The Cambridge Citywide Coalition's 2021 Advancing Housing Affordability Petition
(also called the Donovan Petition)
|
|
|
Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Upzoning Petition Flier with QR and Bitly Code
Housing Data: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
2026 Binstock Doc on the MFH Ordinance
We are already one of the densest cities in the country and have superseded state mandates. So is 12,500 new units by 2030 really the number we should strive for in an uncertain economy with the array of federal-funding and employment cuts in Cambridge and the Boston area? Read the MAPC Boston Area 2030 projections for Cambridge HERE
What we are seeing....
We “...have created a situation where ordinary Americans are not bidding against other families, they’re bidding against the billionaires for these houses. And it’s driving up rents and its driving up home prices.” U. S. Senator Jeff Merkely, Oregon.
"Asking for-profit developers to fix the affordable housing problem is like asking an arsonist to put out their own fire. What is their incentive?" The Black Response Cambridge on the Upzoning Petition:"Missing Middle Fails for Housing Affordability
"People are very bad at macroeconomics. Even many economists. We simply cannot see a whole system and constantly forget the first lesson of macro that someone’s spending is another’s income" (Economist Cameron Murray, author of The Great Housing Hijack; source: X/Twitter March 2, 2025).
The March 14, 2025, Harvard Gazette article on rental affordability stating that "You’re going to have a hard time solving the affordability problem through zoning." HERE
"Asking for-profit developers to fix the affordable housing problem is like asking an arsonist to put out their own fire. What is their incentive?" The Black Response Cambridge on the Upzoning Petition:"Missing Middle Fails for Housing Affordability
"People are very bad at macroeconomics. Even many economists. We simply cannot see a whole system and constantly forget the first lesson of macro that someone’s spending is another’s income" (Economist Cameron Murray, author of The Great Housing Hijack; source: X/Twitter March 2, 2025).
The March 14, 2025, Harvard Gazette article on rental affordability stating that "You’re going to have a hard time solving the affordability problem through zoning." HERE
WE SUPPORT HOUSING PLANS THAT WORK:
1. Build housing for city teachers and essential workers specifically. See Berkeley, Ca: HERE
2. Purchase existing Apartment buildings and Multi-Family Units and use them to Provide Housing to Residents in Need.
3. Build District Live-Work Apartments above commercial: Los Angeles, Ca. Read More: HERE
4. Guarantee down payment loans for Cambridge residents who wish to purchase their first homes.
5. Provide 5 year tax rebates and design plans to owners converting garages into ADUs if they are willing to rent at below market for 5 years (give 10-year rebates if willing to make affordable).
1. Build housing for city teachers and essential workers specifically. See Berkeley, Ca: HERE
2. Purchase existing Apartment buildings and Multi-Family Units and use them to Provide Housing to Residents in Need.
3. Build District Live-Work Apartments above commercial: Los Angeles, Ca. Read More: HERE
4. Guarantee down payment loans for Cambridge residents who wish to purchase their first homes.
5. Provide 5 year tax rebates and design plans to owners converting garages into ADUs if they are willing to rent at below market for 5 years (give 10-year rebates if willing to make affordable).
A Positive Shift: A 79 unit apartment building between Porter and Harvard Squares will be transferred into affordable units. It was purchased by the Cambridge Housing Authority. We applaud this. Read more here: HERE
We need more examples of reuse.
We need far fewer demolitions of existing housing as is happening since the MHF upzoning petition was ordained.
We need far fewer demolitions of existing housing as is happening since the MHF upzoning petition was ordained.
2026 Map of Demolition Impacts Visual in Mid-Cambridge
(Elena Saporta)
Cambridge's CDD's Development Log for July 2025 tracks 67 projects totaling 12.9 million square feet and over $3 billion in construction. Projects cover development of more than 5,000 housing units, including over 1,000 affordable housing units. On top of this we have potentially 2000 new units proposed for Alewife quad. And this appears not to include demolitions of existing single and two-family vintage homes for larger luxury ones. We are certainly building alot even without the proposed lowering of the affordable housing 20% mandate, or doing away with design oversight, setbacks, and the legal right to appeal.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS MATTER
Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) Play a Key Role by bringing neighbors, professionals and developers to the table to help make the best decisions possible on new building design and facade changes to older buildings
An April 7 2026 meeting Chaired by Cathie Zusy of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee brought together an array of specialists to address some of the problems with the Multi-Family Housing Upzoning Ordinance (which has brought many more demolitions to the city). Video Link: https://cambridgema.v3.swagit.com/videos/381382 Realtor Ed Abrams talks about what this upzoning is actually doing from the actual Real Estate Market in Cambridge-making it more expensive. Interesting discussion overall and makes one ask who in the City Staff (and allied councillors) is working for the interests of actual real Cambridge residents rather some mythical number of 12,500 new units have to be built for whom? Who are these other 12,500 people who some of our councilors seem to be working for? Or is it the developers they are working for with this new no-holds barred upzoning
An April 7 2026 meeting Chaired by Cathie Zusy of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee brought together an array of specialists to address some of the problems with the Multi-Family Housing Upzoning Ordinance (which has brought many more demolitions to the city). Video Link: https://cambridgema.v3.swagit.com/videos/381382 Realtor Ed Abrams talks about what this upzoning is actually doing from the actual Real Estate Market in Cambridge-making it more expensive. Interesting discussion overall and makes one ask who in the City Staff (and allied councillors) is working for the interests of actual real Cambridge residents rather some mythical number of 12,500 new units have to be built for whom? Who are these other 12,500 people who some of our councilors seem to be working for? Or is it the developers they are working for with this new no-holds barred upzoning
NEW UPZONING PLANS for the CORRIDORS AND SQUARES
Planned Heights of 8-18 stories (possibly higher for new AHO projects) on Mass Ave. (from Cambridge Common to Arlington Border) . Image based on MAPC rendering.
