The multifamily zoning ordinance is failing our city. Here’s how to fix it

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 21^st 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.

Donate now