 The three buildings in the above composite photograph offer interesting insight on how design decisions get made. The design of each structure is an important one, depending on the site, date, and context. The English example on the left, long considered an eyesore, has now been demolished, less than 15 years after the 150’ (c.15 story) property was built by developers to serve as a hotel. In its place today is a far better designed student center admired today as simultaneously “classic” and “modern” – a work that fits remarkably well into this city center setting. Read more HERE. The contemporary concrete building on the right is frequently labeled sometimes as “what one can do if the land is small.” In the right setting, with other similar structures, it is a practical, visually interesting single-family home for a family of means. The example in the middle is from 231 and 235 Third Street in East Cambridge. This is a 2,613 SF historic duplex structure with land at the rear (totaling 5,559 SF), Zillow last advertised one of the two units as a $3,561 rental apartment. The structure sits in the heart of the East Cambridge redevelopment frenzy, next to a sizable parking lot, and has been approved for demolishment. It looks to have been a good candidate for moved elsewhere in the city rather than being torn down. Individually and together these structures represent the kinds of decisions that cities often are called on to make.
Many cities have begun to up-zoning, as they seek to add more housing at levels that will enable middle-income individuals to live there. Six examples provide us with particularly interesting parallels: Portland (Oregon), Austin (Texas), Chicago (Illinois), Los Angeles (California), San Francisco (California), and Vancouver (Canada). We also have several other international examples. Before we begin, we note that Cambridge, Massachusetts
As one of the oldest, most sought after, and densest cities in the country situated adjacent to several other highly sought after cities with multiple local and adjacent universities and a large number of biotech and info-tech companies, with sizable numbers of well paid employees Cambridge has a unique set of factors that make it impossible for us to build ourselves out of our expensive housing situation. OTHER US CITY UP-ZONING EXAMPLES: Austin Texas is a city of 331.4 square miles and has a population density of 3,097 people per square mile. It is considered a low density city, ranking 157th in this city density assessment. Like Portland they chose to allow more homes per lot, and here specifically
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago is a city of 234 square miles and has a population density of 11,847 people per square mile, and often ranked 5th most dense city. An article in the Nov-Dec 2024 Harvard Magazine provides results from Cook County Chicago that now simply
Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles is 502 square miles, with a population density of around 8,300 people per square mile, and often ranked number 10 most dense city. The Planning Board chose
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minneapolis is 58 square miles, with 7.96 people per square mile and generally ranked 46th in population density. Their plan
Portland, Oregon: Portland is a city of 145 square miles, with a population density of 4,889 people per square mile. It ranks 26th for U.S. city density with populations over 100,000K. They chose to encourage the conversion of single-family homes into duplexes if one:
Vancouver, Canada: Downtown Vancouver is 44.5 square miles has a population density of 14,892/square mile). It is the densest city in Canada and has faced sky rocketing housing costs. Vancouver’s strategy focuses on an equitable housing system by:
International City Upzoning: a March 2024 study by Murry and Gordon (and economist and political scientist) on land policy argues that
Summary of Up-Zoning Policies in Other Progressive Cities Below is an overview of what these various cities have chosen to support in their plans to promote more housing. 1. Number of units on SFH properties
Does the free market make housing cheaper? Murry and Gordon, the authors are not sure of the above study are not convinced.
1 Comment
 Report: A Cambridge City Council proposal to legalize six-story buildings. Everywhere. One of the most impactful up-zonings of any U.S. City. How it will impact residents lives around issues related to the environment here. In this post we address critical environmental impacts of this up-zoning petition that are likely to greatly increase heat island impacts and climate change destruction. concerns in city climate change and flooding impacts, but will exacerbate problems. SOME OF THE CORE PROPOSED UP-ZONING FEATURES
TrEE MATTERS CITY TREE TOTALS •19,095 City Trees •60,095 Private or Institutional Trees MINING THE CITY TREE DATABASE WITH CHATGPT The City of Cambridge has an excellent database of our city street and park trees, with up-to-date information on locations, types of trees, ages of trees, dead trees, newly planted trees and other information. We can use this date to address critical information addressing the city's environment related to trees today and into the future. We can also mine this information as related to likely impacts of the proposed citywide up-zoning. Below are two maps showing the types of trees found on city streets and parks.  Below we see two graphs showing on the left the ages of our city trees, and on the right the diameters of our city trees. What this reveals in part is how much of our historic tree canopy on public spaces has been lost, and the part of it that has been replaced, largely entails new saplings (1-4 years old) followed by 5-10 year old trees which offer little of any shade bearing foliage that will help the city for another 30-40 years. We no longer have any trees on public city land over 20 years old (with diameters above 30 inches). The vast proportion of 1-4 year trees (0-5 inches in diameter) is also problematic because they have a much higher probability of dying, needing to be replaced in turn, at some point in the future.  When we look at tree locations across the city based on the ages and diameters of these trees, we can see just how wide spread this older tree loss is city wide, since there are very few colors other than dark purple that are visible.  If we look at the differences in the maps showing "retired" tree sites (those areas that once had trees, but will no longer, versus those areas where the city plans to plant new trees, we can readily understand how much this legacy of tree destruction in the City of Cambridge is impacting the city now and the future well being of its residents. Based on this date, it is clear that the city has no intent to increase its tree count even to the levels we had a few years ago.  When we look at the data on dead trees, damaged trees, and "retired tree sites"alongside the date of those current trees in need trimming (one of the important factors in maintaining the health of city and private residential trees the situation looks even more devastating. One can also see this devastating situation clearly from the graph showing this data below.   Neighborhood differences come into play in important days as we break down the data further. Some of our neighborhoods, especially those in our denser, lower income areas have far more trees being cut on their streets than other neighborhoods, often in wealthier areas. This has potentially serious ramifications not only on the health of residents, especially infants, children, those already ailing and seniors due to a number of factors including ongoing heat island impacts of these denser housing areas. One can see on the left the neighborhoods that are hardest (Cambridgeport, and the Port, followed by Mid-Cambridge and East Cambridge. On the right one can see the numerical differences involved with Cambridgeport bearing the loss of 60 trees, followed by The Port at 60 trees, and at the other end fo the scale, Strawberry Hill with only 15 trees cut down, followed by Cambridge Highlands with 20 trees having been cut.  Some factors regarding our public tree deaths on city streets and parks offer further insight, whether we are talking about, the choice of tree species (and their ability to survive here), or questions of placing city streets trees within grates. The London planetree followed by the Tuliptree and Serviceberry Genus have the highest death rates; the Red maple, Japanese Zelkova and Japanese Tree Lilac have had fewer deaths, but likely the number of these trees that have been planted would impact these results. We also learn from this database that park trees have higher survival rates than street trees, and that those street trees within grates do a bit better than those without grates. All of this is dependent on watering the trees in both settings.  The city provides data on the arborist or source of the tree (identified here as the tree creator. And we can see how these factors also may impact the survival rates of our newly planted trees - some of whom are clearly doing more work for the city than others. This is data that presumably the city takes into account when it is deciding on commissioning people to do this work.  Our tree inspectors also have a major impact on which trees live and die. It is hard factor in why the differences here would be so large between one inspector and another, and perhaps suggests the importance of the city requiring a second opinion of someone not in the city employ.  The Urban Heat Island Technical Report
