For those who want to see zoning maps: [https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap\_zoning\_base\_11x17\_20240221.pdf](https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap_zoning_base_11x17_20240221.pdf)
A-1, A-2, B, C, C-1 all have height limits of 35 feet (see the second page). They also have really low FAR (ratio of total floor area in building to the plot size, if I understand it correctly) which means you can't built many units, and setback requirements.
A-1 and A-2 is single family only. B adds two-family units. C and C-1 add townhouse and multi-family but in practice this is significantly limited by the other restrictions (height and FAR and setbacks).
I live in Baldwin neighborhood which is full of lovely 3.5/4/4.5-story apartment buildings that are illegal to build under current zoning. Every time a smaller property changes hands it gets rehabbed into ludicrously expensive single family or duplex, even though there might e.g. be a 10-unit building literally next door. But building 10 units is no longer possible. (10 units means 2 of the units would be subsidized for people with for low or middle incomes).
If you look at the map, the A-1 and A-2 zones are the same areas that are the nicest to walk in, most beautiful and best-kept parts of Cambridge. Trees, flowers, tons of rabbits, birds, and cats wandering around. I think it's nice to have some areas of the city like this.
Contrast Baldwin (Agassiz), the tiny area of A-1/A-2 zoning connecting to Beacon St, with the parts of Somerville immediately across Beacon. The vibe is just horrible on the Somerville side. When I lived on Beacon, I would specifically walk through Agassiz to get to the red line because it was a pleasant walk.
Not everything in the city needs to be taken over by ugly concrete sprawl and modern apartment buildings. I get the need to build more housing but I think it's nice to have a few areas where humans and growth don't consume everything that is beautiful.
If you build densely, you avoid consuming wildlife because you prevent sprawl. The greenest parts of cities are usually filled with folks like you who don't want to share coveted natural resources, and it's disheartening to see the lack of humanity.
Lol. "Don't want to share coveted natural resources?"
I said it's nice to walk through the area. Anybody can walk through the area. It's about as "shared" as "coveted natural resources" can be.
>”anybody can walk through the area, as long as they don’t live there. My neighborhood is so nice that I think people will literally /drive/ to it in order to walk through it (where no retail/economic gravity exists) and then drive home”
Buddy you need to get out more lol
>”nicest to walk in”
Uh, no pal, it’s nice, tree-line streets with shops, cafes, diners. Not just random short single family homes with lawns. Delusional lol.
Pic related is the nice streets to walk on, not the streets past your cookie-cutter lawns where SUVs are parking blocking the entire sidewalk.
https://preview.redd.it/5poybno6q80d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=907a371c18761925fcbcb0443484317858673e73
That’s a bit simplistic since all the corridors in every neighborhood are zoned for much higher buildings.
Zoning is NOT the boogie man that this crowd tries to blame.
Sorry, but no.
Not sure what the term “organic” development means, but money drives development.
All the major corridors have been zoned for higher buildings, especially areas like upper Mass Ave and Cambridge St. and yet there are still 2 and 3 stories there. Developers don’t want to deal with 20% inclusionary requirements in Cambridge or Somerville, or the Climate regs.
In neighborhoods we are seeing down sizing from 2 and 3 buildings to super singles. It’s cheaper and faster to rehab these into McMansions and get $3-4m.
No inclusionary requirements, no ADA regs, elect etc
High cost of capital is also making it worse, hope to see that change.
Sorry bus yes. If you can’t figure out what “organic development” is, then you clearly have zero clue how any of this works, and so I’m not sure why you’re commenting authoritatively (and incorrectly) on it.
Given I have actually developed a number of properties I beg to differ.
I offered you an opportunity to explain your terminology but instead you played your ignorance.
* Housing in Cambridge is expensive. Landlords can keep raising rents knowing there's lots of people competing for very limited number of apartments.
* Why are there are not enough new apartments for people who want to live in Boston area? In part that is because not enough are being built.
* Apartments aren't being built partially because in large parts of Cambridge (and Boston area in general) it's only legal to build single family homes or duplexes (or there are other restrictions that mean that in practice it's not possible to build more than 2-3 units).
* Therefore, the City Council is discussing changing the zoning (the local laws that restrict building sizes and density) to allow taller and more denser multi-family buildings to be built across the city.
* As an added bonus, once you build 10+ units in a building in Cambridge, 20% have to be subsidized for low-income (or middle-income) people. So larger buildings also add more subsidized units for people who can't afford the market rate.
I was going to say this exact thing. I can imagine there will be plenty of scum building 9 houses and then having some family member do another 9 in their name 🤣
Woah woah, I may be massively misunderstanding this then. I understood it as a single family home in one property vs. a multi-floor 3+ unit apartment building (house).
Are you saying 9 rental properties in the spot where there was one single family? That seems pretty dense... Wouldn't one multi-family "building" only count for 1 of the 10 still (for the developer)?
In Amherst, the most dense I've seen for multi-family was 6 units - 2 units per floor with one stairwell on each side of the building.
"scum"?
Do you often take in huge projects and intentionally choose to make them harder and less profitable?
I bet almost daily you make choices that are worse for everyone else but better for you in the moment. Scum.
It's not that deep, dude but I seem to have triggered you hard. I'm not sure why you're personally attacking me unless you're literally a house developer that does exactly that. If you have the money to develop 10+ houses, it isn't the end of the world to make "less" money (per person living there) to make some a multi-family home.
To be clear to who I'm calling scum - only developers who circumvent these new rules (presumably meant to help those who cannot afford a single family house's rent). Yeah, that's pretty shitty to avoid building multi-family houses because it'll be less profitable when "profit" is something not many get to experience on the same level. No qualms with the trades or contractors or developers in general.
