Cambridge Multi-Family Zoning Reform

S

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,486
Reaction score
4,032
www.bostonglobe.com

A Cambridge City Council panelâs proposal would legalize six-story buildings. Everywhere. - The Boston Globe

The ambitious proposal, designed to tackle the city’s housing crisis, would essentially scrap the current neighborhood-by-neighborhood zoning scheme.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

What's nice is that it doesn't preclude anything taller - - I like it!

"......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 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 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......"
 
This is kind of an incomplete thought I'm still mulling over - but (please don't crucify me) - if developers are going to strongarm cities into never building anything more than the bare-minimum cost (when most of the units aren't sky-high in cost), does it at all help to at least encourage the build of higher capacity/taller for residential which won't w
be affordable (aka "luxury")? I don't see the purpose of always letting developers cut cost and build 5/1, 5/2, 4/2, 4/1, etc., as that is the cheapest construction cost, as you can only build wood up to that height - concrete and a cost increase come in after that, right?

I would imagine, if space wasn't being taken up in large plots of 5-6 story stubs for unaffordable units, and left open for affordable space of 5/2, and the "luxury" developments could go 8-20 stories à la Cambridge Crossing or The Union (Union Square). I understand that developers are okay with spending as well as being financed for larger/costly buildings when it will be an easy ROI such as TOD, but there's frustratingly too many luxury 5/1s as TOD wasting space...

Forgive me for stressing semantics, but I hate the coining of "luxury" apartments because it's lost all of its meaning, and more less means new and not-affordable
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
I would imagine, if space wasn't being taken up in large plots of 5-6 story stubs for unaffordable units, and left open for affordable space of 5/2, and the "luxury" developments could go 8-20 stories à la Cambridge Crossing or The Union (Union Square). I understand that developers are okay with spending as well as being financed for larger/costly buildings when it will be an easy ROI such as TOD, but there's frustratingly too many luxury 5/1s as TOD wasting space...
Click to expand...

I could see financing being an issue. A 5+1 could easily get into the hundreds of millions as it is.
 
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
This is kind of an incomplete thought I'm still mulling over - but (please don't crucify me) - if developers are going to strongarm cities into never building anything more than the bare-minimum cost (when most of the units aren't sky-high in cost), does it at all help to at least encourage the build of higher capacity/taller for residential which won't w
be affordable (aka "luxury")? I don't see the purpose of always letting developers cut cost and build 5/1, 5/2, 4/2, 4/1, etc., as that is the cheapest construction cost, as you can only build wood up to that height - concrete and a cost increase come in after that, right?

I would imagine, if space wasn't being taken up in large plots of 5-6 story stubs for unaffordable units, and left open for affordable space of 5/2, and the "luxury" developments could go 8-20 stories à la Cambridge Crossing or The Union (Union Square). I understand that developers are okay with spending as well as being financed for larger/costly buildings when it will be an easy ROI such as TOD, but there's frustratingly too many luxury 5/1s as TOD wasting space...

Forgive me for stressing semantics, but I hate the coining of "luxury" apartments because it's lost all of its meaning, and more less means new and not-affordable
Click to expand...
Here's another incomplete thought:

These 5/1s are only luxury because there's so little else on the market to compete with it. If we could saturate the market with 5/1s I feel like developers would no longer be able to differentiate purely on the newness of their buildings and have to resort to taller/higher quality developments to capture that segment. Wouldn't it be cool if these developers get into such a building frenzy that they oversupply the market (like they have for lab space) and have to sit on the losses while everyone enjoys more normal costs of living lmao.

While I don't think new 5/1s need to command the premium in rents that they do now, I also don't imagine that new construction will ever be as cheap as older buildings that have been depreciating for decades. Short of time travel, the only way to get more old buildings is to get more new ones right now and wait.
 
sean99090900 said:
While I don't think new 5/1s need to command the premium in rents that they do now, I also don't imagine that new construction will ever be as cheap as older buildings that have been depreciating for decades. Short of time travel, the only way to get more old buildings is to get more new ones right now and wait.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is ultimately how the overwhelming supply of “affordable housing” is actually built. When youre building lots of new housing every year to meet demand existing housing is getting older every year and not commanding as high rents as the new buildings. Extrapolate this out over 30 years and the many new units you built are now more affordable and in another 30 years the units you build today will be the same. The problem is when nimbys/zoning/corruption/boomers…etc halt all housing for 30 years theres no way to put a bunch of 30 year old apartments/condos on the market today so it takes a long time to fix the mistake. You cant go back in time but what we can do is start building a lot now and eventually as time passes the market will start to have a diversity of choices again. Eventually it will be 30 years from today and what we build now will be what is cheap housing when that time comes.
 
Probably would have been tough to make the numbers work in Cambridge from the 70s-2005. So even if they let developers build whatever, developer interest wouldn't have been much.
 
