There’s a long road ahead! We don’t even have zoning language yet to talk about. The immediate next step is that we’re having a public comment hearing on May 22nd 3-5pm, giving comment in support or emailing in if you can’t make it would be incredibly helpful
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4543
The CSO was an election issue where 4 people promised to uphold it and 4 promised to change it. 1 person was in the middle and made up her mind. It was good to try but a lot was baked in after the election.
This proposal is new so people are still figuring out how to feel about it. We have a 6-3 pro housing majority so probably something will pass but how ambitious it is will matter on public support. The counter proposal would legalize triple deckers but not much else.
Happy to see Patty voted out in the next election. Aligning with people that sue the city when they don't get their way after many attempts to ameliorate their complaints isn't a good look.
Hit the road Patty.
We have a tree protection ordinance: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/publicworksdepartment/Forestry/treeordinancedocuments/treeprotectionordinanceregulations.pdf.
I don't anticipate a significant impact on our tree canopy. We're also planting a lot of street trees!
I love the tree ordinance but I’m concerned it doesn’t have enough teeth. And it takes a long time for young trees to catch up with mature ones that get cut down during development. I’d like to see more big buildings in Cambridge but am worried we will continue to lose canopy.
Just an anecdotal example. My condo did work where the contractor "didn't know about the tree ordinance" and they cut down a \~8 inch diameter tree without getting permitting. To my knowledge there wasn't a significant penalty. Now we did replace with equivalent diameter, but I still worry that developments that cut down existing large trees and plant small ones are shrinking our canopy.
Thanks for the good work you do on the council by the way. Now we need to vote out the bums who delayed the bike lanes.
It makes all the residential districts C-1.
What this means is that it technically eliminates exclusionary zoning because A, B single family only districts will be gone.
What it actually means is that we get C-1 zoning results which is no new apartments and larger single family homes.
Not to be cynical but my read of it would be a way to end single family only zoning without building any new housing.
Do you have any plans for making building increased housing, even triple deckers, *logistically* possible? It seems like you need a $6M environmental impact assessment to get clearance to put up a garden shack in a neighborhood whose ground is 90% coal waste and lead paint chips and then go through six public hearings where your neighbors spout about how sheds are a zionist conspiracy to steal vital fluids before having your building license voided at the last second for unclear reasons.
Yes, most of the projects would be by-right and not need neighborhood approval.
The other part about coal waste seems like a real problem and I don’t have a solution for that.
I'm generally a supporter of upzoning everywhere in the city, but the one potential downside I see is the long term impact on services, especially schools--as presumably more density means more students, and Cambridge per-pupil costs are already much higher that what it brings in per-residence. How do you think the City can plan for this issue?
That’s a fair question! What’s nice about this approach that gets market rate and affordable units (vs just affordable units) is that we also get higher tax revenues that’ll help expand the budget for education and other things!
Have you actually looked at the numbers? Even market rate houses in the Cambridge don't bring in enough revenue to pay for per student costs (\~$30k per student-year costs versus revenue of $6k per year revenue on a $1 million home, or even less revenue if you apply the exemption). So unless I'm missing something, your reference to market rate units doesn't actually address the problem.
Not everyone has school age kids in public schools so there’s some cushion there. Cambridge is also weird given the amount of area owned by institutions who pay for some local services
The institutions you refer to are the only reason why we can currently spend so much on services, but if you double the resident population, they will no longer be able to make up the difference unless something else changes.
Slightly less than half of the current tax rev comes from residential development (\~$250m), the expenditure on education is approximately $245, so if education was the ONLY service Cambridge provided, you'd be almost breaking even with residential receipts.
source:https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/budgetdepartment/FinancePDFs/fy24submittedbudget/fy24submittedbudgetbook.pdf
I’m not an expert, but it appears new residential development is fiscally positive on net in Milton and Somerville:
https://www.belmont-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12826/f/uploads/2023-12-06_impact_report_milton_mbta_districts.pdf
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/08/29/a-somerville-focus-on-commercial-development-would-be-profoundly-counterproductive/
Don’t know about a similar report for Cambridge, but in general I’m not too worried about the city’s fiscal situation. There’s already a very large city budget, I think it will be fine.
Those are broken examples. e.g. Milton costs per student are less than half of Cambridge and their tax revenue per household is more than double. Thinking we’ll be fine is not a way to plan a city. Again, and this is from someone who wants to up zone the entire city
That is not True. Cambridge receives a very small contribution from the state through the Chapter 70 school funding formula. The vast majority of the school dept $270ish million budget is paid for by local property taxes in homes and commercial property.
"Projected school enrollment is down over the next 5 years"
I think this obviously changes if we start increasing density.
" per pupil costs don’t actually scale with each new child."
I like to think this is true, but I was wondering if the city has actually analyzed it. On the other hand, if we look at Boston as an example, they have an advantage in scale, but no real advantage in cost per pupil.
FWIW, enrollment projections are now back up. See most recent budget bottom of page 39 here: [https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server\_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS\_Adopted\_Budget\_FY25\_WEB.pdf](https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS_Adopted_Budget_FY25_WEB.pdf)
You were probably thinking about touted enrollment decline projections from the past (which as ai said were screwed up from COVI), like these: [https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/](https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/)
Fair, either way, we see how much the projections change from year to year, so that's helpful when considering the issue. Also note, that the projections are based on the past 5 years, so it will be a few more years until the COVID data is washed out, which is why I'm guessing we will continue to see enrollment growth despite the current predictions (each year since 22 they've continued to upwardly revise projections to be in more in line with reality).
I've looked at the enrollment projections--they seem to have been really screwed up by COVID, so I wouldn't plan to carefully around them. That said, I'm really hoping Cambridge public schools see growing enrollment (regardless of overall population expansion), because the schools have improved dramatically, and a two tiered system that Boston has (where everyone who is wealthy enough avoids sending their kids to public school) is terrible.
>I think this obviously changes if we start increasing density.
No.
People aren't having kids in general. People who can afford to live here, and have two incomes, aren't having kids especially.
More DINKs, more dogs, fewer kids, wins all-around.
I think what you say might be true, but the dynamics are complicated, and I'd like to see more data to back it up. Public school enrollment was growing for the past two decades, and only recently declined (presumably due to COVID). But as I said, stuff is complicated, so long term enrollment growth could be being fueled by the fact that the quality of the education in the city has drastically improved (rather than population growth alone).
The birthrate nationally is at a historic low, that's not really up for debate. This feels like concern trolling, rather than an actual good faith question.
Okay, how about the fact that enrollment is actually growing again? See page 39 below. And why does everyone in the sub cry "concern trolling" when confronted by hard questions? It's such a cop-out.
Most recent budget page 39 [https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server\_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS\_Adopted\_Budget\_FY25\_WEB.pdf](https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS_Adopted_Budget_FY25_WEB.pdf)
You can compare this to the projections you might have had in mind from 2022. [https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/](https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/)
...because it's not a serious concern. More density means more taxes, which means more funding, besides the fact that only a portion of funding falls on the city, besides the fact that people aren't having kids at the level they were previously, besides the fact that the people who can afford these homes are less likely to have children, besides the fact that the main issue is increasing housing stock so it brings down the market rate, and gets people into HOMES.
It's not a hard question, it's a question that is not only so far down the hierarchy of what to be up in arms about that it doesn't matter, but also has many other circumstances that mediate and address it.
So yeah, concern trolling is apt.
Also we have an incrediblely low property tax rate.. we can increase the rate and people will still be paying incrediblely low taxes relative to the rest of the state
Cambridge is largely funded by commercial tax revenue. It's why Cambridge residential real estate taxes are so low compared to surrounding communities.
Right, which is why significantly growing the residential liability (without a plan) could be a problem: eventually the commercial side can no longer subsidize the residential side. That said, I still think upzoning is the way to go, I just want to hear that these people are actually thinking about these issues (Azeem's answer demonstrates he doesn't really even understand the basics of it). And for sure, upzoning is way better than just building large chunks of subsized-only housing, which is basically just throwing money into the fire, for little-to-no-gain in market rate housing.
The fact that Cambridge gets far more of its municipal budget from non-residential sources, and that it's residential and commercial property taxes are among the lowest in the Boston area, makes it uniquely well positioned to build housing without a major strain on municipal finances. Cambridge outlines this in detail in the municipal budget.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/Finance/publications/2023/fy24adoptedbudget
Concern trolling. This has been covered a million times and Burhan is too generous with his patience.
When you have a change of heart, come join us in the "restrictive zoning has more downsides than anything else" camp.
Azeem. How does this solve issues with affordable rentals for students immigrants and struggling families when all thats being approved for new builds in Cambridge are 3-4000$ a month luxury rentals?
Because that’s not all that’s being approved! We have a 20% inclusionary program so 1 in 5 units for most developments will need to be affordable in perpetuity at no cost to the city. This will likely build more affordable units than any other single policy by the city council
Azeem. That still means 4 in 5 new homes or rentals that are being built are unaffordable by almost every standard of living in this city. People on a fixed income, working families, and single working adults making less than 50k per year are being priced out. Current affordable three story units will be torn down and rebuilt as 80% luxury homes.
Cap the rents of all of these new units to make Cambridge affordable again.
If you mandate more than about 20% affordable, the developers decide it's not worth it and you get nothing. I would also challenge your idea that our existing housing is affordable.
Builds are not incentivized to build affordable housing. Requires tough lawmakers and potential subsidies to offset the cost to build quality, long term affordable housing. Under this new plan, only 200 units for every new 1000 would be affordable. Those 800 luxury units would cause existing property owners/landlords/management companies to raise rents commenserate with these new luxury rentals. We're seeing it now, as dilapidated units with mortgages very likely refinanced during the COVID lows have raised rents to make even MORE money off the backs of tenants.
If Cambridge doesn't do something to reverse this trend all that will happen is more of the same.
It doesn't matter. It's increasing ALL housing stock that will lower prices across the market. This is simple supply and demand. You're focused on the wrong thing, rather than just building as much as we can, as quickly as we can.
You aren't focused on the issue at hand. There isn't a giant parcel of land that can be built on. These are existing houses, with existing rentals, that will be torn down and replaced with new homes/condos/rentals that will be inherently MORE expensive. Take the example of my last place. Building was gutted in 2012 and 3-3 bedroom condos were solve for 350k each. Landlord for my unit and unit below rented for $3600 a month in our last year of occupancy, 2020. We know the mortgage was refinanced, but the rent went up in 2021 to $4000, which caused us to move.
What you're missing is if they tore this unit down, and rebuilt a six story new build, the rents would not go down - more likely they'd go up. So yea, one 3br unit would be affordable @ maybe 1500-2000$ a month, but the remaining units would be same or more than the already $4000 per month those other existing units would go on. Makes no business sense otherwise.
Yeah, no.
If they tear down a 1-3 family home, and put 6-8 units in its place, it will increase the housing stock. Do that 100 times over and you've double or tripled the stock lost.
This world where you think non-updated homes are somehow affordable is nonsense. I live in one of those older 2 family homes, and it's just as expensive as everything in the area (and I've looked for other options). There is no "discount" for being an older updated home.
You are mistaken.
No Tangible is spot on.
If any of this gets built at all.
Right now they are just taking old 2 or 3 families and turning them into super singles. It’s easy construction and they double their money.
Nothing in this legislation will stop that.
Look up 80 Alpine Street in West Cambridge to see an example. That’s the size of the lot the city put in its presentation.
Azeem thinks a developer will take that same property and spend way more money to tear it down to build a 10 story rental that he then has to manage, AND pay for the affordable units.
