Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
Cambridge’s recent radical change to its zoning ordinance has been framed as a bold step toward addressing the city’s housing shortage by expanding the construction of multifamily homes. Proponents of the multifamily housing zoning ordinance argue that allowing more units to be built on what were single-family lots will increase supply and, consequently, lower demand. As the demand decreases, prices will drop.
But in practice, the MFHZO hasn’t met these goals and instead has created a much larger problem: replacing existing one-, two-, and three-family homes with high-end, market-rate units that do not serve families, long-term residents or poor people.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the intent of this policy and the realities of our economy. Cambridge land prices are among the highest in the region because of our world-class universities, our biotech and research cluster in Kendall Square and our close proximity to Boston. Developers are financially incentivized by the MFHZO to build luxury or upper-tier market-rate housing. The cost of land acquisition, construction and financing, along with the pressures of fiduciary obligations owed to investors, requires that new developments target the highest possible price point. Because our new “as of right” zoning allowances are not tied to strict affordability requirements or subsidies, the result is predictable: Developers have proposed building expensive housing that maximizes a return, not the type of housing that provides families a pathway to a roof over their head.
The potential loss of existing housing stock is alarming, because many of the properties now eligible for redevelopment under the MFHZO are older homes in middle-class neighborhoods. Places like East Cambridge, Strawberry Hill, the Highlands, North Cambridge and most of West Cambridge. Granted, these homes are not “affordable” by traditional definitions, yet they still provide relatively attainable options for families, especially when compared to the new construction that is being proposed. These older homes also usually offer larger living areas, more bedrooms, outdoor space and neighborhood stability — qualities that are non-existent in the new proposals. Universally, what is proposed are smaller, more expensive units designed for higher-income buyers or transient renters, not families looking to put down roots.
The proposal at 9 Wyman Street is Exhibit A. There, a developer purchased a single-family home on a tiny cul-de-sac at the corner of Huron Ave and Sparks Street, and now plans to have it demolished and replaced by a six-story building with 56 apartments. The units are almost entirely studios and one-bedroom apartments. Due to the height, the MFHZO requires a 20% commitment to inclusionary housing. That translates into a massively out-of-scale building, wedged into a residential neighborhood without walkable access to public transit or off-street parking.
The predictable outcome will be displacement, especially for middle-income families. In a single generation, we run the risk that Cambridge will become less economically diverse, with fewer housing options for teachers, municipal workers and young families who have historically been the most integral part of our community fabric.
If the goal of the MFHZO is truly to expand affordability and support families, then our zoning reform must be connected to targeted measures. Senator Elizabeth Warren just showed us how this can be done. She secured bipartisan support to pass the 21st Century Road to Housing Act in Congress. Senator Warren recognizes that our housing shortage is a regional issue, and she worked to develop a regional solution. Her legislation includes incentives, streamlines regulations, and places tough restrictions on private equity purchases. According to the Boston Globe, she came to these ideas after meeting with mayors from across Massachusetts. “What’s needed out on the Cape is not what’s needed in Pittsfield,” Warren said, “What would be helpful in Boston is different than what would be helpful in West Springfield.”
Cambridge is committed to spending approximately $40 million dollars per year on affordable housing, it is the second or third densest city in the Commonwealth and it has transit connections to the more affordable communities of Somerville and Medford, thanks in part to the recent $2.2 billion Green line extension. And we have our unique market constraints.
Cambridge has always prided itself on being a diverse, vibrant and inclusive city. Maintaining that identity while alleviating a housing shortage requires more than increasing density. We need policies that intertwine smart development with specific community needs. The MFHZO does not meet that goal.
We should consider amendments to the MFHZO that include stronger inclusionary zoning requirements, incentives for family-sized units, preservation programs for existing housing and financial tools that make it feasible to build below-market-rate homes. Without necessary safeguards that are specifically tied to zoning reform, the current approach exacerbates the very problem it seeks to solve.
We can do better. If we don’t, we consign ourselves to neighborhoods reshaped by market forces whose aim will not be affordability.
Flaherty is a Cambridge City Councillor.
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.
“radical change to its zoning ordinance”?!! The author must be talking about some other Cambridge, because in our city 4+2 floors everywhere plus slightly taller buildings along a few streets are far far far from radical (and far from what we need to build enough housing to keep up with the pent up demand).
Seems like CDD agrees with you Councilor Flaherty.
They just presented their own suggested changes to the multi family housing zoning.
Which basically means that the zoning was rushed through to begin with.
Hard to know where to start in replying to this malarkey, but it is interesting Cllr Flaherty makes no notions toward the speculative real estate incentives that produced his own single family home. Those were just and moral of course.
To any reader who might see this – Wyman Road is filled with $3-12.5 Million dollar homes. That’s the little guy Cllr Flaherty is sticking up for. Of course that’s just one MFH project. And there are a few that resulted in no net increase (like the old zoning allowed too). Nearly all are somewhere in between, the gentle density increases people claim to want –
Just not in their back yard.
Cities used to change over time. Ours can, again.
“Proponents of the multifamily housing zoning ordinance argue that allowing more units to be built on what were single-family lots will increase supply and, consequently, lower demand. As the demand decreases, prices will drop.