2026 City of Cambridge Housing Report
Summary: The City’s Annual Housing Review reveals a housing system marked by a growing pipeline of market-rate development alongside limited near-term production, rising costs, and significant neighborhood and environmental impacts. Affordable housing remains the most consistent source of actual unit delivery. The report notes that “2 projects with all-affordable units were permitted in 2025,” totaling 71 units, or “46%” of all new units permitted. It further concludes that “all-affordable housing development remains strong due to alternate funding sources and reliable permitting (AHO).” These projects are moving forward despite economic constraints, indicating that subsidized housing is currently the most dependable form of production.
At the same time, the report identifies a very large pipeline of future housing, much of it market-rate. It notes that “PUD proposals… make up a large pipeline of market housing over long term (5,000± units).” While “not all projects will necessarily move forward,” and “actual construction and timing… is uncertain due to economic factors” these will likely increase housing costs and have harmful environmental impacts. Furthermore, these new units will not help build back our middle class because the new housing costs will be out of reach. The report itself notes that “private funding for market-rate housing remains difficult to secure,” reinforcing the pattern that new private development must command high prices to proceed. As a result, new housing is likely to enter the market at elevated price points, contributing to broader increases in rents and property values.
The redevelopment process is also associated with displacement pressures. In 2025, “88” housing units were approved for demolition, a sharp increase from the prior year. Many projects replace smaller or older buildings with larger developments, reflecting what the report describes as a “shift away from decreasing units toward increasing units.” While this increases total unit counts, it also results in the loss of existing housing and contributes to rising land values, making it more difficult for current residents to remain in place.
Environmental impacts are also evident. The report shows that “37” significant trees were removed while only “26” new canopy trees were proposed. Although projects are said to meet requirements, “some proposals are closer to the minimum,” suggesting a gradual erosion of tree canopy and open space quality associated with new development. The report also underestimates the number of market rate homes and units that have been engaged with this upzoning, the amount of profit developers are making on Cambridge since the upzoning, and the loss of residents and green space.
Overall, the report points to a system in which affordable housing is being delivered through public mechanisms, while a large volume of market-rate housing is planned but not yet realized. In the meantime, the housing that is built is often high-cost, redevelopment-driven, and associated with demolition and environmental impacts. The result is a pattern of rising property values, displacement pressure, and neighborhood change occurring in advance of any substantial increase in supply that might offset these trends.
At the same time, the report identifies a very large pipeline of future housing, much of it market-rate. It notes that “PUD proposals… make up a large pipeline of market housing over long term (5,000± units).” While “not all projects will necessarily move forward,” and “actual construction and timing… is uncertain due to economic factors” these will likely increase housing costs and have harmful environmental impacts. Furthermore, these new units will not help build back our middle class because the new housing costs will be out of reach. The report itself notes that “private funding for market-rate housing remains difficult to secure,” reinforcing the pattern that new private development must command high prices to proceed. As a result, new housing is likely to enter the market at elevated price points, contributing to broader increases in rents and property values.
The redevelopment process is also associated with displacement pressures. In 2025, “88” housing units were approved for demolition, a sharp increase from the prior year. Many projects replace smaller or older buildings with larger developments, reflecting what the report describes as a “shift away from decreasing units toward increasing units.” While this increases total unit counts, it also results in the loss of existing housing and contributes to rising land values, making it more difficult for current residents to remain in place.
Environmental impacts are also evident. The report shows that “37” significant trees were removed while only “26” new canopy trees were proposed. Although projects are said to meet requirements, “some proposals are closer to the minimum,” suggesting a gradual erosion of tree canopy and open space quality associated with new development. The report also underestimates the number of market rate homes and units that have been engaged with this upzoning, the amount of profit developers are making on Cambridge since the upzoning, and the loss of residents and green space.
Overall, the report points to a system in which affordable housing is being delivered through public mechanisms, while a large volume of market-rate housing is planned but not yet realized. In the meantime, the housing that is built is often high-cost, redevelopment-driven, and associated with demolition and environmental impacts. The result is a pattern of rising property values, displacement pressure, and neighborhood change occurring in advance of any substantial increase in supply that might offset these trends.
Cambridge's CDD's Development Log for July 2025 tracks 67 projects totaling 12.9 million square feet and over $3 billion in construction. Projects cover development of more than 5,000 housing units, including over 1,000 affordable housing units. On top of this we have potentially 2000 new units proposed for Alewife quad. And this appears not to include demolitions of existing single and two-family vintage homes for larger luxury ones. We are certainly building alot even without the proposed lowering of the affordable housing 20% mandate, or doing away with design oversight, setbacks, and the legal right to appeal.
CITY UPZONING: MORE WORK TO BE DONE
An April 7 2026 meeting Chaired by Cathie Zusy of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee brought together an array of specialists to address some of the problems with the Multi-Family Housing Upzoning Ordinance (which has brought many more demolitions to the city). Video Link: https://cambridgema.v3.swagit.com/videos/381382 Realtor Ed Abrams talks about what this upzoning is actually doing from the actual Real Estate Market in Cambridge-making it more expensive. Interesting discussion overall and makes one ask who in the City Staff (and allied councillors) is working for the interests of actual real Cambridge residents rather some mythical number of 12,500 new units have to be built for whom? Who are these other 12,500 people who some of our councilors seem to be working for? Or is it the developers they are working for with this new no-holds barred upzoning?
