Cambridge resident and Urban Planner, Christopher Zegras has written an important letter to the Cambridge Planning Board about 9 serious problems in the new city up-zoning after their recent meeting.

These problems, he writes, include: 

1. Confounding multi-family with up to 6-stories, as of right. Why 6? Why not 12? Or 4?
2. “As of right,” out of context, will destroy already dense neighborhoods. 
3. Focus should be where infrastructure is available, such as the dense travel corridors, with mass transit (e.g., Mass Ave) and the empty and/or underutilized lands.
4. No parking requirements is absurd and planning as wishful thinking.
5. City should do detailed microsimulation modeling (based on sound microeconomic theory) to predict where supply will arise and what the implications will be, in multiple dimensions. The slide titled "What does this change do?" is not based on any clear analysis.
6. Many of the laudable objectives presented (e.g., bringing existing housing into code, etc.), can be done without this complete de-zoning of the city. 
7. What's the point of the review if there is no "risk"? 
8. The collection of "smaller residential projects", in aggregate, can have impacts just as large (if not larger) than a single large project.... 
9. Overall, it's very surprising that our city proposes basically throwing planning out the window: Eliminate any constraints and let the market decide!

Zegras also observes the following in this same letter:

Specifically, the city must do a lot more work before approving such drastic and unprecedented changes to our city’s development possibilities and trajectory.  Understandably, and obviously, affordable housing is a major concern in Cambridge (and greater Boston, and the state, and the nation, …). Cambridge can and should do it’s part, ideally in a coordinated fashion with the rest of Greater Boston (e.g., Brookline, Somerville, Milton, Belmont, etc.). That said, I also recognize the challenges (given our regional governance, or lack thereof) to such regional housing coordination. 
  
In the meantime, and at bare minimum, the city must start with a clear articulation of what it hopes to achieve by changing our zoning. As far as I can tell we have (or should have), at least, three basic “performance categories”: economic (employment, housing, commercial, office, etc.); infrastructure and services (roads, mobility, sanitation, electricity, education, etc.); environment (emissions, greenspaces, etc.). And, there is a clear distributional dimension within and across all of these (i.e., who “wins”, who “loses”). 
  
Any change in zoning should be articulated in direct reference to these multi-dimensional performance dimensions (or other ones that we, the city, choose). And, then, any proposals that are made should clearly and rigorously be assessed in terms of their predicted impacts on them (e.g., housing prices, parking demand, school slots, roadway congestion, transit ridership, vehicle emissions, retail profits, etc.). 
  
We have seen, from the Planning Board (at least last Tuesday), only one proposal: laissez faire (“as of right”). It’s an interesting proposal, but compared to what?  We deserve at least three scenarios, e.g.,: 

1. Do nothing (i.e., business as usual).
2. Laissez faire (basically, current proposal for 6 stories, ‘as of right’).
3. Corridor (e.g., Mass Ave) and or transit station-area densification.

These (and/or others) should then be evaluated through the same process/methods, and with the same evaluation rubric. In other words, come up with a reasonable evaluation framework (monetization of all benefits and costs; multicriteria analysis; whatever) and implement a transparent analytical approach (e.g., an integrated microsimulation model with a visualization component) so that we can all see what will likely happen over, say, the next 20 years under each scenario. That would be the basis for well-informed deliberation, publicly, among the alternatives so that we can make well-informed choices about the desired future of our city and how we might get there. 

Absent such an approach, it’s impossible for this resident of Cambridge to accept the proposal being made; at least based on what was presented at the PB meeting, which did not show any anticipated impacts in any relevant dimension of concern (not even, say, estimated impact on housing prices vis-à-vis business as usual, which is, presumably the main justification for the proposal). 
  
The above basic suggestion is ‘Planning 101’. Cambridge is a sophisticated city, with significant resources (financial, intellectual, social, etc.), it can and must do better.  These are important lessons that the City Council and the City itself should follow.
               *published with author's permission

Lessons from NINE (9) Urban Areas: the Importance of Using Data  “9 Lessons” is also the subject of an important article by Garima Jain & Jessica Espey in the journal Urban Sustainability (2002: 2, 7) titled “Lessons from nine urban areas using data to drive local sustainable development.” HERE
 
Among other things that they observe is the fact that “local-level indicators must be included in any future development framework, because local governments are the primary point of institutional contact for the majority of individuals.” The quote is from A Million Voices: The World We Want. UNDG Millennium Development Goals Task Force 1–172 (2013).
 
The authors of the report “…hypothesize that a data-based approach to the governance of local sustainable development, which aims to improve the quality and utility of local data on sustainable development outcomes and harness the opportunities afforded by the data revolution, offers a promise of more targeted, impactful action towards local sustainable development outcomes.” They note in turn that “…local governments continue to face several issues in taking advantage of this data revolution. Across both developing and developed countries, local governments lack the requisite financial resources to generate locally relevant data, build statistical systems, and foster capacity and skills. *see sources below.
.  
Jain and Espey note in this article that “Without necessary investments in local data systems, local governments will struggle to monitor progress on urban SDG targets and broader local sustainable development objectives.”
 
Cambridge has been a key beneficiary of the drive to create critical data and make these data available. We are fortunate here to have this data available to us on line in a readily accessible way. We also now have new technologies – AI, ChatGPT and others – that enable us to mine and analyze this data. 
Sources:
Espey, J., Mesa, N., Ruckstuhl, S. & Prakash, M. One NYC and the SDGs: A City Strategy with Global Relevance. in Smarter New York City (ed. D’Almeida, A.). 35–58 (Columbia University Press, 2018).
 
Simon, D. et al. Developing and testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indicators – a five-city study. Environ. Urban. 28, 49–63 (2015).

Conclusions:

As Prof. Chris Zegras notes (his point 9): “…it's very surprising that our city proposes basically throwing planning out the window: Eliminate any constraints and let the market decide!” Following in the lines of Professors Garmina Jain and Jessica Espey, in Cambridge we have the data to do both smart and thoughtful planning as well as up-zoning the right way. Present and future residents deserve this from us. 

Linked below is the slide deck on the proposed Cambridge up-zoning proposal presented at the Porter Square Neighborhood Association. 

One resident, writes to the PSNA listserve about the data presented here:

​Great slide presentation (see attached) providing comprehensive background material to serve as context for discussion of the proposed upzoning ordinance.  Wish I had been there to hear presentation!  To give an example of what I learned just glancing through the slides, apparently almost 2/3 of my fellow condo dwellers in Cambridge (62%) actually rent their units.  Since moving to my current home in 2019, I wondered why my building was so transient?  Now I know why! 
 