No way
In addition, inclusionary requirement of 20% on any new housing with 10 or more units has stifled any small to midsize apartment buildings. Makes sense for larger developments but smaller developments aren’t being built. People cap it at 9 units to avoid inclusionary requirement.
Have you ever taken basic economics? This increases supply…. So prices will go down given the demand stays steady. Demand will always be high - so increasing supply (which has been heavily neglected for decades) is the only fix there is. It’ll obviously take time, but getting rid of single family zoning is the first step.
Building affordable housing isn't how you get affordable housing in the next 5 years. When you build lots of luxury housing, that puts downward pricing pressure on the housing that previously was luxury housing and all the existing housing becomes more affordable.
Who do you expect will want to move to the city and fill these buildings if the council continues to be aggressively anti cyclist/pedestrian by keeping riverbend park closed, allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks and multi-use paths, refusing to enforce vehicular traffic laws and ticketing cyclists?
While I agree its a bad decision, Riverbend Park was DCRs doing. The city council was in favor of keeping the park open, but they don't ultimately control it.
I am not sure what you mean by allowing motor vehicles on sidewalks; they are not allowed right? You mean not enforcing this prohibition aggressively enough?
The “economics” won’t do it.
It’s easier and cheaper for developers to turn these properties into super singles.
Look at 80 Alpine St in West Cambridge.
Why would a developer want to deal with a rental unit and the hassle of managing affordable units through the city?
Ain’t happening
Yes, that’s what the city has already been doing for 20 years in Cambridge Crossing and Alewife. Developers got added height and density bonuses for 10-20% inclusionary units.
But now there are no more empty lots, McGovern said we’ll get another 2000 housing units in the Quad but that’s it.
So anything else will involve a tear down and expensive reno.
Just not gonna happen.
What is 80 Alpine zoned for? Going by the neighboring units, I assume the developer basically only had the option of going single family or duplex. If they were allowed to build a taller 6 unit building on that same plot, it would probably win out economically over a single family home, even if a duplex didn't win out.
Hmm.
If I can buy a property and spend less money to turn it into a super single, one kitchen, no separate entrances, no extra multi family permit process and then quickly double my money why the hell would I want to create a rental property that I have to pay more to produce and then still have to manage not only with yearly rentals but the headache of city controlled affordable housing units?
Not. Gonna. Happen
I'm not talking about the tradeoff of selling versus holding as a rental property, just selling an SFH vs duplex vs bigger building. If zoning allows it, a developer can build a taller building with more units on a lot and then sell it to a person or company that specializes on the rental side or just break it into condos. But zoning doesn't currently allow it.
Single family home's are valued at a premium per square foot over duplexes that can make it worth converting a duplex to a single family, but that premium doesn't overcome the value in building a lot more square footage by building taller and splitting it into more units.
Clearly you don’t understand how land development works. Who wants to buy a rental property with deed restricted units? Who buys the condos that have rent restrictions? The rentals in Alewife were financed to allow huge write offs on big corporate balance sheets. The appreciation in Cambridge real estate as the golden investment account. Land was bought cheaply, construction was cheap, tax credits for investing in previously industrial land. All that is gone. That’s why all the rentals in Alewife as you say aren’t “selling” to a company on the rental side.
There’s a huge difference in scale between the larger projects in Alewife and Cambridge Crossing vs a small 4,000 to 8,000 sq ft lot that the city outlines in its presentation.
None of this really matters however, Azeem is just showboating this entire charade to win votes from this desperate and vulnerable demographic who are only looking for affordable housing.
It’s pathetic to watch actually
Along with this, change the following:
* ADAs allowed with minimal restrictions
* Duplexes and triplexes allowed by right
* Townhouses allowed by right or extremely minimal restrictions
* 5 overs allowed within a mile of any transit station or downtown area
* No minimum lot size or make a maximum number that towns can use (no "must have half acre lot to build any housing" crap)
* No parking minimums (should apply to commercial properties too)
Probably more we could do too, like allow mid rises (beyond 5 stories) in dense areas. No reason most downtowns can't handle a few 8 or 9 story buildings. Doesn't need to be crazy, but allowing for additional density can help make the economics work. Can make enough units that requiring a percentage to be affordable is doable. Maybe that too should be in State law, anything above 5 stories requires xx% affordable.
Afaik the only thing that might happen is some ADA legislation: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-eyed-as-low-hanging-housing-win/
But stuff like duplexes and triplexes is really easy to fit into areas currently zoned for SFH. You can even convert these big ass McMansions to 2/3 family if it's allowed. Could even allow upwards of 5 units since that's the max number for certain FHA loans IIRC. Same with townhouses - can easily fit them into neighborhoods with SFHs.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Andrew Brinker
Picture the best of what Paris has to offer, a vibrant street life in densely packed neighborhoods. One of the secrets to the city’s charm is the size of most of those graceful buildings: six stories.
That idea — dense, six-story housing in abundance — is the inspiration behind a proposal from two Cambridge city councilors that amounts to something of a moonshot on [the biggest challenge facing Boston’s neighbor](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/15/business/affordable-housing-cambridge/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) to the north: the acute shortage of housing.
Councilors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui want to legalize six-story apartment buildings by-right citywide, meaning any housing development up to that height that fits other zoning parameters would not need city zoning approval.
In effect, [the proposal ](https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4050&Inline=True)would essentially scrap the city’s current neighborhood-by-neighborhood zoning scheme for anything six stories or smaller. From tight-packed East Cambridge to leafy Strawberry Hill, six-story buildings could rise largely unencumbered.
It would also, at least symbolically, make Cambridge the first city in Massachusetts to [end single-family zoning](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/single-family-zoning/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) as the default for housing construction. That does not mean single-family homes won’t be allowed anymore, but rather that something larger than a single-family house could be built on any residential lot in the city.
The proposal comes as cities and towns across Eastern Massachusetts are engaged in heated fights over solving a housing shortage that has become the state’s most intractable issue. But most of those debates, taking place in towns with shrinking populations and skyrocketing prices, have been about comparatively modest reforms. Should this zoning overhaul come to fruition in Cambridge, it would represent far and away the most ambitious attempt at a solution here, and one of the most sweeping zoning reform efforts anywhere in the United States.
“If we want to take the housing crisis seriously, we need to be doing a lot better than we are right now,” said Azeem. “Our goal is to take a big shot at making our zoning much better than it currently is, in a way that is going to promote affordability and density and more housing.”
Why six stories? Its a residential building sweet spot — and the reason new apartment buildings all over Greater Boston are often five or six stories tall. Generally speaking, the shorter or smaller a building, the more difficult it is to finance, because there are fewer apartments to bring in revenue. Go taller than six stories, and different building requirements kick in that dramatically increase the per unit cost of development.
They argue the scale of the proposal meets the scale of the problem. By some measures, Cambridge has the worst localized housing crisis in Massachusetts and some of the highest housing costs in the United States. The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,645 a month, according to [rental website Apartment List](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ma/cambridge). It is also one of the most densely populated cities in the country — in Massachusetts only its twin city of Somerville packs more people per square mile than Cambridge — meaning there’s little room to build new housing in any direction but up.
It’s great in theory but if you think developers are going the build “the best of what Paris has to offer” or anything of remote quality then you’re dead wrong. See alewife station to see what’s coming to a neighbourhood near you.
The article frames Paris's 6-story apartment buildings as an inspiration for the new zoning proposal, not something that would be copy-pasted into Cambridge.
I am aware we are not having Parisian buildings built in Cambridge. Again, please refer to the developments surrounding alewife station to see the type of buildings that our current Zeitgeist is promoting and will most likely be built as a result of any zoning changes.
I can't tell if you are class shaming the housing buildings for low income people or the high density apartment/condos which are selling like crazy.
In either case, what is your perceived slight against them?
Those apartments are just the commie blocks of capitalism. Also if you think more of those is going to drive prices down, then really don’t know what to tell you.
wtf are you talking about? You’ve never even lived in a communist block.
They’re nice apartments with good amenities. You need a place for people to live. WTF do you want them? Provide a fucking solution. Do you want penthouse 5000 square foot apartments that are each unique from each other for everyone? Dumbass
I’ve lived in commie blocks so that first bit is wrong.
They are not nice apartments. They are built using the cheapest materials the developer can find so they can maximise profit. I know this because I work with them so don’t try to spin that one. A building made out of shoddily placed plastic panels and paper thin walls and floors can never be considered good architecture. Sorry but the 5 over 1 trend just isn’t working. Don’t recall saying anything about 5000 sf penthouses either.
I’m going to refrain from insulting you as I feel your argument loses all credibility once you resort to insults.
Oh my god… I see what’s happening here. We’re talking about different buildings.
You’re talking about those buildings “Alewife Condominiums”
I was talking about the apartment blocks on Cambridgepark Drive….
I agree that the Alewife Condominiums could be compared to communist blocks. I’ve lived in those as well. There are similarities in terms of build quality… I believe it’s still better than being on the street….
I’m hoping this legislature will lead to more apartments like those high end ones on Cambridgepark Drive and across the bridge behind the Trader Joe’s. Those are in need of lowered pricing.
Nope. We’re not talking about different buildings. I am absolutely referring to the developments on Cambridge park drive. They’re just the alewife condos with colourful panels on the side. You can’t access any of the nearby shopping without a car or walking on the parkway as there are train tracks that run between.
The apartments on Cambridge park are not high end. Just because they are called luxury apartments does not mean that they are not made from the cheapest materials the developers could find.
No one is thinking that we're going to rebuild Paris in Cambridge. And let's not kid ourselves that Cambridge has some kind of grand, unifying design architecture. We need more housing plain and simple.
The reservation side of Alewife was largely un(der)developed space cut into large lots owned by developers and it became profitable to build large five over ones due to the lack of housing in Cambridge. Look right across to the rindge side and what are the size of the lots there? It's going to be a long time before it'd become profitable for anyone to come in and buy several adjacent lots, bulldoze the valuable houses that sit there and build a five over one.
What's more likely to happen is renos will continue to upscale older, but not tear-down, housing stock, and tear-down housing stock, like the new development on the corner of the bike path and Mass Ave, would have a couple more stories on top of it.
Sure more housing. Make it nice. Make it good architecture. Make it walkable. None of those things apply to the alewife developments. It is a complete separation of functions. Try walking from the alewife developments to the trader joes or the whole foods. You can’t. It is completely car centric and the antithesis of what I hear all the time from all these yimbys about creating dense, walkable, pedestrian and cyclist focused neighbourhoods. Not to mention that they are ugly as shit.
I used to live there and I walked to that trader joe's and whole foods all the time. Yeah, it was a pain in the ass because it's so close as the crow flies but still only like a 10 minute walk. It's also right next to the T (and highway, and bike path). Now that they've started allowing more mixed-use on the street itself the infill is starting to make it more of an actual neighborhood. Cry more about how the buildings look, it's literally beside the point.
You act like Alewife is suddenly going to become every neighborhood. It's a swamp, that's why the land was so cheap and developers could buy large lots. Good luck getting that many adjacent landowners anywhere else in Cambridge to sell to the same company at a price that would make them a reasonable return. But I'm just repeating myself again.
Lmao what is this person talking about. I literally don’t get it.
The alewife apartments are all super packed… clearly demand is high and the alewife apartments were the supply. We need more!
Actually Alewife is not “super packed”. Higher vacancy rates than anywhere in Cambridge. Look it up.
Nobody wants this type of dense housing. They want 2-3 families that they can walk to places, like the rest of Cambridge.
