Update: Approved 8-1.
The Cambridge City Council is scheduled to vote today on zoning changes that would allow apartments and condos everywhere in the city, in part by eliminating minimum lot sizes and allowing four-story buildings without the need for zoning variances everywhere - with two more stories for buildings with at least 20% of the units rented or sold as affordable.
Residents can sign up to speak before the vote, part of the council's regular meeting, which begins at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall.
Neighborhoods:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
This is a Good Step
By Pete X
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 11:47am
Between eliminating parking minimums, trying to upzone around it's "squares and corridors" and hopefully getting off its butt and building more affordable housing on city property, the city of Cambridge is trying to overcome its history of exclusionary zoning and long-standing NIMBYism to make it possible to build more desperately needed housing. Now, if only we can get more of our neighboring towns on board...
I'm super excited for this.
By Paul
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:57pm
I'm super excited for this. Cambridge housing stock is severely degraded and making it affordable to live with basic dignity will revitalize Cambridge.
How does Cambridge keep track
By anon
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:35pm
How does Cambridge keep track of all the units that need to be affordable? A concern I have is the number of applications needed for people when it comes to affordable units. It often seems to lead to well connected people getting units because they are the only ones know when they come on line. We see that with stories about well connected people winning housing lotteries in the Boston area. I do not believe these housing lottery wins are corrupt because I do not believe anyone is putting a thumb on the scale. It is just that the lines for these carve out units often seem much smaller than the lines for more traditional housing with clear application procedures.
If this ordinance goes into effect there will be many more of these affordable units not attached to an official agency flooding into the market. If other communities do it too that will expand even more. Since Cambridge often leads on issues like this I am interested in seeing what they do and what they plan to do to ensure all these new units are fairly available.
Demand a ballot measure.
By Frelmont
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:56pm
I hope someone stands up and demands this matter be put to a city wide vote.
“A well informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy.”
Wow. That’s news to me. So much for our elected officials’ faith in the people. There should have been more buzz about this defining and consequential issue. “A well informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy.”
P.s., Those of us who are
By Frelmont
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 1:56pm
P.s., Those of us who are Democrats keep voting for politicians who offer us less democracy. Less choice. Hey Cambridge! Put your money where your mouth is and given your citizens a vote for, or against this profound remaking of Cambridge. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t suspect the majority of the Council will vote against this hasty “emergency” measure.
Sure, we elect people to make votes, but we vote for a candidate for a host of reasons, because of party, or issue x, or y, but this is a Big Matter and should be put to a full vote of the people at the next city wide election. There should be no doubt about the outcome right? I mean we voted for you for exactly this. No?
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2025/02/09/why-i-will-vote-against-the-mult...
Elections have consequences
By cantabrigand
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 1:52pm
What are you on about? We had an election. A plurality of councilors campaigned on delivering action on housing. Now they're going to pass upzoning 7-2. This is what they promised to do.
Throwing a tantrum doesn't get you a do-over.
Fair enough.
By Frelmont
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 1:49pm
Fair enough.
I would counter that this is
By DoubleL
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 2:02pm
I would counter that this is not a hasty measure considering that the council has been discussing multifamily zoning amendments since August 2021and that this measure has been discussed at various council, planning board, and committee meetings. There have also been multiple opportunities to participate in providing feedback to our city council members - in person, via zoom, and through emails. In addition, there were also two community information sessions this past fall for those who wish to be informed in more detail about the proposal.
I would also note that Cathie Zusy was the only city council member out of 9 to vote against moving this measure forward to a 2nd reading, where it can potentially get passed into law.
We do live in a democracy, but it is a representative democracy, where we pick individuals to represent us that we believe will align with our values and priorities. Updating Cambridge's zoning to be more multifamily friendly was a significant platform point for several of the council members who were elected in 2023.
That’s fair. Cambridge won’t
By Frelmont
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 2:02pm
That’s fair. Cambridge won’t be able to unring this bell and people are voted in to do a number of things. I believe the scale of this measure, the effect it will have deserves more than a City Council vote. This measure will no make life more affordable just because you are coercing developers to provide welfare, assistance, “affordable units” whatever language we use to couch the fact that that’s what the difference is of 20% below market. Sure, developers will take the deal. Let’s see how these units look in twenty years. The developers and their politicians are using the so-called housing emergency to drive gentrification and political careers instead of finding a better solution distributed across Massachusetts.
Chat GPT penned NIMBY Goobledy Gook
By Pete X
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 3:24pm
You obviously know nothing about what has happened in Cambridge, and you haven't read any of the responses people have written to your original blathering post. In other threads you've complained about the Weston development and the MBTA communities act, so you clearly don't give a sh*t about "a solution distributed across Massachusetts" either.
Go away, troll.
Highly Uniformed Comment
By Pete X
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 2:24pm
Huh, I guess if you don't pay attention to the facts you can say any old thing. The facts are:
Honestly, I just skip right
By xyz
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 2:18pm
Honestly, I just skip right over Frelmont's posts now when I see their name at the top. All you'll get is a lot of big words used semi-correctly to say very little, most of that false.
I live in Cambridge and, since I won't be able to go to the meeting in person, I emailed [email protected] and cc'ed [email protected], which I'm advised is the best way to comment on something that's going to come up in a meeting.
Only residents can vote
By anon
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 3:53pm
Not absentee landlords. Vote is also not restricted to property owners.
A binding question about this would pass with incandescence, flying through the air like a unicorn on nitrous and would likely be even less restrictive.
Of course your next move would be to complain that it got voted on "by renters", right?
You can run for office
By Ari O
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 4:23pm
The NIMBYs would love to have you on their slate. You'll get to hobnob with the finest bigots in town!