KCasiglio said:
Diversity in the age of housing stock is one of the bedrock principles Jane Jacobs lays out in Death and Life for a stable and successful street/neighborhood/city. That is how you build a successful mixed income community organically.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I have heard the term "organic affordability" used, which is a well-meaning euphemism for: there's a robust gradient of properties ranging from (safe enough) shitholes through new/nice properties, and everything in between.

There's a key related issue, though, that IMO gets nowhere near enough attention in this debate compared to everyone's more favored issue (Zoning). That other elephant in the room is: building code. To have a gradient of organic affordability, you need a "forgiveness gradient" for code compliance. Today, if you do a big enough renovation/restoration project to an old property, it trips the code compliance threshold and you need to spend $$$$ to bring that property up to code. At first glance the code stuff is all wholesome and well meaning: building insulation/energy usage, electrical safety, fire safety, etc etc. However, if the result of those strict codes is fewer new/improved things being built, and many properties sitting there decomposing because their aging-in-place multidecade homeowners (or slumlords) don't want to trip the threshold, than is it really a net-better safer/greener society? Also, where did all the codes come from? (some perhaps from lobbying from trades, professional groups, and vendors who sell/install green/safe tech?). To be clear: I am not disputing the need for codes, but why not have a code gradient? $ renovation --> $ code updates; $$ renovation --> $$ code updates; $$$ renovation --> $$$code updates?

As it stands, investors in existing properties are either a) sitting on the sidelines, or, b) taking the plunge for a megabux "luxury conversion"flip. That environment is not going to lead to the type of diversity in housing stock Jacobs points to.
 
shmessy said:
six-story buildings could rise largely unencumbered.
Click to expand...
This is great news, and I hope it passes!

But this one line from the Globe article isn't quite right. There will still be huge piles of regulations limiting what can be built. The proposed bill remains to be seen, but they'll have to make sure to fix lots of other requirements related to lot sizes, setbacks, FAR, and god know what all else. The building code (which I think is mostly State, and Cambridge can't control much) will also limit what will get built. Still, this would be a great step in the right direction.

With that in mind, the title of this thread might not be quite right, because 5-over-1s might not be the main result here. Actually building 6 stories will still require a pretty large footprint (because of things like multiple stairwell requirements). Combining lots in most of the city will be difficult. The real result might be lost more scattered infill, with lots more duplexes and triplexes and small apartment buildings. That would also be a big win, but also just speculation.
 
sean99090900 said:
Damn, is there a particular input that you think is making the most difference in our cost structure here?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the land and labor costs are very high here comparatively.

But even in the rest of the country... sure NC condos are a lot cheaper but it's still the top of the market there. Also seems like it's mostly low rise 3 max floor stuff.
 
ritchiew said:
This is great news, and I hope it passes!

But this one line from the Globe article isn't quite right. There will still be huge piles of regulations limiting what can be built. The proposed bill remains to be seen, but they'll have to make sure to fix lots of other requirements related to lot sizes, setbacks, FAR, and god know what all else. The building code (which I think is mostly State, and Cambridge can't control much) will also limit what will get built. Still, this would be a great step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

This presentation from A Better Cambridge is an interesting read on some of the specifics of how FAR ratios, setbacks, parking requirements etc limit new construction, with specific recent examples. It’s absurd that there are new build 2000sf SFHs in Cambridgeport, but city regulations apparently make that the most profitable thing to build. That said, parking requirements have already been eliminated and I have hope that the council will continue to reform the code — especially given the Affordable Housing Ordinance has already modified setbacks and floor area ratios.

C0A71712-DB86-4FE8-9D34-7F01EA633A9D.jpeg
 
The council meeting tonight will vote on whether to send this proposal to ordinance (delayed from last week).
www.cambridgeday.com

Cambridge multifamily zoning process paused for the week out of concern about amendments - Cambridge Day

A proposal for multifamily-building zoning has been delayed due to concerns that forwarding it now could lock in language too soon.
www.cambridgeday.com www.cambridgeday.com

FYI, it does include elimination of FAR and setback requirements (retaining open space reqs), design review reform, and Cambridge has already eliminated parking mandates so it would likely be a big deal.

 
I appreciate the occasional dose of snark, but can we please rename this thread? Maybe something that mixes snark with an actually useful title, a la:
Cambridge Multi-Family Zoning Reform (i.e., Building Lotsa 5-over-1s)
 
bigpicture7 said:
I appreciate the occasional dose of snark, but can we please rename this thread? Maybe something that mixes snark with an actually useful title, a la:
Cambridge Multi-Family Zoning Reform (i.e., Building Lotsa 5-over-1s)
Click to expand...
Agreed, this is also not just legalizing 5 over 1s but a whole range of housing typologies
 
KCasiglio said:
www.bostonglobe.com

How Cambridge can increase its housing supply - The Boston Globe

The Cambridge City Council is advancing a plan that would reduce, simplify, and streamline restrictions.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...

If Cambridge were to do its proportional share it would need to build 1,050 new housing units. Unfortunately the Cambridge Community Development Department projects that the city is on track to build only 120 new housing units by 2030.

-This doesnt seem right, do they mean only 120 new houses as opposed to apartments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top