READ our April 5, 2025 Op Ed in the Boston Globe
Our Conclusions: *The principal upzoning beneficiaries are investors and developers * People who bought solar will lose financially if a 6-story building shades their panels * Neighbors now have no ability no say in new housing – nor do professional boards * Even though you build more housing, prices won't come down because people will still want to live in Cambridge This upzoning actually increases the cost of housing by making properties more valuable and by allowing the demolition of existing lower cost homes to great larger more expensive ones * Corporate ownership of housing is the real problem, so we need to address that too * Upzoning drives speculations of home purchases, driving prices even higher * This upzoning will drive out lower income people * Trees will have to be cut down and green spaces removed. *We should be using city owned vacant lots and target specific occupants such as teachers and firefighters.
Research on Housing
"Supply Constraints do not Explain Price and Quantity Growth Across U. S. Cities." by Schuyler Louie et al., National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. March 2025: Conclusions: Housing cost impacts largely result from people with higher incomes moving into places with lower incomes. This study also reveals that adding more "market rate" (luxury) housing to a city does NOT reduce housing costs was published by three economists in the National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge MFH upzoning, while not addressed by this team, has increased housing prices here, and would appear to confirm the results of these eminent economists. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/
Yonah Freemark "Zoning Change: Upzonings, Downzonings, and Their Impacts on Residential Construction, Housing Costs, and Neighborhood Demographics" Sage Publications vol 38, no.4. Summary: "Many policymakers concerned about high housing costs argue that easing development through altered land-use regulations can increase building, thereby boosting affordability and reducing segregation. I develop a framework to explain links - sometimes contradictory - between upzonings and construction, prices, and demographics. I evaluate scholarship and compare findings with research on downzoning's impeding development. Evidence indicates that upzonings offer mixed success in terms of housing production, reduced costs, and social integration in impacted neighborhoods; outcomes depend on market demand, local context, housing types, and timing. " https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08854122231166961
“Housing Affordability” by Patrick Condon and Thomas Kroeker. Insights. April 3, 2026: HERE. See also: Condon's Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality, and Urban Crisis by Vancouver urban planner Patrick M. Condon argues that runaway urban housing costs are driven by land speculation, where land is treated as a financial asset rather than a utility, leading to massive inequality. Condon, a professor at UBC, proposes solutions like capturing land value increases for public benefit through land value taxes and zoning reforms, drawing on examples from Vienna, Taiwan, and Portland, to shift land back to a public good and address the housing crisis. Key arguments Land as an asset: The core problem is that global capital markets treat urban land as a speculative investment, causing prices to skyrocket (e.g., 600% increase in Vancouver land prices between 2008-2016).
A Dec. 2024 article in Urban Studies (peer reviewed Sage Publications) titled "Upzoning and gentrification: Heterogeneous impacts of neighbourhood-level upzoning in New York City" by Kim et al. focuses on gentrification and reducing impacts of racial and ethnic segregation in NYC. This scientific report reveals that indiscriminate upzoning has led to MORE gentrification in the lower income areas: HERE. They conclude that neighborhoods that were upzoned between 2001 and 2013 generally experienced more housing construction, but they also became wealthier, more highly educated, and whiter than comparable neighborhoods that were not upzoned. Housing prices and rents rose significantly in many upzoned areas, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods. The strongest signs of gentrification occurred in heavily upzoned areas and in predominantly Black neighborhoods, where demographic shifts were especially pronounced. The authors conclude that while upzoning increased housing supply, it was also associated with accelerated neighborhood change and gentrification, suggesting that zoning reform alone may not be sufficient to preserve affordability or prevent displacement pressures.
The same thing is happening in Cambridge in our once lower income neighborhoods where increasingly long time minority and other residents are being forced out or priced out.
Tom Angotti and Sylvia Morse (2023), Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York City (Revised Edition). They argue that New York City's rezoning and redevelopment policies have often facilitated gentrification and displacement in low-income communities of color while failing to deliver housing that is affordable to existing residents. He contends that zoning changes alone cannot solve housing inequality and should be accompanied by stronger public planning and anti-displacement measures.
Jenna Davis (2021), “How Do Upzonings Impact Neighborhood Demographic Change? Examining the Link Between Land Use Policy and Gentrification in New York City,” Land Use Policy, 103. Using New York City rezoning cases, Davis found that upzoned neighborhoods experienced demographic changes consistent with gentrification, including increases in higher-income and more highly educated residents. Her work emphasizes that upzoning can stimulate development while also accelerating neighborhood change in certain contexts.
Jenna Davis (2021), “The Double-Edged Sword of Upzoning,” Brookings Institution. In this policy-oriented summary, Davis characterizes upzoning as a “double-edged sword,” noting that while increasing development capacity may expand housing supply, it can also intensify market pressures and contribute to gentrification in vulnerable neighborhoods unless paired with affordability and tenant-protection policies. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/?utm_source
Yonah Freemark "Zoning Change: Upzonings, Downzonings, and Their Impacts on Residential Construction, Housing Costs, and Neighborhood Demographics" Sage Publications vol 38, no.4. Summary: "Many policymakers concerned about high housing costs argue that easing development through altered land-use regulations can increase building, thereby boosting affordability and reducing segregation. I develop a framework to explain links - sometimes contradictory - between upzonings and construction, prices, and demographics. I evaluate scholarship and compare findings with research on downzoning's impeding development. Evidence indicates that upzonings offer mixed success in terms of housing production, reduced costs, and social integration in impacted neighborhoods; outcomes depend on market demand, local context, housing types, and timing. " https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08854122231166961
“Housing Affordability” by Patrick Condon and Thomas Kroeker. Insights. April 3, 2026: HERE. See also: Condon's Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality, and Urban Crisis by Vancouver urban planner Patrick M. Condon argues that runaway urban housing costs are driven by land speculation, where land is treated as a financial asset rather than a utility, leading to massive inequality. Condon, a professor at UBC, proposes solutions like capturing land value increases for public benefit through land value taxes and zoning reforms, drawing on examples from Vienna, Taiwan, and Portland, to shift land back to a public good and address the housing crisis. Key arguments Land as an asset: The core problem is that global capital markets treat urban land as a speculative investment, causing prices to skyrocket (e.g., 600% increase in Vancouver land prices between 2008-2016).