A 2nd example of what I learned reviewing these slides: there are roughly 72,000 people working in the Cambridge biotech sector -- just imagine the impacts that this workforce exerts on the local housing market!  In 1998, I published a paper (based on my dissertation) speculating as to what would happen to biotechnology as a potential replacement industry in the Boston area for high tech sectors active in the 1980s (i.e., minicomputers during the 'Mass. Miracle').  In the mid-nineties, as I recall, there were about 10,000 workers in the regional biotech industry.  What a difference a quarter century has made!  
 
In addition, Suzanne Blier has also recently produced an excellent blog that speculates (comprehensively) on the potential impacts that the incoming Trump administration could conceivably exert on local initiatives in cities like Cambridge.  It is also highly relevant viewing for community activists worried about what 2025 may bring our way!

The current Cambridge Upzoning proposal, brought to us by the pro-developer group on Council and working for the City is primarily focused on two things: 1. adding much more housing (regardless of type or likely impacts) and 2. increasing city density above current high density levels. We are currently listed as top 5-7% of the most dense cities in the country with a population over 100,000. What the proposed up-zoning plan will NOT do as written is to bring down the cost of housing here (a key interest of most Cambridge residents). Other cities have created plans that target the types of housing they want to see built, and often that includes factors that could reduce housing cost increases that we are now seeing on a near global scale. Let's look at the Cambridge housing data more closely using ChatGPT to help us address these questions using the Cambridge Property Database. ​                      

Many cities feature particular areas of the urban landmass to focus greater height and density, specifically in those areas that are not currently being developed. Cambridge might do that as well, by offering a premium (greater height and FAR/density allowances) to  currently vacant properties.  Currently we have a range of vacant lots identified as follows: Residential Development Land (130 lots); Commercial Development Land (390 lots); Industrial Development Land (440). A number of these would be great targets of opportunity. The key advantage of these sites is that they would not require the demolition of existing homes and the evictions or lease terminations of existing residents to achieve new housing goals. While these sites are more heavily in our former factory-linked areas of the city, there are enough of them around Cambridge to ensure that these opportunities would be balance.  The below maps are color coded to show the most valuable properties in a darker blue. ​

What also is evident here is the far greater interest in Single Family Housing (SFH) over Two Family Homes (TFH) and Three Family Homes (3FH), as well as the higher price point for each. 

Single Family Homes on larger lots carry an especially high value, which makes them less likely to result in demolitions to build far taller,  multi-family homes. ​

Larger 1 and 2 family homes across the city now are largely all of high points. ​

Let's turn specifically to our Condominium stock and how prices are impacted in it. The city database provides us with key information on ownership.   As of Fiscal Year 2022, Cambridge, MA, had a total of 14,573 condominium units.  Of these, 5,542 units received the residential exemption, while 9,031 did not. This means approximately 38% of condos benefited from the exemption, and 62% did not.

The residential exemption is available to homeowners who occupy their property as their primary residence. In Fiscal Year 2025, the exemption amount is $499,263, resulting in tax savings of $3,170 for eligible residents.

In the top-row maps below. The blue dots represent the owner occupied condos. The red dots represent the non-owner occupied units. The latter are investment properties and  are likely rented out to Cambridge residents at higher costs because the investor also is seeking to benefit monetarily from these. ​

In Cambridge and across the country the COVID epidemic left a huge impact not only on individual lives and the economy, but also on the housing situation. With supply chain stoppages, and with a lack of builders almost every city in the country was impacted- including Cambridge. How do we compare to other cities?  Very well! 
​

The data below on residents and housing is from analysis of the current most advanced AI (ChatGPT) using census and other city data around issues of housing. I am happy to share the detailed analysis math with you.
 
Average Ages of City Residents

• c.42-46 years old is the Average Age (and 40-46 years old is the Median age) of Cambridge residents once we remove college students, graduate students, post docs, and interns. This is considerably higher than the 30.6 average age number that Is now being used for the average age of regular residents here. The reason this latter number is problematic to use is not only because it includes our large, short term student populations (many of whom are here for 1-4 years only, but also because it is often used in an agist and disparaging manner to negate the views of older residents who attend meetings.

 People on Cambridge Lists for Public Housing

• c.3400 is the number of  unique Cambridge residents, workers, affiliates on our list for public housing. This is a manageable number to provide for. The number often cited by the city and public housing advocates of 21,000 individuals on the housing list misrepresents the number because we do not require people to reapply each year and many have already found homes or have left the area. And most e are on multiple lists (in Cambridge and elsewhere) simultaneously.

City Homeowner numbers

• c.40-45% is the home ownership rate in Cambridge, and approximately 55-60% of the housing units are owner occupied. The large majority of these are condo owners. The remaining housing is rental units.
• c. 208 and 550 Cambridge homes are likely owned by students, doctoral students, and interns: This represents c.1.0% to 2.5% of the total owner-occupied homes
• 2-3 years is the average length of time that students, grad students, and interns in Cambridge own their homes with some variation depending on individual circumstances.
• 520 to 1,300 homes in Cambridge may be vacant for more than 9 months each year.
• 200-825 homes is the number of vacant city homes  (or 10%-30%) likely due to speculation.

 
City Renters/Rental Units

• c.31,200 to 38,500 is the number of rental units in Cambridge. A large # of these units are occupied by students, postdocs, and interns.
• c.16,900 to 23,600 rental units are occupied by the student/post doc groups.
• c.7,600 to 14,000 rental units, are likely occupied by long-term residents, which include families, professionals, and non-student adults.
• c.54% to 63% of our rental units are occupied by student affiliated renters.
• c.37% to 46% of our rental units are occupied by long-term residents.
• 1.2 years. Average rental stay of students, postdocs, and interns, depending on their specific academic or professional circumstances. Note: Every time a rental property turns over (lease is changed) it is likely that the rental rates will rise.
• 7-10 years. Average rental stay of long-term residents,
• Conclusions: What we really need are rental units in Cambridge (and this is precisely what Vancouver and some other cities are adding, rather than fueling the investor market with more luxury condos. San Francisco and other cities with large university students have more effectively advocated for increased housing by local universities and bio-tech and info-tech industries.
• We need to step back and look at likely impacts of the election on soft money staffing and housing needs of area universities and hospitals. Doing a massive upzoning that will only fuel more land speculation will likely do serious harm.

