Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.
After nearly 50 years as a Cambridge resident, including 40 years serving the Cambridge community as a social worker specializing in mental health, I never imagined I would find myself opposing a measure that purports to expand affordable housing in the city. The recent multi-family ordinance was a well-intentioned step towards addressing our affordable housing shortage. But I now have a front row seat to its unintended consequences, and it is deeply disturbing.
The new zoning, voted in 8-1 by the current City Council, is allowing a mammoth 70+ unit building to go up next door to my side-facing home, within several feet of my front door, in an already-dense neighborhood. It will rob light, privacy and value from my family home of 30 years. We can no longer consider solar power. Our large mature tree will likely be destroyed, leaving us responsible for the cost of its removal. We do not have a driveway, and neither will the new building, making parking even more difficult than it already is. This is more than an inconvenience, as I need my car and reliable parking in order to drive a disabled family member and a nearby parent to frequent medical appointments.
As a long-term Cambridge resident, I am astonished to learn I have no recourse to change my situation, or even to voice concern. I am further saddened to find that, in addition to being silenced, I and others who express any dissent are being publicly demonized and dismissed as wealthy and uncaring. In fact, many of the people most directly impacted will continue to include seniors whose home is the primary source of their retirement, people who have already invested in solar energy, disabled people who rely on being able to park a car — people who deeply care about the city, and yes, also care about their own quality of life and financial well-being. It cannot be the case that the only way to address the housing crisis is for some unlucky residents to bear an outsized share of the burden and be seriously harmed in the process.
The new zoning ordinance provides no avenue for input from residents, no forum for discussion, few restrictions on developers, and no review or oversight by the city. There is no question that we need more affordable housing in Cambridge. But leaving it in the hands of private developers, driven by profit and with no stake in our city or neighborhoods, or in truly affordable housing, just does not and cannot possibly make for good city planning.
In a city with this much talent and creativity, and this much commitment to progressive values and the greater good, we can and should do better.
We need thoughtful solutions that grapple honestly with valid competing goals. And we need empathy for people who need housing as well as for those who are already here contributing to the fabric and well-being of the community.
Most importantly, we need true leadership from the City Council. We are in the midst of an election. We need to elect City Councilors who show the skill, strength and compassion to truly listen to all residents. Make your voice heard.
Jennifer Brill, Western Avenue, 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.
Cambridge’s new multifamily zoning isn’t a “free-for-all”. It’s a modest step toward fixing decades of exclusionary policies that priced out working families.
Every new home is near someone’s window, but that’s how cities stay livable for future generations.
Housing scarcity is what drives displacement and rising costs, not neighbors finally being allowed to build homes.
Developers don’t dictate city policy. They respond to the rules we set because we’ve failed, for too long, to allow enough housing.
Cambridge can’t claim progressive values if it treats new neighbors as threats rather than as the next generation of people who help this city thrive.
Cambridge can’t thrive if “listen to all residents” means catering to wealthy home owners while ignoring others and their struggles to live here.
Seriously?! Still calling an apartment going next door when we have a housing crisis “robbing me of light”?!!! This is simply selfishness. The author can do better I hope.
I’m sorry you’ll have to deal with the construction and change. I hope it’s not as bad as you fear.
It isn’t a perfect solution, but you can request the city to put a handicapped parking spot in front of or near your house: https://www.cambridgema.gov/iwantto/requestadisabilityparkingspace
I believe five foot side setbacks were already allowed under the previous zoning, though. Something similar might’ve just been inevitable, but now more people can live there and at a lower price.
Adding a 70-unit structure with no parking requirements and no open space requirements is pure madness. Add to that no recourse from neighbors. The city council just rolled over for the developers on this one in the name of affordable housing.
There are so many one way streets in Cambridge with cars parked on both sides. Now with this new zoning, you can add as many 6 story buildings on that street with no parking requirements. Way to go council! Next, pass zoning that will knock down all city parks to add housing.