A Dec. 2024 article in Urban Studies (peer reviewed Sage Publications) titled "Upzoning and gentrification: Heterogeneous impacts of neighbourhood-level upzoning in New York City" by Kim et al. focuses on gentrification and reducing impacts of racial and ethnic segregation in NYC. This scientific report reveals that indiscriminate upzoning has led to MORE gentrification in the lower income areas: HERE. They conclude that neighborhoods that were upzoned between 2001 and 2013 generally experienced more housing construction, but they also became wealthier, more highly educated, and whiter than comparable neighborhoods that were not upzoned. Housing prices and rents rose significantly in many upzoned areas, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods. The strongest signs of gentrification occurred in heavily upzoned areas and in predominantly Black neighborhoods, where demographic shifts were especially pronounced. The authors conclude that while upzoning increased housing supply, it was also associated with accelerated neighborhood change and gentrification, suggesting that zoning reform alone may not be sufficient to preserve affordability or prevent displacement pressures.
The same thing is happening in Cambridge in our once lower income neighborhoods where increasingly long time minority and other residents are being forced out or priced out.
Tom Angotti and Sylvia Morse (2023), Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York City (Revised Edition). They argue that New York City's rezoning and redevelopment policies have often facilitated gentrification and displacement in low-income communities of color while failing to deliver housing that is affordable to existing residents. He contends that zoning changes alone cannot solve housing inequality and should be accompanied by stronger public planning and anti-displacement measures.
Jenna Davis (2021), “How Do Upzonings Impact Neighborhood Demographic Change? Examining the Link Between Land Use Policy and Gentrification in New York City,” Land Use Policy, 103. Using New York City rezoning cases, Davis found that upzoned neighborhoods experienced demographic changes consistent with gentrification, including increases in higher-income and more highly educated residents. Her work emphasizes that upzoning can stimulate development while also accelerating neighborhood change in certain contexts.
Jenna Davis (2021), “The Double-Edged Sword of Upzoning,” Brookings Institution. In this policy-oriented summary, Davis characterizes upzoning as a “double-edged sword,” noting that while increasing development capacity may expand housing supply, it can also intensify market pressures and contribute to gentrification in vulnerable neighborhoods unless paired with affordability and tenant-protection policies. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/?utm_source
2020 MAPC REPORT ON BOSTON AREA HOUSING
Housing Price increases is a national and international problem, and simply assuming that building more homes and assuming that trickle down impacts will bring lower prices is incorrect.
Priorities of Residents in Affordable Housing (1.9.2025)
This is summarized in the Cambridge Housing Authority slide show for the 1/9/25 resident meeting: Corcoran Park Modernization Project: HERE
- Residents prefer low-rise, townhouse configuration with individual entrances
- Residents dislike 6 stories, prefer 3 stories
- Residents prefer high ration of parking to units, approaching 1:1 (In this case, design will be .81. parking spaces to units)
- Residents prefer private open space (patios) to parkland
- Residents prioritize parking over trees
HOUSING DEMOGRAPHICS
A March 16, 2025 Boston Globe article titled "Empty Nesters Are NOT Flying the Coop" notes that Baby Boomers (59-77) comprise 38.7% of the home owners, Gen X (43-58) own 30.1%, Millennials (27-42) own 20.6%, the Silent Generation (78 and up) own 9.5%, and Adult Gen Z (19-26) own 1.1%). Read more: HERE
What the opposition is saying: it is a chain reaction thing: people leave homes to purchase better homes, leaving behind less expensive homes: HERE
However this does not work in Cambridge and many otheer areas because we cannot build enough to meet demand and have no vacant space to build more with demolishing existing homes.
What the opposition is saying: it is a chain reaction thing: people leave homes to purchase better homes, leaving behind less expensive homes: HERE
However this does not work in Cambridge and many otheer areas because we cannot build enough to meet demand and have no vacant space to build more with demolishing existing homes.
UPZONING KEY CORRIDORS
The first meeting was held on March 3, 2025 at 11:30AM the same Housing Committee that initiated the deplorable Luxury Housing Upzoning that was ordained on February 10. In this case, they are joined by the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee in a joint meeting. For largely political reasons, it appears, the Council majority voted to leave out the city area with the greatest potential for more housing, namely Central Square. Read more in the Harvard Crimson "'What’s The Hold Up?': Cambridge City Councilors Disagree on Whether Central Square is Ready for Rezoning” HERE
NOTE: A recent Vancouver Sun report calls their recent upzoning efforts on the corridors the “Uglification ofMetro-Vancouver Mass-Upzoning” (11.28.24) HERE. Let’s not make the same mistake in Cambridge of leaving out green spaces, trees, inner courtyards, height limits and more. As noted in this article: “Politicians are asking tower developers for fewer aesthetic features and community amenities. But residents lose, and prices still don’t go down.”
READ our Blogpost "Cambridge Corridor & Square Upzoning: Let's Do this One Right (3.1.25): HERE
NOTE: A recent Vancouver Sun report calls their recent upzoning efforts on the corridors the “Uglification ofMetro-Vancouver Mass-Upzoning” (11.28.24) HERE. Let’s not make the same mistake in Cambridge of leaving out green spaces, trees, inner courtyards, height limits and more. As noted in this article: “Politicians are asking tower developers for fewer aesthetic features and community amenities. But residents lose, and prices still don’t go down.”
READ our Blogpost "Cambridge Corridor & Square Upzoning: Let's Do this One Right (3.1.25): HERE
NEW CITY WIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES PROPOSED & PRESENTED
Read CCC's blogpost on "Our City's Proposed New Design Guidelines"(3.16.25). HERE
PRESERVATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Philadelphia recently published several reports on the interdependence (and compatibility) of housing preservation and affordable housing: HERE
Banker & Tradesman article of July 20, 2025 attacking historic preservation and design oversight in Cambridge in the aftermath of the upzoning.
