A compromise was struck ahead of last night’s Cambridge City Council meeting that ensured the success of a zoning petition for the Cambridge Street Corridor, from Cambridge Street’s intersection with Fayette Street through Inman Square to its East Cambridge intersection with East Street. The amended petition, which passed by a 6-3 vote, keeps most of the area, including all of Inman Square, zoned at a maximum of six stories. Zoning will increase to an allowed 12 stories in the two-block section of the corridor north of Cambridge Street’s intersections with Webster Ave. and Windsor Street, and an allowed 10 stories near the Lechmere Station.
This zoning change is less ambitious than the version of the petition proposed at the Council’s first regular meeting of 2026 two weeks ago, which was tabled to be revisited this week. The original petition in December called for eight stories of allowed heights along Cambridge Street, as well as up to 15 stories near Lechmere. If not approved at last night’s meeting, either version of the petition would have expired and all areas would remain zoned for six stories.
The original zoning ordinance would have implemented many of the recommendations of the Our Cambridge Street Study, which was conducted between fall of 2021 and fall of 2022. The amendment lowering height maximums was proposed by Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui and Councillor Patty Nolan.
“Instead of letting [the petition] expire, we can always improve things. I don’t believe in acting in a way that is too capricious or just too quickly,” said Nolan during last night’s meeting. “However, this process has been going on for several years. These amendments are very much in line with the Our Cambridge Street work that a huge range of people in the city were involved in.”
Webster Ave block to Upzone, Most of Inman Unaffected
Some councillors were unenthusiastic in their support for the amendment, but saw it as necessary.
“From my perspective, it’s a very, very mild improvement over the current zoning,” said Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem, who voted in favor of both the amendment and the petition itself. “I think that it’s important for us to feel like we finished our process, even if I’m not entirely excited about the results.”
Councillor Marc McGovern also spoke tepidly in favor of the amendment, saying this compromise is what it took to get to the six votes required to pass the measure. “It is not the leap forward that I think we need if we’re going to address our housing shortage. But it is better to pass this than to not pass this.”
Whether the proposal would lead to more affordable housing was debated by both the councillors and public commenters. Developers in areas with six-story limits will only be subject to affordability requirements if plans for new buildings include more than ten units and more than 10,000 square feet of floorspace. Buildings larger than six stories in the Webster-Windsor and Lechmere areas will automatically be subject to setting aside 20% of floor space for affordable units.
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler spoke against the amendment, citing limitations to the total amount of affordable housing the plan could provide.
“The choice is not between development and no development. The choice is between shorter buildings that are 100 percent market rate, which is what we’re getting now, or slightly taller buildings that are going to create hundreds of new affordable homes,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said. He did end up voting in favor of the overall petition, saying he did not want to block the moderate progress being made.
“We know this will create more affordable housing, and which is the main question I need answered. It feels hypocritical for me to vote for an additional delay here when we know the answer already,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said.
The new zoning also requires that buildings taller than six stories in the Webster-Windsor and Lechmere areas have the ground floor reserved for “active uses” such as small businesses. The Council is currently awaiting further policy options from city staff on how to improve active use requirements for the rest of the corridor.
Councillors Tim Flaherty and Ayah Al-Zubi both spoke against the amended petition. Al-Zubi said she was concerned that the city’s upcoming Nexus study, due June of this year, will lead to a decrease in the 20% affordability requirement for large buildings, and therefore the petition as amended would provide a missed opportunity to lock in the current rate with developers.
“What makes it really especially difficult for me to support this tonight is we’re giving away our leverage for free,” said Al-Zubi.
Final Votes:
For the Siddiqui-Nolan Amendment:
Yes: Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Zusy, Siddiqui
No: Flaherty, Sobrinho-Wheeler
Present: Al-Zubi
For the Cambridge Street Zoning Ordinance (as amended):
Yes: Azeem, McGivern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui
No: Al-Zubi, Flaherty, Zusy
The council had a full agenda with other significant items, including a possible incursion into the Boston area by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Stickney House’s landmark status, a plant-based treaty, and whether to make JFK Street two ways again.
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.
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, we don’t know anything of the sort. How do you figure we’d be getting “hundreds” more homes with two additional stories? Show me some uncooked data based on something other than your ideological fantasies.
To everyone who just had to vote for this, why? Is it just so you get a Victory at the start of a new term? Is it just because passing something, anything, it doesn’t matter what it is, is somehow your concept of your job? If you ask me, your job is to pass good legislation, and I bet I have a lot of company on that.
Disappointing these Councillors opposed and watered it down. Cambridge has a housing shortage, and half measures like this one aren’t going to add enough housing to bring rents down.
I agree with @Reader. Cambridge needs housing. More residents mean more customers for local businesses. More density supports more businesses and reduces dependence on cars. And as many studies show, more housing lowers housing costs.
It’s a shame the council watered this down. They should have approved taller buildings and all the benefits that come with more homes.
@HeatherHoffman if you are wondering why two more floors produce more housing, please take a look at any 4 story building and imagine it having 2 more stories. Would you get 50% more apartments? Yes, you would. There is no objective metric on why we should not be building taller to produce more housing during our extreme housing shortage. Finally, everyone wants good policies. That is truism. We must discuss specifics. I argue (together with many Cambridge City councilors) that taller buildings are just fine and help alleviate the housing shortages and extreme costs. You are welcome to produce an argument against it. But please let’s assume that you and I want a good housing policy.