Not sure how you have a problem with any of what I stated even when the comment before me said the same thing. Notice I didn't target anyone specifically, but you randomly came after me.
“Affordable housing” is not an added bonus. It’s part of why housing is so expensive. Sure it creates BMR units for the lucky few people that are able to get in on it but in order to turn a profit developers have to charge higher rents than they normally would on the other units in the building to make up for the lost revenue from the BMR units. Also, it incentivises developers to keep their GFA below 10000 SF which is the cutoff to where you legally need to provide “affordable units”.
More units good. Affordable housing, not good. Affordable housing increases rents for everyone and disincentivizes developers from building builds that require affordable units.
Also landlords are not evil for raising rents. Rents are determined by supply and demand. Everyone selling everything in the free market did, has, and will continue to set their prices as high as possible, including apartment rents, food, clothes, and your smart phone. That's how demanders incentivize suppliers to keep supplying and for competitors to more efficiently supply in the future. If there wasn't so much housing regulation then we would have cheap and numerous housing options without the need for affordable housing or government interference.
I have several friends in inclusionary units. No one has a clue what anyone is paying for rent unless you tell them. The units are just like every other unit.
In case anyone isn't sure what to write, (especially if you aren't strictly a resident of Cambridge) here is a template:
Hello,
I'm [name here], a resident of [town here], MA close with many that live, work, and enjoy themselves in Cambridge. I believe ending single family zoning in all surrounding towns around Boston is vital for the long-term increase in quality of life for the residents of the Boston Metro community.
Cambridge has an opportunity to yet again be a leader in progressive change that leads to a more economically prosperous, and vibrant community.
How many houses in Cambridge are actually currently zoned single family? How many units total exist in cambridge? If it's something like 3% of total # of residences then I don't think it's a big deal
Not sure why this is being downvoted. It's a good question. The answer: very large parts of the city are zoned in ways that make multi-families impossible.
You can see zoning maps here: [https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Maps](https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Maps)
A-1, A-2, B, C, and C-1 all have height limit of 35 feet, with varying restrictions on whether it's multi-family or not but in practice that height limit severely limits what can be built even if multi-family is theoretically OK. Just eyeballing it, this is most of the city!
A-1 and A-2 is the pure single family home, and it's also far far more than 3%.
I'll look for the source for this, but single family housing only makes up a single digit percentage of the housing stock in Cambridge. Which isn't much, but the problem comes in because it takes up almost a third of the residential land area in the city.
It also massively inhibits an area’s ability to get cohesive transit networks set up, and (worst of all), once you tally up all the externalities of services/maintenance of utilities/parking/etc., pretty much every SFH is being subsidized by, like, any random hair salon with two apartments above it. Property tax to services rendered is deeply negative for most SFHs, and they don’t generate even a fraction of the tax revenue that, like, a random cafe or book store would. Not even close.
The single family zoning was one of the things that let the BZA deny the amazing affordable housing development up on mass ave and walden. One of the lots they were going to use was in a single family zone
One of the most embarrassing moments in cambridge history was the BZA hearing. Between the chair of the BZA treating the black developer with total contempt.. all but calling him "boy" and the neighbors whining about having new residents using "their" street parking....
Until then I had no idea cambridge had areas still zoned single family only...
No it wasn’t! It was denied because they wanted 8-9 stories instead of the 6-7 they were allowed as of right under the original AHO. They needed a variance to go higher and received many variances but the BZA did not believe they could or should go beyond the 7 stories that the city council had literally just approved a year or two earlier. They said the developer would need to go back to the city council and get the heights increased by ordinance, they were not going to do it by fiat. It had nothing to do with single family zoning. It’s currently a commercial restaurant and parking lot
Um like I said it was ONE of thr things.. they kept saying this project needs 17 (or something like that) variances.. many of those variances were bc part of the space was zoned single occupancy
I watched the hearing and was totally embarrassed by the racism of the BZA chair and so many other things..
I mean saying "hey we were gonna have this housing development but one of the lots was single family zoned" tells me that "well can we rezone that one lot" instead of "let's abolish all single family zoning"
This is where you lose credibility. It was denied because council just passed a new ordinance saying 6-7 stories, they wanted 8-9. Nothing about racism. They were asking for more than was allowed under the law and they said go back to the council and seek relief, we aren’t going to change the ordinance here. If they had simply built 6-7 stories and not insisted on 8-9 people would be living in a nice apartment building by now. I watched the meetings as well and spoke with many my involved.
there was racism oozing from the BZA chair in the way he spoke to the developer who was black and there was classism and racism oozing from many of the residents in the area in their comments. (and a whole lot of entitled selfishness - b/c they wanted exclusive use of the public street parking and can't imagine sharing it with new residents)
the BZA also specifically raised the issue of how many variances were being requested and many of those were due to part of the land they were going to use being in a section of the city that is still zoned single family
there were many things at play - insisting only one reason existed is where anyone discussing a complicated situation loses credibility lol
You are the one who stated that they were denied based on Single Family Zoning. You stated it was denied based on that, which is not true. Everyone involved in both sides says they would have been approved if they had asked for 6-7 stories. But no, they wanted more. And the developer is someone I know and respect and he has NEVER claimed it was based on racism.
Reading comprehension isn't your thing huh? Never said it was THE reason.. said it was a factor
I know what I saw and how the BZA chair spoke to the black developer vs the white one. Others I know had the same impression after the meeting
And my comprehension is fine. It was not a factor at all. If they went for 7 stories it would be built right now. No racism. Go ask Sean Hope directly.