Banker & Tradesman article of July 20, 2025 attacking historic preservation and design oversight in Cambridge in the aftermath of the upzoning.
And why preservation matters!
New York City Report on the link between Up-zoning and Gentrification
Cambridge city-owned properties that could be transformed into lower income housing
|
|
Fall 2024 Proposal to radically Up-Zone the Residential Areas of the City to SIX+ stories without design oversight.
CDD report on the City Council up-zoning plan to the Ordinance Committee 1.16.25: HERE
CDD report on the City Council up-zoning plan to the Ordinance Committee 1.16.25: HERE
*There are no design guidelines for AHO based on height unless in an overlay district where it mirrors Harvard Square and adds bulk control planes at 65' and if another layer is in historic conservation district and then another layer is over 59k SF in some areas and 20k in other areas ... but all projects over 25k SF are subject to article 19.50.
**Current rules for AHO heights: "Allowable residential height" means that one does not have to get a special permit, even if there are conditions one must meet. Additionally: 1) In districts where the allowable residential height is no more than 40', AHO projects can have four stories and 45' in height. 2) In districts where the allowable residential height is more than 40' but no more than 65', AHO projects can have nine stories and 100' in height; 3) A project on an AHO Corridor Lot can have twelve stories and 140' in height; 4) In districts where the allowable residential height is more than 65', AHO projects can have thirteen stories and 150' in height; A project in an AHO Square District can have fifteen stories and 170' in height; 6) There are situations where projects can go even higher.
*** The Dover Amendment: 4.50 INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS
4.51 Legal Authority. In accordance with Chapter 565 of the 1979 General Court, and as amended by Chapter 387 of the Acts of 1980, the use of land for institutional purposes in residentially zoned districts which require a lot of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or more per dwelling unit shall be governed by the provisions of this Section 4.50.
4.52 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section 4.50 to protect lower density residential neighborhoods from unlimited expansion of institutional activities, to reduce pressures for conversion of the existing housing stock to nonresidential uses, to minimize the development of activities which are different from and incompatible with activity patterns customarily found in lower density residential neighborhoods and to provide a framework for allowing those institutions which are compatible with residential neighborhoods to locate and expand there. This Section 4.50 is intended to accomplish these purposes in a manner consistent with the findings and objectives of the Community Development Department’s Cambridge Institutional Growth Management Plan (1981)
**Current rules for AHO heights: "Allowable residential height" means that one does not have to get a special permit, even if there are conditions one must meet. Additionally: 1) In districts where the allowable residential height is no more than 40', AHO projects can have four stories and 45' in height. 2) In districts where the allowable residential height is more than 40' but no more than 65', AHO projects can have nine stories and 100' in height; 3) A project on an AHO Corridor Lot can have twelve stories and 140' in height; 4) In districts where the allowable residential height is more than 65', AHO projects can have thirteen stories and 150' in height; A project in an AHO Square District can have fifteen stories and 170' in height; 6) There are situations where projects can go even higher.
*** The Dover Amendment: 4.50 INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS
4.51 Legal Authority. In accordance with Chapter 565 of the 1979 General Court, and as amended by Chapter 387 of the Acts of 1980, the use of land for institutional purposes in residentially zoned districts which require a lot of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or more per dwelling unit shall be governed by the provisions of this Section 4.50.
4.52 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section 4.50 to protect lower density residential neighborhoods from unlimited expansion of institutional activities, to reduce pressures for conversion of the existing housing stock to nonresidential uses, to minimize the development of activities which are different from and incompatible with activity patterns customarily found in lower density residential neighborhoods and to provide a framework for allowing those institutions which are compatible with residential neighborhoods to locate and expand there. This Section 4.50 is intended to accomplish these purposes in a manner consistent with the findings and objectives of the Community Development Department’s Cambridge Institutional Growth Management Plan (1981)
masspublicnotices.org
CAMBRIDGE UP-ZONING: POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET SHARED GOALS
A. ENABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING CITYWIDE: Allow Multi-Family Housing citywide in all A, B, and C Residential Districts. Height, setbacks, and design review for multifamily housing to be as follows.
B. HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND DESIGN REVIEW: These must be 10+unit structures (with 20% inclusionary units).
3 stories (35’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback For 3-story structures, design review would be done by staff based on pre-approved CDD design guidelines (similar to the proposed dormer rule). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
4 stories (45’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback, design review with prior approved CDD design guidelines and formal binding design oversight and review (PB, BZA, CHC). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
5 stories (55’) on major residential district corridors only, as outlined following neighborhood specific guidelines (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might nclude front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent buildings. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear step back design (and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors). Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
6 stories (65’) only on major residential district corridors, as outlined following neighborhood specific decisions (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might include front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent properties. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors. Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front properties.
Note: Reduce height allowance for 6 story structures to 65’ to not trigger the AHO 13 story allowance in residential neighborhoods. And/or change the language in the AHO article of the Zoning Ordinance (Article 11.000) to read as follows. 11.207.5.2.1.(d) : “Where the District Dimensional Standards set forth a maximum residential building height of more than seventy-five (75) feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than thirteen (13) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150) feet.”
C. PARKING: For any project of 3 stories of more, provide parking spaces for 50% of units or as need determined by an analysis of empty parking spaces available within two blocks between 11 PM and 5 AM on a week night between the months of September and November or January and June.