 
  Possible Evictions due to upzoning  (if the 6 story properties in residential properties citywide is Ordained.

• 1,000-2,000 demolished residential properties are expected over the first decade of redevelopment.
• 2,000-6,000 displaced tenants. Assuming each building is occupied by an average of 2-3 tenants per unit, this could result in 2,000-6,000 tenants being displaced in the early stages of redevelopment.

 
Housing Needs and Election Outcomes. In the aftermath of the recent election, I did an analysis of likely impacts of this event on Cambridge Housing Needs, and found that in all likelihood, the demand for new housing (outside investor interests) will likely decline substantially.  I take into account the likely impacts on local universities, hospitals, biotech, and other fields. Read HERE 
 
Since housing needs are likely to significantly decline, I urge you hold off on a massive upzoning until we know the fuller election impacts. I know that universities are already meeting on the impacts of the election on related numbers and programs internally. I also strongly urge you to read my analysis what specifically other progressive cities have done re-upzoning. It is NOT what some on council and elsewhere have said: Read: Zoning Lessons From other Cities: Will We Heed Them?.
The current upzoning proposal is way off base as far as these far more detailed other proposals are concerned.  
 
Read other housing linked blog posts (https://www.suzanneprestonblier.com/civic-blogs

In the above composite of photographic image,  we see not only both historic and contemporary images of tall towers dedicated to wealth and achievement, but also societal implications. The 12th-13th century Bologna Italy tall towers were key monuments to the status and safety of the wealthy. Originally there were many more tall towers here, but most have been taken down. In NYC and elsewhere we have increasing numbers of tall high-status linked towers, for offices and wealthy residences, that have done nothing to bring down housing prices, instead have led to even higher prices.
 
In NYC, as in Cambridge there is a push to supersede current zoning laws and preservation efforts, despite the fact that studies have shown in both cities that preservation districts have less high increases in property value and housing costs. On the near right is a photograph from the Farm Security Administration by Arthur Rothstein of life for the recently unemployed and unhoused in the Great Depression (framed by some to the realities of “last hired, first fired” and on the right one of our city’s increasing numbers of unhoused (photo by Geo Desplagnes).
 
Today Cambridge residents are experiencing the new reality that  all local nonessential water use is banned due to an ongoing drought. City staff have admitted is that some areas of the city likely will face a lack of water on occasions.  Like local global warming impacts, the recent presidential, Senate and House election results will have serious impacts too. It is important that the city begin to do serious planning for best possible out-comes in the turmoil ahead. The city should convene an emergency task force, bringing together core decision makers and experts.
 
There likely will be significant health, employment, financial, environment, and societal impacts that Cambridge and the area will face.  These are just some of the areas where  serious impacts loom. And, as part of any decision-making on the proposed radical citywide up-zoning is made, key outcome scenarios must be addressed.
 
A recent study (9.17.2024)  of Cambridge and Massachusetts out-migration (HERE) notes that “Massachusetts had a lower outmigration rate (2.4 percent) for households with incomes above $200,000 than 38 other states did, including all but two (Texas and South Dakota) of the seven states that have no income tax….Looking only at high-income households (those with incomes above $200,000), the replacement rate is 78 percent. In other words, for every five high-income households that depart, four other high-income households find reasons to move to Massachusetts."
 
The November 2004 elections will have a major impact on the local economy, on residents, and on our core housing needs. Below are some of the possible consequences that we should reflect on before Council votes on a citywide up-zoning that likely will result in the demolition of our existing more affordable housing, the forcing of current lower- and middle-income residents from our city, and the replacement of these residents with far wealthier residents and more investment properties.
 
Here is a summary of possible election and other outcomes:
 
Health/Tech Industries and Employment: Both Trump and his close ally, Robert F. Kennedy Jr ran on an anti-vaccine agenda and a push to end ACA/Obamacare with no alternative in place, and a greatly diminished FDA (through which many of our drugs are tested and brought to the market). A key part of our local Cambridge and area economy is based on biotech and medical-linked industries: the creation of new drugs (biotech, pharma), and large teaching hospitals that draw clients and staff from across the region.

• How much will our local resident and employee numbers decline once these core industries are reduced?
• These industries all heavily supported by individual local, area, national and international health needs, but without something like ACA to help support individual medical expenses, likely acquisition of needed medicines and current health services will decline.
• If threatened arrests and removal of members of key minority groups (Haitians, Africans, Latin Americans, and others) are forthcoming this will greatly diminish the numbers of these care workers, and the family incomes of those they reside with.
• Much of the staffing in our local hospitals and home health care has come from local immigrant populations.
• Much of the research funding in both our universities and medical institutions is “soft money” (based on grants), and with cutbacks to NSF, NIH, and others, employment will fall.
• Much of our medical and other scientific instruments, medical supplies, and pharmaceutical components are imported and tariffs will make it more expensive and difficult to maintain the international leadership role we have had.
• All of this will impact the finances of other participants in the health industry.
• This also has implications for Cambridge and area housing.
• Will local high-end housing be as desirable to the very wealthy new biotech employees?
• Will biotech companies still choose to remain here?
• Will our hospitals remain as large with a smaller client base and staff.
• What will the Cambridge housing situation look like in the next 3-4 years with fewer local area employees?
• With the likely cutbacks of ACA and Medicare, the neediest members of our residential base, will likely be even more in need, and city finances will have to be repositioned to help them.
• AI is becoming an important new component of Cambridge tech economy, though some groups, such as Thermo Fisher, are opening elsewhere (Buffalo, NY), laying off 2.5% of their Cambridge employees.
• One key feature of the Tech and life sciences sector is how energy intensive they are, AI among these. Buffalo has the advantage of Niagara Falls (a key electricity resource).
• How will ongoing problems in acquiring needed electricity impact not only commercial AI work, but also related university work (MIT, Harvard and others). Will we see more of this work moving elsewhere to other settings and universities with staff losses, and a reduction in local housing needs?
• How do these commercial electrical grid requirements for AI and other work compare and compete with  current Cambridge environmental policies (BEUDO and others)? How much more will local residents, many with fewer resources, be able to bear these costs?

 
Internationally Focused Impacts (military, visitors, tariffs, investments).  The nation’s new inward-focused turn, away from international engagement and related military and financial endeavors carries considerable potential implications for Cambridge and the Boston area. Cambridge benefits significantly from national and international tourism. Changes to the economy more broadly and our relationships with other nation states will likely be impacted.