But in practice, the MFHZO hasn’t met these goals”
Of course it hasn’t, it just passed last year. I don’t believe any developments made possible by multifamily zoning reform have finished construction. Many are in the planning stages and are not yet permitted.
“The potential loss of existing housing stock is alarming, because many of the properties now eligible for redevelopment under the MFHZO are older homes in middle-class neighborhoods. Places like East Cambridge, Strawberry Hill, the Highlands, North Cambridge and most of West Cambridge.”
West Cambridge a middle class neighborhood? It has the highest income in the city:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/news/2023/6/-/media/29D98ACC3C2347C48D4982BBDF24DBB0.ashx
“The proposal at 9 Wyman Street is Exhibit A. There, a developer purchased a single-family home on a tiny cul-de-sac at the corner of Huron Ave and Sparks Street, and now plans to have it demolished and replaced by a six-story building with 56 apartments. The units are almost entirely studios and one-bedroom apartments. Due to the height, the MFHZO requires a 20% commitment to inclusionary housing. That translates into a massively out-of-scale building, wedged into a residential neighborhood without walkable access to public transit or off-street parking.
The predictable outcome will be displacement, especially for middle-income families.”
How on earth is 9 Wyman going to lead to the displacement of middle income families?
The editorial gets the housing math backwards: in a high‑demand, underbuilt city, blocking multifamily projects increases displacement rather than easing it.
When you “save” one expensive house by killing a 56‑unit project, you are not protecting the middle class; you are ensuring that 55 higher‑income households still arrive but must outbid existing residents somewhere else.
The 9 Wyman case actually shows why multifamily zoning is essential, not failing. Replacing one luxury home with 56 apartments, including inclusionary units, lets many more people live in a high‑opportunity neighborhood while directly adding deed‑restricted affordability.
If you stop that, the wealthy buyer still gets their single house. The only thing you’ve removed are the affordable units and the dozens of households who would have lived there instead of bidding up older stock in North Cambridge, East Somerville, or Medford.
In a city like Cambridge, new construction will always price at the top of the market because land and labor are expensive, whether you build one home or fifty.
The real policy choice is whether those inevitable high‑income households live in new units or displace people from the “naturally affordable” older stock the author romanticizes. Studies show that new market-rate housing frees up older housing for lower-income people.
Multifamily zoning, paired with inclusionary rules and targeted preservation tools, is how we do it. The only way out of a housing crisis due to scarce housing is more housing. It’s not to keep doing was caused the crisis. It’s just common sense.
Flaherty clearly hasn’t had to rent in Cambridge in decades, unlike the 2/3 of Cantabrigians who do rent.
Turning one home into 56 (with 20% of them deed-restricted affordable housing) is absolutely a win for affordability. It’s NIMBY nonsense to pretend otherwise.
By the way, Wyman Street is somewhere else. The proposed project is on Wyman Road.
This editorial criticizes Cambridge’s zoning reform for producing market-rate housing but it misrepresents how housing works.
New market-rate units don’t have to directly house low- or middle-income residents to help affordability. They add supply, which eases competition for existing homes. When higher-income households move into new market rate buildings, this frees up older units that become available at lower prices. This is a key way housing prices become lower. Tim Flaherty is ignoring this basic principle, which is well-documented and proven by studies of the housing market.
Blocking new housing because it isn’t immediately affordable does the opposite. It pushes more people to compete for the same limited stock, driving up prices, including for the middle-income families critics want to protect.
And replacing one house with dozens of apartments isn’t a loss, it’s a gain in capacity. Even if the new units are smaller or pricier, they absorb demand that would otherwise spill into older, more family-oriented homes. More housing capacity is what is needed.
The limited housing supply is the cause of the affordability crisis. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring basic economics and a lot of published research.
I think the referenced development proposal is at 9 Wyman /Road/. Wyman Street is in the Avon Hill area, not Huron Village.
The pretzel-like logic of NIMBYs would be amusing if it weren’t so harmful. Replacing one home with 56 units is not a bad idea when people need housing. High costs are driven by limited supply. The solution is to build more.
Two-thirds of Cambridge residents are renters. The city should prioritize their needs, not protect the property values of wealthy homeowners.
Wealthy people claiming to help the less fortunate is an old, familiar tactic. Tim Flaherty’s policies just allow the wealthy to defend the status quo.
The primary goal of the year-old MFZ ordinance is to “allow multifamily housing in all neighborhoods in Cambridge.” Property owners in all neighborhoods are just starting the process of getting permits for their proposals. It’s far too soon to declare that the as-yet unbuilt housing will produce more of the shortages, high rents, and resulting displacement that resulted from the prior zoning rules.
The wild forecasting generated by this zoning reform is not based on facts on the ground. Another Cambridge Day reader explains the likely source here: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/06/27/leave-mhzo-be/
Tim Flaherty’s logic and numbers don’t hold up. Build 56 new market-rate apartments, and 56 households move into them, freeing up 56 older, more affordable units. This is basic supply and demand.
It takes serious NIMBY contortions to argue that building housing worsens an affordability crisis caused by a housing shortage.
Ask: who benefits? Flaherty’s approach protects well-off homeowners whose property values have surged, while harming renters, the majority of Cambridge residents.