Demolishing the Truth: What ABC and Banker & Tradesman Gets Wrong about Cambridge’s Housing Slowdown

ABOVE:  historic brick building at 60 Ellery with four family units (largely affordable) to be replaced by 29 unit new building (image based on the architect's rendering). The proposed new structure will likely include 4 (or fewer) mid-income "affordable" units, the remainder will be expensive market rate (luxury) units.  Note: The article addressed here  also speaks to community uproar with the allowed demolition of the handsome brick four family 60 Ellery Street building to create far more expensive housing, without parking, green spaces or other needs. 

A recent article published by Banker & Tradesman (July 20, 2025) blames Cambridge’s historic preservation and volunteer boards for delays in housing development, pointing fingers at “obstruction” by city commissions as a major cause for the slow pace of demolitions and rebuilds under the new upzoning ordinance. But this narrative is not only misleading—it’s dangerous.

The article leans heavily on claims made by pro-developer groups like “A Better Cambridge” and local political leaders like Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, who assert that preservation boards are denying projects purely because they “were not supportive of the multifamily housing ordinance.” Such accusations have no basis in truth and not only dismiss the professional expertise and public service of staff and volunteer board members, but also ignore the far more significant—and less politically convenient—economic realities shaping the pace of development. 

Let’s talk about what the Banker & Tradesman piece ignores.

First, interest rates remain at historic highs. Financing new construction, especially luxury-scale, is prohibitively expensive for many developers right now. Add to that the steep tariffs on imported materials from China, Mexico, and Canada, and you’re looking at significantly inflated project costs. These are global economic conditions—not local board decisions—that are slowing the pace of speculative building.

Second, the labor market is unstable. Fewer construction workers are available due to broader job market volatility and federal immigration policies that have disrupted the flow of skilled tradespeople. These are systemic challenges, not decisions made in a church basement by architects and historians volunteering their time on evenings and weekends.

Third, demand has softened. With job uncertainty in Cambridge’s tech and education sectors and rising commercial vacancies (office vacancies are at a 25-year high), many potential homebuyers are holding back. Developers aren't rushing because the market isn't there—not because a Historic Commission asked them to rethink the design of a six-story building next to a 1930s bungalow.

Yet instead of acknowledging these forces, the article suggests that Cambridge’s modest efforts to preserve its 400-year history are the problem. One advocate even went so far as to suggest eliminating the Historical Commission entirely—a shocking proposal given that Cambridge is the oldest planned city in North America and one whose environmental sustainability depends on preserving, not demolishing, existing buildings.

Let’s be clear: demolition is not progress. Replacing modest, environmentally efficient homes with oversized, high-carbon luxury units doesn’t serve the city’s long-term interests or affordability goals. Preservation is not obstruction—it’s stewardship. And the professionals and volunteers asking hard questions about scale, context, and livability are doing the work the city needs them to do.

Cambridge does need more housing, but it also needs thoughtful planning, sustainable development, and truth in journalism. The real bottlenecks in housing aren’t happening in conservation district meetings—they’re happening on Wall Street, in D.C., and in developer boardrooms hesitating to bet on an uncertain future.
​
So, let’s wait for interest rates to fall, for building materials to stabilize, for job confidence to return—and let’s stop scapegoating the very people trying to protect our city and its vibrant history, alongside the need for better climate resilience, and the critically important historic legacy of our remarkable city.

​