• With anticipated move against immigrants, there will be many fewer workers in universities, hospitals, and businesses, as well as far less and more expensive in homecare. This may also mean a decreased number of people living here which will likely decrease needs for new housing and open up current homes for other residents.
• With the proposed push against immigrants (documented and undocumented) and their families, will farm produce die on the vine, will once thriving farms no longer be planted? This will lead to increased food costs and increased poverty and hunger.
• Tourism is a key part of the local Cambridge economy, impacting local businesses, hotels, with possibly fewer international visitors if the U.S. seeks to realign away from Europe and NATO and more with the axis of autocrats: Russia, North Korea, Eastern Europe, and Turkey. The biggest impact will be on local hotels and local businesses, transport, supplies, and related tax losses.
• Increasing tariffs of select country imports, will greatly impact the availability and cost of building and other supplies for our local commercial industry and universities, as well as significantly increase the costs to local residents in terms of costs of food, clothing, and regular household needs. For residents this will make it even less possible for them to pay high rental costs, and likely will force out more of our lower- and middle-income residents, cutting down on housing needs, and increasing the loss of minority and other lower-middle income residents as well as seniors and others on a fixed income. This will reduce the need for new housing and will increase the need for substantially subsidized public housing (and other support) in the city.
• A number of these military-tech employees live in Cambridge and other nearby communities. Will military investment (armaments & technology) decline as the U.S. turns inward (away from international engagement)? This is a significant part of our broader Boston area tax base.
• As we move against international participation in various contestations, a reduction in military spending in Boston and Worcester area will likely mean a loss of research money, as well as primary area jobs, and secondary supply and transportation networks.
• MIT and Harvard are also highly dependent on military-linked funding for key university programs. The loss of research and support funding will likely be met with loss of some employment and students.
• International investment in Cambridge property may continue at current paces, particularly as more potentially destabilizing crypto currencies compete with the U.S. dollar for international primacy. Conceivably these investment properties (as now) will remain empty, since land values likely will remain higher than the values of new and older buildings constructed on them.

 
Area University Impacts

• Harvard’s donations are down 14% - a $151 million decline - one of the largest declines in the last decade. This in part reflects issues centered in the Middle East (Donor backlash on both sides of the issue).
• Republican House attacks on Harvard, MIT, area universities and universities more generally, are impactful, and will likely lead to even more financial decreases, particularly if, as threatened the House goes after Harvard endowments.
• As Harvard Endowments decline, there will be considerable belt tightening. In the past, Harvard has often shared endowment funding  to benefit academic university functions such as support for teaching and students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and other Sectors. What impacts with the new more consequential belt-tightening do now?
• This large decrease in donations will likely cut down programs and staff and graduate programs which will lead to fewer staff and graduate students in need of housing.
• If Congress choses to tax Harvard’s endowments, some $53.2 billion, there are two plans in play: One would assess $100 million annually based on endowment value per student. Another proposed plan is for an excise tax of  $2 billion annually based on 2022 endowment values, with Harvard paying the most, $1.2 billion.
•  In play now is a College Endowment tax in the Endowment Accountability Act that would raise the excise tax on endowment net investment income from 1.4 percent to 35 percent for private colleges and universities.
• Harvard pushed to cut the 35% tax (at $50 million annually in 2022). Other area universities also face these taxes. What will happen going forward? All these assessments, and endowment cuts will likely lead to program, staff, and student support cuts.
• City Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler has called for Harvard to increase payment to the city of Cambridge from $4.3 million in lieu of property taxes to $96 million. This $92 million in losses, likely would lead to still further cutbacks in staff and programs, bringing down the need for increased housing to address student, staff and other needs.
• At MIT, plausible loss of soft money (research funds from NSF, NIH, military other) and a cutback in biotech/medical tech industry here, key components of which are renting commercial properties from MIT, will likely lead to declining resources, and cutbacks to programing staff and students.
• These increased costs will lead to decreases in Cambridge and area housing needs, as well as decreasing financial taxable revenue for local businesses.
• Increased tariffs on supplies will also impact area university costs across the board
• The move against immigrants will impact university staffing, likely leading to greater staffing costs, and further program cutbacks.
• Larger impacts: with likely sizable decreases in staff, graduate students, housing will decrease.

Other Impacts: Financial, Environmental, and Social

• As inflation rises with international tariffs, inflation is likely to increase, decreasing the number of new home-starts due to increased costs and lack of supplies. As costs increase, more local workers may leave the area.
• With the likely increased legal and legislative pushback against unions, workers in the building trades, and others will have decreased financial well being, and their ability to purchase homes in the area may decrease.
• Out-movement of lower and middle-income residents that has already been in play in Massachusetts will likely continue, as residents look for less expensive settings elsewhere. Their homes will now be available to others.
• City employers will likely seek to address the lack of local workers in part through more remote work where possible. This will lower needed salary costs but will also decrease the need for Cambridge-specific housing (and the clogging of local and area streets), creating a situation closer to COVID conditions.
• With cutbacks to NEA, NEH and other funding, and fewer local, national and area visitors, and increasing costs for supplies due to tariffs and inflation, local area museums likely will need to cut back on exhibitions and staff.
• With fewer visitors, and fewer university staff, students, and bio-tech/info-tech and other employees, there likely will be a slowdown in the entertainment industry (hotels, restaurants, museums, and their staff and supplies), a sector that still has not recovered from the pandemic, and will be even worse off with inflation and the cutbacks to university programs and staff.
• Cambridge infrastructure costs and problems are likely to increase, not only with fewer and more expensive supplies (the tariff issue), but also decreasing state funding for city and area public transportation.
• Tall towers and the loss of green spaces and trees that are part of the proposed up-zoning will add to heat island impacts, impacting health and additional needed for air conditioning. Demolitions will lead to: the filling of dump sites,  environmentally costly demolishing of trees elsewhere, energy use to create new replacement materials, and transportation costs.  
• Environmental impacts of global warming will continue to be felt, but we will have fewer means to address them Public transport and needed infrastructure changes will be more expensive with inflation combined with decreasing and more expensive supplies. With the likely ending of Biden’s pro-environmental Inflation Reduction Act, needed supplies and benefits will decrease.
•  When there are greatly increased local needs due to increased massive storms, drought, fires, or rising water levels, there will likely be less federal support. Not only will key federal agencies see cuts, but federal emergency assistance programs will also see cuts. Political factors (targeting Blue States) may be an additional problem. With increased costs to basic supplies for upgrading our infrastructure – water, electrical and other, due to both tariffs and inflation, we will be less able as a city to prepare for respond to local climate-based problems. Local residents will increasingly face such costs on their own.  
• Cambridge is already facing sizable tax loses by the 30% empty offices and we are increasingly paying more in financial costs to pay our massive debt. In the near future, we will see a need for reducing or cutting city staff and programs. This will mean that housing needs will decrease.
• If the U.S. government choses to continue or even extend tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, this will put serious strain on the national debt, which many feel is currently at unsustainable levels.
• The increasing national debt likely will result in further U.S. government cuts to social programs benefiting middle income residents, the near poor, and the very poor. Many of these individuals and family will be living in Cambridge in our AHO, Section 8 and other housing. Added financial support for these residents, with likely decreased amounts of available city funding, will be a serious challenge.
• Cambridge and the area likely will face the challenge of even more unhoused (we should remind ourselves of scenes during the Great Depression of the 1930s). This will take even more funding to address in an already more difficult financial situation for the city.

