Cambridge needs an affordable-housing strategy and implementation plan
A City Council committee that I chair will meet Wednesday to evaluate the most dramatic zoning proposal I have seen in my career: allowing 13- to 25-story high-rise towers throughout Cambridge to expand our supply of affordable housing. Supporters and opponents are gearing up to argue this proposal, continuing contentious debates.
When the council’s Housing Committee met two weeks ago to discuss the proposal, we emerged with a list of basic questions that still need to be answered: What evidence underlies the proposed increase to 13- to 25-story building heights? How much do newly built affordable units cost now? How much money does the city have for affordable-housing programs in total?
There is a lot we don’t know yet about the basis and implications of this proposal. But there is one thing I know for sure: Our current approach to affordable housing is a dysfunctional, lose-lose situation for all of us. Affordable-housing proponents are aggressively pursuing individual projects and policy solutions without a coherent plan or goal. These generate opposition and polarization, slowing progress on the issue. We need to fundamentally change our approach.
First, we need to clarify our goals and recommit to a vision of our future as a vibrant, diverse, inclusive innovation city. The goals defined by Envision Cambridge, including the creation of 3,175 new affordable housing units by 2030, provide a strong foundation.=
Second, we need to recognize that achieving our goals will require a proactive, coordinated effort. We need a sustained, focused and systematic approach – championed by city government with support and involvement across all neighborhoods and stakeholders. The city should develop an affordable-housing strategy and implementation plan that lays out detailed options for siting, design and financing of increased affordable-housing stocks to meet our goal. This plan could be developed with the guidance and input of an affordable-housing task force representing key stakeholders: affordable-housing residents; builders; experts in design, policy and finance; and local government and neighborhoods. This type of plan and task force are established best practices used in other cities to define and build broad-based support for a citywide strategy on affordable housing.
Cambridge’s affordable housing plan should be ambitious, innovative and well-designed. It should define clear options for siting and sizing of construction that will meet our agreed goals. And it should lay out multiple actions the city can take to achieve those goals, including:
- Substantially increase funding for affordable housing through real estate taxes and transfer fees;
- Proactively secure sites for affordable housing through buying and leasing new lots; converting city-owned properties; and using eminent domain to add housing along key corridors;
- Leverage existing city resources to prioritize affordable-housing access across relevant funds and programs, with public reporting of progress toward our goal.
We have a choice about how we build the future of our city. Do we want to reach our 3,000-unit goal by building 12 high-rise buildings like Rindge Towers? Or by developing 50 six-story buildings above ground-floor retail designed to transform major avenues into vibrant, pedestrian and bike-friendly boulevards – building economic diversity into the backbone of our neighborhoods for the long term? Or will we remain mired in debate and allow the forces of a technology-driven boom to drive inequality, gentrification and displacement to extreme levels like we have seen in San Francisco?
We have a choice about how to build the city’s future, and it is up to us.
- Proposals to revise the Affordable Housing Overlay will be discussed at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday in a meeting of the City Council’s committee on neighborhood and long-term planning, public facilities, arts and celebrations. Information is here.
Dennis Carlone is a Cambridge city councillor.
Maybe if you want the type of community that you outline in your last paragraph, councilor, you should change the laws in this city to legalize them. But you’re not even advocating for doing that.
This whole proposal is a complete non-starter. Eminent domain? Are you kidding? It’s almost like this is designed to fail.
Change. The. Zoning. Laws.
This makes a lot of sense. Cambridge needs an affordable housing plan that everyone can get behind, and then that plan needs to be financed and implemented. The current approach is chaotic and fragmented, generating intense conflict and delaying progress. A plan developed with buy-in across the city would help chart a path forward.
And FWIW, I want the type of community the councilor outlines.
The problem is that the council has done nothing at all to legalize this type of development. Our vaunted triple deckers are illegal by todays zoning code. Forget about mid rise with first floor retail.