Let's look first at City Estimates on Climate Plan Impacts (Heat Island Impacts) in the Urban Heat Island Report. As we can see below, trees are seen by the city to represent only 1 out of 6 in importance in terms of planned response to temper heat island impacts. This is quite surprising since according to current research, trees are generally considered more important than cool roofs in mitigating heat island effects, as they provide a greater cooling impact through shade and evapotranspiration, making them a more effective strategy for reducing urban temperatures compared to cool roofs alone; however, both strategies can be used together for optimal results. Equally surprising is that fact that neither cool roofs, nor surfaces, or part of city planning or environmental policy regarding areas outside of Alewife, Kendall Square, and MIT, so the residents living in the various neighborhoods throughout the city will receive little benefit from the roof and surface changes. Whereas they would benefit from far greater work in adding trees to the parts fo the city streetscape that had living trees just a few years ago.  The city's focus going forward in terms of tempering heat island impacts is focused almost exclusively on cool roofs and impervious surfaces for new buildings in our heavy commercial areas where many of the labs are found. Trees barely factor in at all, except, to try to return to the already decimated 2009/2010 period of street and park trees in the city. Even this minimal goal seems highly unlikely however considering the data on tree death and tree age addressed above in the City Tree Database. And again, very little of this is focused specifically on the residents of the city and specifically the neighborhoods in which they live.  It is hard to see the highly idealized cooling maps presented in the Heat Island Report as more than simply fantasy considering what we learn from both the report itself and the City Tree Database.  The city has identified the impacts of these proposed changes here:  NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS OF TREE LOSSES AND HEAT IMPACTSWhen we go to the neighborhood level to address these issues, the issues and impacts are striking. A 10 degree F difference can have striking differences on health and mortality for infants and the elderly. The fact that the HIGHEST temperatures are found in our densest and historically lower income neighborhoods is significant and should not be overlooked. The Port and East Cambridge have the highest temperatures while Strawberry Hill and Cambridge Highlands have the lowest ambient temperatures. As heat rises, the impacts are even greater, and a 10 degree Fahrenheit difference can bring not only health problems but also death to the most vulnerable - infants, children, and the elderly. When we add to this likely impacts of the loss of even more green space and trees in these same neighborhoods and others that now could be built to the property lines at each side and at the rear will mean that we will lose not only many existing trees but also future ones. And as we know it is mature trees that have an especially important role in keeping rising temperatures in check.  Below we see a map of the city's hardest hit areas in terms of heat island impacts. Nothing that the city is proposing will decrease the already consequential impacts in our densest neighborhoods such as The Port, East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Inman Square, Mid-Cambridge, and North Cambridge. As trees are removed this will look even worse, and with the insertion of the denser C-1 dense zoning regulations (made even more dense by the up-zoning plan being proposed) are somewhat less hot regions will begin have heat impacts that complement those now found in the denser neighborhoods.  The following map makes clear the startling impacts on our residential neighborhoods with serious health implications. In the circle graph on the right, the red area addresses the health impacts of extreme heat. These impacts are seen here to include: 1) preterm birth; 2) respiratory disease; 3) mortality and hospitalization. Nothing we are doing in the city is seeking to remediate this. And, if we add more unfettered development, without regulation or oversight, as proposed in the up-zoning proposal, this will aggrevate an already very problematic situation.  The City is clearly recognizing the problem that exists in our city's approach to heat island impacts. The Dity has signaled in its own mapping that the core areas of the city that will be impacted by the city's initiatives on cool roofs, impervious surfaces, and trees, will be those areas around Alewife, Kendall Square and MIT - and NOT the other areas of the city, the neighborhoods where many of our residents live. One can see this in the city map on the right where we find the circled areas. The fact that we are making no effort to impact the majority of our residents in the various neighborhoods is a significant problem.  Below we read the conclusions of the Cambridge Heat Island Impact Report. We have highlighted the findings that are most germane to the concerns we raise here.  None of this addresses the serious issues around climate change and sizable flooding possibilities in the present and years ahead. This also will be significantly impacted by the proposed citywide up-zoning, and the lack of both design oversight and immediate infrastructure changes that come with it. The city's map of likely future flooding impacts across our many neighborhoods makes this clear.  CONCLUSIONSIn conclusion, it is important to note that the City of Cambridge has provided our residents and city employees with an extraordinary rich array of data from which we can begin to understand the city. Some of this data is in the form of reports (such as the Urban Heat Island Technical Report), city wide data (in the form of excel sheets and other forms, such as the City Tree Data), as well as GIS data showing our many historic and contemporary buildings in their specific settings. We can see below an example of this GIS data in the form of a rending of buildings and an overview photograph. As we explore this data we can see not only the wonderful richness of the details but also the how devoid this view of the city of its many diverse residents. In key ways the City Tree Data and Urban Heat Island Report seem equally devoid of evidence related to residents, those who live here.  We urge our city elected officials and staff to address the residents of our city and our environmental and other features in a far more holistic way. We need to begin to include the trees and other features of our unique neighborhoods as part of our planning and discussions. Too often the the City staff and or political leaders act as if they consider both our trees (and green spaces) as well as current residents as the enemy of the City, and our city's progress, using divisive terms and character attacks of people who want a smart future. At the same time, we appreciate some of the excellent work that has been undertaken by city staff and residents to date, including the creation of the City's Urban Forest Masterplan, available HERE. We urge the city and city council to undertake new planning endeavors consistent with its guidelines and goals.  