In summary, the city and area likely will be facing sizable turbulence in the years ahead as a result of changing national political dynamics. While some may benefit, many of the forces that have led to the current Cambridge vitality (including our universities and tech industries) will likely be greatly compromised. Not only will many current residents (and city workers) likely move elsewhere with employment opportunities (reducing critical housing need), but Cambridge will be facing sizable increased financial difficulty alongside a local population in greater financial need both for public financed housing and other resources.
 
As other city studies have noted, upzoning tends to result in the removal of minority residents and their replacement by wealthier white residents. The proposed upzoning will only exacerbate that problem. It is very likely that the proposed up-zoning will not only increase disparities between wealthy and poor, but also force out more of our minority groups. Outside investors and developers rarely place social need and accountability above financial gain, so there will be few if any who will seek to create housing with 10+ units. Most will build at most 9 units (and more likely fewer at shorter heights) which will enable them to benefit financially far more. This will add far more expensive luxury housing to our local housing corpus, including in the few places of the city that are large enough for them, tall Trump tower structures, as a badge of the very wealthy and their investor interests.

​We know well the image of the hat-wearing cat  in Dr. Seuss's classic children's books, the Cat in the Hat, and the Cat in the Hat Comes Back. The illustrations and text speak to breaking normative rules, making a mess, creating chaos, and  challenging the established order laid out by the “authorities” (the parents). At a recent Cambridge City Council meeting addressing the proposed citywide up-zoning (see above photo), Iram Farooq,  Director of Cambridge's Community Development Department, addressed councillors and residents alike in a Cat in the Hat Halloween costume. Whether the costume was disrespectful in this context, others will have to decide. However this also conforms with a 2024 linked-in ad by our city's lead zoning expert and department chair, Jeff Roberts seeking someone to "join the merry band of mischief-makers known as the Cambridge Zoning & Development Division." He added that if this sounds like "fun" individuals should apply. However, zoning language and its impacts are not intended to be either funny or fun.

Major up-zoning changes are serious business with both intended and unintended consequences,  including  sometimes irrevocable changes (in the case of demolitions or losses that cause environmental harm. Like Halloween (one time Devil's Night) zoning can have positive impacts (residents facing factory toxins) and negative impacts. In the 1950s new urban renewal policies led to the razing of lower income neighborhoods and tenants would have been forced out to make way for larger  highways or new very tall residential towers.

In some ways the Cat and the Hat context also is apt to the proposed citywide up-zoning that breaks with long established local and city wide residential zoning laws. To the key question of financial impacts of the upzoning to lowering our housing costs, she insisted that there was no way to know the outcomes. This is in some ways true since the current proposal is entirely dependent on market forces and the large numbers of outside investors seeking to profit on Cambridge's highly expensive and greatly in-demand housing stock.  As to infrastructure impacts on the proposal, other city staff noted  that available water might be in short supply in some areas depending on the location and proposed development, but increased vehicular traffic could be handled on existing streets 

All of this brings pause, pushing us to seek possible answers (and potential solutions) in what other progressive cities are doing. See also our recent blogpost, Zoning Lessons From Other Cities: Will We Heed Them? Evidence from other cities's upzoning proposals are great models, and should be required reading for Cambridge staff and elected officials before any plan is finalized and any vote takes place. The 2023 Urban Institute land use study reveals that in a study of 1,136 cities where zoning was loosened (allowing more multi-family housing in once single-family areas), rent increases, decreased (to 0.8%). Significantly, this same report observes that “outcomes vary by market segment” and that up-zoning also can“…reduce affordable housing in neighborhoods….” [emphasis added]. While the Urban Institute study authors of this study maintain that “the economic principles of supply and demand …should reduce scarcity and increase competition among sellers” (lowering housing purchase and rental costs), this has not happened in other high demand cities such as Vancouver, but indeed has pushed costs even higher. Urban Planner, Patrick Condon explains this in light of key differences in how urban land value (and investments) function versus  other commodities in addressing the Vancouver housing cost issue in a local business journal – the BIV (May 2023) among other important writings.  

As noted in an October 2024 publication ULI (read HERE) analysis by Boston/Cambridge  based authors, Scott Pollack and Susan Connelly, up-zoning in “densely built-out neighborhoods” such as those in Cambridge, does NOT see an increase in supply. They cite the lack of potential profit from in-fill housing projects, so for investors and home owners alike this does not make financial sense. According to this same ULI study

• The price of homes is so high right now that adding units to existing properties creates little-to-no additional residual value.
• Low financial viability made requiring affordability in the projects difficult and/or impossible;
• Yet the upzoning appears to have only impacted development on about 6% of the land deregulated, creating only slightly more development when compared to lots where the zoning was left alone.
• Far better results occurred in contexts where underutilized areas were addressed, as in the Assembly Square area, of Somerville. Indeed, they note that “[z]oning reform has proven highly successful in underutilized areas or those zoned for outdated uses.”
• “Existing, dense neighborhoods with small lots provide limited opportunities to create viable, larger parcels and projects that can cover today’s expensive construction market.” 

In short, the current proposal to radically up-zone our residential neighborhoods will not lead to much if any new housing, and may have undesirable impacts, by not only making housing here more expensive, but also dramatically changing current city demographics. We need smart, thoughtful policies not "cat-in-the-hat" chaos that are unlikely to achieve the impacts one wants, and will likely do great harm. 