Ari, we both know that's not
By cantabrigand
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 5:04pm
Ari, we both know that's not a fair comment. He'd also get to associated with the lowliest bigots.
Good policy
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 5:27am
The Atlantic has a great article up about how knee-jerk preservationism in cities has derailed America's traditional mobility and resulted in trillions of lost GDP, and helped create the politics of envy and spite that put Trump in office. Too little new housing is being created near the engines of economic prosperity, and that's because people who moved to cities in the last half-century pulled the ladder up after us. It's an example of how well-meaning progressives make policy that seems great, but whose far-reaching consequences escape us.
Wu is trying to overcome Boston's NIMBYs and get more housing built, but Cambridge is jumping right ahead with this policy. Good on Cambridge.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic...
If you can't access the Atlantic, try 12ft.io to get over the 10ft paywall
(now let's see if this time a post can get through UHub's sclerotic, buggy software)
Boston should take inspiration from Cambridge
By FenwayFrank
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 9:29am
I agree with the article and with the steps Cambridge is taking with this policy, but what has Wu done to advance multi family housing? I would argue she hasn’t taken any steps to promote more building - in fact, some of her policies have had the exact opposite effect.
You don’t have to look far to see Boston’s housing production has plunged under her watch (even taking into account the unfavorable economic conditions).
Narrowing it down
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 10:09am
It only counts if it's multi-family housing? Within a certain subset of multi-family housing? There was just a story up about NIMBYs being all mad about Wu bigfooting the zoning plan for around the common to let residential high-rises be built up to 500 feet. That's multi-family, no?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/07/business/downtown-boston-rezoning/
I hope this plan is successful. One plan that already seems to be in place is permitting ADUs.
https://www.boston.gov/departments/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-adus...
There's a lot more to do, but I think Wu is taking it seriously. Here's a New Yorker article about it from last year. (Once again, if you need a 12 foot ladder to get over the 10 foot paywall, it's here: 12ft.io)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/bostons-mayor-makes-f...
Anybody who's tried to modify their house in Boston knows what a nightmare zoning and variances and waivers and community groups are. And you can't build normal housing in this city without someone else in the neighborhood suing you.
I agree that Wu needs to do more, but I at least believe she's trying. Maybe Cambridge will show her a new tactic to overcome the boat anchor of Boston zoning.
500 foot buildings are not a
By anon
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:40pm
500 foot buildings are not a cost-effective way to house people. And they're horrible to be around.
Reality vs Wu
By FenwayFrank
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 5:27pm
Thank you for the link to 12ft.io
The New Yorker article paints a nice picture, but I think the reality of her housing efforts is a lot starker.
Raising the 500 foot limit around the common is a good start, but it’s just that - a start. And the Streets + Squares initiative has not yet produced any tangible changes. Nor can I fully credit her for the ADU reform as that mostly originated with the state legislature.
The reality is we need wholesale changes to the zoning code. I’m beating a dead horse, but none of our beautiful walkable neighborhoods could be built under current zoning, and Wu has not shown any interest in changing that or even easing the construction of housing under existing zoning. Her efforts (or lack of) put her squarely in the progressive camp mentioned in the Atlantic article.
I am not an Eric Adams fan in general, but his City of Yes plan is exactly what Boston needs. In 2024 New York produced more residential buildings than Boston produced units (meaning proportionally New York out produced Boston), in pretty much the same economic conditions.
https://www.archpaper.com/2024/12/new-york-city-council-city-of-yes-8200...
Finally, some of her ideas, like the 20% inclusionary zoning requirement, sound great on paper but instead have a negative effect on housing supply. San Francisco had a similar requirement but eventually scrapped it (in part) because of its negative effect on housing production, while Cambridge evidently has decided to limit its application as well. Unfortunately it’s a popular measure among progressives, who are among Wu’s biggest supporters (and voters).
Respectfully, I haven’t seen Wu make any serious changes to encourage housing production.
Boston should take inspiration from Cambridge
By FenwayFrank
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 9:42am
I agree with the article and with the steps Cambridge is taking with this policy, but what has Wu done to advance multi family housing? I would argue she hasn’t taken any steps to promote more building - in fact, some of her policies have had the exact opposite effect.
You don’t have to look far to see Boston’s housing production has plunged under her watch (even taking into account the unfavorable economic conditions).
(Apologies if this posted twice)
dupe
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 6:58am
Duplicate deleted. But seriously, does this site run on Windows 95 or something?
I have the same gripe
By robo
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 8:16am
Takes 45 seconds to think about posting then just times out. Usually takes 3 tries before it actually posts and hopefully just a single post. Is the load that heavy? Maybe time for a server upgrade?
Build baby build....
By Paul B
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 5:15pm
So buy a parcel on Linnean St. Next to Ms. Warrens pad and do a 5 story. Nice. The big money blue bloods left can head to Lexington, Arlington.....put up an ugly Apt. Building next to my fine Cambridge 1870s with the Mansard and watch the property values sink, maybe the big houses can get abatements. The true problem is the cities have too many people, stuff in more people, the rents go up, people get on everyone's nerves cuz they are all cramped up. Build out to the max on those plots, then ask for variances....oh boy.
Ah yes ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/12/2025 - 8:54pm
The old THIS WILL LOWER PROPERTY VALUES.
Please cite an example with a reference link where this has happened.
This is yet another "just so" story from the era of white flight that has very little behind it.
Why not post an entire comment of "I got mine so fuck you"? I'm betting you paid 1980s prices for that house and now its worth millions, but you seem to think that property values can never go down? If so, you need a better financial advisor.
Add comment