Cambridge’s multifamily zoning reform is finally allowing our city to accommodate the next generation of residents. While any large project next door feels disruptive, the ordinance exists because exclusionary zoning has long concentrated new housing in only a few areas, worsening affordability citywide.
The policy does not erase oversight. Developers must still comply with building codes, environmental standards, and design review.
What has changed is that families no longer need permission to build modest multi-unit housing in neighborhoods historically restricted to single-family homes.
Claims that nearby homeowners bear the burden overlook the greater burdens bore by many others who struggle pay rent. It also overlooks how the whole city city suffers when nurses, teachers, and young families cannot afford to live here.
“Recourse from neighbors” is exactly what got us into this housing crisis.
@cwec 5′ side setbacks were not allowed under previous zoning. Different zones had different limits. In C-1, it was (H+L)/5 with a 7.5′ minimum. A tall building like the one described in this op-ed would have a side setback of more than 20 feet.
I don’t know exactly how bad a 74′ tall building coming to 5′ of the property lines in the middle of a neighborhood of 30′ buildings would be, because nothing that big exists in most of Cambridge today.
Like the author, I also never thought I’d take the side against allowing apartment buildings and increasing housing supply. When I first heard about the multifamily proposal, I thought, great, more housing of the type we already have in Cambridge!
But it actually allows buildings way bigger and wider than anything we have. It will have serious negative consequences for the neighbors.
The solution: setbacks, and step-backs on upper floors. Which CDD recommends in their multifamily guidelines, but the zoning ignores that.
” I am astonished to learn I have no recourse to change my situation, or even to voice concern.”
You ARE voicing your concern, you just don’t have legal recourse to stop the development.
There are design guidelines that must be followed.
Unfortunately, unless policies like the one you oppose are adopted, members of Gen Z like me will literally never be able to afford to own any amount of housing in this city. I’m sorry that things are changing, but can’t you see that it’s for a much greater good? What about the 70 families or individuals that will be able to move into one of the greatest places in America? Who will have access to great healthcare, housing, etc.?
You are frustrated about not having a way to make your voice heard — what about the thousands of us who pay exorbitant rents? Where is our voice? We are the ones who are currently working, who pay into the system — a system that isn’t built for us. If you own property here, you are almost surely a millionaire and part of the top 2 or 3%. Is a new building so difficult that you would stop the one thing that can solve the problems affecting generations for it?
Your silly desire for a place to house your family had better not interfere with my God-given right to park my car in the public street!
Unfortunately with the new zoning it is all to common. It’s really sad the council prioritizes new rich population to long term residents. AHO was for affordable housing this is to increase the number of rich owners so the council can fund their projects.
@EastCamb I completely agree with your idea “ pass zoning that will knock down all city parks to add housing” sounds like a great idea. People should be housed. You want to have a parking spot for your car? Please purchase a private off street parking spot.
Jennifer,
We have a housing crisis and people cannot afford rent. Complaints about being robbed of” light, privacy and value from my family home of 30 years” come off as entitled and out of touch.
Do you have any idea what the cost of living is like for someone that didn’t buy a home in the 90s? You are in a better position than many in this city. You do have options such as requesting a handicapped parking spot, paying for off-street parking, etc.
It really feels like you are only in support of more housing if it causes zero inconvenience to you.
How many of those 70 units are affordable, and how many are $7k/month 1 beds?
For those who think “housing is a right,” how do you consider the statement “access to sunlight is a right?” I know you will say “just go outside.” If you have seen the developer’s images of the proposed building and what it will do to the abutting home’s access to a basic human right – sunlight, you too would be upset. And unfortunately, this is happening all over the city. And predictably, most new buildings are resulting in the tearing down of single-family homes to build 1-9 luxury units, also putting abutting homes in the shadows.