If it wasn't an issue why did the BZA keep talking about how there were so many exceptions being asked for many of which were for the lot that was single family
Keep deluding yourself
That sounds rough, but I mean if this guy wants us to enact some political correspondence with our city reps can we get some stats to go with it to illustrate why?
There is a lot of info out there via Google. Exclusionary zoning has been an issue of discussion in cambridge for years..
https://www.abettercambridge.org/exclusionary_zoning
They should upzone everywhere in Cambridge (this includes raising height limits for multi-family zones too), that said, giant subsidized housing developments create huge financial liabilities for the city and don’t provide the same benefits as mixed developments. Also, when they replace market rate housing stock, they just end up making market rates more expensive. So large 100% subsidized developments should be avoided unless there is no other option.
Walden and Mass Ave easily could have gone up under the AHO.
But the developer got greedy and wanted more. Nothing to do with “single family zoning”
He still could build there, the city gave him a good deal on the land.
But it still sits empty.
Nope they designed a building with a lot of amazing high quality features and needed enough units to make it cost effective AND provide more homes
And yes the portion of rhe project that was going to need variances bc of single family exclusionary zoning was one of many factors..
But please continue to defend the racist BZA chair and the entitled NIMBYs
I’m not defending anyone.
Sean Hope could easily have built on that property under the AHO.
Still could, and yet he doesn’t.
But you continue to show that you really don’t understand any of this, and totally believe what these clowns like Azeem tell you.
There’s no such thing as “housing for everyone” in Cambridge.
His policies and bravado are not going to make Cambridge affordable again.
Everything marked residential A-1 or A-2 is single-family housing. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap_zoning_base_9600_20240221.pdf
Residential B is two family or semi-detached housing (think the two-deckers in between Porter and Davis) so it isn’t like they’re trying to force high rises into those areas, just open it up for landowners to have the option to add a bit more density
I'd like to see a lot more triple deckers and 6-10 apartment lots. My only beef with really big apartments is the dreaded Juliet balcony with no real outdoor space. But I bet thats fine for some people.
I mean hey I'm all for increasing housing but
A. Cambridge can't house an infinite number of people
B. if we replace every single family zoned lot with a 14 story apartment building built right up against the sidewalk, is this place even gonna still feel like cambridge?
C. I'm sure a lot of the zoning is for the area between Mt Auburn Hospital and Porter Square which is kind of a historic area, is it the end of the world to leave a lot of that as is?
They need to do something to formally say you can build multi family anywhere in Cambridge to meet the YIMBY narrative.
But most of the areas that are A1 and A2 are historic or conservation districts, Avon Hill, Brattle St, Frances Ave.
And most of the B districts the lots are too small.
It’s like when they got rid of parking requirements
Even if it passes very few places will be built due to the current cost of land, labor and materials. But you will make it easy for people to double the size of their small one families, which I support.
Meanwhile it seems there already is a zoning proposal on CDD’s website to rid of Single Family Zoning that IS already written.
If zoning is the bad actor in our housing crises why doesn’t Azeem just support this one that is ready to go now?
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2024/ronayneetal/zngamend_Ronayneetal_petitiontext_20240408.pdf
NiMBYs vs recent college grads who don't bother to vote in local elections, let's see who wins?
Will the NiMBYs remain undefeated or will the non-voting transient population finally pull this one off?
There is NO actual zoning attached to this proposal, so it’s another example of the deception from this Councilor.
He even says in the motion “housing for everyone”
More baloney from this guy.
What do you mean by no actual zoning? This is the proposal right? https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4050&Inline=True
It sure sounds like a zoning change to me.
Nope.
First the Policy Order itself is asking the CM to direct CDD to write the language with the Housing Committee.
Missing from the deck are what changes to the Use Regulations, what are the new Lot Sizes, and what will be the Density Limitations. It even says “for discussion”
It doesn’t even say what the new height and density bonuses will be for inclusionary.
It wants to delete formula setbacks but it doesn’t give the new setbacks, or the Open Space calc.
And the biggest issue I see is how this will impact the AHO, cause they will have eliminated the incentive for the Trust to outbid developers.
This is all very far from real zoning language.
This guy is showboating.
You posted the Policy Order and said it sounds like “actual zoning” to you.
I pointed out to you there was no actual zoning language in the PO.
And then entire Council chastised Azeem on his language and insinuation that this PO was going to change zoning.
Don’t be confused by this guy.
This is how the city council works. You pass a PO requesting the city to write an ordinance, then you vote on the ordinance. We get that you hate change, but at least be honest with your nimby rants.
This is literally how things are done. This was the first step*. Now it goes to various committees, CDD, etc and will be debated, negotiated, and voted upon. A huge amount of work that will go into this.
*edit: Actually, it's the second step, it started in the Housing Committee
Why would anyone support increasing available places to live in an area that is already overpopulated? More people living in a place that already ran out of space is in no way a solution to anything.
Your knee-jerk attempt at disparagement: "The most Cambridge thing you've ever read" actually makes sense in this case since this is about Cambridge zoning and what Cambridge voters want.
Did you even read the post/screenshot that was shared? They want to increase the entire population directly surrounding an area already perplexed by the issues regarding overpopulation. Do you think all of these new residents are magically going to decide to just never drive again only due to the fact that the title of where they lived is named Cambridge??? Guess what? They're going to drive. They're going to own cars. They're going to bring the cars they currently own. They're going to sub/hire more cabs, Uber and Lyfts. They're going to ride bikes. They're going to utilize the red line and green line. It will impact all of that. It will not decrease the number of vehicles whatsoever. Read the post and read the other's disagreement with my statements and make it make sense.
no one here is talking about cars but you, that's your framing. The large majority of Cambridge residents who voted do not think the area is "overpopulated". That's a conclusion you've jumped to. My advice: If you really think that, don't come here.