D. OPEN SPACE, GENERAL: Retain citywide current open space minimums for open space requirements. Require only water permeable surfaces to count as Open Space (not garage decks, roof decks, porches, or walkways). Open space range between 10-36% based on current districts. See Table 5-1. Require conformation with Zoning Article 2.000 that “Green Area Open Space shall be open and unobstructed to the sky, it shall be land at grade, and shall consist of friable, permeable materials.” In short, open space should be Green Area Open Space as per Zoning 2.000 and consist of contiguous areas each no less than 225 square feet.
E. COUNCIL REGULAR REVIEW: Require a 5 year and then 10-year review (followed by regular 10-year reviews). These reviews should include the number and location of up-zoning related sites, the number of new units on each site, the number of public housing incorporated on each site, the prices of related rentals, condos and other units, the environmental impacts (loss of trees, embodied carbon losses, heat island impacts etc.), the number of parking spaces included on a site and/or street parking sticker applications on the site, the changing status of the housing (rentals to condos for example), the number and circumstances of existing tenants who moved both within the city and outside the city, and the economic impacts of rising or falling adjacent and near-adjacent home values, vacancies, and resident moves.
We also have a few other things discussed but – but could drop
F. ENVIRONMENTAL: Require water permeable pavers, best practices roofing materials, and design review that includes consideration of shadow and other impacts on neighboring homes re. solar panels, trees, and the embodied carbon impacts of demolitions, and the potential loss of trees to the neighborhood tree canopy, among other considerations. If demolishing 3 or more residential units use the Embodied Emissions Reporting Regulations.
G. INFRASTRUCTURE: Transit- and environmental-related overview of a project should be part of the materials presented to decision making bodies. This should include (but not limited), needs for larger capacity water or sewage pipes, electrical lines, increased car traffic (number of parking spaces included or likely on street parking needs), the distance from the nearest bus stop or T stop. With the elimination of required residential parking, one can require an analysis of available night-time street parking when reducing required parking to less expected demand, e.g. counting cars in the middle of the night until they found a reasonable number of spaces within a few blocks.
H. DESIGN CRITERIA: Require CDD to come up with design criteria and renderings for the proposed upzoning projects – 2 in each A, B, and C district. Also CDD must provide design criteria for new AHO 2.0 developments in any residential neighborhood because these will factor as well.
I. ONLY ALLOW PROJECTS BRINGING MORE HOUSING: Limit applicability to projects of 10+ unit homes. Larger SFH and TFH projects would increase adjacent property values but not add more housing. Currently these owners can rebuild to the existing footprint “as of right” and can go to the BZA for exceptions or proposed increases.
J. CONSOLIDATE CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL: Require CDD, DPW (and others?) to create a single comprehensive check off form that a developer or investor can use to make the process of building less onerous.
A. ENABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING CITYWIDE: Allow Multi-Family Housing citywide in all A, B, and C Residential Districts. Height, setbacks, and design review for multifamily housing to be as follows.
B. HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND DESIGN REVIEW: These must be 10+unit structures (with 20% inclusionary units).
3 stories (35’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback For 3-story structures, design review would be done by staff based on pre-approved CDD design guidelines (similar to the proposed dormer rule). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
4 stories (45’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback, design review with prior approved CDD design guidelines and formal binding design oversight and review (PB, BZA, CHC). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
5 stories (55’) on major residential district corridors only, as outlined following neighborhood specific guidelines (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might nclude front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent buildings. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear step back design (and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors). Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards.
6 stories (65’) only on major residential district corridors, as outlined following neighborhood specific decisions (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might include front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent properties. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors. Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front properties.
Note: Reduce height allowance for 6 story structures to 65’ to not trigger the AHO 13 story allowance in residential neighborhoods. And/or change the language in the AHO article of the Zoning Ordinance (Article 11.000) to read as follows. 11.207.5.2.1.(d) : “Where the District Dimensional Standards set forth a maximum residential building height of more than seventy-five (75) feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than thirteen (13) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150) feet.”
C. PARKING: For any project of 3 stories of more, provide parking spaces for 50% of units or as need determined by an analysis of empty parking spaces available within two blocks between 11 PM and 5 AM on a week night between the months of September and November or January and June.
D. OPEN SPACE, GENERAL: Retain citywide current open space minimums for open space requirements. Require only water permeable surfaces to count as Open Space (not garage decks, roof decks, porches, or walkways). Open space range between 10-36% based on current districts. See Table 5-1. Require conformation with Zoning Article 2.000 that “Green Area Open Space shall be open and unobstructed to the sky, it shall be land at grade, and shall consist of friable, permeable materials.” In short, open space should be Green Area Open Space as per Zoning 2.000 and consist of contiguous areas each no less than 225 square feet.
E. COUNCIL REGULAR REVIEW: Require a 5 year and then 10-year review (followed by regular 10-year reviews). These reviews should include the number and location of up-zoning related sites, the number of new units on each site, the number of public housing incorporated on each site, the prices of related rentals, condos and other units, the environmental impacts (loss of trees, embodied carbon losses, heat island impacts etc.), the number of parking spaces included on a site and/or street parking sticker applications on the site, the changing status of the housing (rentals to condos for example), the number and circumstances of existing tenants who moved both within the city and outside the city, and the economic impacts of rising or falling adjacent and near-adjacent home values, vacancies, and resident moves.
We also have a few other things discussed but – but could drop
F. ENVIRONMENTAL: Require water permeable pavers, best practices roofing materials, and design review that includes consideration of shadow and other impacts on neighboring homes re. solar panels, trees, and the embodied carbon impacts of demolitions, and the potential loss of trees to the neighborhood tree canopy, among other considerations. If demolishing 3 or more residential units use the Embodied Emissions Reporting Regulations.
G. INFRASTRUCTURE: Transit- and environmental-related overview of a project should be part of the materials presented to decision making bodies. This should include (but not limited), needs for larger capacity water or sewage pipes, electrical lines, increased car traffic (number of parking spaces included or likely on street parking needs), the distance from the nearest bus stop or T stop. With the elimination of required residential parking, one can require an analysis of available night-time street parking when reducing required parking to less expected demand, e.g. counting cars in the middle of the night until they found a reasonable number of spaces within a few blocks.