This plan would have to be spread over the city, which I again support. So if this is popular, where is the leadership on it?
A few one off AHO developments aren’t going to cut it.
Councilor Carlone has said it clearly: we are in a chaotic moment where actions proposed are destined to create polarized reactions. Groups rally their forces through exaggerated claims, both for their causes and against those who would like thoughtful, reasonable planning for a whole city, for all its residents. Name-calling is rife. Cambridge’s voices are NOT heard in meetings where representation of “community” is stacked or random: noise over real discussion is heard. The real voices of real people would be far more diverse and reasonable.
Reminder that Councilor Carlone helped kill an 8-story affordable housing project on Mass Ave because it was too tall (at 2072 Mass Ave). There is an 8-story building on Mass Ave one block away.
It’s the typical NIMBY approach: talk lots and lots and lots about _theoretical_ affordable housing and then fight every _actual_ affordable housing project.
Yup.
If Carlone believes the types of communities that he is describing are as great as he says they are then where is his leadership to implement that vision for Cambridge for market rate development as well?
Completely nonexistent is where, because he this is not his vision for Cambridge. This is an attempt to distract from the issue with a guaranteed to fail plan.
Carlone’s comments are exactly right. They represent sound planning and good politics. Cambridge has many issues to resolve and balance including the environment, transportation and even a sense of a well-scaled coherent community.
Translation: “Delay, delay, delay”
You’ve realized that there is momentum towards building more housing in our city and you’ll do anything and everything to minimize the number of units built.
“Do we want to reach our 3,000-unit goal by building 12 high-rise buildings like Rindge Towers?”
The Ringe towers are great and we should build more of them. The animosity some people show towards the towers, however, is shameful.
I will always listen to the voice of reason when major decisions are underway, ones that set future precedents and change present ones. Thank you, Councilor Carlone.
Too, a missing part of the conversation concerns the effects of the pandemic on work life: have you noticed how many Cambridge residents moved out of apartments and fled the city? I live next to one of the most affordable apartment buildings in Cambridge, a four story modest brick building and it is one-half to three-quarters empty; why has it remained empty after so many months since quarantine ended and offices began to ask their workers to return? Well, the nature of working has changed and it has begun to affect cities, cities like Cambridge. Before Cambridge rushes to construct ‘high density buildings near transit’ the city needs its own plan–as Carlone cautions– and ought to conduct research about its inventory as well as its needs. If there are other empty buildings in Cambridge, then they ought to be identified and the city ought to work with building owners to consider creating co-ops where the city helps to fill those empty apartments as affordable housing units into perpetuity, giving apartment building owners benefits that usually go to for profit developers. And there are scads of empty offices in office buildings not to mention all the empty store fronts up and down Mass Ave. C’mon city of Cambridge: we need managers and leaders to get on this and take advantage of stock we already have but have not realized. A little bit of out of the box thinking will help lead us far into solutions for this housing situation.
“I live next to one of the most affordable apartment buildings in Cambridge, a four story modest brick building and it is one-half to three-quarters empty”
No, no it’s not.
Yeah… let’s build housing everywhere! A 15-story here, a 30-story there. Who cares about infrastructure or any downstream effect of that? We must accommodate everyone in PRC. Heck, let’s build some housing in some of our parks. They are just pee & poop locations for the dogs, anyway!
“sound planning and good politics”
No wonder people are so against it.
Also interesting how this article has so many comments and yet the article about rent control has none. At least….none that were not censo….Uhhhh I mean approved.
@ Cities should change: Please explain. What do you mean to say by “No, no it’s not.” Being cryptic serves no purpose, and I have evidence to the contrary as I’m in touch with the superintendent of the building and happen to know the owner of the building.
Let me state my personal background. My family is a union household and we have sought housing from the city in the past and received other social services. We currently do not receive social services.
My personal experience supports Mr Carlone’s assertion that pushing individual projects generates “opposition and polarization”. I also know from my personal experience that having a sensible plan and following it produces better results than following big, poorly thought out ideas.