A November 2024 study of Housing and Racial Demographics Analysis in New York focused on up-zoning outcomes in city neighborhoods based on 2010-2022 census data found that those areas with high levels of new housing construction (many due to up-zonings)  “overwhelmingly saw a rise in the White share of their population, and drops in the Black and Hispanic shares” (emphasis added).  Moreover, “in neighborhoods with lower-to-moderate levels of new housing development the White share decreased, and the Hispanic share increased, while the Black share either increased or decreased more slowly than it did in the high-growth areas or citywide.” As this study points out, many of the latter neighborhoods “…have landmark or zoning protections that moderate and carefully control the scale and extent of new development.”

Similar outcomes can be seen in Cambridge whereas we have shown in the past, Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD) see housing costs rising less rapidly than in those parts of the city without NCDs.

The proposed Cambridge proposed plan likely will increase housing costs (and property values) – making it harder to create affordable housing, and more difficult to bring down home ownership and rental costs. As the authors of three studies cited here make clear, free market policies do not always make housing cheaper, can often also have the reverse impact. Indeed

• In Cambridge, MA the highest rents and salaries are now in East Cambridge.
• East Cambridge also has the highest number and density of new homes built.
• Many East Cambridge units likely were purchased by investors who do not live here.
• In the province of Ottawa, Canada, 85% of newly built condos have gone to investors.  Read more HERE

 None of the upzoning studies addressed here speak to the negative environmental impacts that such up-zoning will have on neighborhoods with the attendant loss of private property green spaces and trees, however related heat island impacts will also be felt.
​
CONCLUSIONS:
The current Cambridge citywide up-zoning proposal likely will have notably diverse and unpredictable outcomes in some parts of the city it may add even more high density housing (particularly our once lower income neighborhoods). In other cases it likely will lead to a decrease in the number of homes, as investors simply buy up more one, two, and three family homes to create much larger (far more expensive) single family housing and luxury condos, enhancing gentrification and demographic disparities and shifts even further. Our current plan  ill likely increase racial disparities, forcing more Black and Hispanic residents out, to be replaced by a whiter, wealthier population. Our earlier blog post Los Angeles decided to maintain 72% of its neighborhoods as single family only because the city could not “handle all that growth.” Read more HERE and  HERE 

The city's up-zoning proposal as intended, will also make it more difficult to control outcomes as it shifts the city voluntary boards or agencies toward less control, and our neighborhoods to more disruption, and potential free fall: In key ways this proposal seeks to counter thoughtful planning, replacing long standing policy to drivers based  solely on the market differing significantly from other progressive cities such as Austin, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vancouver – as well as Somerville and Boston. These other centers have initiated strategic upzoning plans that are structured around a set of givens (and specific intended outcomes and results). Cambridge’s up-zoning plan as currently written is driven almost entirely by investor and developer interests and what appears to be a simultaneously neo-Liberal and Libertarian framework. This is not the kind of thoughtful housing plan that current and future residents deserve.

While The Cat in the Hat may be a clever children’s story of chaos, disorder, and bedlam as rules are being thrown out (providing here some necessary comic relief), city planning and zoning are serious business. Dr. Seuss's  famous hat-wearing cat was able to magically change  the children's messy and chaotic house  back to “normal” before the parents returned. That kind of magic wand reset is not possible in an historically house rich city such as Cambridge. Once  historic homes are destroyed, they are gone forever, and often their one-time residents are forced to move on as well.

​The term "bottom line" refers to many things, most generally in financial account contexts, balance sheet, and the horizontal line that delimits the difference between assembled numbers and their sums, but it also speaks to the most essential (or salient) points in a subject under discussion. Lines are essential in conveying design concepts and plans. Often the best way to understand the new Cambridge citywide up-zoning for market rate housing is to try to visualize these changes in an actual setting. This is what the above graphic shows, a specific property on Kirkland Street on a residential street in Mid-Cambridge and what a newly allowable structure might look like, plans that would not require city design oversight. The neighborhood impacts would be sizable, as would be the financial impacts, greatly increasing the the property values here and in the neighborhood, increasing tax rates significantly. 

​Cambridge Citywide Up-zoning Proposal Background: Much of the initial conversation on the up-zoning took place in the City Council Housing Committee, co-chaired by XX, this was done "before drafting language" (although key ideas were in place by then after discussions with developers and prior to any “community engagement.” For further discussion with residents of the city it will be up to neighborhood groups and others. Discussion is likely to continue into the new year and if this upzoning petition is not approved by Council by March it will not be enacted. There have been two proposed amendments (one to increase building heights on corridors and squares and another to include modifications based on current district differences. Neither appears to be in play.
 
What is being addressed in Cambridge? Is it housing that is more affordable? A changing city demographic?  and/or a different type of neighborhood form or housing typologies? A recent study released by Village Preservation analyzing 2010-2022 census data in NYC neighborhoods found that those with high levels of new housing construction — (many due to up-zonings)  “overwhelmingly saw a rise in the White share of their population, and drops in the Black and Hispanic shares.” In addition, the study found neighborhoods with the lower-to-moderate levels of new housing development saw the White share of their population decrease and the Hispanic share increase, while the Black share either increased or decreased more slowly than it did in the high-growth areas or citywide. Many of these neighborhoods have landmark or zoning protections that moderate and carefully control the scale and extent of new development. 
 
This is a move toward less control, more disruption, and potential free fall: In some ways this proposal seeks to counter planning, to promote a policy driven solely by the market and, unlike other progressive cities (such as Austin, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Vancouver – as well as Somerville and Boston.  These other centers instead have initiated strategic upzoning that are structured to achieve a set of givens (results), this one as currently written, is driven almost entirely by investor and developer interests within a distinctive neo-Liberal-Libertarian framework. This is not the kind of targeted plan that current and future residents deserve.
  
BOTTOM LINE ON THE CURRENT UP-ZONING PROPOSAL
*What Up-zoning Proposal Amendments Are Most Important
 
1.Design Review for all projects 4 stories and higher: Any upzoning plan must retain design review and oversight for any new structure or addition of 4 stories or more.
a.Architects and developers are long-familiar with design critique, know how effective this can be.
b.Good design does not cost any more than bad design.
c.This is the only way that professionals and neighbors get to offer critical insight on new buildings.
d.A recent Chicago study notes that “streamlining permitting” has had a “negligible effect on generating new supply” Allowing triplexes in formerly single-family lots “led to more housing over time because the per-unit construction and development costs are vastly lower than for a single-family home.”  See Nov-Dec 2024 Harvard Magazine 
e.Requiring design review and oversight  is the only way to maintain control over shoddy materials and design factors.
f.Unlike the AHO, where the city may decline to rehire a firm that does a poor job, this market rate upzoning proposal will have no oversight over developments on smaller properties and developments.
g.An 11/2024 article in Cambridge Day shows a 15 year old condo building that is already run down and in need of millions in city funding for key repairs.
 