OUR CITY NEIGHBORHOODSEach of our neighborhoods can offer insights on how this. It is critical going forward that we incorporate the trees on our many city residences in our tree and climate policy going forward. It is in these properties, owned privately or in institutional hands that are so critical for our future. The example below comes from Hilliard Street near Harvard Square. The photograph below was taken in the autumn, so that the deciduous trees are largely bare. And here and elsewhere we also have an array of evergreens. This is both a very dense part of the city, with both single family homes, duplexes, row houses, and taller apartment buildings (the latter at the corners where Hilliard meets Mt. Auburn Street and Brattle. In restoring Cambridge's climate promise and moving it into the future, not only must we replant many of the "retired" street tree sites, but we also must retain and build on our many private trees and green spaces. With the proposed City up-zoning the impacts of this decision will be felt especially in our diverse neighborhoods, in the many private homes that are there of various shapes and scales. For many Cambridge residents, including those on Hilliard St., our neighbors' green spaces, garden, and trees are as important to our well-being, love of the city, and moderating ambient temperatures as are OUR OWN green spaces, garden and trees.  We must come together as residents, as neighbors, as members of diverse local civic groups to support responsible plans for our future, plans for our future that places special emphasis on the health of our residents highlight the critical importance of our trees, green spaces, and environment more generally. In addition to the environmental impacts, the proposed citywide up-zoning will significantly increase housing costs across the city, as historic housing is demolished, current tenants are forced out, and wealthier outsiders move in, with new homes and home additions adding to property values that will rise, with taxes, not only for themselves, but also for their neighbors. This will impact low and middle income city residents and seniors (or others) on fixed incomes, some of whom will also be forced out of the city. In addition every home demolition will lead to carbon impacts that will take up to 80 years to recoup even with the most environmentally forward-thinking new housing. It is critical now for urgent reflection vis-a-vis issues around the ongoing health of our current and future residents. Leaving our future to "the market" (giving investors and others of extraordinary means the main voice for our city's present and future irresponsible.  BIOTECH IMPACTS ON CAMBRIDGE HOUSING COSTS64% of the 146 life sciences companies surveyed in Boston and Cambridge are located within just three zip codes: 02139 (Central Square/MIT), 02142 (Kendall Square/MIT) or 02138 (Harvard Square): https://news.mit.edu/2004/massimpact We need to bring the bio-tech industry itself to the table in addressing our housing dilemma. Cambridge biotech employee numbers (73,000) supersedes the number of our EXISTING HOUSING STOCK (57,879 units) by nearly 15,000 units. Without some thoughtful city and area planning - and considerable help from the biotech community as a whole to help with housing that is affordable to its employees in the area (and related transportation) the middle cannot hold. The bio-tech jobs bring large numbers of new employees to Cambridge. These employees bring greater housing demand on the city. The average biotech salary in Cambridge is $105,000 per year. This is sizable, but not enough to allow most employees to viably rent or purchase a home in the city. Since single- and two-family homes remain the most desirable for these new employees and others, housing prices have soared, along with the cost of rental units close to Kendall Square. We need the tech industries here to become part of the solution. Upzoning the whole city to allow demolitions of existing sustainable homes will aggravate the situation further and will bring severe environmental harm as well. Background: “in 1977, when the city council passed the first legislation in the U.S. that allowed and regulated research into recombinant DNA, the floodgates opened and the neighborhood transformed into a bustling hub. Cambridge is now home to over 250 biotech companies, more than 120 of which are within the Kendall Square zip code.” Source: HERE This increase in Cambridge biotech employees has brought sizable tax returns as well as significant additional housing and other problems. “Expensive rents make the cost of doing business more expensive for biotech companies that want to base themselves in Boston and Cambridge. Public transportation needs improvement to solve traffic congestion. Massachusetts ranks near the bottom -47th nationally for commuting times and road quality. Likely Cambridge would rank even lower. Boston also has the worst rush-hour traffic in the country. This has led to local battling between bicycle lane advocates and people who need their cars to get to work. The Kendall Square Association, a business organization in Cambridge, issued a call to action in late 2018.” This speaks broader transportation concerns, they do not appear to have promoted a policy for helping to address broader area housing needs (and costs) which have greatly increased since 2018 . From 2008 to 2020, the Greater Boston biotechnology industry workforce grew approximately 55% from 54,000 to 84,000 workers.[15] 64% of the area biotech workers work in Cambridge. This same Greater Boston biotechnology industry workforce grew from approximately 84,000 in 2020 to 114,000 in 2022. 64% of the Boston area biotech employees work in Cambridge. This makes for about 72,960 biotech employees who live in Cambridge who are looking for housing that is affordable to them here. UNIVERSITY STUDENT IMPACTS ON LOCAL HOUSING COSTS The city undertakes an annual Town-Gown Report for its various city universities. One can read the 2023 report HERE MIT to date has more focused on using its Cambridge properties for (lab-related leases) rather than building needed housing for its sizable undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral affiliates. As of Fall 2023, Harvard University had approximately 7,000 undergraduate students (mostly housed in dorm residences) and around 18,000 graduate and professional students enrolled. Harvard University has some graduate student housing in Allston an is planning to build more here. MIT has 7,344 Graduate students and 1,394 postdoctoral scholars (the latter as of 2020). MIT is building some undergraduate housing in Cambridge, but in large part its graduate students and post doctoral students and staff are not housed in university affiliated housing.10,473 Cambridge University Students and Postdocs Compete for off-campus homes here, alongsidesizable numbers of staff and facultyData in the 2023 Town gown report HERE  UNDERGRADUATE OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT HOUSING NEEDS Harvard University 30 students need off-campus housing (out of 7,028 students) HUIT International 418 students need off-campus housing (out of 789 students) Lesley University 164 students need off-campus housing (out of 643 students) MIT 153 students need off-campus housing (out of 3916 students) GRADUATE STUDENT OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING NEEDS Harvard: 3920 students need off-campus housing (out of 6603 students) HUIT International: 692 students need off-campus housing (out of 891) students Lesley University 90 students need off-campus housing (out of 110) students) MIT 2646 students need off-campus housing (out of 5043 students) POST-DOCTORATE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING NEEDS Harvard University 1103 people need off-campus housing MIT 1267 people need off-campus housing s SUB-TOTAL OF OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT HOUSING NEEDS: Harvard University 5053 individuals (30 + 3920 +1103) HUIT International 1110 (418 + 692) Lesley University 254 (164 + 90) MIT 4066 (153 + 2646 + 1267). Student and post doc NUMBERS: 5053 +1110 + 254 +4056= 10,473. TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS & POSTDOCS : 10,473 (those who need housing here). Our students generally rent apartments (2 to 3 people per unit), often receiving housing allotment increases to meet yearly increased housing costs, and often turning over apartment leases every few years, which enables landlords to increase rents higher than they might for longer term tenants. Add to this student number the many Faculty and Staff at each of these universities. Current Cambridge based University Employees (based on the 2023 Town-Gown Report Harvard Staff 11,461 and Faculty: 1,766 Huit Int. Staff 120 and Faculty: 30 Lesley Staff 273 and Faculty: 195 MIT Staff 8,680 and Faculty: 1042 TOTAL University Staff & Faculty: 23,569 Of these currently 6,897 live in Cambridge, but potentially, 14,652 additionally might be interested in living here. TOTAL of university affiliates who need or may want housing in cambridge Students: 10,473 Employees not now living here: 14,652 TOTAL university housing need: 25, 125 individuals TOP 20 CITY EMPLOYERS & THEIR EMPLOYEE NUMBERS In addition to our universities and biotech companies, the city of Cambridge has a number of other large employers. Among the top 20 employers of the City of Cambridge is the city itself whieh employees 3,594 people, while the federal government employs 1,152 people. In addition we have Mt. Auburn Hospital and the Cambridge Health Alliance with 1,348 and 1,534 employees respectively. Infotech is also big business here, including . Cambridge Innovation center (3,883), Google (2,100), Broad Institute (1,936), Hubspot (1,771) , AkaMai (1,593, and EF Education (1,206).Source: City of Cambridge HERE These employers alone add an additional 20, 117 employees. Most of these employees likely also would want to find housing in the city of Cambridge.  