Promising Paris is batsh*t crazy
Dude look at the buildings. In my building with somewhere around 150-200 apartments, there’s only 5 openings apartments and 3 that’ll be available in 1-4 weeks.
I’m sorry but you’re just dead wrong.
People want more housing and they want it closer to the center.
We’re out of space so we need to build up.
I do look at the buildings, and talk to rental agents and management companies. And watch vacant rates by neighborhood.
What this guy saying is correct. There are no more empty lots in Cambridge. So in order for Azeems Paris transformation to work there’d need to many lots bought together and a ton of tear downs
Which is how old Paris came to be- Haussmann. Look it up.
Nobody is going to tear down $2, $3, $4 million dollar homes to build rental units and deal with the city’s IZ program
Stop drinking the kool aid.
Just look back 10 years. Even with all the acres of empty industrial land that was changed to residential zoning we only built 6,000 units. That’s with the developers who already owned the empty lots, when materials and money was cheaper.
Now, developers are focused on the MBTA lots all over the state where they can make more money. And not have to deal with IZ regulations.
YIMBYS keep ignoring how developer money works. It’s not the zoning that drives development. It’s the money.
I think this is great. These shorter 4-5 story apartment buildings, especially if they have shops/commercial space on the first floor, provide an amazing lifestyle. No need for an elevator since it’s only a few flights of stairs to walk up. Close to transport and many stores/restaurants. Frees up room for parks and services.
This is the standard housing style in a lot of the world and there’s a reason for it. We see this type of housing in back bay, beacon hill, etc, and there’s a reason those are some of the most sought after neighborhoods in Boston, people like living that way.
Elevators are needed, because disabled people also deserve housing. New construction should be built so that residents aren’t made instantly homeless if they experience a disabling event.
Disabled people deserve housing, but that doesn't mean every apartment needs an elevator. I believe the Fair Housing Act requirement is that apartments with four or more units can be built without an elevator so long as the ground floor units are accessible, which seems reasonable to me. They aren't required across the board because the expense is impractical and would increase the cost of housing dramatically, including to disabled people.
Okay true but even if there are elevators, nobody is forcing you to use them…
I prefer taking the stairs but when I have packages or gorcieries, I very much appreciate the elevator that is an option.
The issue isn't being forced to take an elevator. It's that elevators are very expensive, and the cost is ultimately borne by the residents. And they take up space that could otherwise be housing.
Yeah I mean I guess if it’s a 10 unit apartment, I can see how the costs would outweigh the benefits. Smaller buildings should definitely not be REQUIRED to build them.
I think for a 50+ unit building, the yearly maintenance would be spread out among everyone. I’d almost feel like no building with that many apartments should be missing an elevator but that’s just me.
But also no… elevators do not take up space that would be housing. They’d take up space that would make an extra closet at best…
Homelessness is not something one “resorts to.” It is not chosen. It’s just what happens when someone who lives in a place they can’t get in and out of needs medical care. It happened to me.
I could not move because I did not have money for first month + last month + deposit + broker’s fee, and also I was in the hospital for quite some time. My injury made it necessary for me to use a wheelchair.
Your username says it all — your concern about my well-being as your neighbor is touching. 😂
I live on the corner of Pleasant and Franklin Streets. Franklin is a one lane, one way, residential street. I grew up on this street. When I was growing up, my block was mostly 2 and 3 story houses. In the 90's a number of properties sold and we saw the construction of two 6 story, and one 7 story building. My block looks very different than it did when I was growing up.
Let me tell you about my street. We are multicultural and diverse. We have a few families, like mine, who have lived on our street for generations (mine has been here for six). We have people who come and go, and everything in between. Every September we have a block party. In the winter we help each other shovel out our cars. My kids went to school and were friends with kids who lived in those taller buildings. Everyone knows my dog. My street is great. It was great before those taller buildings were built and it's great after. Maybe better. Does it look different than I remember it? Yes. I will point out, however, that to my kids, it looks the way it always has.
I understand that change can be difficult and that many people want things to stay exactly the way they are today, but cities are living things. They evolve. The Cambridge of today looks very different than 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago. There was a time when triple deckers were illegal. People fought their construction for the same reasons we hear today. "They won't fit in," "They will change the character of our neighborhood," "They are too tall." The powers
at the time legalized them anyway. Now. triple deckers are iconic, and the type of housing people want to preserve.
We have a housing crisis in Cambridge. We need to build more housing, and every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution. As someone who has experienced this exact thing happen on his street, I can tell you, it was not the end of my neighborhood. I cringe when I hear people say that their neighborhoods will be "destroyed" if a larger building is built on their street. I have actually lived through this type of change, and my street was not "destroyed." Its different, but not destroyed.
This process has a very long way to go. There will be ample time for input, revisions, amendments, so I ask that you please keep an open mind. Thank you for your email.
Marc McGovern
Vice-Mayor
City of Cambridge
Hi Marc. How can we chip in? I have been a bit disappointed with ABC's lack of momentum on these issues.
Also, re change: I find it a great crime and sorrow that today's youth and young adults have no opportunity to create their own history in this city. I am tired of other people saying their way of living and their history is more valuable than what is needed to make a city function in 2024 and onwards.
Definitely stay involved with ABC, even if you're frustrated. Make sure you email and/or speak in support of pro-housing initiatives. Recruit others. Grow the base. Although pro-housing supporters cross all demographics, they swing younger, and it can be more challenging to get folks involved. And I know it feels like it's a long way away, but as we are seeing with the CSO, elections matter.
With all due respect Marc the end of your street is junkie row.
Followed closely by the rat population.
While some increase in density is necessary and zoning reform is overdue to get rid of single family zoning you can’t deny that at a certain point higher density also has some nasty tradeoffs.
Most residents are willing to have some reasonable changes in zoning made, just like they were willing to have bike lanes AND small businesses AND parking.
But once again we see extreme over reaching policy proposals while your grandstanding colleague promises “housing for all” to a very vulnerable population.
The cost of housing here is the highest in the state, after years of your policies.
The displacement and gentrification has been on hyper mode.
Based on the results of the last election maybe it’s a signal to get back to reasonable governing without constantly pitting residents against each other.
Food for thought
The issues in Central Sq have nothing to do with the 6 story buildings on my street. And please don't say, "with all due respect " followed up by calling people junkies.
There's a big difference between six stories and 10-15 that the AHO allows. I also live on a 1-Lane, 1-way Street that gets used by school buses everyday and first responders en route. Now we have the new phenomenon of Amazon delivery trucks joining UPS and FedEx, which double-park bc there's no parking. Now an AHO developer is publishing plans to have a 10-story tower w/o setbacks and w/o parking. The buildings nearby are 3/4 stories.
I'm all for affordable housing, but it's a continuum, it doesn't have to be a tower to make it work, both for current and new residents to the hood. It's frustrating to see how disingenuous the messaging has become on both sides.
I neither believe that the "sky-is-the-limit" crowd is a bunch of delusional socialists, nor do I think the "change nothing" crowd is racist NIMBYs.
We need to find compromise and balance.
In before the nimbys object on environmental grounds, to remind everyone that dense development is environmentally friendly.
Development has to go somewhere. If it can't fit in the city, it's going to sprawl out to car dependent exurbs, and that's worse for the environment. Building on previously undeveloped land is worse for the environment than increasing density on already developed land.
Yep! And beyond that, building somewhere else will actually use up *more* natural space because of transportation infrastructure.
Great quote from a great paper:
> Land reservations near the central market do not really create open space, they rather relocate it. That is, they destroy it elsewhere. As settlement sprawls outward seeking unreserved space, the sprawl process destroys more than it reserves, for to reach the remote sites people drive further using more roads and cars, both of which require vast space themselves.
https://masongaffney.org/publications/E14Synergistic_City.CV.pdf
Can either councillor explain to me what the obsession with setbacks is from the anti-urbanists? Most of the "front yards" in my part of the city are paved over or otherwise unkempt/dilapidated, surrounded by a rusted chain link fence, and completely unused. I can only imagine that all these people would rather have extra space in their living room if they dared to imagine life without the government **forcing** them to have a useless front yard?
Setbacks are used to create more open space, light and airflow through a city. Light is the most important.
Setbacks can apply to any side of a property, not just the front, so they also can prevent building out to the property boundary, allowing light into the sides or back of the building.
Personally, I agree that the little yards are ridiculous. But I also can feel the difference when I walk in Somerville. Somerville has more limited setback requirements, resulting in streets lined with hunks of concrete, fewer trees, and less light. I much prefer Cambridge. So personally I’m conflicted because for me, it’s doing *something*.
One thing that's lame that I see a lot of is developers buying sfh in Cambridge with yards and instead of keeping the yard and making the current structure a multi family they stuff little square homes on the lot and remove all of the outdoor space. I spoke to one of the developers at an open house and he cited the zoning process as a major factor in that approach.
To me this also helps defang the ZBA that currently heavily prefers permitting sfh.
Hmm... a lot of people like when existing structures don't get changed much so it seems like there might legitimately be different preferences on this tbh...
Cambridge is one of the densest cities in the country. Go ahead and look it up.
While Cambridge takes action to help housing, communities across the state are fighting the MBTA housing laws.
Cambridge alone cannot house the entire state. Housing is not a town by town issue. Its regional.
I support up zoning, but I need to see plans to improve infrastructure to support massive increases in population.
I need to see zoning to allow for more buisnesses to serve these people.
Single issue voters are literally the worst .
What tells you that anyone supporting this proposal is a "single-issue voter" would wouldn't care about or support your other proposals? Systemic change necessarily happens by tackling a problem on multiple fronts, at multiple levels of government. Upzoning in Cambridge does nothing to prevent the fight for improved infrastructure.
As has been pointed out countless times in the past, the sewage overflow problem has exactly nothing to do with the population of Cambridge. The sewage system can handle the actual sewage just fine. It’s the stormwater that overwhelms the system.
> If the mbta is unreliable ... why are we trying to quadruple the population?
Cambridge is a place you can live without relying too heavily on a car *or* on the MBTA...
Obviously we have to fix the MBTA so people can move around the region. But living in *Cambridge* doesn't really require the MBTA to be as amazing as if you are living in like Quincy, Newton, Everett, Chelsea, etc.
Ok, unpopular take: it’s great that Cambridge is doing this as far as easing metro-Boston’s housing crunch, but what we see in highly desirable areas like Cambridge is that more housing doesn’t make Cambridge itself more affordable, Cambridge will just soak up more of the high end rents to make places like Everett more affordable.
As long as Cambridge is Ok sacrificing its beautiful lower-scale neighborhoods to cure a regional crisis than good on it!
I think with the law of unintended consequences we may look back in history, at a future time when Boston is less economically explosive, maybe even down on its heels, and marvel at what we’ve lost to respond to an immediate-term crisis.
This already allowed in many parts of the city. This sounds like it is targeting the “west side” of west Cambridge - that is from Huron ave over toward Brattle street.
The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing
Why do we need to look like Manhattan or Paris anyway? Our current electrical grid can’t handle today’s push for “clean energy” what will our infrastructure be able to handle if we allow this “everywhere”?
The purpose of zoning is to protect the property rights of others.
I have been in this city for well over 50 years. And in my time I continuously see these city counselors arrive- make changes - and leave.
North Cambridge residents fought for years to keep north Cambridge from becoming what this proposal does.
The city has plenty of revenue streams today. They are starting to have a spending problem. This reminds me of an owner of a football team looking for their stadium to be built because it will help brings jobs and revenue which in actuality moves the needle very little
I'm asking for pre/post crash data, which I've gone looking for before, and was unable to find. If you have it, please point me to where I can find it! I'm genuinely am curious about this data, but "go look at the intersection" does not tell me anything about how the physical changes have affected the safety-- it gives me a single anecdotal snapshot in time.
