How to Get to Far Better Cambridge Zoning Results

The image above shows the current development log of our DPW department and reveals how much development (Residential and Commercial) is currently underway in Cambridge. Many of our residential streets are still torn up by one or another infrastructure improvement in the last few years. Cambridge, one of the most dense in the country, unlike or somewhat denser neighbor, Somerville, has no city plan, or any other criteria regarding the scale and look of new residential or other projects. In Cambridge, commercial developments compete with residential needs for the limited available land, whose high value makes it exceedingly expensive to build here. The proposed new up-zoning proposal now before City Council allows 6 story (75 feet) market rate ("luxury" housing (the equivalent of 7.5 stories), even in residential neighborhoods with 1-2.5 story heights, enabling new buildings to reach the property line at the sides and rear  in every residential district. The impacts of all this new development and the likely vast increase in investor properties, plus large scale population increases with greatly impact our city and its historic neighborhoods for ever, causing increased gentrification of our denser, lower income neighborhoods, and the massive environmental harm as existing trees and green spaces are removed.  This plan, while intended by some to address the need for more housing, somewhat arbitrarily enumerated in our Envision goals, completely counters other Envision goals for employing our corridors to build taller housing projects, preserving historic neighborhoods, and adding MORE green spaces to our existing denser neighborhoods.

Read  “Right Way to Rezone” WSJ review of Key to the City book by Sara Bronin HERE
​
Foreseeable Problems with the proposed 6 story up-zoning:

• There are serious environmental, infrastructure, and likely increased housing cost problems with the radical proposed citywide up-zoning that likely will see increased demolitions of existing historical sustainable homes to enable large box-like luxury housing that will have far higher price tags than current housing.
• in Ottawa, Canada, 85% of new condos were purchased by investors, who will financially benefit from the increased rental prices in them: HERE
• in Arlington, VA a Judge recently struck down the city’s MMH Plan on which Cambridge’s proposed plan is based and further enhances: A key issue in the suit is that this plan “…would overwhelm or even destroy their neighborhoods, clogging up their streets and storm drains and removing tree canopy.”  Washington Post 9.27.24

Are there ways this current up-zoning plan might be tweaked? Yes. Are there things that we might do instead? Yes. 
​Here are some possibilities:

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.