I live around Porter and I have to go through Harvard everyday for work. These places have enough problems without 25-story buildings. Even 13-story buildings. Of course, the squares will continue to evolve and they won’t be the same forever. However they change, I think that it is in everyone’s interest to keep them functional. I personally would not want the councilors who have proposed the AHO amendments managing anything in my life for which I have to be responsible in the long term.
Thank you Councillor Carlone for your leadership on this and other issues.
As to the earlier proposed 8-story affordable housing project on Mass Ave (at 2072 Mass Ave): it was a nice looking design but it only had one elevator. The lot was not big enough to add another. Any building over six stories should have two elevators – imagine walking up 6 stories with two children and groceries when the elevator is not working. This 2072 MA project also required too many special permits to meet state law. This is why we need a real city plan for addressing housing and other issues. Envision is NOT a city plan, but instead a set of goals, some conflicting with each other.
thank you Ms. Blier- couple of comments- 2072 Mass Ave did indeed bring up safety issues including a busy corner with no set-back, pick-up or drop off and one elevator is a towering inferno waiting to happen. Bring back a better scale and design. Rindge Towers is a community in its own right, but there is space, setback, elbow room next to food, retail, transportation and park. Anything that gets put on non-conforming lots tend to have a smaller footprint and lot line in dense areas. A 25 story or even 13 story is inappropriate. The original AHO, besides respecting conservation districts- also called for stepped down transitions to abutting neighborhoods. Neither of these points are kept in the new “amendments” which is actually a re-write of the original AHO not even 2 yrs old. I would rather have 5 5-story or 4 6-story buildings in key single-story locations than have 19 story mass and main or 32 story (?)Union Square scale buildings throughout.
Councilor zondervan actually stated that if a new building creates 5% green space or more without “exceeding FAR”, developers would have no limit to height. Really? The largest residential building in Cambridge has an FAR of 4. these new towers will have an FAR between 10-20.
Haste usually makes waste and mistakes. Look at Boston’s west end and urban renewal. Also not mentioned is that Cambridge is a tourist destination because of its history. 10s of thousands come to harvard and surrounds a year. How willing are you to kill the golden goose? This court is stacked.
Better to be homeless than to live in a building with a single elevator, says Harvard professor to the peasants.
How much could a banana cost, Michael, $10?
cambridgeresident (who choses to write only anonymously) the AHO buildings require one to provide c.70-80% AMI income by way of rent. Note we can do a far better job of addressing both the Cambridge residents who are unhoused, and those Cambridge residents in lower income brackets if we build on city owned land -and even better if we offer them an opportunity to build equity through ownership. Why the vitriol, name calling. Let’s address the facts.
Who decides whether any given proposal has neighborhood support? Does each individual resident get a veto? Each household?
That seems impractical. Maybe we could have some kind of citywide, binding survey where residents could indicate who they’d like to make decisions like this. We could hold the surveys every two years or so, with individuals from the community offering themselves as representatives to do this work full-time, compensated by city funds, provided they get enough support from residents in the survey.
Jess – the contexts are already in place – building by building with our judiciary bodies the Cambridge Historical Commission, BZA, Planning board. We should have used the firm UTILE that we hired to do Envision actually create the city plan, but chose not to do so. We could at this juncture create one on our own using members of these groups (say 3 each) along with other professionals – urban designers, landscape architects, zoning experts, environmental specialists, housing experts, financial experts, and of course community feedback at each meeting we would be able to do this. This is not about “popularity” (voting per se) but rather putting together a set of professionals and assessing the best plan forward.
@Faulkner, the vacancy rate in Cambridge is 0.5%. The mark of an unhealthy housing market is a vacancy rate below 5%.
https://bostonpads.com/blog/boston-rental-market/2023-cambridge-apartment-rental-market-report/
Shocking that Suzanne and CCC want to take the boards and commissions representing older, wealthier, whiter homeowners and put them in charge of all City planning.
