The City Council had before it Monday a sweeping multifamily housing proposal, one that would change zoning dramatically as it relates to housing across the many neighborhoods of Cambridge – that is, to overturn existing rules not only to allow for (an unknown number) of multifamily housing structures but also to allow even greater heights and density and limit opportunities for careful review of proposals for them. In the abstract, such changes are in service of an admirable cause: more housing in general and more affordable housing in particular.
But the proposal represented, at best, a leap into the unknown in terms of objectives, the prospects for achieving them and the larger consequences – intended or not – for Cambridge.
In terms of objectives, there was no benchmark for success: How many more housing and affordable-housing units should Cambridge have, over how many years? What document – fully vetted by and agreed upon by the council – offers numbers and the reasons for choosing them? For whom would the units be built, current residents of Cambridge, residents of Cambridge who have lived here for a certain number of years, the children or close family members of those residents? If not residents, who? Anyone who would want to live in Cambridge? Anyone who has a job in Cambridge? Anyone who, by virtue of low pay or otherwise, would have difficulty in paying to live in Cambridge?
In terms of prospects for achieving the objectives: What evidence, based on the calculus for the cost of land and construction and the cost and availability of capital, is there that any particular number of such units would likely be built, and on terms that would allow occupancy by those who are the would-be beneficiaries of the proposal?
In terms of consequences: Choices about new housing have consequences for existing housing and other uses, for the means and availability of transport and for the physical environment, such as the quality of air and the level of noise, the visual landscape and so on.
The city needs a long-term vision – fully and carefully vetted and agreed upon by the council after extensive consultation with residents – for how choices over the coming years with respect to each of these interrelated aspects of city life should be made. The city has no such vision. The product of a recent extensive effort to formulate one, the Envision Cambridge master planning process and report, has for all practical purposes been ignored or set aside. And without such a vision, making of current choices, especially ones such as this proposal with serious implications for the future of Cambridge, is like flying blind.
The council voted 8-1 on Monday to move the proposal to its Ordinance Committee.
A great mistake. The eight need to change course.
Larry Beeferman, William 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.
More information is of course good, and we should gather whatever useful information is feasible to gather, but I don’t think more information is going to change very many people’s minds. The author seems like he’s opposed to anything like this proposal, and many voters like me who are concerned with housing affordability have alreay decided that we support this proposal.
Regarding Envision, it seems like it was a worthwhile exercise, and contains a lot of good ideas. However, I’m not sure we should feel permanently constrained by what is or is not in Envision. Additionally, Envision is often vague. For example, it contains this recommendation, which can be interpreted in many different ways depending on how some terms are defined:
“Change zoning to enable more housing, including affordable housing, to be built along major corridors, squares, and in other areas that have the capacity to accommodate growth and are well served by transit (e.g., increase base zoning, allow multifamily residential development citywide, offer density bonuses for increased percentage of affordable housing units).”
The planning process that produced Envision took place between 2016 and 2018. A lot has happened since then in the world of housing policy, both locally and nationally. In 2019, the New York times published this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html
That year we also had Minneapolis be the first city in the US to get rid of single family zoning. Since then lots of other cities and even some states have made similar reforms. So understandably, as people have written and read articles and home prices have continued to increase, and Cambridge’s biotech and tech sectors have continued to grow, we’re now in a different place than we were back in 2016.
It also should be noted that we are not on track to meet Envision’s goal of 12,500 new homes by 2030. Between 2018 and today we’ve only built 3,863 net new homes, about 47 homes per month. If we keep up that pace, by 2030 we’ll be at something like 6,800 homes built by 2030, far short of what Envision recommended, and of course not even close to enough to have kept up with job growth.
The council is also very different. In 2016 only 2 of our 9 current city counselors were in office. Many people now living in this city were not in 2016. So while Envision Cambridge was a worthwhile exercise, and contains lots of valuable ideas, I’d argue that the the 2023 city council election is more relevant and democratically legitimate.