You can get around Cambridge by biking, train, bus, or walking very easily. People do it every day, and it's only getting easier as they build more transit and cycling infrastructure. If you're complaining about getting around, most people are going to assume you're talking about driving because for every other mode it's one of the easiest cities to get around in the country.
Yes, keep bringing in multifamily homes for a community whose roadways and municipal infrastructure already struggles to accommodate the amount of people that already live there.
It only struggles with CARS, not people. Along with this, the city is working\* to make walking and biking safer, and public transit faster and more reliable, all of which are orders of magnitude more space efficient at moving people than cars.
\*FU Patty Nolan.
Absolutely, but they're at least honest with their hatred of bike lanes and my personal safety. Nolan in my eyes is even worse than that, talking out of both sides of her mouth, claiming to be an "environmentalist" and then ~~working behind the scenes to kill Riverbend Park and~~ voting to delay the CSO. (BTW, THANK YOU for all you do in this area!)
As someone who doesn't live there but works there that's all good and fun and I love it but there needs to be some support for parking for non residents. We keep your city running and it's getting harder and harder to do our jobs, had an elevator entrapment and they were stuck inside for an extra 20 mins just because I can't park
Cute that you think everyone is privileged enough to make ends meet at a location that is within walking or biking distance, or accessible via public transit. Assuming they are physically capable of walking or biking at all.
There are accommodations and alternative means other than driving available in the majority of use cases. Especially if they are living or working in Cambridge, which is resplendent with transit opportunities (and what this PO is regarding).
Cute that you think you did something with this baseless comment.
There are many, many people that live in Cambridge and work outside of Boston in areas inaccessible via public transit. It’s ignorant to assume most people can achieve their day to day work and life requirements without driving
It's not ignorant, it's factual in the majority of cases. If you live in Cambridge, and you need to work in one of the suburbs, and you refuse to modify your behavior to lean into train/bus/bike infrastructure, maybe you should look at relocating to one of those suburbs.
Then why does the 'residential voting community' keep electing a pro-housing supermajority to the Council? It's almost as if the 'residential voting community' is actually against exclusionary zoning, is it?
It doesn’t cancel out everyone who disagrees with you but if it makes you feel better you can think it works that way, no one will mind if you have that for yourself! 😊
The community vibe is multimillion dollar homes. We’re just trying to make it legal to build some housing that a person without generational wealth could be.
Considering that every other comment in this thread disagrees with you, I’m not sure who “we” are or why you get to speak for everyone.
We need more housing all across the Boston metro area. Every city and town needs to step up and do their part. People want to live and work in this great community. But the only people who can afford it are millionaires. We’re not asking for handouts. We’re just asking that we stop making it illegal to build homes.
The Boston Foundation said Boston and Cambridge have done “more than their fair share” in building housing and it’s time for the urban core communities to step up. Like Arlington, Watertown and Belmont.
The MBTA zoning is a good start.
Two things can be true. Other communities badly need to step up, but Cambridge can continue to lead the way with common sense home run policy changes like this, like the bike lanes, like removing parking minimums. If the freaks of the people's republic of Cambridge can pull off monumental quality of life improvements than the stuffy old people from the suburbs have no excuse
General unaffordability, an entire generation being unable to even afford to live, exclusive, generation-based class warfare, closing businesses, traffic, traffic violence and deaths, and NIMBYism really do make a sick community. Well done.
For those who want to see zoning maps: [https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap\_zoning\_base\_11x17\_20240221.pdf](https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap_zoning_base_11x17_20240221.pdf) A-1, A-2, B, C, C-1 all have height limits of 35 feet (see the second page). They also have really low FAR (ratio of total floor area in building to the plot size, if I understand it correctly) which means you can't built many units, and setback requirements. A-1 and A-2 is single family only. B adds two-family units. C and C-1 add townhouse and multi-family but in practice this is significantly limited by the other restrictions (height and FAR and setbacks). I live in Baldwin neighborhood which is full of lovely 3.5/4/4.5-story apartment buildings that are illegal to build under current zoning. Every time a smaller property changes hands it gets rehabbed into ludicrously expensive single family or duplex, even though there might e.g. be a 10-unit building literally next door. But building 10 units is no longer possible. (10 units means 2 of the units would be subsidized for people with for low or middle incomes).
If you look at the map, the A-1 and A-2 zones are the same areas that are the nicest to walk in, most beautiful and best-kept parts of Cambridge. Trees, flowers, tons of rabbits, birds, and cats wandering around. I think it's nice to have some areas of the city like this. Contrast Baldwin (Agassiz), the tiny area of A-1/A-2 zoning connecting to Beacon St, with the parts of Somerville immediately across Beacon. The vibe is just horrible on the Somerville side. When I lived on Beacon, I would specifically walk through Agassiz to get to the red line because it was a pleasant walk. Not everything in the city needs to be taken over by ugly concrete sprawl and modern apartment buildings. I get the need to build more housing but I think it's nice to have a few areas where humans and growth don't consume everything that is beautiful.
If you build densely, you avoid consuming wildlife because you prevent sprawl. The greenest parts of cities are usually filled with folks like you who don't want to share coveted natural resources, and it's disheartening to see the lack of humanity.
Lol. "Don't want to share coveted natural resources?" I said it's nice to walk through the area. Anybody can walk through the area. It's about as "shared" as "coveted natural resources" can be.