H. DESIGN CRITERIA: Require CDD to come up with design criteria and renderings for the proposed upzoning projects – 2 in each A, B, and C district. Also CDD must provide design criteria for new AHO 2.0 developments in any residential neighborhood because these will factor as well.
I. ONLY ALLOW PROJECTS BRINGING MORE HOUSING: Limit applicability to projects of 10+ unit homes. Larger SFH and TFH projects would increase adjacent property values but not add more housing. Currently these owners can rebuild to the existing footprint “as of right” and can go to the BZA for exceptions or proposed increases.
J. CONSOLIDATE CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL: Require CDD, DPW (and others?) to create a single comprehensive check off form that a developer or investor can use to make the process of building less onerous.
Other cities, including our neighbor, Somerville, have city plans with Form-Based Zoning
Cambridge has an especially rich housing history that informs where we are today and what issues we need to think about in addressing the future!
Above: Cambridge Residential Zoning Districts in A, B, and Cgroupings
Cambridge Wealth Demographics Have Changed Substantially in the last couple of decades. While some political animus continues to be directed at parts of West Cambridge, much of the newer wealth is moving into North Cambridge, Mid-Cambridge, Kendall Square and East Cambridge and other areas due to increasing gentrification of the city.
source: www.city-data.com/city/Cambridge-Massachusetts
AHO - Where we are in 2023-24
According to one estimate, since AHO 1.0 was adopted in October 2020, just under 3 years ago, a total of 616 100% affordable units to be deed-restricted in perpetuity are in the pipeline. The goal of Envision Cambridge for new affordable housing units to be built from 2019 to 2030 (a span of 12 years), is 1724 new SHI units based on 25% growth of SHI units according to the 2020 census data. Extrapolating the number of AHO rental units over 3 years, AHO as currently in the books, would produce 2,464 100% affordable deed-restricted units, comprising 78% of the currently stated Envision Cambridge goal, and therefore exceeding the suggested goal.
AHO 2.0 citywide up-zoning ordained by Council in Oct. 2023.
City Councillors supporting the large citywide AHO 2.0 up-zoning are Councillors Azeem, McGovern, Simmons, and Siddiqui as well as Mallon and Zondervan
City Councillors who oppose AHO 2.0 include Councillors Nolan and Toner as well as Carlone (the latter not running for reelection).
Likely impacts: removal of historic Cambridge homes and other buildings, loss of mature trees, and critical green spaces. With no parking or required drop off areas, traffic and parking problems will likely increase. Without our standard Planning Board large project oversight of AHO building design, these new large scale structures may not meet the level of design oversight of other city large projects - or neighbor imput. For AHO buildings, the Planning Board role is only advisory not mandatory unlike other projects. Adjacent homes and other buildings will be impacted by the 12 and 15 story buildings being erected which will block sunlight to neighbors and many blocks away. With little if any financial oversight, the new AHO units likely will cost tax payers nearly $1 million apiece (even without land costs) -double what market rate housing costs).
City Councillors supporting the large citywide AHO 2.0 up-zoning are Councillors Azeem, McGovern, Simmons, and Siddiqui as well as Mallon and Zondervan
City Councillors who oppose AHO 2.0 include Councillors Nolan and Toner as well as Carlone (the latter not running for reelection).
Likely impacts: removal of historic Cambridge homes and other buildings, loss of mature trees, and critical green spaces. With no parking or required drop off areas, traffic and parking problems will likely increase. Without our standard Planning Board large project oversight of AHO building design, these new large scale structures may not meet the level of design oversight of other city large projects - or neighbor imput. For AHO buildings, the Planning Board role is only advisory not mandatory unlike other projects. Adjacent homes and other buildings will be impacted by the 12 and 15 story buildings being erected which will block sunlight to neighbors and many blocks away. With little if any financial oversight, the new AHO units likely will cost tax payers nearly $1 million apiece (even without land costs) -double what market rate housing costs).
AHO 2.0 Citywide Upzoning Amendment: City Council Vote in October 2023
"It may seem obvious that cities filled with big buildings use energy more efficiently than dispersed suburban landscapes, and that newer, taller buildings are more energy-efficient than older, squatter structures. People widely understand that New York City, for example, ranks well on energy use per person, where housing tends toward the vertical, one boiler room can serve many units, and heat rises into the units above, rather than being lost to the sky....Skyscrapers use and lose more energy than low-rise buildings, research shows.... 'The results show that height is a significant predictor of energy use, even accounting for other variables,'the researchers wrote in a paper published in the journal Building Research and Information. In fact, each additional story in a building is associated with a 2.4 percent increase in electricity use and 2.9 percent increase in fossil fuel use, more than doubling the average emissions per square foot for the tallest buildings in their survey." Source: Greentech Media November 2020 (read article at link below).
AHO 2.0 citywide upzoning amendment before City Council (October 2023)
MORE documents on Housing (in Cambridge and Globally) also are found under our
CCCoalition.org Envision Tab
LOCAL CENTER WITH INFORMATION ON HOUSING ISSUES
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies (in part Industry funded) https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies (in part Industry funded) https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/
According to the above report, as of March 23, 2023, there are 1497 units under construction or completed
IMPACTS OF CHANGING HOUSING POLICY ON THE GROUND
One can readily see the neighborhood impacts of changing housing policy in Cambridge in recent decisions regarding housing within the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO context. More on the AHO impacts of AHO 1.0 and the proposed AHO 2.0 amendment below.