Couldn’t agree more with Mr.Beeferman. The six stories plus upzoning anywhere in the city anytime without any input or review by community is upzoning on steroids wearing blindfolds. This proposal voted on 8 to 1 IS the most radical upzoning proposal in the US. Most upzoning in major cities (please note Cambridge despite illusions to the contrary is not a major city) upzone to of 3-4 unit dwellings. Cambridge is already the 3rd densest city in the state. And it is in the top ten re density among small US cities. In other words, we are already very dense as a city (in more than one way) and more housing while desirable to an extent must be planned and developed with a plan in mind or else we will end up looking like a shabby version of the Seaport. And BTW it is totally unclear what this proposal will do to create affordable – not defined – units. The likelihood – given the costs of construction – about a million a unit – is that more market rate and luxury units will be the outcome.
Don’t be fooled – this proposal has zero to do with low or middle income people. Rest assured they are not the intended beneficiaries of this proposed building spree. Low and middle income families will not be able to afford this developer’s dream.
The city council is off on a frolic of its own. The welfare of the city be damned
One last point – City Council just a couple of years ago passed upzoning to permit 12 to 15 story buildings on main roads and squares. What was that all about? How much affordable housing is coming online due to that proposal.
Is anyone on Council paying any attention ? Earth to Council!
Point 1: Larry list a bunch of questions. This is a tried and true tactic of people opposed to local change. Ask for endless studies to an endless number of questions. Here are some other questions.
Why are those important questions to answer? Can Larry answer them about the current zoning regulations?
Point 2: Cities do not need a “vision” set by some undemocratic community input process. They need elected councilors setting policy based on their platforms. This is what is happening.
You want a city without change I invite you to move to Rochester NY or Dayton OH or some such place. I’m sure there are plenty of single family homes available. See ya!
Why do people like Cportus feel they must tell people where to live if they don’t like change or agree with them? Does not sound welcoming of the type of people who have “All are welcome” signs plastered on their windows.
I live in the city and have the right, like you, to define what my neighborhood and city should look like. I do not want six-story high rises with no reqs/input/reviews being put up next to me. I do not want to see more density in the city without the right planning. There is nothing wrong with that.
In fact, if you don’t like it, cannot afford it, or are jealous others got in before you, go read a book on investments and/or city planning. You can stay in the city and borrow it from the taxpayer-funded library, which is really nice. If you are still unhappy, then you can follow your own advice.
@EasrCamb
What gives you the right to define your neighborhood’s appearance?
Restrictive zoning laws are a recent invention, created by wealthy homeowners to protect property values.
Housing is a human right. Denying others housing to preserve your neighborhood’s current look is selfish.
Your area has changed before, so why should you decide when changes stop?
We’re facing a housing crisis. People need homes. Prioritizing aesthetics over this basic need is self-centered.
Consider reading about urban planning. Our city needs housing for essential workers – police, firefighters, nurses, restaurant staff, and city employees. These are the people who keep our city running while you enjoy your view.
Six-story buildings are not the problem. The issue is denying homes to others for trivial reasons.
Yeah this is nothing but a very long-winded way of saying “delay, delay, delay.”
You seem to forget that this zoning process has been several years in the making, with much public input. We need to remind the people of this city that we don’t need more studies. We need more affordable housing.
NIMBYism often disguises opposition as a call for more information, but it’s really about delaying progress.
The facts are clear:
1. Housing is needed.
2. Building more solves this need.
3. There is nothing wrong with six-story buildings.
Opposing necessary housing based on personal aesthetics is selfish.
In fact, six-story buildings contribute to economic diversity. We should encourage their construction.
@EastCamb: You certainly do have the right to express what you would like your neighborhood and your city to look like. However, what you’ve described here certainly is a self-centered perspective, because it’s based purely on your own personal preferences, with no thought to the needs or desires of your community. And we do live in a democracy, so I think you’ll find yourself outvoted in a modern and progressive city like Cambridge. I honestly think you’ll find more like-minded people in the suburbs at this point.
And six stories may sound like a lot, but there needs to be enough incentive for development or else we’ll have shiny new zoning rules that don’t actually combat the housing crisis.
You guys talk about the “housing crisis” as if all the land, all the material, and all the skills that are needed to build housing have disappeared from this country.
Housing pricing is a function of location, location, and location. Cambridge is affordable for those who can afford it. I am not against change or adding new housing, but the reckless proposal to build 6/15 story buildings wherever you can find open land without planning is just bonkers. You are essentially destroying what makes Cambridge desirable. *If* prices do come down, it will not be because now there is an oversupply of housing; it will be because the people who can afford it will go find another desirable place.
