Petitions for proposed zoning changes around Inman Square and Porter Square drew markedly different responses from Cambridge residents at Monday’s City Council meeting. Dozens of people spoke in protest of changes proposed along Cambridge Street in the area of Inman Square, while similar changes to Massachusetts Avenue around Porter Square drew far less outrage.
“[Inman Square] is diverse. It is vibrant, it is funky. And it is, as people have been saying, entirely local – there are no national chain businesses in Inman square,” Hallie Speight said. “What do you think is going to happen if you start tearing down buildings and putting up 10-story buildings? The 1369 will not survive. The S&S will not survive. All of the little businesses will be gone.”
Councillor Paul Toner offered a policy order echoing these and other public comments that Inman Square’s unique character needed protection from what was termed a “Manhattanization” that would uproot neighborhood institutions. Toner’s order would lower new development in the area from 10 stories to a maximum of eight stories, with an adjustment to the approach to ground-floor retail. The order was stopped by councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler using his charter right.
There was also what some speakers called a bait and switch in the proposals for buildings along Cambridge Street presented to councillors for a vote. The public process in the run-up to the drafting of the zoning language talked mainly of a six-story cap. Melissa Peters, assistant city manager for community development, said last month that there was a jump 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.
“[City councillors have] heard from a lot more neighbors tonight than we have in the past. I think we’ve expressed some of these same concerns about the process and the differences between the type of process Cambridge Street had versus the type of process that Massachusetts Avenue had,” said Jason Alves, executive director of the East Cambridge Business Association.
Porter Square, the new Kendall Square?
While most commenters expressed concern about Inman Square, there was also worry about the effect of growth on Porter Square. Resident Joe Adiletta, who visits daily with his family for groceries and other needs, wanted to be sure ground-floor retail was encouraged and maintained – and said he worried Porter would become another sterile-feeling Kendall Square.
Massachusetts Avenue could see up to 12 stories of residential uses along its length from Cambridge Common to Route 16, 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 building along its length, with up to 10 stories in parts of Inman Square, up to 12 in the Webster Avenue and Windsor Street area, and up to 15 in the Lechmere area.
Councillors voted each area’s plans to a second reading, which allows them to be voted as early as Dec. 22. The council could wait until Jan. 12, after a new council has been inaugurated, or Jan. 26, before the petitions expire Jan. 28; the council is unlikely to meet Dec. 29 in recognition of the holidays, and does not meet on the Jan. 19 holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.
The zoning was passed to a second reading 6-3, with Patty Nolan, Ayesha M. Wilson and Cathie Zusy opposing
Inclusionary zoning lawsuit weighed
Around three-quarters of the public comment opposed some or all of the zoning and expressed a desire to see the petitions expire so the process could restart next year – or after the lawsuit was settled. There were also voices optimistic that the creation of housing would help keep rent and real estate prices down citywide, though, and these speakers rejected the idea that the lawsuit would be a factor. Residents generally were skeptical about how zoning would be affected by a new lawsuit against “inclusionary” laws that would overturn requirements for including affordable units.
“The inclusionary housing lawsuit is not going to be successful,” said Justin Saif, an attorney in class-action, consumer and complex commercial litigation. He is a co-chair and the board president of A Better Cambridge, a group that advocates for housing development. “I really don’t understand what the fuss is about. I certainly agree that we can’t pause on housing production for who knows how many years while we wait for a frivolous lawsuit to be resolved.”
The lawsuit filed Dec. 2 in the Massachusetts Land Court argues that the zoning cannot be imposed on the expected redevelopment of a row of homes in the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood. The suit could undo a 1998 law that has created nearly 1,600 units of affordable housing.
Some councillors scoffed at the suit, or at least at the notion of making no zoning changes until a court ruled on it, which could take years.
Sobrinho-Wheeler scorned the lawsuit, filed on behalf of local developer and lawyer Patrick Barrett by the legal arm of the Pioneer Institute, a right-leaning think tank in Boston, and the Boston firm Pierce Atwood.
“This is a great example of developers and NIMBYs actually having the same goals,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said, using a term for people who say they support building but not-in-my-backyard. “Those goals are to build as little new affordable housing in Cambridge as possible, and make sure that it’s only a few well connected developers who are able to get anything done in the city. … there are folks with real concerns about this lawsuit, and I’m not trying to cast aspersions about anyone in public comment tonight, to be clear. But this lawsuit is exactly what housing-affordability opponents and zoning-change opponents want.”