On August 7, Cambridge City Council will vote on the vast AHO-2.0 citywide up-zoning (see section below for more details on the specific proposal)
Areas of Rapidly Changing Property Values (Property Investments) and New Building
Existing Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Historic Districts in Cambridge are in areas of the city that have increased in value and investments less radically, meaning that housing here is more stable, and gentrification is less impactful,
Cambridge Has Long Been a State and National Leader in Building Affordable Housing (and has added far more housing than required)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
Non-Profit
CAMBRIDGE HOUSING & ZONING-RELATED DOCUMENTS
In Cambridge, unlike some places elsewhere, our once thriving factory history had far more impact on zoning and red-lining than racial discrimination did. Indeed our first African American neighborhoods were in the A1 and A2 areas today.
ALL of our current housing is legal, even if situated in city areas prior to current zoning rules. Any residential structure that is destroyed (in fire for example) can be rebuilt to its current footprint or height. Three story buildings ("triple-deckers") can still be built, but to different interior design guidelines due to fire hazards associated with the original "triple-decker" format.
CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING PETITIONS
AHO 2.0 (Affordable Housing Overlay) UP-ZONING PETITION AMENDMENT (Vote August 7, 2023)
AHO 1.0 (Affordable Housing Overlay) PETITION Ordained in 2021
Brown Petition for Incrementally Modernizing Residential Zoning
Franklin Restore Cambridge Housing Zoning Petition
DONOVAN - AHA (Advancing Housing Overlay) PETITION (Not Ordained)
MMH (Missing Middle Housing) PETITION (Not Ordained) SEE BELOW
Illustration Below: Impacts of Missing Middle Housing (MMH) LuxuryHousing Petition
We NEED BOTH More Housing & Housing Affordability
But Cambridge Cannot House Everyone Who Wants to Live Here:
& Cambridge is not big enough to provide properties for all who want to invest here
But Cambridge Cannot House Everyone Who Wants to Live Here:
& Cambridge is not big enough to provide properties for all who want to invest here
There are currently c.3,000-3,500 Cambridge city residents on the affordable housing list. We can indeed find housing for this group through thoughtful planning and building the requisite housing on city owned property, and asking the city acquire property specifically for this purpose. We could even help at least half these residents build equity by providing down payments (or working with local banks to do so) for these Cambridge residents to purchase homes within these city owned properties. Building towering 25 story skyscrapers for segregated housing is a model that failed when the federal government did it in the fifties. Here we are not even required to provide green spaces, trees, or parking so people can get to work and back, to say nothing of the needed infrastructure to make this work. The so-called 21,000 wait list – is one that seems never to have been cleared and comprises people throughout the area (and country) who would like to live in Cambridge (or anywhere in some cases).
Cambridge is c.6 square miles (far smaller than Boston – which has a smaller list) and we are a very dense (city top 4-5 in the country with a population over 100K). We already have exceeded state goals on housing because we are an exceedingly generous community (a good thing) and way surpass most other area and state municipalities. We are a good and moral city but we need to be advancing far more thoughtful policies that are practical, sustainable, and will make a real difference. What we need is an actual city plan (block by block) that includes affordable and mixed income housing, viable nearby transportation (15 minutes to reach other areas of the city), as well as more green spaces and parks (particularly in our denser neighborhoods) and trees (it is this that keeps down devastating heat island impacts (adding to both environmental and health inequities). In short we ned to focus on smart city policies that get proven results, and help people build equity, rather than an array of ideologically driven policies.
Are there studies/info that show causality/correlations between AH, impacts on housing market and equity/wealth gap? Yes - elsewhere. One of the most important professionals is an urban planner who lives in Vancouver who has long argued that adding more housing often increases housing costs in high density/high demand cities like Vancouver (and Cambridge). He argues that the very best way to address housing needs is to build on city-owned land because then you are not increasing property values, housing costs, and taxes often on those who cannot afford them. See his recent analysis on “Why More Housing Supply Won’t Solve Affordability” here: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
He offers 5 key reasons, one of which is that a frenzy of outside investors are buying up housing stock. That is also what is happening here (in spades). Another is that we (like Vancouver) are hemmed in geographically and have no way to grow outward.
Cambridge is c.6 square miles (far smaller than Boston – which has a smaller list) and we are a very dense (city top 4-5 in the country with a population over 100K). We already have exceeded state goals on housing because we are an exceedingly generous community (a good thing) and way surpass most other area and state municipalities. We are a good and moral city but we need to be advancing far more thoughtful policies that are practical, sustainable, and will make a real difference. What we need is an actual city plan (block by block) that includes affordable and mixed income housing, viable nearby transportation (15 minutes to reach other areas of the city), as well as more green spaces and parks (particularly in our denser neighborhoods) and trees (it is this that keeps down devastating heat island impacts (adding to both environmental and health inequities). In short we ned to focus on smart city policies that get proven results, and help people build equity, rather than an array of ideologically driven policies.
Are there studies/info that show causality/correlations between AH, impacts on housing market and equity/wealth gap? Yes - elsewhere. One of the most important professionals is an urban planner who lives in Vancouver who has long argued that adding more housing often increases housing costs in high density/high demand cities like Vancouver (and Cambridge). He argues that the very best way to address housing needs is to build on city-owned land because then you are not increasing property values, housing costs, and taxes often on those who cannot afford them. See his recent analysis on “Why More Housing Supply Won’t Solve Affordability” here: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
He offers 5 key reasons, one of which is that a frenzy of outside investors are buying up housing stock. That is also what is happening here (in spades). Another is that we (like Vancouver) are hemmed in geographically and have no way to grow outward.
CCC Supported the People's Housing Rally Opposing the Missing Middle Housing Petition
On June 17, 2021, many CCC leaders were out in support of a housing rally. the Peoples Housing Rally, opposing the misnamed Missing Middle Housing petition that sought to up-zone the whole city to add more luxury (market-based) housing in backyards and other areas (see images below).
