller residential buildings
The Massachusetts Avenue zoning, stretching from Cambridge Common to Alewife Brook Parkway and the Arlington town line, would allow residential buildings up to 12 stories along the corridor, with up to 18 stories closer to Porter Square in exchange for more open space and required retail frontage.
The Cambridge Street zoning allows residential buildings up to eight stories along the corridor, with higher limits in some areas: up to 10 stories in parts of Inman Square, 12 stories near Webster Avenue and Windsor Street, and 15 stories in the Lechmere area.
A planning process several years ago recommended an 11-story cap for Massachusetts Avenue; the additional story is based on council recommendations “to tie the height to current development trends,” said Melissa Peters, assistant city manager for community development. Similarly, the jump to eight stories on Cambridge Street from the study’s original six-story recommendation is because “we felt that the corridors needed to be at a higher density” than the six stories made possible citywide by multifamily housing zoning enacted in February.
The height increases sparked questions about whether the petition’s 5 percent open-space requirement was sufficient. Zusy pointed out that in many recent multifamily projects, much of this “open space” has been balconies or rooftop areas, which are not accessible to the public. This is “not really open space,” she said.
McGovern, in turn, noted a city study showing 99 percent of Cambridge residents live a quarter-mile from a park or a playground. “That’s pretty good in a city as densely populated as ours,” he said. “so I’m not sure every building needs to have a backyard.”
Parking and small business
Parking scarcity was also a concern for councillors. Zusy expressed deep concern about the proposal’s lack of attention to parking requirements, especially as the city densifies. She cited recent meetings about affordable and luxury projects where neighbors were “very, very upset about parking.”
“People that are living [there], whether they’re in luxury units or affordable units, are going to need parking,” Zusy said. She questioned her peers on the council, saying that they were “blind to the realities when every one of us in this room have a car.”
Still, if the goal was to add housing to ease a housing crisis, “our corridors are the place for dense housing without parking, because it’s well served by transit,” Peters said.
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler added that this is especially the case in areas with nightlife uses, noting that encouraging people to drive to places where they might drink “made absolutely no sense.”
Protection of small businesses was also a concern, with councillors raising the alarm of potential displacement that could be see a shop or restaurant close forever. Councillor Patty Nolan questioned if there was a way to ensure protection for them, and councillor Sumbul Siddiqui asked if the city had power to require developers to help with relocation or find another location for displaced businesses.
The Law Department can explore it, city solicitor Megan Bayer said, but she warned that such laws might violate the state’s powers in regard to the civil landlord-tenant relationship.
Need for housing
Despite the concerns, the six of nine councillors at the meeting were generally supportive of the proposed changes and how they reflected a key recommendation of the three-year Envision Cambridge planning process: for development along corridors. The city was “heading in the right direction,” councillor Burhan Azeem said.
That development master plan – though never getting a formal council process or technically adopted – had a target of building 12,500 net new housing units by 2030, bringing Cambridge to 67,213 from the baseline of 54,713 in 2018.
“A lot of folks will say, ‘Oh, we’re halfway to Envision – there’s 6,000 units.’ We have not built 6,000 units since 2020. We may have 6,000 units permitted,” McGovern said. City staff should “make these distinctions a little more clear of what has actually been built versus what has been permitted.”
Peters tacitly agreed with McGovern’s analysis. “We have to be nimble and adapt in terms of our housing production. We’re still not near our housing goals,” Peters said. “It’s very much incumbent on us to identify these locations and create more housing opportunity.”
Avoiding a rushed decision
Councillors decided they were not ready to vote the petitions onward.
“We don’t want to look like we rushed through this,” Zusy said. “This zoning has the potential to dramatically change the face of Cambridge Street and North Mass Ave.”
Councillors also advocated for more community engagement on the issue. Councillor Ayesha Wilson said she was troubled by a fast pace to a vote, citing the many emails she received on the topic. She advocated for an additional Ordinance Committee meeting to allow “more community engagement and more to hear more from the public on their thoughts.”
Bayer warned against too much delay or amendment – anything that would change the “fundamental character” of the petitions and necessitate refiling. The petitions expire Jan. 28.
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.
To Counselor Wheeler…I believe the spirit of the discussion was about parking availability within the new housing developments rather than adding parking along the corridor? There are a few development projects that will not have on-site parking according to existing plans. Nearly 50% of Cambridge residents of age, have a car.
The idea that North Mass Ave has a coherent ‘character’ to protect is… generous. It’s mostly a patchwork of whatever. More people, more small businesses, and more housing could actually create a real character – not threaten one.
Someone needs to remind certain councilors that more density means more customers for local businesses, and lower rents leave people with more money to spend locally. Prioritizing driving and parking makes little sense on corridors already served by public transit.
Encouraging density along transit routes helps local businesses thrive, keeps Cambridge more affordable, and supports a more sustainable transportation system. Resisting these changes mainly protects car convenience, not the city’s long-term health or diversity.