Preserving Cambridge or Selling It Off? The Real Cambridge Story Behind the ‘Paris-Style’ Luxury Housing Upzoning Reform

Left: Haussmann style American building from April 1, 2025 Image from Inside Business . Right Photo of a Paris Haussmann Style building.

On April 1, 2025 — fittingly, April Fools’ Day — the Business Insider published a short piece by Ned Resnikoff on Cambridge’s recent luxury housing upzoning under the headline: “One university town holds the key to solving America’s housing shortage.” They wrote: “Building more high-density apartment buildings can boost housing and lower home prices across a city. Cambridge, Massachusetts, is doing just that.”

While the piece offered little analysis, one might add that the claim itself is a joke — or at the very least a fool’s errand, with grave risks (as we are already seeing) of driving housing costs even higher in Cambridge.

One of the lead City Councillors behind this upzoning ordinance, Burhan Azeem, quickly promoted the story on Elon Musk’s site X (formerly Twitter). He wrote: “I’m incredibly proud of the work we’ve done this term. Our ‘Paris-style’ reforms have made headlines, from The Economist to The Daily Show. Many people tell me that for the first time they have real hope they can stay in the city they love. But big wins come with big pushback. Our progress has made me a target, and now we’re facing well-funded efforts to unseat me this election. We have 117 days until Election Day. I’m aiming to raise $50,000 this week so I can focus on knocking doors and meeting voters. If you believe in the work we’ve done, on housing, on transit, and so much more, please chip in!”

According to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), 37.7% of the money he has raised across his campaigns comes from outside Cambridge.

The image chosen to illustrate this article harkens back to Haussmann’s Paris — evoking the large multi-family central courtyard buildings lining wide tree-shaded boulevards. But look more closely: this is a very Americanized version of Paris. American flags hang near the windows, deck chairs and an umbrella dot the roof, and clunky air conditioner boxes jut from the façade beside wide-open windows. Most surreal of all, a crane dangles what looks suspiciously like a rooftop swimming pool — a parody of “Paris-style” housing.

This Councillor followed up with another social media post on August 11, 2025, published in Cambridge Day under the title “It’s Too Expensive to Keep Things the Same.” In it, another new project was celebrated — the planned redevelopment of the site of famed anti-slavery advocate Harriet Jacobs. On August 22, The Boston Globe ran an opinion piece by Prof. Orlando Patterson, written soon after the Cambridge Historical Commission voted unanimously to support a landmark study of this historically significant home and site.

Beyond the importance of honoring Harriet Jacobs’ legacy, a central issue is how this redevelopment will actually affect housing. The proposal is for luxury hotel and residential units — properties that will likely become investor assets, and most likely owned by individuals and firms outside Cambridge, the region, or even the country.

More troubling still, this Councillor has tried to shift the blame for the failures of the upzoning onto historic preservation. In the aftermath of the 17 Story Street decision — as well as rulings on Ellery Street and Western Avenue requiring developers to return with viable designs — he posted several inaccurate statements on X.

On August 15 he reposted a statement by a pro-housing advocate that read:
“Historic preservation is important... but when we've reached a point where the median home price in Cambridge has exceeded $1.2 mil, we need to have serious discussions about what we're actually preserving, for whom and balancing preservation with the need to grow our housing.”

And then the Councillor added: “So the historical commissions / conservation districts have killed half the housing under the new zoning so far... that’s unfortunate.”

This is simply untrue (and known to be so). To date, no housing units have been lost as a result of the Cambridge Historical Commission or the Neighborhood Conservation Districts. On the contrary, in one case their review actually resulted in an extra unit being added. Despite these facts, this Councillor and his allies have been among the leading advocates for gutting Cambridge’s preservation framework, targeting both the Cambridge Historical Commission and the Neighborhood Conservation Districts.

Similar attacks on environmental and historical preservation are part of a new “build baby build” or “move fast and break things” mentality among some pro-development advocates. The stated aim is to allow anyone who wants to live in Cambridge to do so. But the reality is these new units are not only replacing sustainable existing housing — they are also too expensive and too small to meet the needs of most Cambridge residents. Instead, the policies fuel speculation, rewarding bad actors: individuals and private-equity groups that gobble up properties and now even use AI to inflate rents.

To return to the Business Insider piece, the author, Ned Resnikoff takes up an array or related points that should be taken seriously. One is aesthetic differences between Haussmann’s Paris and Cambridge. He writes: “Unlike the boxy, cheap-looking American five-over-one apartment building that has come to dominate much of our development — and which many people regard as an eyesore  — Euro-style apartments generally contribute to the beauty and charm of dense, walkable tourist destinations like Stockholm and Rome.”

The author also pushes back against YIMBY assumptions here. “First, upzoning cities like Cambridge is not the same thing as requiring them to build up to Parisian density. If you own a single-family home in Cambridge, and your lot has been upzoned to allow for the construction of a four-story building, you remain at liberty to keep your single-family home.” And it is virtually impossible to find something smaller that is affordable for seniors or others to downsize to within the city.  

Secondly, Resnikoff notes that “Many of Cambridge's mid-rise apartment buildings were constructed before single-family zoning became ubiquitous in the United States in the early 20th century. And the ones that have survived are now highly coveted as luxury homes and architectural treasures.” This is also true but as we have seen on 60 and 84-86 Ellery Street these multi-family apartment residences are now facing investment demolition threats.

But then the author cites one of our pro-developer Councillor’s false statements, namely that "85%+ of the existing housing" in the city would be illegal to build. Nothing is further from the truth, anyone before the upzoning – or after – is welcome to seek a special permit from the BZA to build whatever makes sense for the site, an opportunity for professionals – and neighbors if they wish – to also discuss these plans. But the February 10 upzoning was intended to alleviate any such professional or neighbor discussions to allow the investors and developers here to do whatever they want.

Conclusions: The fallacy of the Paris Analogy for Cambridge:

As we are already seeing in Cambridge, with the 10-fold increase in the number of properties that have come before the Historical Commission to review for possible demolition - both Resnikoff and the Councillor are way off base. Resnikoff states that “…Cambridge's upzoning may actually help to preserve the city's architectural heritage and New England character….” This is incorrect. Indeed, just the opposite is happening in Cambridge, and members of the current City Council here are pushing as hard as they can to remove any efforts to preserve this heritage. And it is this important architectural heritage along with our mature trees, is the most important legacy we can pass on to future residents.