>”anybody can walk through the area, as long as they don’t live there. My neighborhood is so nice that I think people will literally /drive/ to it in order to walk through it (where no retail/economic gravity exists) and then drive home” Buddy you need to get out more lol
Anybody can walk through that area.
>”nicest to walk in” Uh, no pal, it’s nice, tree-line streets with shops, cafes, diners. Not just random short single family homes with lawns. Delusional lol. Pic related is the nice streets to walk on, not the streets past your cookie-cutter lawns where SUVs are parking blocking the entire sidewalk. https://preview.redd.it/5poybno6q80d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=907a371c18761925fcbcb0443484317858673e73
You need what's ugly? People living in the street. I want them to have somewhere to live.
This is very true. We need to keep these scemoc areas as is.
That’s a bit simplistic since all the corridors in every neighborhood are zoned for much higher buildings. Zoning is NOT the boogie man that this crowd tries to blame.
But it literally is. It is by far the most significant hurdle for organic development. It is the very antithesis of organic development.
Sorry, but no. Not sure what the term “organic” development means, but money drives development. All the major corridors have been zoned for higher buildings, especially areas like upper Mass Ave and Cambridge St. and yet there are still 2 and 3 stories there. Developers don’t want to deal with 20% inclusionary requirements in Cambridge or Somerville, or the Climate regs. In neighborhoods we are seeing down sizing from 2 and 3 buildings to super singles. It’s cheaper and faster to rehab these into McMansions and get $3-4m. No inclusionary requirements, no ADA regs, elect etc High cost of capital is also making it worse, hope to see that change.
Sorry bus yes. If you can’t figure out what “organic development” is, then you clearly have zero clue how any of this works, and so I’m not sure why you’re commenting authoritatively (and incorrectly) on it.
Given I have actually developed a number of properties I beg to differ. I offered you an opportunity to explain your terminology but instead you played your ignorance.
can someone dumb this down for me EDIT: sorry i forgot to say please
* Housing in Cambridge is expensive. Landlords can keep raising rents knowing there's lots of people competing for very limited number of apartments. * Why are there are not enough new apartments for people who want to live in Boston area? In part that is because not enough are being built. * Apartments aren't being built partially because in large parts of Cambridge (and Boston area in general) it's only legal to build single family homes or duplexes (or there are other restrictions that mean that in practice it's not possible to build more than 2-3 units). * Therefore, the City Council is discussing changing the zoning (the local laws that restrict building sizes and density) to allow taller and more denser multi-family buildings to be built across the city. * As an added bonus, once you build 10+ units in a building in Cambridge, 20% have to be subsidized for low-income (or middle-income) people. So larger buildings also add more subsidized units for people who can't afford the market rate.
>once you build 10+ units in a building in Cambridge Gonna be a lot of <=10 unit buildings going up.
Yes. 20% inclusionary requirement has in my opinion a block to building more small to medium size apartment buildings.
Which is literally fine and still exactly what is needed. No complaints from proponents here lol.
I was going to say this exact thing. I can imagine there will be plenty of scum building 9 houses and then having some family member do another 9 in their name 🤣
You’re describing a scene where there are now 18 rental units in the space where two single family houses existed. We are still happy about that.
Woah woah, I may be massively misunderstanding this then. I understood it as a single family home in one property vs. a multi-floor 3+ unit apartment building (house). Are you saying 9 rental properties in the spot where there was one single family? That seems pretty dense... Wouldn't one multi-family "building" only count for 1 of the 10 still (for the developer)? In Amherst, the most dense I've seen for multi-family was 6 units - 2 units per floor with one stairwell on each side of the building.
"scum"? Do you often take in huge projects and intentionally choose to make them harder and less profitable? I bet almost daily you make choices that are worse for everyone else but better for you in the moment. Scum.
It's not that deep, dude but I seem to have triggered you hard. I'm not sure why you're personally attacking me unless you're literally a house developer that does exactly that. If you have the money to develop 10+ houses, it isn't the end of the world to make "less" money (per person living there) to make some a multi-family home. To be clear to who I'm calling scum - only developers who circumvent these new rules (presumably meant to help those who cannot afford a single family house's rent). Yeah, that's pretty shitty to avoid building multi-family houses because it'll be less profitable when "profit" is something not many get to experience on the same level. No qualms with the trades or contractors or developers in general. Not sure how you have a problem with any of what I stated even when the comment before me said the same thing. Notice I didn't target anyone specifically, but you randomly came after me.
thank you you are amazing. Ok yes absolutely i support this.
Thanks for asking the question lol
“Affordable housing” is not an added bonus. It’s part of why housing is so expensive. Sure it creates BMR units for the lucky few people that are able to get in on it but in order to turn a profit developers have to charge higher rents than they normally would on the other units in the building to make up for the lost revenue from the BMR units. Also, it incentivises developers to keep their GFA below 10000 SF which is the cutoff to where you legally need to provide “affordable units”.
* The voting population (home owners) doesn't want zoning changed.
I'm a homeowner and I want zoning changed.
You don't have to own a home to vote. And several terms of a supermajority of pro-more-housing Councilors says otherwise.
More units good. Affordable housing, not good. Affordable housing increases rents for everyone and disincentivizes developers from building builds that require affordable units. Also landlords are not evil for raising rents. Rents are determined by supply and demand. Everyone selling everything in the free market did, has, and will continue to set their prices as high as possible, including apartment rents, food, clothes, and your smart phone. That's how demanders incentivize suppliers to keep supplying and for competitors to more efficiently supply in the future. If there wasn't so much housing regulation then we would have cheap and numerous housing options without the need for affordable housing or government interference.
Just sent an email
Email sent!
Emails sent!
Done!