2.Limit up-zoning rules and benefits only to projects involving more (new) housing specifically only those projects including three or more new units will be eligible for inclusion in this upzoning.
a.Conversion of two-family homes into single family homes (SFH) and smaller SFH into larger single-family homes is now widespread in Cambridge and other areas – the McMansion effect (the desire for even more space).
b.We are seeing this city wide, as well as in denser neighborhoods such as Riverside, North Cambridge, and Cambridgeport.
c.Using the upzoning to enable investors to create Iarger single family homes decreases the number of people that can live on a property (in the city), and it arbitrarily increases property values and taxes for their neighbors, it also increases the costs of housing city wide.
 
3.Limit neighborhood district heights to 3 stories (35’) (see below #c) and add extra 2 stories (to 55’) for projects with 20% inclusionary or 20% secured affordable rentals or 20% publicly funded home acquisitions that return to the city when owner leaves.
a.Require a minimum of 5’ from the sides, 10’ at the rear, and front setbacks complementary to those nearby. Allow corner properties to have a 10’ front setbacks.
b.Require that open space be permeable (green space). Variance is required to increase maximum height (Vancouver).
c.By limiting heights to 3 stories, this will encourage more inclusionary or secured affordable rentals,
 
4.Require a Public Benefit or Betterment Fee (System Development Fee) – funds by the investor or developer to go toward public good – for example a public transit system. In many places with upzoning the public is provided a means to benefit from such a large-scale giveaway (to capture part of the increased value).
a.Example: Provide a waiver for numbers of affordable units added (as done in Portland Oregon and Vancouver Canada).
b.See why in the March 2024 land policy study by Murry and Gordon HERE
 
5.Add a Preservation Waiver: Provide a waiver (in the Public Benefit Fee for projects that preserve, renovate and reuse historic “character building” rather than demolish buildings (or add an additional fee when a “character building” is demolished).
a.This is to conserve neighborhood character and to keep materials out of landfill (Vancouver, Canada and Austin, Tx)
b.Use current CHC historic valuation designations in evaluating such homes.
 
6.On major corridors add a minimum height requirement of six stories with added adjacent rear or side neighborhood step downs to complement nearby homes. This is the only means to address our current underutilization of property in commercial or mixed-use zones especially adjacent to major public transit lines (and is part of Minneapolis’ new up-zoning model)
 
7.Require Regular & Ongoing Reviews: two 3-year reviews and then regular 10 year reviews. This report must address, among other things, the following:
a.Number of new units created and by types/ sites etc.
b.What are the new housing costs? How has this impacted housing costs in the district and the city?
c.Who are the new owners or renters? (current or outside residents? income levels? demographic data?)
d.What are gentrification impacts.
e.Impacts: what happened to renters or others who lived in the structure up to 3 years prior.
f.Impacts: environmental and Infrastructure: trees removed, green space loss, changes re. electrical, water, schools, transit etc.
g.Impacts: number and types of demolitions.
h.Impacts: based on interviews with neighborhood groups and/or residents.

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 

•  is 6.8 square miles and is already one of the densest cities in the country for our size.
• is an old city (founded 1630 – the first planned city in North America) 
• includes a rich heritage of well-built, attractive, desirable, and sustainable homes.
• Cares deeply about retaining our diversity and supporting our lower- and middle-income residents.
• has only 3,772 single family homes (6.52% of our total housing stock of 57.894 units). Well below other cities.

Cambridge is far denser than Minneapolis, MN (with 35% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 59 square miles), Austin TX with 41% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 305 square miles and Chicago, Il with 79% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 234 square miles.

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

• to allow 3 different SF zones (SF-1, SF-2, SF-3)
• reduce the minimum size of single-family lots from 5,750 SF to 2,500 SF
• allow up to three units per single family lot,
• with a front yard setback requirement of 15’
• a maximum building coverage of 40%.
• dwelling units may include “tiny homes” (400 SF excluding loft space).
• a program to incentivize “saving existing homes that conserve neighborhood character and help keep materials out of landfills” with Preservation and Sustainability Bonuses
• For more information read HERE and HERE

 
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

• allows multifamily housing to be built city wide.
• In Chicago “streamlining permitting” had a “negligible effect on generating new supply”
• But allowing triplexes in formerly single-family lots “led to more housing over time because the per-unit construction and development costs are vastly lower than for a single-family home.”  

 
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

• To stay clear of 72% of residential land in the city (single family homes)
  • because city’s current zoning can’t handle all that growth.
  • Apartments are not allowed in 72% of LA neighborhoods,
  • This decision was made despite complaints of racist origins of SFH, concerns about city’s unaffordable rents, and the lack of family-size housing for young parents.  
• To build taller, denser buildings in neighborhoods that already allow for apartments
• Developers will have to keep some of those units affordable to low-income renters.
• City Council will make a decision in February.
• Read more HERE and  HERE

 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minneapolis is 58 square miles, with 7.96 people per square mile and generally ranked 46th in population density. Their plan

• Allow construction of accessory dwelling units
• A variance is required to increase maximum height for single- and two-family dwellings and three-family dwellings in the two residential districts.
• Encourages apartment development on commercial corridor by adding several new zoning districts.
  • Allows three-to-six-story buildings along most of the city’s transit routes
  •  “transit” districts allow 10-to-30-story buildings on lots adjacent to light rail stations and bus rapid transit.
• Lowers the minimum lot size requirements in non-residential zones
  • To prevent the underutilization of property, particularly in areas near substantial public transit investments.
  • Minimum height requirements would only apply in districts where the comprehensive plan guidance calls for developing at a minimum building height
  • These districts would also be subject to a minimum FAR requirement in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services that their locations provide.
  • To prevent circumventing the intent of the ordinance, the minimum height requirement shall apply to the majority of the building footprint.
  • Additions to existing buildings would not be subject to the minimum height requirement unless the addition would exceed the existing floor area by 100 percent or more.
• Read more: HERE and HERE

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:

• Acquires the necessary permits and adheres to specific building codes.
• SDC Fees are assessed (System Development Calculation) to help fund city infrastructure. These are based on the number and type of units and can be considerable (from $1000 to much more).
• Waivers are in place for those creating affordable housing with their ADUs. These waivers on affordable housing ADUs “…led to rise in the number of ADUs from 50 per year to 500 per year.”
• ADU’s (auxiliary dwelling units) must be no more than 75% of the primary structure’s living area (or 800 SF, whichever is smaller).​ Setbacks must be 5’ from the side and rear property line, and front setbacks match that of the primary dwelling, because “…these setbacks help maintain neighborhood aesthetics and privacy.”
•  For more information on Portland’s plan, see HERE and HERE.