OUTSIDE HOUSING INVESTORS Investors constitute a significant part of our home purchases - roughly 18.1% (one in five homes). Large and institutional investor transactions between 2004 and 2019 constitute 27.6%. Two- and Three-Family homes are the greatest subject of these investments at 32.4% and 31.3% respectively. The share of flip transactions in Cambridge between 2002 and 2021 is 7.1% Find related data at Homes for Profit: HERE If Cambridge chooses to remove current perceived "barriers" to investors (zoning controls and review processes such as the BZA, Planning Board, and CHC) the numbers of these investor-led property changes that seek to profit from Cambridge housing is likely to increase far more.   CONCLUSIONS:
The housing center cannot hold without a serious city and area plan and signifcant help from our biotech industries and universities. We already have impossibly high steeply rising housing costs across all types of housing. We need to create a plan, in conjunction with our biotech and other large local employers (including our universities) to address this situation. Simply opening up the floodgates to market rate forces (local, national, and international investors) will only make the situation worse - increasing housing costs further and destroying many of the qualities of our city and our neighborhoods that make it a wonderful place to live. If currently, some 30% of residential properties here are likely owned by people or companies located outside the city (outside investors and companies), we are likely be become an even greater target of outside investment activity, that will further raise our housing prices. In short, if we built enough NEW housing to fill the need of current Cambridge employees and students/post-docs without campus housing, it would have to double our current population (and housing units) and this number would not even account for the number of potential new residents desiring to live here as former students and others who find this historic city with its great universities and wonderful place to live and/or invest in. In short we CANNOT build ourselves out of this dilemma without increasing property values and housing costs even more. We need a thoughtful, an area-wide approach and considerable help from our largest employers. We can only achieve this with smart and cohesive plan that also integrates infrastructure, transportation, and environmental needs.  CAMBRIDGE UP-ZONING: POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET SHARED GOALS
A. ENABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING CITYWIDE: Allow Multi-Family Housing citywide in all A, B, and C Residential Districts. Height, setbacks, and design review for multifamily housing to be as follows. B. HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND DESIGN REVIEW: These must be 10+unit structures (with 20% inclusionary units). 3 stories (35’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback For 3-story structures, design review would be done by staff based on pre-approved CDD design guidelines (similar to the proposed dormer rule). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards. 4 stories (45’) in A, B, C residential districts, front setback: consistent with neighboring structures. 6’ side setbacks; 15’ rear setback, design review with prior approved CDD design guidelines and formal binding design oversight and review (PB, BZA, CHC). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards. 5 stories (55’) on major residential district corridors only, as outlined following neighborhood specific guidelines (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might include front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent buildings. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear step back design (and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors). Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front yards. 6 stories (65’) only on major residential district corridors, as outlined following neighborhood specific decisions (such as North Mass Ave., Cambridge St., etc). For example, these might include front setback consistent with neighboring structures. Side setbacks: 6’ or consistent with adjacent properties. Rear setback: 15’. Design: massing constraints, rear and possibly side area step back design to address neighbors. Formal binding design review and oversight (PB, BZA, CHZ). Follow current city zoning guidelines for corner properties, where both sides count as front properties. Note: Reduce height allowance for 6 story structures to 65’ to not trigger the AHO 13 story allowance in residential neighborhoods. Or change the language in the AHO article of the Zoning Ordinance (Article 11.000) to read as follows. 11.207.5.2.1.(d) : “Where the District Dimensional Standards set forth a maximum residential building height of more than seventy-five (75) feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than thirteen (13) Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150) feet.” C. PARKING: For any project of 3 stories of more, provide parking spaces for 50% of units or as need determined by an analysis of empty parking spaces available within two blocks between 11 PM and 5 AM on a week night between the months of September and November or January and June. D. COUNCIL REGULAR REVIEW: Require a 5 year and then 10-year review (followed by regular 10-year reviews). These reviews should include the number and location of up-zoning related sites, the number of new units on each site, the number of public housing incorporated on each site, the prices of related rentals, condos and other units, the environmental impacts (loss of trees, embodied carbon losses, heat island impacts etc.), the number of parking spaces included on a site and/or street parking sticker applications on the site, the changing status of the housing (rentals to condos for example), the number and circumstances of existing tenants who moved both within the city and outside the city, and the economic impacts of rising or falling adjacent and near-adjacent home values, vacancies, and resident moves. E. OPEN SPACE, GENERAL: Retain citywide current open space minimums for open space requirements. Require only water permeable surfaces to count as Open Space (not garage decks, roof decks, porches, or walkways). Open space range between 10-36% based on current districts. See Table 5-1. Require conformation with Zoning Article 2.000 that “Green Area Open Space shall be open and unobstructed to the sky, it shall be land at grade, and shall consist of friable, permeable materials.” In short, open space should be Green Area Open Space as per Zoning 2.000 and consist of contiguous areas each no less than 225 square feet. F. ENVIRONMENTAL: Require water permeable pavers, best practices roofing materials, and design review that includes consideration of shadow and other impacts on neighboring homes re. solar panels, trees, and the embodied carbon impacts of demolitions, and the potential loss of trees to the neighborhood tree canopy, among other considerations. If demolishing 3 or more residential units use the Embodied Emissions Reporting Regulations. G. INFRASTRUCTURE: Transit- and environmental-related overview of a project should be part of the materials presented to decision making bodies. This should include (but not limited), needs for larger capacity water or sewage pipes, electrical lines, increased car traffic (number of parking spaces included or likely on street parking needs), the distance from the nearest bus stop or T stop. With the elimination of required