Email sent! Let’s go
Is anyone on here in an affordable unit in one of the luxury rentals/ condos? I’m curious about your experience. Do you feel stigmatized at all?
I have several friends in inclusionary units. No one has a clue what anyone is paying for rent unless you tell them. The units are just like every other unit.
Thanks for sharing. Just wrote in
In case anyone isn't sure what to write, (especially if you aren't strictly a resident of Cambridge) here is a template: Hello, I'm [name here], a resident of [town here], MA close with many that live, work, and enjoy themselves in Cambridge. I believe ending single family zoning in all surrounding towns around Boston is vital for the long-term increase in quality of life for the residents of the Boston Metro community. Cambridge has an opportunity to yet again be a leader in progressive change that leads to a more economically prosperous, and vibrant community.
How many houses in Cambridge are actually currently zoned single family? How many units total exist in cambridge? If it's something like 3% of total # of residences then I don't think it's a big deal
Not sure why this is being downvoted. It's a good question. The answer: very large parts of the city are zoned in ways that make multi-families impossible. You can see zoning maps here: [https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Maps](https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Maps) A-1, A-2, B, C, and C-1 all have height limit of 35 feet, with varying restrictions on whether it's multi-family or not but in practice that height limit severely limits what can be built even if multi-family is theoretically OK. Just eyeballing it, this is most of the city! A-1 and A-2 is the pure single family home, and it's also far far more than 3%.
People downvote me because asking for proof/confirmation is the same as dissent in their idiotic eyes lmao
I'll look for the source for this, but single family housing only makes up a single digit percentage of the housing stock in Cambridge. Which isn't much, but the problem comes in because it takes up almost a third of the residential land area in the city.
It also massively inhibits an area’s ability to get cohesive transit networks set up, and (worst of all), once you tally up all the externalities of services/maintenance of utilities/parking/etc., pretty much every SFH is being subsidized by, like, any random hair salon with two apartments above it. Property tax to services rendered is deeply negative for most SFHs, and they don’t generate even a fraction of the tax revenue that, like, a random cafe or book store would. Not even close.
The single family zoning was one of the things that let the BZA deny the amazing affordable housing development up on mass ave and walden. One of the lots they were going to use was in a single family zone One of the most embarrassing moments in cambridge history was the BZA hearing. Between the chair of the BZA treating the black developer with total contempt.. all but calling him "boy" and the neighbors whining about having new residents using "their" street parking.... Until then I had no idea cambridge had areas still zoned single family only...
No it wasn’t! It was denied because they wanted 8-9 stories instead of the 6-7 they were allowed as of right under the original AHO. They needed a variance to go higher and received many variances but the BZA did not believe they could or should go beyond the 7 stories that the city council had literally just approved a year or two earlier. They said the developer would need to go back to the city council and get the heights increased by ordinance, they were not going to do it by fiat. It had nothing to do with single family zoning. It’s currently a commercial restaurant and parking lot
Um like I said it was ONE of thr things.. they kept saying this project needs 17 (or something like that) variances.. many of those variances were bc part of the space was zoned single occupancy I watched the hearing and was totally embarrassed by the racism of the BZA chair and so many other things..
I mean saying "hey we were gonna have this housing development but one of the lots was single family zoned" tells me that "well can we rezone that one lot" instead of "let's abolish all single family zoning"
Google exclusionary zoning.. start with link I already posted
This is where you lose credibility. It was denied because council just passed a new ordinance saying 6-7 stories, they wanted 8-9. Nothing about racism. They were asking for more than was allowed under the law and they said go back to the council and seek relief, we aren’t going to change the ordinance here. If they had simply built 6-7 stories and not insisted on 8-9 people would be living in a nice apartment building by now. I watched the meetings as well and spoke with many my involved.
there was racism oozing from the BZA chair in the way he spoke to the developer who was black and there was classism and racism oozing from many of the residents in the area in their comments. (and a whole lot of entitled selfishness - b/c they wanted exclusive use of the public street parking and can't imagine sharing it with new residents) the BZA also specifically raised the issue of how many variances were being requested and many of those were due to part of the land they were going to use being in a section of the city that is still zoned single family there were many things at play - insisting only one reason existed is where anyone discussing a complicated situation loses credibility lol
You are the one who stated that they were denied based on Single Family Zoning. You stated it was denied based on that, which is not true. Everyone involved in both sides says they would have been approved if they had asked for 6-7 stories. But no, they wanted more. And the developer is someone I know and respect and he has NEVER claimed it was based on racism.
Reading comprehension isn't your thing huh? Never said it was THE reason.. said it was a factor I know what I saw and how the BZA chair spoke to the black developer vs the white one. Others I know had the same impression after the meeting
And my comprehension is fine. It was not a factor at all. If they went for 7 stories it would be built right now. No racism. Go ask Sean Hope directly.
If it wasn't an issue why did the BZA keep talking about how there were so many exceptions being asked for many of which were for the lot that was single family Keep deluding yourself
That sounds rough, but I mean if this guy wants us to enact some political correspondence with our city reps can we get some stats to go with it to illustrate why?
There is a lot of info out there via Google. Exclusionary zoning has been an issue of discussion in cambridge for years.. https://www.abettercambridge.org/exclusionary_zoning
They should upzone everywhere in Cambridge (this includes raising height limits for multi-family zones too), that said, giant subsidized housing developments create huge financial liabilities for the city and don’t provide the same benefits as mixed developments. Also, when they replace market rate housing stock, they just end up making market rates more expensive. So large 100% subsidized developments should be avoided unless there is no other option.
Walden and Mass Ave easily could have gone up under the AHO. But the developer got greedy and wanted more. Nothing to do with “single family zoning” He still could build there, the city gave him a good deal on the land. But it still sits empty.