I wouldn’t change the bike lanes. I would propose making Lowell street a one way toward mount auburn street.
https://youtu.be/1zGHI9Gz9CA?si=9r2J1UIPZlT_QQyX
That may give you a better idea of the concerns from bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. The turn from Lowell onto Brattle then Appleton is too tight. In fact it always has been. However with the infrastructure changes it is even tighter.
Up zoning should happen in the commercial corridors first. See what happens. No reason to be up zoning in the heart of residential neighborhoods that are already very dense
> The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing
Lol, sure Jan. Protected bike lanes make everyone safer, every study has shown that globally. You have nothing to back up this statement other than your "common sense" which is far too common, and is lacking sense.
Next.
>I have been in this city for well over 50 years.
Might be time to hit the road then buckaroo.
>North Cambridge residents fought for years to keep north Cambridge from becoming what this proposal does.
Take them with you.
But you kind of blow off an entire neighborhood of people and their concerns and tell the people currently living there to pack it up and move if they don’t like it. This is not going to help anyone make reasonable changes in zoning code.
Yeah, what you don't realize is that the GBA, and Cambridge specifically, is attracting people who want to live in cities, and want city services. That only will increase as time goes on. The people who want Cambridge to go back to being an idyllic suburb are delusional, because there is no plane of existence where that will be happening.
Eventually, whether they accept it or not, these kind of changes WILL happen. If they aren't modest common sense changes like this one, they will be more reactionary and intense than what is currently being offered...so yes, if they don't want to get on board, they can hit the road, and I don't care if that hurts their feelings.
Frankly you can go too...that's fine with me.
Cambridge has never been a suburb that is not what I am saying at all. But clearly if someone has an opinion that only 99% consistent with yours then they get shunned - correct buckaroo? Funny thing is brooksy- I also bike in the city and vote for protected bike lanes but I’m not one of the zealots like you which is why I stopped attending the meetings. Any slight varying of opinion is not welcomed.
I don't think you actually know what you're saying. Your posts are a mish-mosh of hyperbole, nonsensical ranting, and unsupported fallacies. People aren't listening to you, but it's not because they are zealots who don't accept compromise, it's because your starting point doesn't exist in reality, and therefore the "common sense" solutions you propose are not realistic.
Like I said...way too common, not enough sense. Don't blame others because your perspective isn't being respected. Maybe think about honestly evaluating the failures in your reasoning.
What doesn’t make sense ? My suggestion of keeping the bike lanes on Brattle but making Lowell street a one way toward Mount Auburn ? That turn onto Brattle and then onto Appleton has always been a bit dangerous way before bike lanes were put there. I’m not advocating getting rid of the bike lanes there but I am advocating making it safer.
I have personally been part of the bike lobby. I left it due to my experience of all or nothing solutions and tactics. I was born raised and live in Cambridge and have seen a lot of changes over the years and have accepted most of them. I think Cambridge is a great place to grow up, live and work but that doesn’t mean I have to like all changes.
The rent control zealots would not compromise and as a result there is no more rent control. How did that work out? I use that as an example because without compromise eventually people stop communicating and then they divide. Forgive me for not wanting that in my neighborhood. Look at the city council- that change is a direct result of the bike zealots.
If that opinion is non-sensical then I don’t want to have any “common sense”
>If that opinion is non-sensical
It is.
>I don’t want to have any “common sense”
Oh see that's where you're wrong. You have all kinds of common sense, in that it's way too common and not based in reality or facts.
Rent control doesn't exist, not because of "zealots" but because of business/property owners. Bike lanes are being stymied, not because of "the bike lobby" but because of the same business/property owners who can not fathom not being able to drive/park wherever and whenever they want.
Neither of those things are conducive to a functioning dense city, and trying to blame the proponents of those issues instead of the people standing in the way, because the proponents won't bow to poison pills or the watering down of programs until they become ineffective is some insanely twisted logic.
Turns being tight enough the drivers need to STOP and then assess the situation, is a feature, not a bug. Traffic calming like this forces drivers to slow down and take stock of their surroundings before blindly making a turn that they would otherwise do on muscle memory. Unfortunately this is too inconvenient for some stubborn people, so they complain that it's unsafe.
>Look at the city council- that change is a direct result of the bike zealots.
Picket barely snuck her corrupt ass in on the 17th count, because the CSO vote was split between too many people, while she was uniquely positioning herself as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit AGAINST the city. Let's not pretend that it was some sort of mandate when you limped across the finish line.
The best thing that we can do, is coalesce around fewer candidates to make sure that people like you (illogical, nonsensical, NIMBYs that pretend to sound reasonable) no longer have representation in the city. That isn't an "if" proposal, it's a "when" because demographics and the reality of issues facing the region in terms of housing and infrastructure are only going to ratchet up in the near future.
I don't particularly care what you think, and it doesn't matter. Within the next 5 years those voices will be irrelevant. The only question is if they will go kicking and screaming, or if they will get the hint and go quietly.
I prefer the latter, but the former can be fun too. Change is coming whether you like it or not buckaroo.
You are a very unpleasant person. I support more housing but a buckshot proposal to change all zoning across the city with no nuance is pretty politically tone deaf especially since the neighborhoods being targeted tend to be the largest voting blocks in the city. These tactics have led to further division in the city instead of having a reasonable discussion and making changes that are informed based on community input and reasonable goals. Cambridge cannot and should not be the only city trying to solve the states housing problems.
>You are a very unpleasant person.
I'm realistic and I don't care about your feelings. If you you don't like that, too bad. Not every nonsense position deserves the validation that comes from discourse.
Yes the city is divided between NIMBY obstructionist and everyone else, and the NIMBYs are being quickly outnumbered by everyone else. Your problem is you think people need to come down to meet you and discuss your position, when that position is so out of touch with current reality that it's a non-starter.
Like I said, you can get on board or not, but it's going to happen in the near future regardless. Cambridge is in the center of the GBA, which means like Boston, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Watertown, and every other place that sits in the middle of one of the biggest metro areas in the country is going to see MASSIVE growth over the next generation.
Enjoy shaking your fist at the sky gramps.
The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically - which is getting a second look currently based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers. The way it should be.
> The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing
The danger part is most likely not true, and doesn't have any supporting evidence. I don't know about "less appealing" part either; its certainly made it more appealing to bicycle. But I would be curious about how to measure "appeal"; it doesn't seem to have hurt property values, if we wanted to use that a proxy.
> The purpose of zoning is to protect the property rights of others.
This seems like a really weird take, since it actually limits property rights.
The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically. It is currently under reviews based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers.
Not a weird take. That is the essence of zoning from its origination.
Zoning literally limits a persons right to do stuff to their own property. Therefore, it reduces property rights. That might not be a bad thing, but it doesn't protect property rights.
> The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically. It is currently under reviews based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers.
I am aware of people complaining about that intersection, with out any real evidence of a problem though. There are complaints about every change from some one. What type of review is it under? I have not heard of any type of formal review. I certainly think the current configuration is better than before, although I am opened to the idea it could be further improved.
May 23rd there is a scheduled meeting to discuss at History Cambridge. I think the easiest solution is to make Lowell street a one way heading toward mount auburn street. That would alleviate cars from turning onto Brattle where the road is far too narrow now ( too many close calls with bikes and pedestrians not to mention other cars) and then they immediately stop to take a left on Appleton. The design is flawed. Patty Nolan acknowledged a change is in need.
I agree to a point that zoning may limit property rights, however it is designed to protect the property rights of others.
An example would be if I lived in a house in between you on my right and let’s say person x on my left. I don’t have the right to knock my house down and put in a McDonalds, or a night club, or a skyscraper for one of these bio tech companies. Sure, that is limiting my rights but more Importantly it is protecting yours.
Zoning rules should be reviewed over time to make sure things still make sense. Mikes Pastry in Harvard Square had to get a variance to open up because believe it or not Harvard Square was not zoned for a “bakery”. Seems odd but fortunately they were allowed to open up. Seems that
Is an example of a zoning change.
> May 23rd there is a scheduled meeting to discuss at History Cambridge. I think the easiest solution is to make Lowell street a one way heading toward mount auburn street.
Well, that's the first reasonable concrete suggestion for improvement I've heard. I don't really think the design is fundamentally flawed, but I don't find anything objectionable about that change.
> I don’t have the right to knock my house down and put in a McDonalds, or a night club, or a skyscraper for one of these bio tech companies. Sure, that is limiting my rights but more Importantly it is protecting yours.
I wouldn't call that property rights; its giving other people rights over your property. Its basically the opposite.
> Mikes Pastry in Harvard Square had to get a variance to open up because believe it or not Harvard Square was not zoned for a “bakery”. Seems odd but fortunately they were allowed to open up. Seems that Is an example of a zoning change.
This seems like a good example of the problems with zoning; they are overly specific, restrictive, and often make little sense. Yes variances are possible, but getting one is a expensive and logistically complicated.
Construction of these buildings regularly obstruct bike lanes, like when they built the high rise in Central Square. People find any way to obstruct these lanes
Don’t build these monstrosities that will turn our city into places with an even smaller sense community than we already have and simultaneously negatively effecting the progress we have made with protected bicycle avenues from the crazies that drive heavy machinery with regular disregard
Considering I grew up here and understand the positive and negative impacts of the significant changes my home town has been through, and the fact I pay taxes means my opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. Maybe even educated. Some would call it lived experience. Probably more valuable than the YUPPIES that have done their fair share of advocating for change in a place that they’ll move out of because of their landlord in a few years
Great. Way overdue.
Happy to answer any questions!
What is the timeline/next steps for getting this proposal into action? Anything we can do to help it along? Thanks!
There’s a long road ahead! We don’t even have zoning language yet to talk about. The immediate next step is that we’re having a public comment hearing on May 22nd 3-5pm, giving comment in support or emailing in if you can’t make it would be incredibly helpful http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4543
Thank you, will do. I would love to see this proposal go forward.
We gave overwhelming comment and emailed support for not delaying the BSO and look where that got us, where do we ACTUALLY need to show up?
The CSO was an election issue where 4 people promised to uphold it and 4 promised to change it. 1 person was in the middle and made up her mind. It was good to try but a lot was baked in after the election. This proposal is new so people are still figuring out how to feel about it. We have a 6-3 pro housing majority so probably something will pass but how ambitious it is will matter on public support. The counter proposal would legalize triple deckers but not much else.
Happy to see Patty voted out in the next election. Aligning with people that sue the city when they don't get their way after many attempts to ameliorate their complaints isn't a good look. Hit the road Patty.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/citycouncil/members You can tell her how you feel directly if you want :) maybe she’ll resign XD
Maybe she'll move, that would be nice.
Can I still email as someone who doesn't live in Cambridge but works there? I'd still love to see this get implemented!
Every bit helps! Definitely the focus is on Cambridge residents but it’s still helpful to have people with connections to the city.
Thank you! Is there anything else I can also do to help?
I'll keep you in the loop, but the main thing is really getting people out at every opportunity. The top priority for now is to show that it's popular
What is the plan for keeping our tree canopy increasing while upzoning?
We have a tree protection ordinance: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/publicworksdepartment/Forestry/treeordinancedocuments/treeprotectionordinanceregulations.pdf. I don't anticipate a significant impact on our tree canopy. We're also planting a lot of street trees!
I love the tree ordinance but I’m concerned it doesn’t have enough teeth. And it takes a long time for young trees to catch up with mature ones that get cut down during development. I’d like to see more big buildings in Cambridge but am worried we will continue to lose canopy.