We can’t trust the rest of Cambridge with voting—they keep electing Councillors who want to build more apartments!
Hello again anonymous. I would be delighted to have the city hire a highly respected planning firm to do a city plan (and have said this many ties). Perhaps Utile – the great firm that also did the plan for Boston. And yes adding housing is a key part of this. Smart cities do planning. In the end the results are far better, and take into account the key housing, transportation, infrastructure, environmental and other needs.
Thank you Dennis. I appreciate your common sense suggestions for affordable housing strategy and long-term planning.
It would be great if the City Council looked at affordable housing options that included converting underutilized or vacant commercial space left empty post-pandemic. This likely would be potentially faster and less expensive than new construction.
Also, the Council should mandate that all affordable housing have a path to home ownership.
It defies reason that anyone would point to a firm that made a plan for housing in Boston, the second most expensive housing market in the US, as if that could possibly be a good thing.
Just further proof that this debate is not being held in good faith.
Thank you, councilor Carlone, for being the voice of reason!
We already have a City plan, Envision Cambridge. Councillor Carlone references and links to it above.
Well, we’re not on pace to meet even the too-low Envision goal for new affordable homes by 2030. The current pace is closer to 100 per year, which would only get us one-third of the way there, and the easiest locations have already been proposed.
That’s the whole reason why we need to expand the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay to allow CHA and Cambridge’s non-profit homebuilders to build more affordable homes!
Also, the claim that 2072 Mass Ave “required too many special permits to meet state law” is laughable—the only reason it required BZA approval is our terrible zoning, which, again, the whole point of this process is to fix.
Cambridge continues to face a housing emergency. Thousands are on a list for affordable housing. I have a real respect for the intentions of Councilor Carlone. He is serving his fifth term on the City Council and has been involved in urban planning for some 50 years. I have lived in Cambridge for nearly fifty years. Model Cities, rent control, community organizing against MIT and Harvard etc. are in my resume. It is time to strengthen the Affordable Housing Overlay. 3,000 affordable units by 2030 demands that we embrace a combination of all possibilities such as 12 story buildings, six story buildings, eminent domain, rent control, conversion of vacant property and commercial buildings into affordable housing, increased ownership possibilities etc., and housing subsidies. I also advocate for higher taxes as might be necessary to provide housing for those in need including the homeless and those on the fringe of
homelessness. We should do it all! End the delay that is caused by picking one or two possible solutions and demonizing the other alternatives. Emergency calls for dramatic action. I call on Councilor Carlone and the rest of the Council to end the delay.
Ok… interesting discussion. I haven’t lived here long enough to know all this history about specific projects, so I am going to assume Councilor Carlone is genuine in his desire for 3,000 additional units as outlined in Envision Cambridge along the lines he describes.
There is a lot here that I like and agree with. Personally I find the vision of “50 six story buildings with ground floor retail” very appealing.
But if we want to be serious, we need to take a critical look and notice that there is a lot missing here and the thinking could be sharper.
First, let’s not get hung up on things like we need “an affordable housing strategy” because it’s a strawman argument. The proponents of the new AHO have a strategy: Incentivize affordable housing developers to build housing by drastically removing certain zoning restrictions along set number of corridors and squares. You may not agree with it, but it’s a strategy. Mr. Carlone’s strategy seems to be more centered on increasing taxes and fees for the city to directly secure affordable housing sites. Also a strategy. Let’s not waste a ton of time here.
Second, we do need plan! That makes sense, but even the outline of Mr. Carlone’s plan has some massive holes. Any plan needs to be laser focused on the goal of creating more housing and remove the constraints stopping housing from being built now. Nothing in this letter indicates how Mr. Carlone is going to remove the constraints that zoning and the thicket of veto points introduced by all these various boards currently impose on any housing construction. That needs to be front and center. Otherwise we will spend a ton of time talking and in the end we still can’t build anything.
