My first career was as a real estate developer, so you would not be surprised to learn that I support more housing in Cambridge. But I am troubled by the simplistic proposal under consideration by the Cambridge City Council. This proposal would allow four-story buildings everywhere in the city and, if 20 percent of the units are affordable, a developer could build six story buildings everywhere in Cambridge – without any kind of review process. This proposal would incentivize developers to bulldoze neighborhoods, increase prices and drive current residents out of the city. We would lose the human-scaled character of our neighborhoods.
The developers are using a Trojan horse to slip into the castle under the banner of “affordable housing.” Once they are inside the castle, they will forget about affordability and build luxury condos. I support increased housing, but this one-size-fits-all policy is not the right way to achieve that.
We need to increase the amount of truly affordable housing in Cambridge. Under the current Cambridge code, renters could qualify for “affordable” housing even if they earn $100,000 to $140,000. The council needs to change this policy so affordable housing will serve lower- and middle-income renters.
It is easy to get confused by this turbocharged real estate market. In ordinary markets, an increase in supply would reduce prices. But Cambridge defies the laws of gravity: No matter how many units we build, the prices will not go down. Whether we like it or not, Cambridge has grown into such an attractive place to live that people move here from New York, San Francisco and London.
The fundamental question is what kind of community do we want live in? Noise, traffic jams and six-story condos towering overhead – a place of strangers where only the ultra-wealthy can afford to live? I believe the residents of Cambridge want to stay in their homes, build a life get to know their neighbors and create community.
Cambridge should adopt a more nuanced way to increase density and create affordable housing. We can learn a lot from a city such as Minneapolis, which has:
- Increased funding for real affordable housing. (Minneapolis tripled its annual funding for residents who earn 20 percent to 40 percent of median income).
- Removed exclusionary zoning to allow multifamily everywhere in the city
- Encouraged higher-density housing near transit stops and along commercial corridors
- Created livable communities by conserving green space. (In Minneapolis, 98 percent of residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park or trail.)
Rand Wentworth, Brown Street, Cambridge
The author teaches environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
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.
“ This proposal would allow four-story buildings everywhere in the city and, if 20 percent of the units are affordable, a developer could build six story buildings everywhere in Cambridge – without any kind of review process. This proposal would incentivize developers to bulldoze neighborhoods, increase prices and drive current residents out of the city. We would lose the human-scaled character of our neighborhoods.”
Well that escalated quickly
I find it striking that the author is the president emeritus of the Land Trust Alliance, which seeks to protect undeveloped land for the environmental benefit of all.
You know what decimates our remaining open land? Suburban sprawl. The only way to prevent that is to build where there is already urbanization.
The author makes such bold and hard to believe claims, like “developers would bulldoze neighborhoods, making everything more expensive”. As if developers would just grab people and pull them out of their houses! Or as if more housing would making things more expensive! Guess what, sir: an apartment in a 4 story building costs less than the single family house standing on the same plot of land. It is a shame that someone teaching environmental policy would be so blind to the environmental costs of not building apartments in a walkable city with great public transit. Shame really
It’s fascinating that Mr. Wentworth refers to Minneapolis at the end of this op-ed, which did the exact thing that Cambridge is proposing: it legalized much more dense homes by-rights citywide and eliminated parking minimums.
I think there’s a misconception going on here:
“Cambridge defies the laws of gravity: No matter how many units we build, the prices will not go down.”
This may be true, but for the zoning to be successful we would need to compare housing prices to what they would be had we not built more housing, not what the rental rates were prior to the zoning changes. The status quo is not stagnant rent prices, which is why we’re having this conversation in the first place. I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to say that Cambridge alone defies the laws of supply and demand.
Also to respond to this:
“The fundamental question is what kind of community do we want live in? Noise, traffic jams and six-story condos towering overhead”
It does seem like you’re working backwards from the conclusion that six stories is inherently bad, which I don’t agree with.
For one, if the demand for jobs in Cambridge is there regardless of the housing supply (which I believe it would be), we’d be stuck with even more traffic, and therefore noise, as people drive from further out to get to the high paying jobs. Someone living in Porter or Inman or Central is a lot more likely to take transit or walk or bike to a job in Kendall than someone living in Lexington or Lowell.
And six-story buildings are nice! Look at examples like The Cellar on Mass Ave or the Bay Square Condos across the street from it. Certainly more pleasant to walk past than say a parking lot, at least. Six stories in Cambridge is right at the ratio of building height to street width where things feel enclosed but not claustrophobic.
Thank you for such a perceptive article that describes lapses and weaknesses in the zoning proposals now being considered. Truly there are neighborhoods (East Cambridge) especially vulnerable to demolition. The only thing that has protected against massive demolition has been restrictions within our zoning ordinance on replacement. Once those restrictions are removed there will be absolutely no control.
Without a doubt, relaxation of zoning restrictions translates to increased land value. That is a no brainer and Patrick Condon, world acclaimed urban planner, writes about this and will explain to anyone seeking an opinion.
I have been shocked to learn who qualifies for our “affordable housing units.” Would you be surprised to learn post docs at MIT can qualify and then hang onto the property as faculty? Or, MIT employee who qualified to buy JAS property, then earned so much could afford to buy a condo in New Orleans French Quarter? Note, I do not submit either did anything wrong but truly who are we helping??
While I disagree with Mr. Wentworth, I don’t doubt his earnestness. Where I would challenge him is on the claim, “This proposal would incentivize developers to bulldoze neighborhoods, increase prices and drive current residents out of the city.”
The only people developers can drive out are renters. They can’t break down your door and cart away your house. If you’re concerned about renters, you should listen to renters.