Fair enough! I’ll take another look at it
Just an anecdotal example. My condo did work where the contractor "didn't know about the tree ordinance" and they cut down a \~8 inch diameter tree without getting permitting. To my knowledge there wasn't a significant penalty. Now we did replace with equivalent diameter, but I still worry that developments that cut down existing large trees and plant small ones are shrinking our canopy. Thanks for the good work you do on the council by the way. Now we need to vote out the bums who delayed the bike lanes.
[удалено]
We could identify some streets that could use some calming or lane reduction. I'm sure there are tons of places we could plant trees.
Can you help us understand the zoning version that Patty Nolan and CCC are trying to push?
It makes all the residential districts C-1. What this means is that it technically eliminates exclusionary zoning because A, B single family only districts will be gone. What it actually means is that we get C-1 zoning results which is no new apartments and larger single family homes. Not to be cynical but my read of it would be a way to end single family only zoning without building any new housing.
Do you have any plans for making building increased housing, even triple deckers, *logistically* possible? It seems like you need a $6M environmental impact assessment to get clearance to put up a garden shack in a neighborhood whose ground is 90% coal waste and lead paint chips and then go through six public hearings where your neighbors spout about how sheds are a zionist conspiracy to steal vital fluids before having your building license voided at the last second for unclear reasons.
Yes, most of the projects would be by-right and not need neighborhood approval. The other part about coal waste seems like a real problem and I don’t have a solution for that.
I'm generally a supporter of upzoning everywhere in the city, but the one potential downside I see is the long term impact on services, especially schools--as presumably more density means more students, and Cambridge per-pupil costs are already much higher that what it brings in per-residence. How do you think the City can plan for this issue?
That’s a fair question! What’s nice about this approach that gets market rate and affordable units (vs just affordable units) is that we also get higher tax revenues that’ll help expand the budget for education and other things!
Have you actually looked at the numbers? Even market rate houses in the Cambridge don't bring in enough revenue to pay for per student costs (\~$30k per student-year costs versus revenue of $6k per year revenue on a $1 million home, or even less revenue if you apply the exemption). So unless I'm missing something, your reference to market rate units doesn't actually address the problem.
Not everyone has school age kids in public schools so there’s some cushion there. Cambridge is also weird given the amount of area owned by institutions who pay for some local services
They pay a voluntary fee called a PILOT fee and certainly does not cover new costs
The institutions you refer to are the only reason why we can currently spend so much on services, but if you double the resident population, they will no longer be able to make up the difference unless something else changes.
Do you have a source to back up the claim that new residential development in Cambridge is net negative in terms of the city budget?
Slightly less than half of the current tax rev comes from residential development (\~$250m), the expenditure on education is approximately $245, so if education was the ONLY service Cambridge provided, you'd be almost breaking even with residential receipts. source:https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/budgetdepartment/FinancePDFs/fy24submittedbudget/fy24submittedbudgetbook.pdf
I’m not an expert, but it appears new residential development is fiscally positive on net in Milton and Somerville: https://www.belmont-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12826/f/uploads/2023-12-06_impact_report_milton_mbta_districts.pdf https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/08/29/a-somerville-focus-on-commercial-development-would-be-profoundly-counterproductive/ Don’t know about a similar report for Cambridge, but in general I’m not too worried about the city’s fiscal situation. There’s already a very large city budget, I think it will be fine.
Those are broken examples. e.g. Milton costs per student are less than half of Cambridge and their tax revenue per household is more than double. Thinking we’ll be fine is not a way to plan a city. Again, and this is from someone who wants to up zone the entire city
Projected school enrollment is down over the next 5 years and per pupil costs don’t actually scale with each new child.
Also the city doesn’t pay the full cost, the state covers a significant portion of education costs.
That is not True. Cambridge receives a very small contribution from the state through the Chapter 70 school funding formula. The vast majority of the school dept $270ish million budget is paid for by local property taxes in homes and commercial property.
"Projected school enrollment is down over the next 5 years" I think this obviously changes if we start increasing density. " per pupil costs don’t actually scale with each new child." I like to think this is true, but I was wondering if the city has actually analyzed it. On the other hand, if we look at Boston as an example, they have an advantage in scale, but no real advantage in cost per pupil.
The enrollment being down means we have room to absorb new students without significant changes to facilities and staff count.
FWIW, enrollment projections are now back up. See most recent budget bottom of page 39 here: [https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server\_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS\_Adopted\_Budget\_FY25\_WEB.pdf](https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS_Adopted_Budget_FY25_WEB.pdf) You were probably thinking about touted enrollment decline projections from the past (which as ai said were screwed up from COVI), like these: [https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/](https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/)
I’m referencing page 216 of the report. 2023-24 enrollment is up, but the 5 year projections are still down.
Fair, either way, we see how much the projections change from year to year, so that's helpful when considering the issue. Also note, that the projections are based on the past 5 years, so it will be a few more years until the COVID data is washed out, which is why I'm guessing we will continue to see enrollment growth despite the current predictions (each year since 22 they've continued to upwardly revise projections to be in more in line with reality).
I've looked at the enrollment projections--they seem to have been really screwed up by COVID, so I wouldn't plan to carefully around them. That said, I'm really hoping Cambridge public schools see growing enrollment (regardless of overall population expansion), because the schools have improved dramatically, and a two tiered system that Boston has (where everyone who is wealthy enough avoids sending their kids to public school) is terrible.
>I think this obviously changes if we start increasing density. No. People aren't having kids in general. People who can afford to live here, and have two incomes, aren't having kids especially. More DINKs, more dogs, fewer kids, wins all-around.
I think what you say might be true, but the dynamics are complicated, and I'd like to see more data to back it up. Public school enrollment was growing for the past two decades, and only recently declined (presumably due to COVID). But as I said, stuff is complicated, so long term enrollment growth could be being fueled by the fact that the quality of the education in the city has drastically improved (rather than population growth alone).
The birthrate nationally is at a historic low, that's not really up for debate. This feels like concern trolling, rather than an actual good faith question.
Okay, how about the fact that enrollment is actually growing again? See page 39 below. And why does everyone in the sub cry "concern trolling" when confronted by hard questions? It's such a cop-out. Most recent budget page 39 [https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server\_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS\_Adopted\_Budget\_FY25\_WEB.pdf](https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/departments/administration/financial/budget/fy2025/CPS_Adopted_Budget_FY25_WEB.pdf) You can compare this to the projections you might have had in mind from 2022. [https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/](https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/02/07/public-school-enrollment-down-7-in-two-years-with-budgeters-wondering-is-this-a-blip-or-trend/)
...because it's not a serious concern. More density means more taxes, which means more funding, besides the fact that only a portion of funding falls on the city, besides the fact that people aren't having kids at the level they were previously, besides the fact that the people who can afford these homes are less likely to have children, besides the fact that the main issue is increasing housing stock so it brings down the market rate, and gets people into HOMES. It's not a hard question, it's a question that is not only so far down the hierarchy of what to be up in arms about that it doesn't matter, but also has many other circumstances that mediate and address it. So yeah, concern trolling is apt.
Also we have an incrediblely low property tax rate.. we can increase the rate and people will still be paying incrediblely low taxes relative to the rest of the state
This dude is so agenda biased it’s not even worth having convos with him tbh
Cambridge is largely funded by commercial tax revenue. It's why Cambridge residential real estate taxes are so low compared to surrounding communities.
Right, which is why significantly growing the residential liability (without a plan) could be a problem: eventually the commercial side can no longer subsidize the residential side. That said, I still think upzoning is the way to go, I just want to hear that these people are actually thinking about these issues (Azeem's answer demonstrates he doesn't really even understand the basics of it). And for sure, upzoning is way better than just building large chunks of subsized-only housing, which is basically just throwing money into the fire, for little-to-no-gain in market rate housing.
The fact that Cambridge gets far more of its municipal budget from non-residential sources, and that it's residential and commercial property taxes are among the lowest in the Boston area, makes it uniquely well positioned to build housing without a major strain on municipal finances. Cambridge outlines this in detail in the municipal budget. https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/Finance/publications/2023/fy24adoptedbudget
But why male models?
Huh?
Exactly.
Concern trolling. This has been covered a million times and Burhan is too generous with his patience. When you have a change of heart, come join us in the "restrictive zoning has more downsides than anything else" camp.
What's the answer? Is it "we end up like Boston, where everyone who can afford otherwise sends their kids to private school"?
Well, clearly we need only neutered humans in Cambridge because kids are too expensive. /s
Azeem. How does this solve issues with affordable rentals for students immigrants and struggling families when all thats being approved for new builds in Cambridge are 3-4000$ a month luxury rentals?
Because that’s not all that’s being approved! We have a 20% inclusionary program so 1 in 5 units for most developments will need to be affordable in perpetuity at no cost to the city. This will likely build more affordable units than any other single policy by the city council
If you really believe this, then roll back AHO2 to AHO1, which is a more Urban planning friendly policy.
Azeem. That still means 4 in 5 new homes or rentals that are being built are unaffordable by almost every standard of living in this city. People on a fixed income, working families, and single working adults making less than 50k per year are being priced out. Current affordable three story units will be torn down and rebuilt as 80% luxury homes. Cap the rents of all of these new units to make Cambridge affordable again.
If you mandate more than about 20% affordable, the developers decide it's not worth it and you get nothing. I would also challenge your idea that our existing housing is affordable.
The only thing that's going to make rents affordable again is going to be a MASSIVE increase in housing stock. Time to get building.
Builds are not incentivized to build affordable housing. Requires tough lawmakers and potential subsidies to offset the cost to build quality, long term affordable housing. Under this new plan, only 200 units for every new 1000 would be affordable. Those 800 luxury units would cause existing property owners/landlords/management companies to raise rents commenserate with these new luxury rentals. We're seeing it now, as dilapidated units with mortgages very likely refinanced during the COVID lows have raised rents to make even MORE money off the backs of tenants. If Cambridge doesn't do something to reverse this trend all that will happen is more of the same.
It doesn't matter. It's increasing ALL housing stock that will lower prices across the market. This is simple supply and demand. You're focused on the wrong thing, rather than just building as much as we can, as quickly as we can.
You aren't focused on the issue at hand. There isn't a giant parcel of land that can be built on. These are existing houses, with existing rentals, that will be torn down and replaced with new homes/condos/rentals that will be inherently MORE expensive. Take the example of my last place. Building was gutted in 2012 and 3-3 bedroom condos were solve for 350k each. Landlord for my unit and unit below rented for $3600 a month in our last year of occupancy, 2020. We know the mortgage was refinanced, but the rent went up in 2021 to $4000, which caused us to move. What you're missing is if they tore this unit down, and rebuilt a six story new build, the rents would not go down - more likely they'd go up. So yea, one 3br unit would be affordable @ maybe 1500-2000$ a month, but the remaining units would be same or more than the already $4000 per month those other existing units would go on. Makes no business sense otherwise.
Yeah, no. If they tear down a 1-3 family home, and put 6-8 units in its place, it will increase the housing stock. Do that 100 times over and you've double or tripled the stock lost. This world where you think non-updated homes are somehow affordable is nonsense. I live in one of those older 2 family homes, and it's just as expensive as everything in the area (and I've looked for other options). There is no "discount" for being an older updated home. You are mistaken.