Third, we do need a plan… but we also need to move. The most successful organizations / administrations / companies (you name it) have a plan, but then they execute. They learn. They adjust their plan and get better at executing. I worry that the instinct to go back to the drawing board will delay the action that is needed by years and in the end we will still be exactly where we are now. What is the timeline we are proposing here? In my mind you get 3 months. Get those city planners working with some speed.
Fourth, for the love of God, let’s not hire some expensive consultants or design agency to do this. We live in one of the best funded cities in the world. I have to imagine we have some capable people in our city government that could run a planning process.
Lastly, we also have to be realistic. We can go through a planning process with lots of public comment, but there is a significant (and vocal) population of the city that actually DOES NOT want more housing to be built. This is why removing veto points is the sine qua non. Otherwise we will simply spend time arguing in public comment, come up with a milquetoast plan, and still have a group ready to stop any individual project.
Cambridge has been until now a unique and historic city. What remains of it ought to be a world heritage site. The AHO ‘amendment’ will destroy its historical character by allowing > 20-story buildings in its heart. This proposal would never fly in cities of comparable caliber, like Cambridge or Oxford UK, Stockholm Sweden, Florence Italy, or Tubingen in Germany, all of which have housing crises they successfully addressed without self-destruction. Cities like Moskow or Bucharest, which self-destructed to build high-rise residential buildings, are now vastly unattractive and desolate.
So why is self-destruction necessary? There are two populations here in Cambridge MA that need housing: The displaced families who can’t afford their rent anymore, and the tens of thousands of people who work for big pharma in Kendall Square and the expansive universities. The latter one is the big group. In the wake of the expansion in Kendall Square with high-rise pharma, the city council, together with developers, wants to offer housing to everyone who works there and wants to live here by building similar high-rise buildings in the residential areas of Cambridge, irreversibly altering the city’s character.
This is the ultimate capitalistic response that ignores the needs and wants of those who’ve lived here long before big pharma. The city council capitulates to big pharma and developers. A thin veneer of socialism highlights the individual stories of homeless people, and I feel for them, because they are being used as a shield for what is in fact a business, capitalist enterprise.
The way to proceed, obviously, is in the meticulous and laborious but constructive way that Dennis Carlone presents. His proposal provides increased housing in ways that are not destructive, and in scale with the existing historical city, especially for those in Cambridge who are long-term residents and have been priced out. Already a densely inhabited city, Cambridge needs to work with adjacent communities on housing and public transportation (as the cities mentioned have done).
The city council had a different view in the past. Jim Braude, former councillor and now host of ‘Boston Public Radio’ urged to “keep the city on a human scale.” Braude said he’d fight “developers who… appear to have more power than people.” (http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N48/48braude.48n.html)
Those in the city council who have pushed this amendment will earn a legacy of destruction and disregard for historical architecture and cityscape, as well as disregard for small-scale living. Mr. Carlone’s presentation made it clear that high-rise housing cannot be constructed at a cost low enough for affordable housing. The proposal is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a gift to capitalists in the name of socialist goals, it is AFFORDDABE DEVELOPMENT, not affordable housing.
One way to make a city more affordable is to make it less attractive. Certainly, any proposal that allows canyons with high rises will change the livability of Cambridge.
Yes, I know, this is another NIMBY argument. Higher housing costs are indeed an issue. But it must be balanced about the “why”: why do many people want to live here? Many reasons, but in part it’s because for a city its size Cambridge doesn’t feel like a city. There is no central “downtown.” It’s housing and commerce are spread out.
Even clusters of six story buildings among low-rise neighbors would change their residential feel. The small balcony on the top floor of a three decker would now get looked down on from three floors above.
The solution may involve designating one Square–maybe Central– as “downtown,” and continue making that the focus of development for both affordable and market rate condos and rental high rises.
Making Cambridge more affordable is a worthy goal, but at what cost to its very nature.?Whatever plan we come up with must strike a balance.