When you have spent your life in a home, devoted your career to social work, only to spend your retirement in perpetual shadow, it is not acceptable in a city that respects and welcomes all. Let’s build density and affordable housing, but let’s do this responsibly, with step-backs, larger setbacks, design oversight, and protections for significant trees and solar. This isn’t a one-or-the-other argument. It’s a YES AND.
Things were rushed and impacts not looked at.
All the damn empty lab space should be what is being turned into housing. So instead we have crowded living space and vacant commercial lab space because officials thought the way to expand our tax base and sneak around 2 1/2 was to let them build it. This is past decisions over the previous decade coming to roost.
In the city of London there is laws that prevent the blocking of sunlight “Ancient Lights” is a law… The law of ancient lights is an English common law doctrine that grants a landowner the right to uninterrupted access to sunlight through windows that have been receiving it for at least 20 years. This right is an easement, allowing the landowner to prevent neighbors from building structures that would significantly block that light.
We lack this in America, they destroyed the principal here in the name of Millionaires and Billionaires that want to develop in existing land and properties rather than in open spaces.
Look to Boston People…. we will be not Cambridge but swallowed up by the sky scrapers of concrete and glass in 50 years with these sorts of approaches to the problem that the city council has forced thru for millionaire developers.
If sunlight were a right, no one could live near anyone else. Cities exist because we balance individual preference with shared need.
Housing scarcity is a moral and economic crisis. Slight shading on one property doesn’t compare to the human cost of displacement, exclusion, and other’s struggles with the cost of living.
Responsible design matters and there is a regulatory in place, but using “sunlight” to block new homes isn’t balance. It’s privilege masquerading as principle.
“ For those who think “housing is a right,” how do you consider the statement “access to sunlight is a right?” I know you will say “just go outside.””
Sounds like you just answered your own question.
@LL There are no developments that will turn someone’s home into “perpetual shadow”. That is hyperbole.
That claim was made by neighbors opposing the development new housing at the AJ Spears Funeral Home in Cambridgeport. But an analysis revealed that NO new shadows would be cast on the neighbors at all.
Housing is a basic need. Sunlight is a shared amenity. Every building casts some shade. Blocking new homes over minor shadows protects the comfort of a few at the cost of a basic need for many.
Cities are dynamic. They change to meet the needs of the population. They always have. The Cambridge you know is different from before.
A city that is can’t adapt becomes dysfunctional, leading to things like a housing crisis. When you buy property, you don’t buy the city. Fairness means making room for others, not freezing the city in time.
45+ years in Camb. The real estate barrons
control America and the politicians are their pattsies. Any idea that the real estate cartels care about the quality of life for low wage earners is a fairy tale. We need democracy to radically change 200 years of zoning you vote, then the residents decide owners renters students and that’s justuce. There’s 100’s of billions to be made putting humans in ugly dystopian filing cabinets
and that’s the imperative for the international investment cartels. Luckily we’re near critical infrastructure so they haven’t just burnt us out as Lahaina
and LA.
Sure, turn it into a vertical smart city if you get a plurality of votes but don’t pretend that the city council is legitimate for 2 seconds they represent the
stranglehold of the money- for- nothing classes. Real estate is Mafia like MIT’s Forest City… they make politicians deals they can’t refuse. You want to redistribute the wealth after it’s all been robbed by the ruling class. ollow the $
Agree with Jennifer….and I’ve been here for over 50 yrs. If people want affordable housing they need to look elsewhere….why should the residents of Cambridge suffer because people can’t afford to live here? The only people making a profit from the housing regs are the developers….and how many people in this city have voted? I think it’s about 20 percent.
Well, these comments prove why the author was correct in her comment that she will be vilified for sharing her feelings, despite four decades working in the mental health field — more than some of these commenters have been alive I would bet. This zoning rule is one of the primary drivers behind our family’s decision to sell our home in Cambridge and move. I feared that the exact same thing would happen next door to our home so we got out before it did.