Vice mayor Marc McGovern pointed out that litigation on an eminent domain case just outside Central Square took eight years to be settled, and he didn’t intend to wait to see more housing – with affordable units – go up in Cambridge.
“You could be looking at appeals and appeals,” McGovern said.
This post was updated Dec. 15, 2025, to add details of the final votes to send zoning to a second reading.
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.
Have they BEEN to Manhattan?!!
Last I checked Manhattan had buildings taller than 8 or 10 stories.
And Bank of America was a national chain business, as was 7-11.
For the record, the height policy order was separate from the ground-floor policy order.
The people claiming “S&S won’t survive!” have clearly never bothered to read a placemat at the restaurant. Having been in the area over 100 years, the family that owns the restaurant also owns most of the surrounding property. If the restaurant does shut down, it will be because they sold and reaped the profits of diligent investment in the area over the long haul.
All the pearl clutching won’t change the fact that the dumping ground of Central Square is about as “Manhattanized” as it can get so it’s time to move that foolish development elsewhere.
Inclusionary zoning ensures Cambridge builds needed housing. It’s not “Manhattanization” vs. stasis. It’s shaping growth to include middle/low-income residents amid rising rents displacing locals.
8-10 story buildings on select parcels preserve character better than pricing out diverse communities.
Claims that tall buildings will drive out local businesses makes no sense. More people mean more customers. Cheaper rents mean more money to spend on local businesses. Inclusionary zoning is good for residents and good for business.
Cambridge has changed from the moment it was founded. That’s what cities do, adapt to meet the needs of the population. If they don’t, you get a housing crisis that hurts the most vulnerable. Why do some people think they can hit the stop button once they are here?
Since we are seeing a lot “lawsuit will fail” claims by an attorney, city councillor etc they should put their own positions where there claims are.
Any councillor who assures such and thinks that in this crazy day and age of political lawsuits etc. that they can predict the courts should agree that if they are wrong to resign and NOT seek public office again in the city, and any attorney claiming they can predict the courts be willing to stop practicing law here if they are wrong.
I like tall buildings. I like vibrant neighborhoods. I like people being able to afford to live near they work. If you call that “Manhattanization”, I say, “yes, please”.
The NIMBY tactic never changes, delay, delay, delay. Meanwhile, people suffer.
And Kendall Square is way better and less sterile than it was 30 years ago. What’s the problem?
Cities change. Affluent residents who dislike it usually have the option to move somewhere quieter.
Many workers do not have that choice. They must stay near their jobs, paying extreme rents or enduring punishing commutes.
It is time for the privileged to think less about personal taste and more about the lives of people who lack those options.
Sounds like the older folks crying remembering a past Cambridge that is no longer Cool 😎 but is 2025 corporate and genterfied. More housing needed for the newcomers!
As a 30+ year resident of Cambridge & a daily user of Central Sq., I agree w/ the above that Central Sq. & Mid-Cambridge ALREADY HAVE multi-6/8/&10 story (& higher) apt. & Business buildings cheek by jowl in our area. However, it would be remarkably sad & completely silly to reprise this in Inman Sq. As many have noted, Inman is unique, fun, lively & HUMAN scale w/ local businesses & local characters that give it much of its appeal & joy to be there. Do we really want another Kendall Sq there? Kendall is an absolute desert, ghost town after 5-6PM & about as warm & fuzzy and attractive as its sterile biolabs & genomic spaces. Boring, dull & inhuman. Do not kill Inman with these absurd plans.
BTW: Why aren’t these so-called ‘affordable’ new developments being built in the areas that WERE ‘exclusonarily zoned’? (i.e. West Cambridge?). The blatant hypocrisy of it makes one want to scream. Last: Why aren’t (Harvard & MIT)creating more housing on their vast landscaped lands for students?
Reader: that BofA ATM in the spot Ryles was is an abomination.
As is the loss of Stella Bella toys for an office.
Inman Sq isn’t working now. Much more density is needed so that restaurants survive more than the 2-3 years they currently last.
The development is the eastern part of central square works and should be repeated. We can’t fear height and density. We can’t fear more foot traffic from more neighbors.
I’m also a 30+ year resident, and I strongly support increased density. It means more much-needed housing and more customers for local businesses. We should think about the broader community.
Kendall Square shows why this works. Thirty years ago it was deserted after 5 p.m. Today it has restaurants, bars, a grocery store, and an active neighborhood. There is a real community where there was very little before. Kendall Square is a success story.