On a factual basis, I’d point to what cwec said: increasing housing inventory decreases the rate of price increases even if it doesn’t decrease the nominal price. Berkley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation actually studies these questions. You can read their research here. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/
While the proposal is better than the status quo, I don’t agree with all the specifics. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it’s obvious that upzoning will increase prices. The land has become more productive by writ. This productivity is realized by… building housing, which is the explicit policy goal. No one is going to bulldoze the Longfellow House to put up Habitat 67 (as cool as that would be.)
I’m a curmudgeon on income restricted housing. On a unit-per-unit basis market rate housing decreases displacement less than income restricted housing. However, affordable units are ironically expensive to build. When inclusionary zoning required income restrictions if you built eight units, developers build seven unit buildings. LA, for all of Karen Bass’s ongoing leadership failures, flipped the script by expediting 100% affordable construction. This led market rate developers to abandon their plans and switch to affordable projects.
We need a regional solution which can only be delivered from the state house. Arlington needs more housing. Milton needs more housing. As long as municipalities can set their own zoning codes it’ll be a race to the bottom to keep poor people out.
This is a classic trojan horse argument itself.
“Don’t allow the market to build housing. That would never solve the problem. The only solution is to run a political lottery system where politicians select winners” (developers who get to build the housing and the select few who get to live in it).
Dont fall for this trap. If people can build they will build until its not profitable to. That is the only real solution to housing prices. Not more political lotteries.
The author’s claims are baseless and amount to typical NIMBY scare-mongering with little grounding in reality. Let’s address the errors, misconceptions, and fabrications:
1. Fear of displacement and demolition:
The claim that zoning reforms will bulldoze neighborhoods and displace residents is unfounded.
Studies consistently show that zoning reforms reduce rents without causing widespread displacement or demolition. For example, this comprehensive study demonstrates these findings:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
2. Ignoring basic economics:
The assertion that Cambridge somehow defies the laws of supply and demand is nonsensical and unsupported by evidence.
Basic economic principles dictate that increasing housing supply helps alleviate shortages. Suggesting that not building housing solves a housing crisis is a flawed, purely NIMBY argument.
3. Contradictory praise for Minneapolis:
The author praises Minneapolis but overlooks that Cambridge’s proposal is strikingly similar.
Both cities aim to eliminate single-family zoning and adopt more inclusive housing policies.
The inconsistency in this criticism undermines its credibility.
4. Misrepresentation of affordability criteria:
The claim about affordability criteria in Cambridge is incorrect. Affordability policies address a range of income levels, ensuring diverse housing options. The author’s claim is wrong.
In summary, the author’s arguments lack evidence and rely on fear rather than facts.
Reality supports zoning reform as a pragmatic, effective approach to addressing housing shortages.
Funny how all the people arguing against zoning reform are home owners who grew wealth because of exclusionary zoning.
The real Trojan Horse is wealthy homeowners pretending to help the community while reaping the benefits themselves.
If you support more homes and affordability in Cambridge, you should include your alternative plan for how to achieve that goal. The City is already doing all four of the bullet points, particularly increasing funding for affordable housing.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/financedepartment/propertytaxnewsletters/FY25/fy25understandingyourtaxesnewsletter.pdf
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/10/16/cambridge-housing-voucher-funding/
The Council has undertaken a lengthy process with many hearings and incredible amounts of resident feedback. Based on that feedback, the Council adopted a series of amendments to address some reasonable concerns that had been raised, including, most significantly, increasing setbacks and limiting six-story residential buildings to the largest 30% of parcels over 5,000 sq ft. The claim that neighborhoods are going to be bulldozed is false.
Cambridge should lead the region on housing policy, just as we lead in so many other areas. When we lead, others follow. We have seen that with the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, and now we’re seeing it again with ending excessive, expensive, environmentally unfriendly parking mandates. https://www.universalhub.com/2025/boston-city-council-consider-eliminating-parking
As part of an all-of-the-above approach to housing, we need CHA homes and vouchers; we need AHO homes and affordable, subsidized inclusionary homes (almost half of which have voucher holders as residents); and we need more homes overall.
Yup, this happens a lot in Cambridge.
Just ask Just-A-Start corp.
The author proposes following Minneapolis in allowing multifamily housing throughout the city. I was under the impression that this was exactly what the current ordinance being considered aims to do.
This entire argument is disconnected from reality, as many others have pointed out. But there are two specific points I’d like to talk about.
“The fundamental question is what kind of community do we want live in? Noise, traffic jams and six-story condos towering overhead”
I’m confused by this statement. It’s not people that make cities loud. It’s cars. And the type of development that the zoning proposal would increase would lead to fewer cars in Cambridge, not more. So if you’d like more peace and quiet, you should be supporting the zoning proposal.
“The fundamental question is what kind of community do we want live in? …a place of strangers where only the ultra-wealthy can afford to live? I believe the residents of Cambridge want to stay in their homes, build a life get to know their neighbors and create community.”
This is also a confusing statement. How does living in a single-family home create more community?
The legislative process around these zoning changes has been careful, and has been going on for many years. Let’s make refinements where needed but let’s not slow down! Ideally, Cambridge can continue to be a leader so surrounding towns follow suit.
bahmutov
You must be from out of town. Cambridge is no longer “a walkable city with great public transit” as you posit. It is no longer walkable with bikes flying thru red lights and the Red Line has been MIA for two years, at least. Carpetbagger?
@maddmann1
Actually, nearly half of Cambridge households do not own a car. People commute in Cambridge by walking at 10X the national average.
You should visit sometime.
maddmann1
Bike lanes improve pedestrian safety. Cars not bikes are the biggest threat to pedestrians. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/10/01/should-we-stop-calling-bike-lanes-bike-lanes