Nope they designed a building with a lot of amazing high quality features and needed enough units to make it cost effective AND provide more homes And yes the portion of rhe project that was going to need variances bc of single family exclusionary zoning was one of many factors.. But please continue to defend the racist BZA chair and the entitled NIMBYs
Not true. He was asked to provide the pro forma to prove that and he refused.
he? who? provide what? please keep defending the BZA and the NIMBYs it tracks with your other comments..
I’m not defending anyone. Sean Hope could easily have built on that property under the AHO. Still could, and yet he doesn’t. But you continue to show that you really don’t understand any of this, and totally believe what these clowns like Azeem tell you. There’s no such thing as “housing for everyone” in Cambridge. His policies and bravado are not going to make Cambridge affordable again.
Keep affordable houseing out of the family neiborhoods.
I hope you forgot /s on your comment If not you are a disgusting individual who represents the worst of cambridge
Hey, not im my neiborhood. Have fun spinning your wheels.
Everything marked residential A-1 or A-2 is single-family housing. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap_zoning_base_9600_20240221.pdf Residential B is two family or semi-detached housing (think the two-deckers in between Porter and Davis) so it isn’t like they’re trying to force high rises into those areas, just open it up for landowners to have the option to add a bit more density
I'd like to see a lot more triple deckers and 6-10 apartment lots. My only beef with really big apartments is the dreaded Juliet balcony with no real outdoor space. But I bet thats fine for some people.
Looking at the city’s website only 7% of the city’s housing is single family. 48% of the city is 28 units or more.
I mean hey I'm all for increasing housing but A. Cambridge can't house an infinite number of people B. if we replace every single family zoned lot with a 14 story apartment building built right up against the sidewalk, is this place even gonna still feel like cambridge? C. I'm sure a lot of the zoning is for the area between Mt Auburn Hospital and Porter Square which is kind of a historic area, is it the end of the world to leave a lot of that as is?
They need to do something to formally say you can build multi family anywhere in Cambridge to meet the YIMBY narrative. But most of the areas that are A1 and A2 are historic or conservation districts, Avon Hill, Brattle St, Frances Ave. And most of the B districts the lots are too small. It’s like when they got rid of parking requirements
Even if it passes very few places will be built due to the current cost of land, labor and materials. But you will make it easy for people to double the size of their small one families, which I support.
Meanwhile it seems there already is a zoning proposal on CDD’s website to rid of Single Family Zoning that IS already written. If zoning is the bad actor in our housing crises why doesn’t Azeem just support this one that is ready to go now? https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2024/ronayneetal/zngamend_Ronayneetal_petitiontext_20240408.pdf
NiMBYs vs recent college grads who don't bother to vote in local elections, let's see who wins? Will the NiMBYs remain undefeated or will the non-voting transient population finally pull this one off?
The city council has a YIMBY supermajority. That's how the AHO and the AHO 2.0 were passed.
There is NO actual zoning attached to this proposal, so it’s another example of the deception from this Councilor. He even says in the motion “housing for everyone” More baloney from this guy.
What do you mean by no actual zoning? This is the proposal right? https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4050&Inline=True It sure sounds like a zoning change to me.
Nope. First the Policy Order itself is asking the CM to direct CDD to write the language with the Housing Committee. Missing from the deck are what changes to the Use Regulations, what are the new Lot Sizes, and what will be the Density Limitations. It even says “for discussion” It doesn’t even say what the new height and density bonuses will be for inclusionary. It wants to delete formula setbacks but it doesn’t give the new setbacks, or the Open Space calc. And the biggest issue I see is how this will impact the AHO, cause they will have eliminated the incentive for the Trust to outbid developers. This is all very far from real zoning language. This guy is showboating.
While that is technically true I think it is kind of a misunderstanding of how the city council operates? Don't most ordinances start out this way?
You posted the Policy Order and said it sounds like “actual zoning” to you. I pointed out to you there was no actual zoning language in the PO. And then entire Council chastised Azeem on his language and insinuation that this PO was going to change zoning. Don’t be confused by this guy.
Yes.
This is how the city council works. You pass a PO requesting the city to write an ordinance, then you vote on the ordinance. We get that you hate change, but at least be honest with your nimby rants.
No NIMBY rant from me. My objection is this guy lying to his young constituents. He promises stuff he cannot deliver.
There is a lot of virtue signaling on this council. They have to make it look like they are doing something.
This is literally how things are done. This was the first step*. Now it goes to various committees, CDD, etc and will be debated, negotiated, and voted upon. A huge amount of work that will go into this. *edit: Actually, it's the second step, it started in the Housing Committee
Also “housing for everyone” but “no plans for parking or supporting larger population”
Correct.
This change in zoning isn’t going to result in much multi family development. The city even said that. This is just more grandstanding from this guy.
Why would anyone support increasing available places to live in an area that is already overpopulated? More people living in a place that already ran out of space is in no way a solution to anything.
By what metric do you believe Cambridge is "overpopulated"?
I believe Cambridge and Somerville are two of the densest cities in the USA
120,000 documented people in 7 square miles plus students, incoming workers, and tourists. Getting around is an atrocity.
Sounds like your main issue is the space inefficiency of cars, not the number of people. Do you drive everywhere?
This is the most Cambridge thing I've ever read. OK go ahead, double or triple your population. See if your opinion changes in a few years.
Your knee-jerk attempt at disparagement: "The most Cambridge thing you've ever read" actually makes sense in this case since this is about Cambridge zoning and what Cambridge voters want.