residential parking, one can require an analysis of available night-time street parking when reducing required parking to less expected demand, e.g. counting cars in the middle of the night until they found a reasonable number of spaces within a few blocks. H. DESIGN CRITERIA: Require CDD to come up with design criteria and renderings for the proposed upzoning projects – 2 in each A, B, and C district. Also CDD must provide design criteria for new AHO 2.0 developments in any residential neighborhood because these will factor as well. I. ONLY ALLOW PROJECTS BRINGING MORE HOUSING: Limit applicability to projects of 10+ unit homes. Larger SFH and TFH projects would increase adjacent property values but not add more housing. Currently these owners can rebuild to the existing footprint “as of right” and can go to the BZA for exceptions or proposed increases. J. CONSOLIDATE CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL: Require CDD, DPW (and others?) to create a single comprehensive check off form that a developer or investor can use to make the process of building less onerous. II.POSSIBLE CHANGES IN PROPOSED UPZONING (DONOVAN AND BROWN PETITIONS) A. DONOVAN PETITION: Allow as of right 3 story additions if owners retain the façade and 3/4 of the sides of existing structures while maintaining at least 50% of current required open space/green space and require at least a 6 foot distance from the property line (Donovan Petition modification). BZA, CHC, or PB review for an addition over 3 stories. B. BROWN PETITION: Allow as of right, increased density (number of units) if one maintains the current structure, and 3 story additions. III. CORE ADDITIONAL THINGS WE CAN AND SHOULD SUPPORT AND ACT ON A.ADD MICRO HOUSING - Allow Micro housing on main corridors and near subway entries (with a version of “We Works” as part of the amenities). There is a model for this in DC. Advantage: these could be later converted to larger apartments/condos once this housing crunch has run its course (circa about 10 years). B. INCENTIVIZE ACCESSORY UNITS with city tax rebates, funding and design help. These units, added to existing structures in basements or small additions will likely be the cheapest to build, and are unlikely to be luxury, so will tend to be affordable, even if not the most desirable will be useful ways to increase the affordable housing stock for singles and lower income people. C. RETHINK CORRIDORS & SQUARES. While this is a proposal to expand the zoning borders of squares and change the character of the "residential with ground floor commercial" corridors, to incentivize housing here, consider requiring that all floors above the second floor comprise housing units. Rather than a “one size fits all” strategy for squares and corridors consider dividing them into 4 zones on Ma Ave & Other. 1.East Cambridge/Kendall/ MIT (up to mid-point with Central Square) - go higher, based on current models. 2.Central Square (up to mid-point with MIT & Harvard Square): follow current plans once accepted for Central Square 3.Harvard Square (to mid-point Central Square and mid-point Porter Square) follow recent zoning increases in the HSBA-HSNA upzoning and HSNCD 4.Porter Square (to mid-point HSQ through mid-point North Mass Ave). Either follow North Mass Ave group decision, or convene a separate group to decide this area 5.North Mass Ave (from Arlington to mid-point Porter Square). Follow guidelines of North Cambridge group decision. 6.Inman Square – Either follow North Mass Ave group decision, Harvard Square decision, or assemble a new group to create a plan. 7.Cambridge Street – follow decision of Cambridge Street group. 8.Broadway – follow Cambridge Street group ideas or create new group to decide. 9.Mt Auburn – create a group to do this. 10.Fresh Pond Parkway – create a group to do this. 11.First St – create a group to do this. D. RETHINK NEIGHBORHOODS & CORRIDORS & SQUARES (PART II) 1.Cohesive Guidelines: Ask CDD to create separate design guidelines for each (Form built zoning – following the Hyannis model. A very good model is Somerville MA, because it has so many refined zones with very specific grain to each, from 2-family, all the way to high-rise.Require/ Include step downs to neighborhoods. Maintain BZA, PB and other design oversight and neighbor input on façade design etc, but encourage acceptance of basic structural form if criteria are met. 2.Require City Unit Cohesion: Ask City Manager to provide cohesion of required criteria from CDD, DPW, Transportation, Fire, Environmental, ISD etc. Perhaps shift the Vice City Manager, Iram Farooq, from her current role in CDD to a new oversight position to assure that there is one single set of requirements from these city entities that would then be passed on to the PB, BZA, CHC and other judiciary bodies. 3.Revisit Utile (the architectural firm that did our Envision work – and lead Tim Love) to indicate what they would recommend re. zoning ideas/language for our corridors and squares, and what they see as core issues in addressing our changing housing market around factors such as cost. 4.Prioritize Housing on Avenues and Squares: Require that new or significantly renovated buildings include residential above the first floor, except by special circumstances, or significant offsets for social good. Too often owners are leaving properties empty hoping that the office market will come back. We need these spaces for housing. 5.Push Taller Housing Specific Properties. Promote first floor only commercial use on the main corridors with staff help and carrots. Task the City (perhaps as part of a new position for the Vice City Manager) to follow the projects that come before the CHC, BZA, PB and if we have a 1 story building that seeks to be a new 1 story building. Reach out to them (and the CHC, BZA, PB) with carrots (interest free loans, lowered taxes for x period of time, architectural/design help, reduction in taxes for X period to commercial tenants) to rebuild the structure to a height more commensurate with the city goals (c. 4-5 stories or higher). Right now, we have lots of commercial buildings on key avenues and streets like Ma. Ave or Cambridge and others that simply want to rebuild to the same height and for the same use that they have currently. 6.Limit/Reduce Store Vacancies: Currently we have lots of commercial unit vacancies as owners are simply parking their money (the HSQ cinema, hardware store, and Garage, among these) at no cost to them. Indeed, owners can significantly lower their taxes by claiming financial losses here. Some are simply parking money in Cambridge knowing that property values will likely continue to grow; others are waiting out the office and lab losses, waiting for those to come back before completing already approved plans. A few years ago, the City Council had a policy order to charge owners for long vacancies, but this was never ordained. Paris does this effectively, by increasing fees on empty store fronts on an annual basis until the owner decides either to except a lower paying tenant or to sell the property to another who will. We should find out specifics on the Paris plan and follow suit. IV. SEEK MORE INPUT/LOCAL HELP A.Town-Tech Advisory Group, Report: Create a large commercial employer equivalent to the Town-Gown Report, for employers with over c.500 employees. Have them come before the Planning Board once a year to address the same kinds of issues we require of universities, e.g. how they are addressing environmental issues, staff housing, transportation, infrastructure (electricity, internet) and other issues. On the West Coast (Berkeley etc) commercial is being asked to do much more. If we frame this as an invitation to use their skills to help the city, this might even get positive response. Google is being asked to be part of the solution in other areas; we should invite them to do so here as well. The new position for the Vice City Manager perhaps could over see this as well. And perhaps a few councillors could reach out to some of these employers to ask how they might try to help us in this process. In the Alewife Study Group there has been a lot of good feelings. I think we would find support among this as well. B.Commercial Curation: A key feature of Form Built Architectural Planning is the curation of what kinds of businesses people in the community feel they need to have a livable local experience. We used to do that in places like Harvard Square as well, not only with neighborhood surveys (what do you need here?), but also by commercial property managers who took care of this kind of curation of commercial tenants and local need. We