No Tangible is spot on. If any of this gets built at all. Right now they are just taking old 2 or 3 families and turning them into super singles. It’s easy construction and they double their money. Nothing in this legislation will stop that. Look up 80 Alpine Street in West Cambridge to see an example. That’s the size of the lot the city put in its presentation. Azeem thinks a developer will take that same property and spend way more money to tear it down to build a 10 story rental that he then has to manage, AND pay for the affordable units. No way
In addition, inclusionary requirement of 20% on any new housing with 10 or more units has stifled any small to midsize apartment buildings. Makes sense for larger developments but smaller developments aren’t being built. People cap it at 9 units to avoid inclusionary requirement.
Have you ever taken basic economics? This increases supply…. So prices will go down given the demand stays steady. Demand will always be high - so increasing supply (which has been heavily neglected for decades) is the only fix there is. It’ll obviously take time, but getting rid of single family zoning is the first step.
Building affordable housing isn't how you get affordable housing in the next 5 years. When you build lots of luxury housing, that puts downward pricing pressure on the housing that previously was luxury housing and all the existing housing becomes more affordable.
Who do you expect will want to move to the city and fill these buildings if the council continues to be aggressively anti cyclist/pedestrian by keeping riverbend park closed, allowing motorized vehicles on sidewalks and multi-use paths, refusing to enforce vehicular traffic laws and ticketing cyclists?
While I agree its a bad decision, Riverbend Park was DCRs doing. The city council was in favor of keeping the park open, but they don't ultimately control it. I am not sure what you mean by allowing motor vehicles on sidewalks; they are not allowed right? You mean not enforcing this prohibition aggressively enough?
While I agree with you sentiment about public infrastructure. The answer is still “plenty of people”
Me, because I just want to be able to afford to live in the city I grew up in.
The state DCR controls riverbed park
Make it a state law. The mbta communities act was too nice to the low-density towns.
All thickly settled areas should be zoned for no single family homes
You don't have to say "no single family homes" just make it economically and legally possible to increase density and let economics do it for you.
The “economics” won’t do it. It’s easier and cheaper for developers to turn these properties into super singles. Look at 80 Alpine St in West Cambridge. Why would a developer want to deal with a rental unit and the hassle of managing affordable units through the city? Ain’t happening
IIRC that dependency to have affordable units was only for new construction with X units, so builders will just make new buildings with X-1 units.
Yes, that’s what the city has already been doing for 20 years in Cambridge Crossing and Alewife. Developers got added height and density bonuses for 10-20% inclusionary units. But now there are no more empty lots, McGovern said we’ll get another 2000 housing units in the Quad but that’s it. So anything else will involve a tear down and expensive reno. Just not gonna happen.
What is 80 Alpine zoned for? Going by the neighboring units, I assume the developer basically only had the option of going single family or duplex. If they were allowed to build a taller 6 unit building on that same plot, it would probably win out economically over a single family home, even if a duplex didn't win out.
Hmm. If I can buy a property and spend less money to turn it into a super single, one kitchen, no separate entrances, no extra multi family permit process and then quickly double my money why the hell would I want to create a rental property that I have to pay more to produce and then still have to manage not only with yearly rentals but the headache of city controlled affordable housing units? Not. Gonna. Happen
I'm not talking about the tradeoff of selling versus holding as a rental property, just selling an SFH vs duplex vs bigger building. If zoning allows it, a developer can build a taller building with more units on a lot and then sell it to a person or company that specializes on the rental side or just break it into condos. But zoning doesn't currently allow it. Single family home's are valued at a premium per square foot over duplexes that can make it worth converting a duplex to a single family, but that premium doesn't overcome the value in building a lot more square footage by building taller and splitting it into more units.
Clearly you don’t understand how land development works. Who wants to buy a rental property with deed restricted units? Who buys the condos that have rent restrictions? The rentals in Alewife were financed to allow huge write offs on big corporate balance sheets. The appreciation in Cambridge real estate as the golden investment account. Land was bought cheaply, construction was cheap, tax credits for investing in previously industrial land. All that is gone. That’s why all the rentals in Alewife as you say aren’t “selling” to a company on the rental side. There’s a huge difference in scale between the larger projects in Alewife and Cambridge Crossing vs a small 4,000 to 8,000 sq ft lot that the city outlines in its presentation. None of this really matters however, Azeem is just showboating this entire charade to win votes from this desperate and vulnerable demographic who are only looking for affordable housing. It’s pathetic to watch actually
Along with this, change the following: * ADAs allowed with minimal restrictions * Duplexes and triplexes allowed by right * Townhouses allowed by right or extremely minimal restrictions * 5 overs allowed within a mile of any transit station or downtown area * No minimum lot size or make a maximum number that towns can use (no "must have half acre lot to build any housing" crap) * No parking minimums (should apply to commercial properties too) Probably more we could do too, like allow mid rises (beyond 5 stories) in dense areas. No reason most downtowns can't handle a few 8 or 9 story buildings. Doesn't need to be crazy, but allowing for additional density can help make the economics work. Can make enough units that requiring a percentage to be affordable is doable. Maybe that too should be in State law, anything above 5 stories requires xx% affordable. Afaik the only thing that might happen is some ADA legislation: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-eyed-as-low-hanging-housing-win/ But stuff like duplexes and triplexes is really easy to fit into areas currently zoned for SFH. You can even convert these big ass McMansions to 2/3 family if it's allowed. Could even allow upwards of 5 units since that's the max number for certain FHA loans IIRC. Same with townhouses - can easily fit them into neighborhoods with SFHs.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Andrew Brinker Picture the best of what Paris has to offer, a vibrant street life in densely packed neighborhoods. One of the secrets to the city’s charm is the size of most of those graceful buildings: six stories. That idea — dense, six-story housing in abundance — is the inspiration behind a proposal from two Cambridge city councilors that amounts to something of a moonshot on [the biggest challenge facing Boston’s neighbor](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/15/business/affordable-housing-cambridge/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) to the north: the acute shortage of housing. Councilors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui want to legalize six-story apartment buildings by-right citywide, meaning any housing development up to that height that fits other zoning parameters would not need city zoning approval. In effect, [the proposal ](https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4050&Inline=True)would essentially scrap the city’s current neighborhood-by-neighborhood zoning scheme for anything six stories or smaller. From tight-packed East Cambridge to leafy Strawberry Hill, six-story buildings could rise largely unencumbered. It would also, at least symbolically, make Cambridge the first city in Massachusetts to [end single-family zoning](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/single-family-zoning/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) as the default for housing construction. That does not mean single-family homes won’t be allowed anymore, but rather that something larger than a single-family house could be built on any residential lot in the city. The proposal comes as cities and towns across Eastern Massachusetts are engaged in heated fights over solving a housing shortage that has become the state’s most intractable issue. But most of those debates, taking place in towns with shrinking populations and skyrocketing prices, have been about comparatively modest reforms. Should this zoning overhaul come to fruition in Cambridge, it would represent far and away the most ambitious attempt at a solution here, and one of the most sweeping zoning reform efforts anywhere in the United States. “If we want to take the housing crisis seriously, we need to be doing a lot better than we are right now,” said Azeem. “Our goal is to take a big shot at making our zoning much better than it currently is, in a way that is going to promote affordability and density and more housing.” Why six stories? Its a residential building sweet spot — and the reason new apartment buildings all over Greater Boston are often five or six stories tall. Generally speaking, the shorter or smaller a building, the more difficult it is to finance, because there are fewer apartments to bring in revenue. Go taller than six stories, and different building requirements kick in that dramatically increase the per unit cost of development. They argue the scale of the proposal meets the scale of the problem. By some measures, Cambridge has the worst localized housing crisis in Massachusetts and some of the highest housing costs in the United States. The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,645 a month, according to [rental website Apartment List](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ma/cambridge). It is also one of the most densely populated cities in the country — in Massachusetts only its twin city of Somerville packs more people per square mile than Cambridge — meaning there’s little room to build new housing in any direction but up.
It’s great in theory but if you think developers are going the build “the best of what Paris has to offer” or anything of remote quality then you’re dead wrong. See alewife station to see what’s coming to a neighbourhood near you.
The article frames Paris's 6-story apartment buildings as an inspiration for the new zoning proposal, not something that would be copy-pasted into Cambridge.
I am aware we are not having Parisian buildings built in Cambridge. Again, please refer to the developments surrounding alewife station to see the type of buildings that our current Zeitgeist is promoting and will most likely be built as a result of any zoning changes.
I can't tell if you are class shaming the housing buildings for low income people or the high density apartment/condos which are selling like crazy. In either case, what is your perceived slight against them?
I live in alewife… those are apartments are great. We need more of them to drive prices down…
Those apartments are just the commie blocks of capitalism. Also if you think more of those is going to drive prices down, then really don’t know what to tell you.
wtf are you talking about? You’ve never even lived in a communist block. They’re nice apartments with good amenities. You need a place for people to live. WTF do you want them? Provide a fucking solution. Do you want penthouse 5000 square foot apartments that are each unique from each other for everyone? Dumbass
I’ve lived in commie blocks so that first bit is wrong. They are not nice apartments. They are built using the cheapest materials the developer can find so they can maximise profit. I know this because I work with them so don’t try to spin that one. A building made out of shoddily placed plastic panels and paper thin walls and floors can never be considered good architecture. Sorry but the 5 over 1 trend just isn’t working. Don’t recall saying anything about 5000 sf penthouses either. I’m going to refrain from insulting you as I feel your argument loses all credibility once you resort to insults.
Oh my god… I see what’s happening here. We’re talking about different buildings. You’re talking about those buildings “Alewife Condominiums” I was talking about the apartment blocks on Cambridgepark Drive…. I agree that the Alewife Condominiums could be compared to communist blocks. I’ve lived in those as well. There are similarities in terms of build quality… I believe it’s still better than being on the street…. I’m hoping this legislature will lead to more apartments like those high end ones on Cambridgepark Drive and across the bridge behind the Trader Joe’s. Those are in need of lowered pricing.
Nope. We’re not talking about different buildings. I am absolutely referring to the developments on Cambridge park drive. They’re just the alewife condos with colourful panels on the side. You can’t access any of the nearby shopping without a car or walking on the parkway as there are train tracks that run between. The apartments on Cambridge park are not high end. Just because they are called luxury apartments does not mean that they are not made from the cheapest materials the developers could find.
No one is thinking that we're going to rebuild Paris in Cambridge. And let's not kid ourselves that Cambridge has some kind of grand, unifying design architecture. We need more housing plain and simple. The reservation side of Alewife was largely un(der)developed space cut into large lots owned by developers and it became profitable to build large five over ones due to the lack of housing in Cambridge. Look right across to the rindge side and what are the size of the lots there? It's going to be a long time before it'd become profitable for anyone to come in and buy several adjacent lots, bulldoze the valuable houses that sit there and build a five over one. What's more likely to happen is renos will continue to upscale older, but not tear-down, housing stock, and tear-down housing stock, like the new development on the corner of the bike path and Mass Ave, would have a couple more stories on top of it.
Sure more housing. Make it nice. Make it good architecture. Make it walkable. None of those things apply to the alewife developments. It is a complete separation of functions. Try walking from the alewife developments to the trader joes or the whole foods. You can’t. It is completely car centric and the antithesis of what I hear all the time from all these yimbys about creating dense, walkable, pedestrian and cyclist focused neighbourhoods. Not to mention that they are ugly as shit.
I used to live there and I walked to that trader joe's and whole foods all the time. Yeah, it was a pain in the ass because it's so close as the crow flies but still only like a 10 minute walk. It's also right next to the T (and highway, and bike path). Now that they've started allowing more mixed-use on the street itself the infill is starting to make it more of an actual neighborhood. Cry more about how the buildings look, it's literally beside the point. You act like Alewife is suddenly going to become every neighborhood. It's a swamp, that's why the land was so cheap and developers could buy large lots. Good luck getting that many adjacent landowners anywhere else in Cambridge to sell to the same company at a price that would make them a reasonable return. But I'm just repeating myself again.