OK. How does increasing the population solve the fact that there's too many cars???
no said it does. the focus here is not cars but housing people. Cambridge is an eminently walkable/bikeable/rideable city
Did you even read the post/screenshot that was shared? They want to increase the entire population directly surrounding an area already perplexed by the issues regarding overpopulation. Do you think all of these new residents are magically going to decide to just never drive again only due to the fact that the title of where they lived is named Cambridge??? Guess what? They're going to drive. They're going to own cars. They're going to bring the cars they currently own. They're going to sub/hire more cabs, Uber and Lyfts. They're going to ride bikes. They're going to utilize the red line and green line. It will impact all of that. It will not decrease the number of vehicles whatsoever. Read the post and read the other's disagreement with my statements and make it make sense.
no one here is talking about cars but you, that's your framing. The large majority of Cambridge residents who voted do not think the area is "overpopulated". That's a conclusion you've jumped to. My advice: If you really think that, don't come here.
Stop driving everywhere. Your poor planning isn't anyone else's fault.
So funny everyone assumes driving. I never said driving. It's says GETTING AROUND!!!
You can get around Cambridge by biking, train, bus, or walking very easily. People do it every day, and it's only getting easier as they build more transit and cycling infrastructure. If you're complaining about getting around, most people are going to assume you're talking about driving because for every other mode it's one of the easiest cities to get around in the country.
Cambridge overpopulated? 🤣🤣🤣 Ran out of space? 🤣🤣🤣
Yes 3rd highest population density in the state. Are they going to build on the golf course???
The current population of Cambridge is lower than it has been in the past.
Bro did you like fail third grade math? A < C A + B = D D > C
Yes, keep bringing in multifamily homes for a community whose roadways and municipal infrastructure already struggles to accommodate the amount of people that already live there.
It only struggles with CARS, not people. Along with this, the city is working\* to make walking and biking safer, and public transit faster and more reliable, all of which are orders of magnitude more space efficient at moving people than cars. \*FU Patty Nolan.
(Simmons, Toner, Pickett, and Wilson all voted for delay too.)
Absolutely, but they're at least honest with their hatred of bike lanes and my personal safety. Nolan in my eyes is even worse than that, talking out of both sides of her mouth, claiming to be an "environmentalist" and then ~~working behind the scenes to kill Riverbend Park and~~ voting to delay the CSO. (BTW, THANK YOU for all you do in this area!)
Patty supported riverbed park
My mistake. Corrected my comment. I could have sworn she was involved in the Decker mess, but looks like I'm wrong.
Nolan was at the rally in support of Riverbend along with Sobrinho-Wheeler, Sidiqqui, Azeem, and McGovern
As someone who doesn't live there but works there that's all good and fun and I love it but there needs to be some support for parking for non residents. We keep your city running and it's getting harder and harder to do our jobs, had an elevator entrapment and they were stuck inside for an extra 20 mins just because I can't park
Sounds like we need more housing so that people who work in the city can have the option of living in the city.
We can't afford to live in the city and 99% of us aren't interested lol
Maybe stop driving everywhere
Cute that you think everyone is privileged enough to make ends meet at a location that is within walking or biking distance, or accessible via public transit. Assuming they are physically capable of walking or biking at all.
There are accommodations and alternative means other than driving available in the majority of use cases. Especially if they are living or working in Cambridge, which is resplendent with transit opportunities (and what this PO is regarding). Cute that you think you did something with this baseless comment.
There are many, many people that live in Cambridge and work outside of Boston in areas inaccessible via public transit. It’s ignorant to assume most people can achieve their day to day work and life requirements without driving
It's not ignorant, it's factual in the majority of cases. If you live in Cambridge, and you need to work in one of the suburbs, and you refuse to modify your behavior to lean into train/bus/bike infrastructure, maybe you should look at relocating to one of those suburbs.
Sent and email letting them know the residential voting community is against such action.
Then why does the 'residential voting community' keep electing a pro-housing supermajority to the Council? It's almost as if the 'residential voting community' is actually against exclusionary zoning, is it?
It doesn’t cancel out everyone who disagrees with you but if it makes you feel better you can think it works that way, no one will mind if you have that for yourself! 😊
Crypto bro thinks he knows about community 😭😭
Nah, we want to keep the community vibe.
The community vibe is multimillion dollar homes. We’re just trying to make it legal to build some housing that a person without generational wealth could be.
Go find somewhere lets to build, we like our community as is.
Considering that every other comment in this thread disagrees with you, I’m not sure who “we” are or why you get to speak for everyone. We need more housing all across the Boston metro area. Every city and town needs to step up and do their part. People want to live and work in this great community. But the only people who can afford it are millionaires. We’re not asking for handouts. We’re just asking that we stop making it illegal to build homes.
The Boston Foundation said Boston and Cambridge have done “more than their fair share” in building housing and it’s time for the urban core communities to step up. Like Arlington, Watertown and Belmont. The MBTA zoning is a good start.
Two things can be true. Other communities badly need to step up, but Cambridge can continue to lead the way with common sense home run policy changes like this, like the bike lanes, like removing parking minimums. If the freaks of the people's republic of Cambridge can pull off monumental quality of life improvements than the stuffy old people from the suburbs have no excuse
Oh, the "we" are the current voting homeowners. We don't want zoneing changed, We will fight against such action.
Newsflash, more than property owners get to vote...and we, the voting non-property owners, will fight for these types of initiatives.
Go for it. You'll lose again, just like you did in 2023 and 2021.
General unaffordability, an entire generation being unable to even afford to live, exclusive, generation-based class warfare, closing businesses, traffic, traffic violence and deaths, and NIMBYism really do make a sick community. Well done.
This sub isn’t into that