Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writers.
Cambridge residents have what look like a plethora of affordable housing options. There are vouchers, whether state, federal or the new municipal offerings. Inclusionary Zoning requires affordable units. We offer income-restricted housing provided by the Cambridge Housing Authority and the city’s non-profit developers. But we still have over 20,000 families on the waitlist to receive affordable housing. We need more options and new models. We think this is where social housing comes in.
Social housing is a publicly owned model of developing housing that is, distinctly, controlled and governed by the residents, somewhat analogous to a board for a co-op association. It’s also mixed income, with a portion of the units permanently reserved for low-income residents. Because the housing is publicly owned, the income from higher-rent units does not yield investor profits, but instead is used to do things like expand the number of affordable units in the building, create more social housing developments, and maintain high quality green spaces and community rooms in the building.
This model is powerful, as we see in many places where social housing has long been a core part of the housing ecosystem. Housing advocates often cite Vienna where a plurality of units (about 40%) are in social housing developments. This has huge implications for the private rental market, which in Vienna historically was seen as a lower quality housing option, but more recently have been renovated to be on par with government-owned social housing. Rents in Vienna, too, are significantly lower than in other European cities, in part due to the percentage of social housing units, and in part due to strong tenant protections in place in Vienna and Austria.
Closer to home, housing experts have applauded Montgomery County, Maryland’s $100 million revolving social housing fund, which requires residential developments to reserve at least 30% of units as affordable for low-income tenants. This fund makes it simpler and more cost effective for non-profit developers and the County to build housing. Instead of being forced to piece together funding from bank loans, grants, private donations, corporate sponsorships and other sources, housing developers can leverage the revolving fund to finish stalled housing developments or start fresh ones.
Social housing is now on the table for Cambridge because in 2023, State Rep. Mike Connolly introduced legislation to establish a social housing program in Massachusetts. He worked with the Healey-Driscoll Administration and House leadership to include funding authorization for a social housing pilot program as part of the $275 million green and sustainable housing line item in 2024’s $5 billion Affordable Homes Act.
Cambridge is well-positioned to seize this opportunity. The City owns land that could be developed into social housing, and the moment to act is now. Building on the Council’s passage of a September 2025 Policy Order on social housing, the December2025 Housing Committee meeting, and the April 2026 Finance Committee meeting (where five councillors voted to make social housing a budget priority for long term scoping and planning) the Mayor and City Manager have established a Social Housing Task Force composed of elected officials (including the authors of this column), city staff, and community housing advocates and experts. This group starts work next month to evaluate whether social housing is feasible in Cambridge and make recommendations.
Communities around the country are struggling with an affordability crisis. Cambridge has a chance to help lead the way by establishing a social housing approach to bring to the United States what has been proven over decades in other countries. We have the opportunity to create vibrant housing for residents that is publicly owned, permanently affordable and directed by the people who live there. We’re looking forward to starting the work.
The writers are Cambridge city councillors; Siddiqui is also the city’s mayor.
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.
Cambridge has taken the positive steps to address the housing crisis like the AHO and zoning reform. Building more homes of all types, including adding a high‑quality social housing sector is how we can lower rents, reduce displacement, and make Cambridge a place where regular people, not just the wealthy, can live.
Cambridge is a very dense city. It is straining to provide services to those already living here. That is, the city’s budget has been increasing at an unsustainable rate in order to keep up with the growth in population.
This has already caused a significant loss of economic middle class residents who were house rich and cash poor.
Do we want that to continue. No!
The city council appears to be willing to keep spending, spendng , spending.
This is going to mean we will have a city of low income families and those who can afford the large increases in taxes. That is no a recipe for a diverse city.
Stop trying to bring more people into Cambridge.
Why do only the rich and the poor have a “right” to live in Cambridge?
Why do we insist on making our housing a lottery?
Why is it in anyone’s interest in the town to have 20,000 more people living on the dole in housing they cant pay for?
Living in Cambridge is not a right. That is stupid. Is living in Stoneham not a right? What about Walpole? Why is living in one specific spot a right over another?
Wow. 20,000 people want free housing in one of the worlds premier cities. I’m sure if we build 20,000 units and put them in it there will be no more people looking for housing on Cambridge! We’ll solve it.
Cambridge isn’t “too dense”. It’s too exclusionary. The budget is rising because of wages, health care, schools, and infrastructure. It is not because we allowed a few more apartments. Blocking housing while high‑wage jobs expand is exactly how you end up with only the very rich and the very poor: Middle‑income people get outbid, not “driven out by services.”
“Living in Cambridge isn’t a right” is a dodge. No one is demanding a guaranteed condo on Brattle Street. People are asking to be able to rent or buy somewhere in the city instead of being priced out by engineered scarcity. Social and mixed‑income housing are how successful cities keep nurses, teachers, grad students, and service workers near their jobs, instead of becoming commuter playgrounds for the top 5 percent.
And the “20,000 people on the dole” line misstates what that number is. It’s a rough count of households who can’t afford existing rents, not a line of people demanding “free” luxury units.
If supply keeps lagging far behind demand in “one of the world’s premier cities,” more people will keep competing for too few homes. That is how we got a housing crisis. It is not how we solve it!