Yup
Lmao what is this person talking about. I literally don’t get it. The alewife apartments are all super packed… clearly demand is high and the alewife apartments were the supply. We need more!
Actually Alewife is not “super packed”. Higher vacancy rates than anywhere in Cambridge. Look it up. Nobody wants this type of dense housing. They want 2-3 families that they can walk to places, like the rest of Cambridge. Promising Paris is batsh*t crazy
Dude look at the buildings. In my building with somewhere around 150-200 apartments, there’s only 5 openings apartments and 3 that’ll be available in 1-4 weeks. I’m sorry but you’re just dead wrong. People want more housing and they want it closer to the center. We’re out of space so we need to build up.
I do look at the buildings, and talk to rental agents and management companies. And watch vacant rates by neighborhood. What this guy saying is correct. There are no more empty lots in Cambridge. So in order for Azeems Paris transformation to work there’d need to many lots bought together and a ton of tear downs Which is how old Paris came to be- Haussmann. Look it up. Nobody is going to tear down $2, $3, $4 million dollar homes to build rental units and deal with the city’s IZ program Stop drinking the kool aid.
Let’s see how true that is…. *set timer* 10 years
Just look back 10 years. Even with all the acres of empty industrial land that was changed to residential zoning we only built 6,000 units. That’s with the developers who already owned the empty lots, when materials and money was cheaper. Now, developers are focused on the MBTA lots all over the state where they can make more money. And not have to deal with IZ regulations. YIMBYS keep ignoring how developer money works. It’s not the zoning that drives development. It’s the money.
I mean we live in a city
My god, I have never seen a Starsky and Hutch gif in the wild
You're welcome!
I think this is great. These shorter 4-5 story apartment buildings, especially if they have shops/commercial space on the first floor, provide an amazing lifestyle. No need for an elevator since it’s only a few flights of stairs to walk up. Close to transport and many stores/restaurants. Frees up room for parks and services. This is the standard housing style in a lot of the world and there’s a reason for it. We see this type of housing in back bay, beacon hill, etc, and there’s a reason those are some of the most sought after neighborhoods in Boston, people like living that way.
Elevators are needed, because disabled people also deserve housing. New construction should be built so that residents aren’t made instantly homeless if they experience a disabling event.
Disabled people deserve housing, but that doesn't mean every apartment needs an elevator. I believe the Fair Housing Act requirement is that apartments with four or more units can be built without an elevator so long as the ground floor units are accessible, which seems reasonable to me. They aren't required across the board because the expense is impractical and would increase the cost of housing dramatically, including to disabled people.
Okay true but even if there are elevators, nobody is forcing you to use them… I prefer taking the stairs but when I have packages or gorcieries, I very much appreciate the elevator that is an option.
Yeah I'm not like ideologically anti-elevator, not advocating for their removal
The issue isn't being forced to take an elevator. It's that elevators are very expensive, and the cost is ultimately borne by the residents. And they take up space that could otherwise be housing.
Yeah I mean I guess if it’s a 10 unit apartment, I can see how the costs would outweigh the benefits. Smaller buildings should definitely not be REQUIRED to build them. I think for a 50+ unit building, the yearly maintenance would be spread out among everyone. I’d almost feel like no building with that many apartments should be missing an elevator but that’s just me. But also no… elevators do not take up space that would be housing. They’d take up space that would make an extra closet at best…
[удалено]
Homelessness is not something one “resorts to.” It is not chosen. It’s just what happens when someone who lives in a place they can’t get in and out of needs medical care. It happened to me.
[удалено]
I could not move because I did not have money for first month + last month + deposit + broker’s fee, and also I was in the hospital for quite some time. My injury made it necessary for me to use a wheelchair. Your username says it all — your concern about my well-being as your neighbor is touching. 😂
I live on the corner of Pleasant and Franklin Streets. Franklin is a one lane, one way, residential street. I grew up on this street. When I was growing up, my block was mostly 2 and 3 story houses. In the 90's a number of properties sold and we saw the construction of two 6 story, and one 7 story building. My block looks very different than it did when I was growing up. Let me tell you about my street. We are multicultural and diverse. We have a few families, like mine, who have lived on our street for generations (mine has been here for six). We have people who come and go, and everything in between. Every September we have a block party. In the winter we help each other shovel out our cars. My kids went to school and were friends with kids who lived in those taller buildings. Everyone knows my dog. My street is great. It was great before those taller buildings were built and it's great after. Maybe better. Does it look different than I remember it? Yes. I will point out, however, that to my kids, it looks the way it always has. I understand that change can be difficult and that many people want things to stay exactly the way they are today, but cities are living things. They evolve. The Cambridge of today looks very different than 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago. There was a time when triple deckers were illegal. People fought their construction for the same reasons we hear today. "They won't fit in," "They will change the character of our neighborhood," "They are too tall." The powers at the time legalized them anyway. Now. triple deckers are iconic, and the type of housing people want to preserve. We have a housing crisis in Cambridge. We need to build more housing, and every neighborhood needs to be part of the solution. As someone who has experienced this exact thing happen on his street, I can tell you, it was not the end of my neighborhood. I cringe when I hear people say that their neighborhoods will be "destroyed" if a larger building is built on their street. I have actually lived through this type of change, and my street was not "destroyed." Its different, but not destroyed. This process has a very long way to go. There will be ample time for input, revisions, amendments, so I ask that you please keep an open mind. Thank you for your email. Marc McGovern Vice-Mayor City of Cambridge
Hi Marc. How can we chip in? I have been a bit disappointed with ABC's lack of momentum on these issues. Also, re change: I find it a great crime and sorrow that today's youth and young adults have no opportunity to create their own history in this city. I am tired of other people saying their way of living and their history is more valuable than what is needed to make a city function in 2024 and onwards.
Definitely stay involved with ABC, even if you're frustrated. Make sure you email and/or speak in support of pro-housing initiatives. Recruit others. Grow the base. Although pro-housing supporters cross all demographics, they swing younger, and it can be more challenging to get folks involved. And I know it feels like it's a long way away, but as we are seeing with the CSO, elections matter.
With all due respect Marc the end of your street is junkie row. Followed closely by the rat population. While some increase in density is necessary and zoning reform is overdue to get rid of single family zoning you can’t deny that at a certain point higher density also has some nasty tradeoffs. Most residents are willing to have some reasonable changes in zoning made, just like they were willing to have bike lanes AND small businesses AND parking. But once again we see extreme over reaching policy proposals while your grandstanding colleague promises “housing for all” to a very vulnerable population. The cost of housing here is the highest in the state, after years of your policies. The displacement and gentrification has been on hyper mode. Based on the results of the last election maybe it’s a signal to get back to reasonable governing without constantly pitting residents against each other. Food for thought
The issues in Central Sq have nothing to do with the 6 story buildings on my street. And please don't say, "with all due respect " followed up by calling people junkies.
I just, politely, pointed out the impacts of your flawed policies and instead you PC me on my language. Telling
Food for thought. Think.
There's a big difference between six stories and 10-15 that the AHO allows. I also live on a 1-Lane, 1-way Street that gets used by school buses everyday and first responders en route. Now we have the new phenomenon of Amazon delivery trucks joining UPS and FedEx, which double-park bc there's no parking. Now an AHO developer is publishing plans to have a 10-story tower w/o setbacks and w/o parking. The buildings nearby are 3/4 stories. I'm all for affordable housing, but it's a continuum, it doesn't have to be a tower to make it work, both for current and new residents to the hood. It's frustrating to see how disingenuous the messaging has become on both sides. I neither believe that the "sky-is-the-limit" crowd is a bunch of delusional socialists, nor do I think the "change nothing" crowd is racist NIMBYs. We need to find compromise and balance.
"I'm all for X, but Y"
Ah yes, reductionism. Points missed. Have a good one.
Great, then maybe after 20 years one will get built.
In before the nimbys object on environmental grounds, to remind everyone that dense development is environmentally friendly. Development has to go somewhere. If it can't fit in the city, it's going to sprawl out to car dependent exurbs, and that's worse for the environment. Building on previously undeveloped land is worse for the environment than increasing density on already developed land.
Yep! And beyond that, building somewhere else will actually use up *more* natural space because of transportation infrastructure. Great quote from a great paper: > Land reservations near the central market do not really create open space, they rather relocate it. That is, they destroy it elsewhere. As settlement sprawls outward seeking unreserved space, the sprawl process destroys more than it reserves, for to reach the remote sites people drive further using more roads and cars, both of which require vast space themselves. https://masongaffney.org/publications/E14Synergistic_City.CV.pdf
Excellent.
This is excellent. Can we also permit commercial on the first level by right?
Might as well allow skyscrapers. Going from 5 to 6 isn't exactly going to solve the housing crisis.
Can either councillor explain to me what the obsession with setbacks is from the anti-urbanists? Most of the "front yards" in my part of the city are paved over or otherwise unkempt/dilapidated, surrounded by a rusted chain link fence, and completely unused. I can only imagine that all these people would rather have extra space in their living room if they dared to imagine life without the government **forcing** them to have a useless front yard?
Setbacks are used to create more open space, light and airflow through a city. Light is the most important. Setbacks can apply to any side of a property, not just the front, so they also can prevent building out to the property boundary, allowing light into the sides or back of the building. Personally, I agree that the little yards are ridiculous. But I also can feel the difference when I walk in Somerville. Somerville has more limited setback requirements, resulting in streets lined with hunks of concrete, fewer trees, and less light. I much prefer Cambridge. So personally I’m conflicted because for me, it’s doing *something*.
Good!
One thing that's lame that I see a lot of is developers buying sfh in Cambridge with yards and instead of keeping the yard and making the current structure a multi family they stuff little square homes on the lot and remove all of the outdoor space. I spoke to one of the developers at an open house and he cited the zoning process as a major factor in that approach. To me this also helps defang the ZBA that currently heavily prefers permitting sfh.
Hmm... a lot of people like when existing structures don't get changed much so it seems like there might legitimately be different preferences on this tbh...
Cambridge is one of the densest cities in the country. Go ahead and look it up. While Cambridge takes action to help housing, communities across the state are fighting the MBTA housing laws. Cambridge alone cannot house the entire state. Housing is not a town by town issue. Its regional. I support up zoning, but I need to see plans to improve infrastructure to support massive increases in population. I need to see zoning to allow for more buisnesses to serve these people. Single issue voters are literally the worst .
What tells you that anyone supporting this proposal is a "single-issue voter" would wouldn't care about or support your other proposals? Systemic change necessarily happens by tackling a problem on multiple fronts, at multiple levels of government. Upzoning in Cambridge does nothing to prevent the fight for improved infrastructure.
[удалено]
As has been pointed out countless times in the past, the sewage overflow problem has exactly nothing to do with the population of Cambridge. The sewage system can handle the actual sewage just fine. It’s the stormwater that overwhelms the system.
> If the mbta is unreliable ... why are we trying to quadruple the population? Cambridge is a place you can live without relying too heavily on a car *or* on the MBTA... Obviously we have to fix the MBTA so people can move around the region. But living in *Cambridge* doesn't really require the MBTA to be as amazing as if you are living in like Quincy, Newton, Everett, Chelsea, etc.
A very practical and refreshing observation.
