Cambridge Multi-Family Zoning Reform

[thepianoperson]

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?

I think that number is the number of net new developable units in specific zones of the city as calculated by this slide times 0.25% (as it says on slide 10), which yeah seems to be a very narrow estimate of how much is getting built since there’s definitely over 120 net new units currently under construction in the city? They certainly need to be more clear about what they’re trying to say here.

 

[Banker & Tradesman]

A small update we published yesterday: A new proposal substituting by-right approval for 4-story buildings (instead of the 6 stories by right) is gaining support.

Cambridge Weighs 4-Story Compromise on Upzoning

Backers of elimination of Cambridge’s remaining single-family zoning may have to compromise on building heights to realize their historic zoning reform.

bankerandtradesman.com

“You’ll see more 4-story buildings being built, which will make some folks happy who are concerned about six stories,” Vice Mayor Marc McGovern said. “That seems like a compromise to me.”

We also published a much bigger dive into the affordable housing overlay:

Despite Green Light, Cambridge Housing Proceeds with Caution

Affordable developers have been treading carefully despite theoretical zoning permission to build tall, including shrinking buildings to placate neighbors.

bankerandtradesman.com

TL;DR -- the AHO looks powerful on paper, but in practice there are a number of things (least of all, access to funding from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust) that are keeping affordable developers focused on making sure they have neighborhood buy-in, to the point of shrinking designs.

 

[nortor]

There are various alternatives being discussed. The 4 story plus 2 if inclusionary proposal is the least bad of those alternatives, because IZ kicks in at 10 units and not too many buildings will be 5+ stories and have fewer than 10 units.
On the other hand there is also an alternative to limit the upzoning to only buildings subject to IZ, which would preclude develoment of any buildings under 10 units.

In addition to creating affordable housing, which hopefully it can do more of in the future, the AHO is somewhat useful as a political tool to demonstrate that NIMBY concerns about affordability are disingenuous.

 

[ritchiew]

There's a vote on these zoning changes today at 5.

2025/01/08 05:00 PM Ordinance Committee Committee Meeting - Web Outline - Cambridge City, MA

cambridgema.iqm2.com

If you live in Cambridge, you can sign up to speak, or send emails to council@cambridgema.gov (and cc clerk@cambridgma.gov ).

Does anyone have a summary the bill as it is now?

 

[nortor]

There's a vote on these zoning changes today at 5.

2025/01/08 05:00 PM Ordinance Committee Committee Meeting - Web Outline - Cambridge City, MA

cambridgema.iqm2.com

If you live in Cambridge, you can sign up to speak, or send emails to council@cambridgema.gov (and cc clerk@cambridgma.gov ).

Does anyone have a summary the bill as it is now?

From A Better Cambridge’s newsletter:

This is the current compromise amendment package:

• Four-story multifamily could be built citywide “as of right.”
• Six-story multifamily could be built citywide “as of right” if 1 in 5 homes (out of 10+) are affordable homes and the lot is at least 5,000 square feet (around 30% of residential lots).
• Setback minimums of 5 feet at the rear and sides of lots are required (along with 10 feet front setbacks).

These amendments are the “least bad” 4+2 option but unfortunately along with a 5000 sf minimum for 6 stories and increased setbacks. With stair requirements it’s not viable to build 5 or 6 stories on less than 5000 sq ft right now but it may be limiting in the future — but of course it can always be changed.

If you live in Cambridge, you can email those addresses up to Jan 16 to be considered before the vote on finalizing amendments (today was just public comment). This is the Ordinance Committee (which is just the same council under a different name) writing the proposal so it determines what amendments go into what the council votes on. The council votes are Jan 27 and Feb 10, and both (especially the last one) are good times to email in and speak!

Here’s ABC’s website with some more info, FAQ, and talking points https://www.abettercambridge.org/mu...ium=email&utm_source=abettercambridge#anchor1

 

[ritchiew]

Just a follow-up on the public comments last night:

Lots of people showed up to speak, in person or virtually. They had to limit speaking time to one minute each, and it still went about two and half hours. I checked in on the live stream just time to time, and the Fors and Againsts seemed about even (but I checked a small sample size).

From what I saw, there was a pretty stark age divide at about 40. Everyone younger was in favor, with common messages ("We need more housing," "it's just supply and demand, and we need more supply," "I want to keep living here, but probably can't afford it," "This bill is already a compromise. Just do it as a step one," "The housing crisis is dire now"). Everyone I saw that was older was against ("Worried about the city's character," "There hasn't been enough community input," "New buildings would be out of scale in Cambridge," "New buildings would all be luxury, and that only helps the rich," "We need to postpone, because this is going too fast").

Also, I heard a few people pushing for an alternative "3-3-3" plan. Anyone know what the deal with that is?