have dropped this latter as commercial property owner profits have too often become dominate. Can we invite Neighbors to our Squares and Avenues to work with the city to come up with a set of desirable types of businesses to add. For example: HSQ needs a grocery store, a hardware store, a cinema AND now a theatre (with ART moving to Allston). The main grocery store & pharmacy is CVS. We will soon have 4 cannabis stores within a few blocks of e.o. On food: the H.S. has Broadway Market. We have SERIOUS food deserts throughout the city. This hits lower income residential areas especially hard. With the Galleria downturn, and problems with parking, it is hard to even get one’s computer fixed here. Could the Vice City Manager also be put in charge of commercial property neighborhood curation (co-joining commercial and neighborhood interests). C.Environment Matters: The city seems to have a list of residential trees. They list the total tree count in one of their reports. We should be able to get tree numbers, diameters, and species on private and institutional properties from the city? With this we can then address overall impacts of green space loss on city temperatures in the residential areas, each 10-degree temperature increase can be calculated in terms of death and serious health and developmental impacts on children and seniors. Note: What get hits hard with the upzoning in its present state is the environment, green spaces, and trees – especially if the no-setback rules to the property lines at the sides and rear are maintained. This will bring serious heat island impacts to the whole city as more and more mature trees are lost without any possibility of replacing them since buildings will be in their place. This should be a key part of the discussion because Envision not only speaks of X number of new houses, but ALSO the need to increase green spaces and trees. You can’t conform with 1 Envision Goal totally at the direct expense of others. If the city does not have the residential and institutional tree data that I think they have, perhaps we can get Neighborhood Groups and summer H.S. student workers to help canvas the residential areas of the city for trees. D.Infrastructure Matters: Arlington, Va residents recently sued (successfully) their city after they passed a MMH housing upzoning petition based on issues of infrastructure (sewage among these issues). Our proposed city upzoning is MMH on steroids, and Infrastructure issues are a key part of the problem. We already know how difficult it is to get electricity and transportation into areas of East Cambridge and the new Harvard Alewife-linked developments, which will cause enormous disruption. We know with BEUDO (for residential) we will need NEW electric transfer structures in every neighborhood. Where specifically will the city place these if every available property is built to the property line for more luxury housing? We need to know from DPW what the specific (street by street) existing and upgrade plans are. How much more can each street hold re water, sewage, electric should a 75’ structure go in on it. How many more streets will be cut up. If we get serious flooding from the Mystic River (as may well happen), Fresh Pond will be filled with salt water, and nearby homes may also be impacted. Already the Alewife Brook sewage is impacting basements. Add more large housing projects without planning for infrastructure changes makes no sense. We should ask DPW for a specific plan for the various potential changes to address infrastructure matters. E.Limit Housing Vacancies (non-resident owners). Address high turnover in rental housing. Each time a new turnover lease is made, the rental prices are able to rise, significantly. This also often signals short-term city residents. I know that some students, even those with dorm rooms, paying room and board, also have their families’ rent units for them. The parents of some area grad students also buy properties here for them. If the city can track when and where new tenants come into an apartment, we also can locate in time, space and approximate rental costs, this piece of our housing need question. Can we ask CDD for this information. Can we ask them to correlate this information with applications for parking stickers, or other information (electric, internet etc). Can we ask CDD to provide information on the exact number and street locations of area undergrad students, grad students, and post docs. I don’t feel we have a good handle on this factor. And once we know more, we may be able to help with this. F. MIT Properties: MIT owns all of the land south of Pacific Street in the Cambridgeport neighborhood, acquired for the purpose of meeting their housing goals and obligations. These properties have already been zoned for tall/dense housing but is currently leased by them for commercial. Documents to this effect go back to the 1970’s . President Howard Johnson made explicit public commitments to MIT faculty, students and staff that MIT would build housing on these sites. In addition, the Rezoning of the Volpe site requires MIT to build 1,400 units of new housing on that site. Successor administrations at MIT have partially met these goals. The current administration needs to accelerate the completion of this program. It needs to find new sources of funding to accomplish these goals. Tax and other considerations should be used by the city to push them to create housing. G. Harvard Properties: Harvard owns Holden Green along the Cambridge-Somerville border off Kirkland Street. Cambridge Units: 10-111 Holden Street; Somerville Units: 112-307D Holden Street. These were built in the 1920s, and complex contains 104 apartments, many of which are two-story townhouses with A LOT of parking: HERE Could we work with Harvard to re-envision this as 6 -8 story homes with parking underneath and amenities. It is over a century old, and this kind of project is out of date. With donations down, and Alewife building expenses up, Harvard may not want to do this without a real incentive from the city but might even consider allowing short term (lease limited) non-Harvard residents in a renovated larger structure. Harvard also controls land in Allston and could make a significant contribution to new housing inventory to offset pressure in Cambridge. The Harvard site Southborough – 26 miles from Cambridge is 31 minutes away by car or van, and an hour by train. Would they be interested in working with Cambridge to create a 20-year, renewable lease for housing, perhaps using our school system, although the Southborough schools are pretty good.  Cambridge Citywide Up-Zoning Simplified (Not Just for "Dummies!")
Proposed Citywide Up-zoning: This would allow multi-family housing citywide in every residential zoning district and uses one of our most dense zoning districts (C-1) citywide. This zoning is for market rate housing (or what the market will bear. This housing would be "as of right" without design review and oversight by one of our discretionary review and oversight boards. And would allow heights up to 6 stories in every residential district. Six stories here is defined as 75 feet in height (not 60 feet as is standard). Buildings are allowed to extend to the property line on the sides and rear, and a decreased front setback in some current districts. With properties of 10 units or more 20% inclusionary ("affordable") units are required. These would be without required parking. Glossary of Terms often used when discussing Housing policy TYPES OF HOUSING SFH Single Family Home TFH Two Family Home MFH Multi Family Housing ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit -- Usually a less than 1000 SF additional unit to permitted # of units. AHO Affordable Housing Overlay -- Occupancy is limited to those below a certain income threshold SRO Single Room Occupancy -- dorm room, hotel room, shelter room.. Triple–Decker 3 story building with stacked apartments TYPICAL ZONING REGULATIONS These are regulations, which along with use limitation, cities have employed to control the bulk and built character of areas of a city, so that for example, gas stations do not appear in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and factories emitting noxious fumes do not get built next to schools. Like building codes they are described as being designed for the health, safety and welfare of the community. They are laws, which are often not easy to change, and once enacted determine how much can be built, and where. If there are reductions in what was once permitted, then the city can be sued for “a taking”, or reducing the value of a property.
