An exploration of social housing was embraced Monday by Cambridge’s City Council as a way to combat a housing crisis.
After an outpouring of community support, councillors referred a motion to discuss “concrete details of social housing” in committee and asking the city manager and staff to “explore all steps toward advancing social housing in Cambridge.”
“What is exciting about social housing is that it’s part of this paradigm shift around thinking of housing as a human right, rather than as a commodity to be speculated on,” said councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, lead sponsor of the bill.
Social housing is publicly financed, publicly owned, mixed-income housing. The social housing proposed would include 40 percent of built units being affordable for those below 80 percent of area median income, with an additional portion reserved for those in very low-income brackets of below 30 percent. The goal is to ensure the housing is permanently affordable rather than being dependent on tax credits. Governance by the city of Cambridge could include tenant and community control.
Those who testified emphasized the need for housing to be a public good rather than a private commodity.
“Cambridge desperately needs more ways to provide good, affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents,” said Carolyn Magid, a member of the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, during the meeting’s public comment period.
A “housing production champion”
The concept of social housing arose through advocacy from the coalition amid an affordability crisis in which many renters struggle and cost pressures displace longtime residents. Other policies addressing the crisis include Affordable Housing Overlay zoning, municipal voucher pilots and adjustments to a linkage fee charged by the square foot to commercial development that feeds into an affordable-housing fund.
State representative Mike Connolly spoke in favor of social housing at the meeting, saying it would be continue Cambridge’s role as a leader in housing policy. He filed a bill on Beacon Hill in 2023 for creation of social housing.
“When I go to Beacon Hill, I think of us as the housing policy and even the housing production champion around the commonwealth,” Connolly said. “This social housing order gives us an opportunity to continue being on the forefront.”
Vice mayor Marc McGovern agreed, saying that while social housing will not solve the affordability crisis on its own, the initiative would be a valuable addition.
“We are really trying a lot of different things to address this crisis,” McGovern said, and there could be “lots of interesting ideas and positive things that could come out of this.”
Costs and benefits
Advocates emphasized the benefit of households of different income levels living in community, which is “far better for people’s economic mobility,” councillor Patty Nolan said. In addition, “people are able to stay in the housing regardless of how their income changes over time, which is not always the case in some of our affordable housing.”
Concerns were raised about initial costs, as social housing projects do not qualify for many government subsidies and may need to be paid for in full. Councillor Burhan Azeem said it may be less cost effective than affordable housing and that Cambridge might not be able to build as much housing if it relied heavily on the model.
“There’s a lot of benefits here, but also there’s a lot of trade-offs,” Azeem said. “It’s not an easy, low-hanging fruit.”
The motion passed with eight members in the affirmative and one absent. A social-housing discussion now goes to the Housing Committee.
Other actions
Other motions handled Monday from the day’s council agenda including discussion of a city-owned building that’s hosted arts organizations for four decades; an unused subway tunnel under Harvard Square; and how to keep tall buildings from blocking existing solar arrays.
25 Lowell St.: The council approved an order to assess the condition of 25 Lowell St., a historic building that houses the New School of Music and Cambridge Art Association, and outline a process for deciding its future use.
Many members of the public gave passionate testimony for keeping the use as a community hub for arts, culture and education. The order includes reviewing conditions and updating decades-old leases and is part of a broad review of how city-owned properties are used – not about removing the nonprofits or demolishing the building, Nolan said.
MBTA tunnel reuse: The council came back to a proposal from its previous meeting to reuse a long-abandoned Harvard Square MBTA tunnel as an entertainment venue, starting with using $72,000 from existing budgeting for a study. City manager Yi-An Huang is reluctant, saying a full study could cost $500,000 to $1 million, and some councillors preferred a focus on short-term Harvard Square improvements such as pedestrianization.
McGovern pressed the council to make a decision and warned against the order becoming stagnant. “If we had done this a long time ago, maybe we’d all be enjoying a concert by now underground,” McGovern said.
The council put the manager’s response on file, with Huang offering assurance “we’ve sort of said the city is moving forward with the MBTA and favorably inclined … We’re not allocating funding at this point, but we certainly heard the direction the council would like us to move in.”
Solar zoning: The council took up a policy order on solar access, following up on a Health and Environment Committee exploration of how to protect residents’ rooftop solar investments from being shaded by taller new buildings.
Concerns were raised that proposed architectural solutions – requiring stepbacks on tall buildings to not block sun – could unintentionally make needed housing projects unworkable. “What I propose is that we ask for more data … before we have CDD start writing zoning language,” councillor Cathie Zusy said, referring to the Community Development Department, “because I think we’re data deficient.”
Azeem used his “charter right” to stop discussion until the next regular meeting.
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.
Just to be clear for those interested, the mechanism for the cost savings is the revolving loan fund, which can take advantage of Cambridge’s strong bond rating to borrow at lower interest rates and lower the cost to build new homes.
That alone will not fund land acquisition and construction, so multifamily social housing will still require additional funding sources and will rely on Cambridge’s new multifamily zoning.
“More data” is the NIMBY battle cry. Delay is their main tactic, and now they’ve seized on shadows.
If they truly cared about the environment, they’d support density, which reduces car use, and new buildings, which are far more energy-efficient.
Maybe this is just part of Cathie Zusy’s campaign to protect “white educated outspoken residents” (City Council meeting, 8/12/25). Because clearly, rich and successful white people lack a voice in our society.