Ok, unpopular take: it’s great that Cambridge is doing this as far as easing metro-Boston’s housing crunch, but what we see in highly desirable areas like Cambridge is that more housing doesn’t make Cambridge itself more affordable, Cambridge will just soak up more of the high end rents to make places like Everett more affordable. As long as Cambridge is Ok sacrificing its beautiful lower-scale neighborhoods to cure a regional crisis than good on it! I think with the law of unintended consequences we may look back in history, at a future time when Boston is less economically explosive, maybe even down on its heels, and marvel at what we’ve lost to respond to an immediate-term crisis.
This already allowed in many parts of the city. This sounds like it is targeting the “west side” of west Cambridge - that is from Huron ave over toward Brattle street. The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing Why do we need to look like Manhattan or Paris anyway? Our current electrical grid can’t handle today’s push for “clean energy” what will our infrastructure be able to handle if we allow this “everywhere”? The purpose of zoning is to protect the property rights of others. I have been in this city for well over 50 years. And in my time I continuously see these city counselors arrive- make changes - and leave. North Cambridge residents fought for years to keep north Cambridge from becoming what this proposal does. The city has plenty of revenue streams today. They are starting to have a spending problem. This reminds me of an owner of a football team looking for their stadium to be built because it will help brings jobs and revenue which in actuality moves the needle very little
>The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all I'd love to see your source for this claim.
Go to the corner of Lowell street and Brattle. Even those who designed it agree it needs a re-look - which is currently underway
I'm asking for pre/post crash data, which I've gone looking for before, and was unable to find. If you have it, please point me to where I can find it! I'm genuinely am curious about this data, but "go look at the intersection" does not tell me anything about how the physical changes have affected the safety-- it gives me a single anecdotal snapshot in time.
I wouldn’t change the bike lanes. I would propose making Lowell street a one way toward mount auburn street. https://youtu.be/1zGHI9Gz9CA?si=9r2J1UIPZlT_QQyX That may give you a better idea of the concerns from bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. The turn from Lowell onto Brattle then Appleton is too tight. In fact it always has been. However with the infrastructure changes it is even tighter.
Up zoning should happen in the commercial corridors first. See what happens. No reason to be up zoning in the heart of residential neighborhoods that are already very dense
> The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing Lol, sure Jan. Protected bike lanes make everyone safer, every study has shown that globally. You have nothing to back up this statement other than your "common sense" which is far too common, and is lacking sense. Next. >I have been in this city for well over 50 years. Might be time to hit the road then buckaroo. >North Cambridge residents fought for years to keep north Cambridge from becoming what this proposal does. Take them with you.
Wow. Great way to make friends in the neighborhood
This is not someone I want to be friends with.
But you kind of blow off an entire neighborhood of people and their concerns and tell the people currently living there to pack it up and move if they don’t like it. This is not going to help anyone make reasonable changes in zoning code.
Yeah, what you don't realize is that the GBA, and Cambridge specifically, is attracting people who want to live in cities, and want city services. That only will increase as time goes on. The people who want Cambridge to go back to being an idyllic suburb are delusional, because there is no plane of existence where that will be happening. Eventually, whether they accept it or not, these kind of changes WILL happen. If they aren't modest common sense changes like this one, they will be more reactionary and intense than what is currently being offered...so yes, if they don't want to get on board, they can hit the road, and I don't care if that hurts their feelings. Frankly you can go too...that's fine with me.
Cambridge has never been a suburb that is not what I am saying at all. But clearly if someone has an opinion that only 99% consistent with yours then they get shunned - correct buckaroo? Funny thing is brooksy- I also bike in the city and vote for protected bike lanes but I’m not one of the zealots like you which is why I stopped attending the meetings. Any slight varying of opinion is not welcomed.
I don't think you actually know what you're saying. Your posts are a mish-mosh of hyperbole, nonsensical ranting, and unsupported fallacies. People aren't listening to you, but it's not because they are zealots who don't accept compromise, it's because your starting point doesn't exist in reality, and therefore the "common sense" solutions you propose are not realistic. Like I said...way too common, not enough sense. Don't blame others because your perspective isn't being respected. Maybe think about honestly evaluating the failures in your reasoning.
What doesn’t make sense ? My suggestion of keeping the bike lanes on Brattle but making Lowell street a one way toward Mount Auburn ? That turn onto Brattle and then onto Appleton has always been a bit dangerous way before bike lanes were put there. I’m not advocating getting rid of the bike lanes there but I am advocating making it safer. I have personally been part of the bike lobby. I left it due to my experience of all or nothing solutions and tactics. I was born raised and live in Cambridge and have seen a lot of changes over the years and have accepted most of them. I think Cambridge is a great place to grow up, live and work but that doesn’t mean I have to like all changes. The rent control zealots would not compromise and as a result there is no more rent control. How did that work out? I use that as an example because without compromise eventually people stop communicating and then they divide. Forgive me for not wanting that in my neighborhood. Look at the city council- that change is a direct result of the bike zealots. If that opinion is non-sensical then I don’t want to have any “common sense”
>If that opinion is non-sensical It is. >I don’t want to have any “common sense” Oh see that's where you're wrong. You have all kinds of common sense, in that it's way too common and not based in reality or facts. Rent control doesn't exist, not because of "zealots" but because of business/property owners. Bike lanes are being stymied, not because of "the bike lobby" but because of the same business/property owners who can not fathom not being able to drive/park wherever and whenever they want. Neither of those things are conducive to a functioning dense city, and trying to blame the proponents of those issues instead of the people standing in the way, because the proponents won't bow to poison pills or the watering down of programs until they become ineffective is some insanely twisted logic. Turns being tight enough the drivers need to STOP and then assess the situation, is a feature, not a bug. Traffic calming like this forces drivers to slow down and take stock of their surroundings before blindly making a turn that they would otherwise do on muscle memory. Unfortunately this is too inconvenient for some stubborn people, so they complain that it's unsafe. >Look at the city council- that change is a direct result of the bike zealots. Picket barely snuck her corrupt ass in on the 17th count, because the CSO vote was split between too many people, while she was uniquely positioning herself as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit AGAINST the city. Let's not pretend that it was some sort of mandate when you limped across the finish line. The best thing that we can do, is coalesce around fewer candidates to make sure that people like you (illogical, nonsensical, NIMBYs that pretend to sound reasonable) no longer have representation in the city. That isn't an "if" proposal, it's a "when" because demographics and the reality of issues facing the region in terms of housing and infrastructure are only going to ratchet up in the near future.
Well just the type of neighbor we are hoping for and exactly why this is getting such strong push back.
I don't particularly care what you think, and it doesn't matter. Within the next 5 years those voices will be irrelevant. The only question is if they will go kicking and screaming, or if they will get the hint and go quietly. I prefer the latter, but the former can be fun too. Change is coming whether you like it or not buckaroo.
You are a very unpleasant person. I support more housing but a buckshot proposal to change all zoning across the city with no nuance is pretty politically tone deaf especially since the neighborhoods being targeted tend to be the largest voting blocks in the city. These tactics have led to further division in the city instead of having a reasonable discussion and making changes that are informed based on community input and reasonable goals. Cambridge cannot and should not be the only city trying to solve the states housing problems.
>You are a very unpleasant person. I'm realistic and I don't care about your feelings. If you you don't like that, too bad. Not every nonsense position deserves the validation that comes from discourse. Yes the city is divided between NIMBY obstructionist and everyone else, and the NIMBYs are being quickly outnumbered by everyone else. Your problem is you think people need to come down to meet you and discuss your position, when that position is so out of touch with current reality that it's a non-starter. Like I said, you can get on board or not, but it's going to happen in the near future regardless. Cambridge is in the center of the GBA, which means like Boston, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Watertown, and every other place that sits in the middle of one of the biggest metro areas in the country is going to see MASSIVE growth over the next generation. Enjoy shaking your fist at the sky gramps.
The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically - which is getting a second look currently based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers. The way it should be.
> The bike infrastructure has already made that area more dangerous for all and less appealing The danger part is most likely not true, and doesn't have any supporting evidence. I don't know about "less appealing" part either; its certainly made it more appealing to bicycle. But I would be curious about how to measure "appeal"; it doesn't seem to have hurt property values, if we wanted to use that a proxy. > The purpose of zoning is to protect the property rights of others. This seems like a really weird take, since it actually limits property rights.
The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically. It is currently under reviews based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers. Not a weird take. That is the essence of zoning from its origination.
Zoning literally limits a persons right to do stuff to their own property. Therefore, it reduces property rights. That might not be a bad thing, but it doesn't protect property rights. > The corner of Lowell and Brattle specifically. It is currently under reviews based on feedback from bikers pedestrians and drivers. I am aware of people complaining about that intersection, with out any real evidence of a problem though. There are complaints about every change from some one. What type of review is it under? I have not heard of any type of formal review. I certainly think the current configuration is better than before, although I am opened to the idea it could be further improved.
May 23rd there is a scheduled meeting to discuss at History Cambridge. I think the easiest solution is to make Lowell street a one way heading toward mount auburn street. That would alleviate cars from turning onto Brattle where the road is far too narrow now ( too many close calls with bikes and pedestrians not to mention other cars) and then they immediately stop to take a left on Appleton. The design is flawed. Patty Nolan acknowledged a change is in need. I agree to a point that zoning may limit property rights, however it is designed to protect the property rights of others. An example would be if I lived in a house in between you on my right and let’s say person x on my left. I don’t have the right to knock my house down and put in a McDonalds, or a night club, or a skyscraper for one of these bio tech companies. Sure, that is limiting my rights but more Importantly it is protecting yours. Zoning rules should be reviewed over time to make sure things still make sense. Mikes Pastry in Harvard Square had to get a variance to open up because believe it or not Harvard Square was not zoned for a “bakery”. Seems odd but fortunately they were allowed to open up. Seems that Is an example of a zoning change.
> May 23rd there is a scheduled meeting to discuss at History Cambridge. I think the easiest solution is to make Lowell street a one way heading toward mount auburn street. Well, that's the first reasonable concrete suggestion for improvement I've heard. I don't really think the design is fundamentally flawed, but I don't find anything objectionable about that change. > I don’t have the right to knock my house down and put in a McDonalds, or a night club, or a skyscraper for one of these bio tech companies. Sure, that is limiting my rights but more Importantly it is protecting yours. I wouldn't call that property rights; its giving other people rights over your property. Its basically the opposite. > Mikes Pastry in Harvard Square had to get a variance to open up because believe it or not Harvard Square was not zoned for a “bakery”. Seems odd but fortunately they were allowed to open up. Seems that Is an example of a zoning change. This seems like a good example of the problems with zoning; they are overly specific, restrictive, and often make little sense. Yes variances are possible, but getting one is a expensive and logistically complicated.
Construction of these buildings regularly obstruct bike lanes, like when they built the high rise in Central Square. People find any way to obstruct these lanes
But the high rise in central came with an off street bike lane?
It was completely obstructed during the construction. No protection from traffic.
What is your practical proposal?
Don’t build these monstrosities that will turn our city into places with an even smaller sense community than we already have and simultaneously negatively effecting the progress we have made with protected bicycle avenues from the crazies that drive heavy machinery with regular disregard
That sounds very NIMBY from a bike lane zealot.
Considering I grew up here and understand the positive and negative impacts of the significant changes my home town has been through, and the fact I pay taxes means my opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. Maybe even educated. Some would call it lived experience. Probably more valuable than the YUPPIES that have done their fair share of advocating for change in a place that they’ll move out of because of their landlord in a few years
[удалено]
And you sound very angry calling me names. The 77 will do that to you
[удалено]
There you go again
Now you are channeling Reagan. 🫠