building design, often controlling building characteristics such as how long a façade can be without an change in plane, if upper floors need to be set back from lower floors, or if the first floor of a commercial building needs to be retail space, etc. Where certain sized buildings can be built is often laid out in very specific zoning maps to offer both clear opportunities and constraints on what kind of buildings can be built where. This can sometimes be welcomed by developers for its clarity, and also objected to by others for too much of an infringement on their free choice as land owners. (It is currently fully implemented in Somerville.) COMMON HOUSING RELATED ACRONYMS AND TERMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act - sets dimensional and other requirement ADU Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - an additional unit of housing AHO Affordable Housing Overlay - the Cambridge Ordinance AMI Area Median Income AHU Affordable Housing Unit AHR Affordable Housing Restrictions As of Right A development may proceed legally without any discretionary review process, usually in accordance with pre-set regulation rather than with case-by-case basis. In short, the owner of property has the right to use or develop it, without recourse to a public hearing process and related neighbor input. Intended to speed up the development process and often this precludes legal action CDBG Community Development Block Grant Chapter 40B If a community has less than 10% affordable housing, Board of Appeals must approve the project CPA Community Preservation Act CRA Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Density Number of dwelling units allowed on a specific area of land. This varies with eachresidential zoning district. Discretionary Review Process of review and oversight by community review boards like the CHC, BZA, or Planning Board (see below) Down Sizing. When developers or owners seek to transform a two family into a one family property and/or another property from one with more units into one with fewer units in order to gain more space for each unit. Dwelling Unit Any unit or type of housing SFH, TFH etc (see above) DHCD Mass state authority promulgating regulations targeted at income eligible households FHA Fair Housing Authority - sets standards for dimensions within housing financed federally FMR Fair Market Rent FMA Fair Market Rate JAS Just A Start - one of the city's public housing developers HFA Housing Finance Agency HRI. Home Owners Rehab - one of the city's public housing developers Inclusionary Housing % of lower income housing units required for market rate housing of 10 units or more Market Rate Housing Development of housing to sell for whatever the market price will bear. Also sometimes referred to as luxury housing because in Cambridge this tends to be very expensive Ordinance a city law - zoning ordinances become law once they are voted on affirmatively by the Cambridge City Council PHA Public Housing Agency Setbacks SHI Subsidized Housing Inventory Story The height of a given level of housing, usually measured as 10 feet per story. TBRA Tenant Based Rental Assistance Residential Zoning District - the city of Cambridge is currently divided into three residential main zoning districts (A, B, C) reflecting various property restrictions on type of housing, setbacks, and density allowed. CAMBRIDGE DEPARTMENT ACRONYMS BZA Board of Zoning Appeal CAHT Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust CDD Cambridge Development Department - Planning Agency for Cambridge: CHA Cambridge Housing Authority CHC Cambridge Historical Commission CRA Cambridge Redevelopment Authority DPW Department of Public Works Plan E Our form of government with a City Council who elects the Mayor and a separate city governance system under a City Manager who controls the various departments. PB Planning Board  The Cambridge Open Data Portal provides us with ample information to understand core information on housing availability, housing costs, and the impacts of related market forces. The greatest factor for housing cost in Cambridge is the very steep costs of the land itself, in short, the price of the properties on which our homes are built. Market rate factors are important too. Another factor taken up below is that around 30% of residential properties in Cambridge, MA are likely owned by people or companies located outside the city, based on the fact that a significant portion of the city's housing stock is owned by investors and companies, many of which are not based within Cambridge itself. Much the same thing is now happening in Austin, Texas where 28% of the housing is owned by outside investors. Currently we have 119,008 city residents (based on May 2024 census). There are 66,700 Cambridge residents aged 16 and over who were employed in the year ending December 2023. Many of our current residents are students at our various universities. We also have a number of retired individuals in this 16 y.o. plus group who are not currently employed. This helps to explain the c.51,308 residents of the city who are not listed as being currently employed. The American Community Survey for 2022 reports that 138,658 persons worked that year in Cambridge. Some are current residents but many are not. White-collar workers make up 95.33% of the working population in Cambridge, while blue-collar employees account for 4.67%. There are 38,000 workers employed in private companies (53.59%) as well as 6,506 people working in governmental institutions (9.18%). and 4,569 individuals who list themselves instead as entrepreneurs (6.44% of the workforce). What this suggests is that if we were going to try to house all those who currently live in cambridge plus all those who currently work here or go to school here (the latter not now living on campus) we would need a massive increase in the number and type of housing available - likely more than double the current city size of 119,008 residents - all this on our tiny 6.8 square mile land mass, nearly all of which is now built up except our cemeteries, university campuses, and drinking water supply area (Fresh Pond). If we add together the number of Cambridge employees at our various larger and smaller companies + students (not now in campus housing) the numbers are revealing. Listing only our top 20 city employers we have the following: Universities: 25, 125 individuals (see below) Local biotech companies: 72,960 individuals (see below) Other top 20 employers in the city 20,117 employees. This number includes the city itself with 3,594 employees TOTAL 118,202 Cambridge employees plus students/post docs who need off-campus housing NOTE: this total (118,202) is roughly equal in size to the size of our current population (119,008), and would double the city population size, all on only 6.8 square miles of land mass. This in turn would likely need to double the size of our fire department (people, engines, stations), police department (officers, cars, buildings), schools (staff, buildings), hospital staff and social workers, as well as increasing the capacity of our water, sewage and electric systems. We can see some of these variables across the different zip codes in the city, where we see notable differences in the population numbers, numbers of households and income variations across our five zip codes. Area 2 (MIT) has the highest average incomes ($195, 846) and by far the lowest number of residents and households (4,474 people in 2,140 households). Mid-Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Riverside, and The Port comprise the zip code (02139) and have the highest number of residents, households with 38,856 people in 15,995 households and roughly "average" Cambridge incomes ($160,365). North Cambridge (02141) where many of the historically segregated publicly-financed housing is located has the largest number of people for household (21,553 in 9,949 households) and the lowest average income $119,320. Neighborhoods in the 02138 zip code comprising West Cambridge, Baldwin, part of Mid-Cambridge, Riverside, Strawberry Hill and parts of Cambridge Highlands has roughly the same number of people and households as 02139 with 38,006 people and 14,480 households, and incomes averaging $182,108. East Cambridge (02141) historically one of the city's important immigrant community centers has 14,402 people in 7,069 households with an average income (of $142,367) which lies rought midway between residents of 02139 and 02140. What our zip code (and census) data reveals is in some ways more revealing than the historic city neighborhood breakdowns of this same data. Among other differences we see is that the residents of 02140 have far larger families (fewer households per people) than other city neighborhoods, where the average is closer to 2+ people per household unit.  