Property owners in Cambridge are not against adding new developments. That has as much truth to it as Donald Trump’s statements. In fact, new construction boosts the overall prices in the immediate area due to new facilities, etc. Property owners are against bulldozing all requirements/planning/input processes currently in place because that is not what they signed up for when they put their life savings into buying their American dream.
@EastCamb, I suggest you read the zoning proposal, because most of what you’re saying isn’t even being considered.
Make no mistake. The housing crisis is holding this city back, and the proposed changes are major. That’s appropriate in my mind given the magnitude of the problems that exclusionary zoning is causing. However, you make it sounds like zoning is being abolished. It isn’t. Once passed, residential developments would still need to go through the normal zoning process, with a few onerous restrictions removed (such as minimum lot width and floor area ratio).
You can read the proposed zoning langauge here:
https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=4578&MediaPosition=&ID=25588&CssClass=
@EastCamb: “Cambridge is affordable for those who can afford it.” This statement overlooks the reality of a housing crisis.
When workers and their families cannot afford housing, it indicates a fundamental economic issue: demand exceeds supply, driving prices up.
The consensus among experts is clear: increasing housing availability is the most critical step to address this crisis.
To fully understand the situation, it’s essential to review the proposal and related materials.
A housing crisis is a drag on local economies. Businesses can’t find workers if those workers cannot find nearby housing. Firefighters, nurses, city workers, police officers need places to live.
This NIMBY fight against affordable housing does not just hurt people looking for housing, it hurts everyone.
The opposition against affordable housing is not just selfish, it is short-sighted.
@scout: actually, the proposed new zoning is “as-of-right” which means it will not go through what you call “the normal zoning process”. The Planning Board would not have much of a role. That is a big change, and one I have concerns about. I have attended many Planning Board hearings, and think the public discussion there is very helpful for projects turning out better for all concerned.
@scout: actually, the proposed new zoning is “as-of-right” which means it will not go through what you call “the normal zoning process”. The Planning Board would not have much of a role. That is a big change, and one I have concerns about. I have attended many Planning Board hearings, and think the public discussion there is very helpful for projects turning out better for all concerned.
There are lots of benefits to as of right zoning, described well in this article:
https://commonwealthbeacon.org/opinion/seeking-predictable-permitting-for-new-housing/
My understanding is that the current proposal would still require a special permit process for larger developments:
“Increase the threshold for Project Review Special Permits from 50,000 square
feet to 75,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area for housing, and require a
Planning Board Advisory Consultation (similar to the Affordable Housing
Overlay) for housing over 50,000 square feet”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/OtherProjects/multifamilyhousing/COVER_Multifamily_Petition.pdf
@Lee Farris
Restrictive zoning rules, a relatively recent invention designed to protect wealthy interests, are the “big change” that led to our current housing crisis. Eliminating these overly restrictive regulations is key to solving the problem.
Cities naturally evolve to meet the needs of their population. Cambridge has undergone many transformations over the decades.
The current housing crisis was created by people who think they have a right to say “stop” to this natural urban evolution simply because they own a home.
Important context: The author lives in a single family home two blocks away from the proposed neighborhood boundary. The author bought the home in 1980 for $60,000. If it had grown at the rate of inflation, it would be worth around $230,000 today. Its 2024 assessed value was $1,644,700, outpacing inflation by 615% over the same time frame.
Every single one of these op-eds about how building more housing is bad, actually, has been written by the small minority of Cambridge residents that were fortunate enough to buy their homes decades ago when it was still achievable for the middle class.
Maybe upzoning Central is diving into the “unknown”, but the “known” sucks pretty hard for most people that live here, or were priced out.
@EastCamb, Cambridge is not desirable because there exists a single-story McDonald’s in Central Square. Cambridge is desirable because it has:
* Access to decent rapid public transit
* Proximity to thousands of high-paying jobs
* Proximity to some of the best Universities on earth
* Walkability, bikeability, the possibility of not needing to own a vehicle
Building more homes does nothing to degrade that reality.
@cwec +100
@EastCamb. We don’t have a housing crisis because people are clamoring to move into neighborhoods with single-family houses.
We have a housing crisis because people who own houses don’t want others to move in.