City Councillor Marc McGovern defended the types of residences being built under the MFHO in the Sept 16, 2026, article titled “Zoning update may see major changes,” stating, “These are for people who make too much money for a subsidized unit but can’t afford a $4 million single-family home. That is the middle class of Cambridge.”
Hmmm. U.S. Census data show the annual median household income (AMI) for Cambridge is $130,000. The standard formula for defining middle class is a range from two-thirds of the AMI to twice the AMI. This means middle class households in Cambridge earn between $87,000 and $260,000.
How much home does that buy? Online affordability calculators show that this income range can afford middle-class properties priced between $271k and $1.2 million. To my knowledge, there is next to nothing being built under the MFHO in my neighborhood, Riverside, that will serve the middle class of Cambridge.
In Riverside, new luxury condos under construction will offer 2,350 to 3,250 square feet of space, one boasting a private elevator. Actual sales of recently built units in our neighborhood show an average price of $1,200 per square foot, so these new properties will likely be offered at $2.8 million to $4.2 million, well beyond the means of our middle class.
Unsurprisingly, developers are maximizing footprints and profits at the expense of neighboring homes and urban green space to preferentially serve the wealthiest. If our City Councilors want to serve our middle class, they need to go back to the drawing board.
Sarah Hill / Franklin Street, Cambridge
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.
The letter claims that, “to my knowledge, there is next to nothing” being built under the MFHO in Riverside. That’s an admission of uncertainty, not an account of what’s actually being built.
The luxury condos described here, with 2,350-plus square feet, private elevators, and $3–4 million price tags, are exactly what the MFHO is meant to counter: large, expensive homes on lots zoned for only a few units. The MFHO allows more, smaller homes on those same lots, at far lower prices per unit.
If the concern is too much luxury housing, the answer is more multifamily housing, not less. Studies show that even market-rate construction helps lower housing costs. Scarcity pushes prices up; adding homes eases that pressure.
The letter also overlooks roughly 70 affordable units already planned under the MFHO, with hundreds projected over the long term. That means hundreds of families could gain homes they otherwise couldn’t afford.
“Go back to the drawing board” is a familiar NIMBY tactic: delay, delay, delay. These reforms draw on research from many cities and have been under consideration for years.
The answer to a housing crisis isn’t to do nothing. That’s what got us here.
This op-ed is missing a bunch of context. First, there is a development that has been proposed in the Riverside neighborhood with inclusionary units: the Spears funeral home redevelopment. It is not yet under construction, but if built it would have 29 inclusionary affordable homes according to the redevelopment tracker.
And we do also need market rate homes! There is a reason that Envision set a goal for new homes (which we are far behind). We are a growing city, with a lot of high paying jobs in recently built office/lab buildings. New housing is expensive, but it makes housing more affordable for everyone. People that that can afford new homes move into them from other nearby existing more affordable homes, freeing them up for others, as numerous studies have found. One example:
“The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048
Thank you both for confirming that the new construction under the MFHO is not for the middle class as Councilor McGovern suggests. We are building housing for the wealthiest and hoping that will free up low cost housing for the middle class. The units described in my piece were in fact constructed under the MFHO and they are considered multi-family homes because there are three units in each building. The MFHO enabled these luxury condos by maximizing the building footprint via reduced setbacks and greenspace, making it possible to build single floor condos that are larger than most homes. Apart from a reference to a project that is not under construction, neither commenter has suggested that the projects to date in Riverside are any different than described.