Housing Stock and Neighborhoods: Here we see the different types of housing (single family, two family, three family and more) as well as the total number of housing units. Our city, as of July 1, 2023, has 57,894 housing units. This figure includes development completed since 2020 and units currently under construction. We also know the numbers of Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family homes in each neighborhood in the accompanying chart (and at the city’s Open data link found HERE One can see in the chart below a breakdown of total housing units per neighborhood. The largest number of housing units are found in East Cambridge which has 8,690 units as well as North Cambridge with 8,032 units. The largest per capita type of residential unit in Cambridge is single-family dwellings (SFH), which accounts for 35% of the city's total residential land. Two-family dwellings account for 21%; 13% of Boston's residential land is devoted to three- family dwellings, commonly known as triple-deckers. However these numbers can be deceiving, since SFH account for only 6.5% of our total housing stock, far fewer that many other cities What is also clear is that our 6.5% Single-Family Homes to total housing units is a stunningly low percentage (and number) in comparison with other major cities:
 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (SFH): These are far more expensive than other units in Cambridge in part because we have so few of them (3,772 total) This represents 6.52% of our total housing stock of 57.894 units. West Cambridge and Neighborhood Nine have the most Single-Family Homes while MIT (which as zero SFH, along with Cambridge Highlands (with 84 SFH) and Strawberry Hill (with 110 SFH have the fewest number. The number of SFH around the city is rapidly changing however since increasingly developers and individuals are purchasing two-family homes and downsizing them to single family homes. TWO FAMILY HOMES: Our city stock of two-family homes, numbering 7002 in total represents 12.09% of our total housing stock. These are at greatest risk of down-sizing. The greatest numbers of these two-family homes are in North Cambridge (1240 units) and West Cambridge (1277 units), Neighborhood Nine (800 units) and Cambridgeport (748 units). THREE FAMILY HOMES: These number 6195 properties or 10.7% of our total housing stock. The largest number of our 6195 three-unit housing stock are in Cambridgeport (915 units), North Cambridge (912 units ) and Mid-Cambridge (816 units). Some of these are rental properties occupied by area graduate students and post-doctoral students/interns. However, an increasing number of these three-unit structures are also now being converted into condos. We have the fewest number of these three family structures in MIT (0) and Cambridge Highlands (9) - the latter neighborhood comprising one of the furthest from both our universities and Kendall Square. Four family (4 unit) properties in the city amount to 5138 examples or 8.87% of our housing stock. These are most abundant in our denser and once less expensive neighborhoods of Wellington-Harrington (858 units), Cambridgeport (691 units), Mid-Cambridge (673 units) and The Port (506 units). The fewest number of our 4-unit properties are in MIT (6 units), Cambridge Highlands (9 units), and Strawberry Hill (56 units). Housing Price Changes: A Year by Year Analysis The steep rise in housing costs accompanies the circa 2018 rise in the biotech industry in Cambridge - see below, and has only continued to rise as Cambridge has become a major target of biotech companies and others in this city. While all housing prices have rises, single family and three family homes (the latter as likely tear-downs for fewer and more expensive one or two-family units have risen the most significantly. What we also see in this graph is the little impact that the 2008 recession had little impact on Cambridge housing costs. The same is true for COVID. Indeed COVID appears to have further pushed up housing costs here as many local residents and outsiders chose this city as a positive place to work from home "wherever." We can see how these major housing cost increases having played out over over various time periods and different types of housing.   Rental prices also vary significantly across our neighborhoods. East Cambridge, MIT, and Wellington-Harrington which are located closest to Kendall Square have the highest rents. The MIT neighborhood, as we have seen, also has the city's highest salaries.  The chart above shows the average 2024 rent prices by neighborhood across the 13 neighborhoods, with East Cambridge being the most expensive and Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill, and West Cambridge being the most affordable. Below we see the actual prices. In the data below we see the actual rental prices based on the average 2024 rent prices by neighborhood across the 13 neighborhoods. East Cambridge is the most expensive neighborhood for rents; Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill, and West Cambridge being the most affordable.  These values show a variation in rent prices, with East Cambridge being the most expensive and Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill and West Cambridge being the most affordable neighborhoods.
Sources: (Redfin)(RentCafe)(Zumber - Apartments for Rent & Houses)(RentHop)(Rent).  Cambridge's housing data related to factors such as housing starts, housing permits, neighborhood locations, differentials in the number of units, demolitions, costs and dates tell us a lot about what is happening in Cambridge, and what the near future might look like with or without changes in our zoning. This overview of Cambridge city housing trends analyzes this data and what they reveal about housing changes in the city. The first of these graphs addresses the neighborhood breakdown for both new housing starts for multi-family housing and the percentage breakdown between single family home starts (in orange) and multifamily housing starts (in purple).
  These trends are also evident in the number of units being built across various A, B, C residential districts each of which are zoned differently with A largely zoned for single and two family homes, B to include larger multifamily homes, and C including the latter at greater scale and density. Our city's poorer and denser neighborhoods are already getting hardest hit by gentrifying impacts of new development, forcing out residents, and disrupting life in these neighborhoods as wealthier individuals and investors buy up properties, replace existing homes and add larger structural additions. One can see the ready impacts of this in the number of building permits pulled within each neighborhood as well as the number of new housing starts. Increasingly larger one family homes (SFH) are replacing multi-family housing as the number one target of these changes. These changes have a major impact on both neighboring property values (adding to the increased taxes that have to be paid) and often at the cost of trees, green spaces, and the environment more generally. The data for the charts below are taken from related city databases, and these trends are likely to continue throughout much of the city with the proposed upzoning. In the graphs below, we see how this plays out across the various neighborhoods specifically with one and two unit projects and the number of units in each. West Cambridge has the most 1 unit residential projects (SFH) in the works; North Cambridge and Neighborhood Nine lead for two unit structure (TFH), followed up by Cambridgeport and Mid-Cambridge. BELOW: Housing Start Data by Neighborhoods and the Number of Units   Down Sizing TrendsACROSS THE CITY: One thing is very clear in the data: Owners and Investors are primarily interested in downsizing e.g. decreasing the number of units on a given property.  
|
Author:Suzanne P. Blier is one of many active civic leaders in Cambridge. She serves as president of both the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and the Cambridge Citizens Coalition. She is the author of the 2023 book, Streets of Newtowne: A Story of Cambridge, MA. She is a professor of art and architectural history at Harvard and teaches a course on the history of Cambridge and contemporary issues here. Archives
December 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed
