Building More—or Just Building Bigger? Mapping Upzoning Redevelopments Across Cambridge

Update 5.23.26. This map and related data will be regularly updated or corrected. Of note for Cambridgeport: 32 Brookline will not be demolished 307 Brookline is an AHO development and 34 Wendell (in Baldwin) will include 9 affordable units among the 43 total units.

Cambridge now (as of May 26, 2026) has 147 identified multifamily housing (MFH) redevelopment sites, including 105 active projects and 42 additional sites considered potential future opportunities (this as of May 26, 2026). Together these projects provide a revealing picture of how redevelopment pressure of the Multi-Family Housing Ordinance is reshaping the city and where future growth may be concentrated.
​
The current and proposed active projects comprise 1,023 housing units. Of these, 124 units are designated affordable (“inclusionary”) housing, while 899 units are market-rate (“luxury” priced) units. Ten projects consist of exactly nine units—one unit below the ten-unit threshold that triggers the city's requirement that 20 percent of units be affordable. Whether intentional or coincidental, the pattern raises questions about how zoning incentives shape development decisions.

---

The impact of these demolitions or partial demolitions in Mid-Cambridge are sizable as seen in the overview of one small area between Ellsworth Avenue and Ellery Street of Mid-Cambridge (see below). Note that one of the most impacted areas of historic homes on Ellery Street is adjacent to the historic City Library and Joan Lorentz Park named after the former leader of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association and a strong preservation advocate. 

Above graphic by resident and landscape architect, Elena Saporta, who has also been advocating to save valuablenearby trees, or to move them to new locations. 

A Citywide Pattern

Based on an analysis of locations and current unit numbers in the Cambridge GIS and Property Data base, one of the most striking findings is the prevalence of projects in our city’s denser once lower-income blue collar neighborhoods.
The map of all 147 sites reveals a citywide network of redevelopment, but closer inspection shows that projects cluster along specific corridors rather than being evenly distributed across neighborhoods.

The largest concentrations of projects occur in: North Cambridge (22 sites); Cambridgeport (21 sites); West Cambridge (nearly all in the westernmost neighborhoods near Fresh Pond (19 sites); Neighborhood Nine (nearly all in western areas - 17 sites); Mid-Cambridge (14 sites); Riverside (14 sites). In short, the geographic distribution of redevelopment projects is far from uniform or evenly distributed across neighborhoods.

The city property and GIS databases (see source below) also allows us to distinguish between larger projects of ten or more units and smaller developments with zero to eight additional units being built when demolitions occur.
​
Neighborhoods dominated by large size redevelopment projects (ten plus units each) include: Neighborhood Nine (nearly all in the western area - five); East Cambridge (three); West Cambridge (largely in the western area – three); Baldwin (two); Cambridgeport (two);  Mid-Cambridge (two); North Cambridge (two). Smaller projects with zero to two additional market rate (“luxury”) housing units show a different pattern.

Those neighborhoods dominated by moderate redevelopment size projects (4-9 gain in units): West Cambridge (largely western sections (six); Cambridgeport (three); North Cambridge (three); Strawberry Hill (three).

MFH City Upzoning Projects Adding Zero New Units

A striking finding is that many redevelopment projects add no new housing units at all. Cambridgeport leads the city with eight zero-net-unit projects, followed by North Cambridge (six) and Mid-Cambridge (five). These are followed by Riverside: (four); East Cambridge (three); Neighborhood Nine (two); West Cambridge (two); Strawberry Hill (one); Wellington-Harrington (one); The Port: (one). In these cases, redevelopment appears to involve the replacement of existing buildings with more expensive residences rather than creation of additional housing.

This suggests that redevelopment pressure is taking very different forms across Cambridge: in some neighborhoods it is primarily replacing existing housing with much larger homes often removing green spaces and trees.

And here is the share of MFH projects by neighborhood adding zero new units:  Mid-Cambridge (62.5% or 5 of 8); Cambridgeport (42.1% or 8 of 19); North Cambridge (42.9% or 6 of 14); East Cambridge (42.9% or 3 of 7); Riverside (28.6% or 4 of 14); The Port (33.3% or 1 of 3); West Cambridge (18.2% or 2 of 11) and Neighborhood Nine (15.4% or 2 of 13).
Perhaps the most interesting category is the group of nine-unit projects. North Cambridge contains three such projects, while western West Cambridge has two and Wellington-Harrington has two. Since nine units fall just below Cambridge's inclusionary housing trigger, this concentration deserves further study.

When we address those neighborhoods with gains of only 0-3 units for each home demolished we come up with many of the same neighborhoods. Here too the geographic distribution of these smaller projects is revealing. They are heavily concentrated in Cambridgeport (fourteen sites), Riverside (twelve), Neighborhood Nine (seven), Mid-Cambridge (five); West Cambridge (five); Strawberry Hill (five), East Cambridge (four) and Wellington-Harrison (three).  Many of these neighborhoods contain older housing stock, relatively large lots, and somewhat lower price points - structures that are attractive candidates for redevelopment.

Since a significant share of redevelopment activity consists of net-zero projects, the map of new MFH housing projects is documenting not only housing growth but also a parallel process of housing wealth-driven transformation. As such redevelopment pressure is reshaping neighborhoods even when it is not producing substantial increases in housing supply.

Cambridgeport alone contains fourteen such 0-3 unit increase projects, while Riverside contains twelve, Neighborhood Nine (western area primarily) contains seven and North Cambridge has six. These areas appear to be experiencing a more radical neighborhood transformation, with the introduction of larger more expensive homes without adding many new units. At the same time, projects adding no housing units at all are concentrated in Cambridgeport (eight), North Cambridge (six), Mid-Cambridge (five), Riverside (four), and East Cambridge (three), suggesting that a significant share of redevelopment activity involves replacement or upgrading of existing housing rather than expansion of the city's housing stock.
The pattern suggests that the way Cambridge's housing growth is occurring is changing certain neighborhoods with some absorbing larger multifamily developments, while others are experiencing steady replacement of existing structures with somewhat denser forms of housing.

Whether these projects reflect site constraints, market calculations, or deliberate responses to regulation, they illustrate how development patterns have been shaped by policy thresholds to promote greater profit.
​
Moreover, many of these new projects will produce little or no net increase in housing units. Older sustainable houses are being demolished and replaced by substantially larger single-family residences, or more modest homes are being replaced by luxury condominiums containing roughly the same number of units or a few more. These projects increase building square footage, but do not significantly expand the city's housing inventory.

West Cambridge and Neighborhood Nine - Divisions that Matters

A particularly notable cluster appears in West Cambridge. Approximately fifteen of the nineteen identified redevelopment sites are concentrated within the Fresh Pond–Huron Avenue–Lexington Avenue–Concord Avenue- west Walden St and west Garden St corridor. This represents nearly four-fifths of all redevelopment sites in the West Cambridge neighborhood.  

Historically, this section of West Cambridge differs from the wealthier Brattle Street corridor often (falsely) seen as typical of the neighborhood. The Fresh Pond area of West Cambridge developed with a larger stock of modest single-family houses, two-family homes, and small multifamily structures serving middle-income and working-class residents. It also once held a prominent African American community. 

Neighborhood Nine displays a comparable geography. Roughly three-quarters of redevelopment sites are concentrated in the western portion of the neighborhood along Huron Avenue, Concord Avenue, Walden Street, and western Garden Street. Like the Fresh Pond corridor, this area historically contained more multifamily housing and somewhat less affluent residential development than the classic Neighborhood Nine/Avon Hill ridge closer to Porter Square. The concentration suggests that redevelopment pressure may be targeting areas with housing types and parcel configurations that can be purchased at a price point more amenable to redevelopment.

Again, as we see here, the Multi-Family Housing Ordinance redevelopment pattern does not reflect pressure across all of West Cambridge or Neighborhood Nine(or the city) equally. Indeed, one of the most important findings of this analysis may be what these neighborhoods have in common. North Cambridge, Cambridge Highlands, portions of Mid-Cambridge, and the Fresh Pond corridor historically housed substantial working-class and middle-class populations. They contain significant stocks of once more modest residential structures rather than large estates or undeveloped land.

The Hidden Story and Likely Future Redevelopment Sites

While active projects attract the most public attention, the "No Proposal Yet" category may reveal even more about Cambridge's future. Fifty-six sites were identified as potential redevelopment opportunities but currently lack active proposals. These sites are heavily concentrated in four neighborhoods: North Cambridge (13 sites); West Cambridge (primarily in the western section -10 sites); Cambridge Highlands (9 sites); Mid-Cambridge (8 sites) Together, these four neighborhood areas account for 71 percent of all identified future opportunity sites.

This finding is significant because it differs sharply from common assumptions about where redevelopment pressure is greatest. The data does not point primarily toward Kendall Square or East Cambridge's large institutional and commercial districts. Nor does it reflect the Council’s desire to add more affordable or market rate homes to the city’s once wealthier neighborhoods. Instead, it suggests that much of Cambridge's future residential redevelopment may occur within our denser residential neighborhoods.
​
The clearest policy takeaways are as follows. The neighborhoods with the greatest number of redevelopment projects are: Cambridgeport: 14 of 19 projects (74%) yield only 0–3 units; Riverside: 12 of 14 projects (86%) yield only 0–3 units; North Cambridge: 9 of 14 projects (64%) yield only 0–3 units. By contrast: Neighborhood Nine has nearly as many major redevelopment projects (5) as small-gain projects (7). Nearly all of these are in the western area; West Cambridge is unusual because it is concentrated in the 4–9-unit gain category. Nearly all of these are in the western area; Strawberry Hill is dominated by units of zero or one-to-two units and other relatively moderate developments in terms of the number of unit gains.

Conclusions

The map at the outset reveals that redevelopment in Cambridge is not a single phenomenon but several distinct processes occurring simultaneously. In some neighborhoods, redevelopment is producing substantial numbers of new housing units through major projects and moderate densification. In others, redevelopment more often involves replacing existing homes with larger or more expensive structures while adding little or no new housing.

​The concentration of future redevelopment opportunity sites in areas such as North Cambridge, West Cambridge, Cambridge Highlands, and Mid-Cambridge suggests that these patterns are likely to continue. As Cambridge debates affordability, neighborhood preservation, and housing production, the central question may not simply be where redevelopment is occurring, but what kind of redevelopment is taking place—and whether it is actually expanding the city's housing supply.

The challenge facing Cambridge is therefore not merely managing growth, but distinguishing between redevelopment that increases housing opportunity and redevelopment that primarily increases housing value. The city's future will be shaped by the balance between those two forces.

Data Sources for Unit numbers in Current City Properties (bulk data)

Cambridge Property Database FY2026
Cambridge Parcel Data
Cambridge Parcel Data Dataset
Parcel GIS Layer (download shapefile)
FY2025 Parcel GIS Layer Download
Cambridge GIS Downloads
Cambridge GIS Data Downloads
​