San Francisco, California: San Francisco is 46.9 square miles, has a population density (per square mile) of 18,790.8, and often is ranked #2 in population density for large cities. Like Cambridge, it has a rich heritage of fine historic homes, a large university, and is a key center of biotech development. San Francisco has created

• a specific housing plan called the Residential Development Pipeline that “…
  • calculates a residential development pipeline of ~43,000 units
  • based on planned projects that are under formal review
  • have already received some degree of approval – such as a planning approval or a building permit.
  • Some units in very large master planned developments, both approved and proposed, could not be counted since they are anticipated to be built well after 2031.
• This plan calls for specific percentages of new housing types:
  • 25.4% Low Income 12,014
  • 14.6% Moderate Income 13,717 
  • 6.7% Above Moderate Income 35,471
  • 43.2% Total Units 82,069 100.0
• Non-site-specific development throughout the city, such as
  • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
  •  acquisition of residential buildings for permanent affordable housing and is expected to account for ~3,900 units.
• Underutilized and vacant sites throughout the city (that are either vacant or are not built out close to the full extent) are
  • expected to account for ~11,300 units.
• Read more  HERE and HERE

 
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:

• Shifting housing delivery to rental units to address the most pressing needs
• Building more family-friendly options to ensure a diverse range of housing types that meet current and future demands
• Following both a 3 year and 10 year plan.
• Creating and protecting “purpose-built rental housing”
• Housing options for lower density areas: provide more housing that falls between single-family homes and higher density apartments
• Multifamily - 3-6 units (up to 8 units for secured rental) depending on lot size. Up to 1.0 FAR
• Renovation and restoration of “existing character house” can include conversion to multiple units and/or addition of new building. Up to 0.85 FAR
• Duplex up to 0.85 FAR
• SFH (can have a  2ndary suite), added lane house. Up to 0.6 FAR
• Significantly increase the supply of social and supportive housing (community housing)
• Address speculation to ensure new and existing housing serves people who live and work in Vancouver.
• Read more HERE

 
International City Upzoning:  a March 2024 study by Murry and Gordon (and economist and political scientist) on land policy argues that

• “The public deserves a share in the value upzoning creates….”
• “Upzoning simply makes the inequality inherent in property ownership worse”  
• “Adding rights to property owners and giving nothing to non-owners.”
• “A lot of places don’t give air space,” he said. “They sell it.”
• Create a “betterment tax” to capture part of value created by public land use decisions.
• Sell air rights that the city wants to see redeveloped (Sao Paulo did this). These sold by auction with a percent going back to the city to pay for the infrastructure required to support the future density.
• Upzoning for public players - properties owned by public agencies, the benefits can be used for the sake of the public.
  • In Singapore, the state’s Housing and Development Board will buy and upzone land for public housing.
  • In the Netherlands, municipalities purchase rural land, develop it, upzone it and sell it to the private market.
  • In Hong Kong, the MTR transit operator benefits from upzoning by developing and managing its properties, allowing it to provide housing and reinvest profits back into public transportation.
• Charles Darwin visited Sydney in 1836 noting large numbers of new housing, and as a result “everyone complains of the high rents & difficulty in procuring a house.” He writes this in his diary before he looks to study animals.
• Read more HERE and HERE

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

• Different types of approaches
  • Simply allowing multiple family housing led to most new housing (slow but steady) citywide (Chicago)
  •  Three different single-family zones & allow up to 3 units per lot (Austin)
  • Maintain most SF areas without apartments (Los Angeles)
  • increase # of allowable building units (up to 3) on existing single-family properties if criteria are met (design, setbacks, etc) (Austin, Chicago, Portland)

2. Heights

• No city allowed as of right height increase in residential neighborhoods
• Require a variance to increase max heights of 1 and 3 family homes in residential districts (Minneapolis)
• Add a minimum height requirement for commercial and mixed use corridors near traffic hubs (Minneapolis)
• Allow 3-6 stories on major corridors (Minneapolis)
• Build taller, denser buildings in neighborhoods already allowing apartments (Los Angeles)
• Adding addition to existing building not subject to height requirement, unless exceeds existing floor area by 100% or more (Minneapolis)

3. Design Review/Oversight

• Required in all cases, except when permit process already in play (Minneapolis)
• Stream-lined permitting had negligible impact on housing starts (Chicago)

4. Setbacks

• Front setbacks consistent with neighbors (for neighborhood look); side and rear setbacks 5’ from property line (Portland)
• Buildings in residential districts limited to a maximum of 40% of lot (Austin)

5. Planning: Encourage specific house types

• Shift to rental properties only (as most pressing need)(Vancouver)
  • On corridors only (Minneapolis)
• Designated housing types: (25% low income, 15% Moderate income, 7% Above Moderate Income new homes -- all as part of planned projects with formal review with a focus on underutilized and vacant lots. (San Francisco).
• Increase supply of community housing (Vancouver)
• Residential properties acquired by city to keep it affordable (San Francisco, Boston)

6. Preservation

• In lower density areas encourage renovating existing “character” homes and focus on more family homes (Vancouver)
• Adding addition to existing building not subject to height requirement, unless exceeds existing floor area by 100% or more (Minneapolis)
• Incentivize saving existing homes and keeping them out of landfill with “Preservation and Sustainability Bonuses” (Austin)

7. Fees for Public Good

• SDC (System Development Calculation) fees based on # and type of unit (Portland)
• Provide fee wavers for affordable ADUs or rentals (Portland)
• Address speculation in housing (Vancouver)

8.International

• In Hong Kong, the Transit department develops and manages its properties for housing, with profits reinvested in public transportation.
• In Netherlands, gov purchases rural land, upzones it and sells it to private developers.
• In Japan, government provides lower cost housing for employees to occupy for set period, then they move on, and others come it. Employers also provide employee housing.

 

Does the free market make housing cheaper? Murry and Gordon, the authors are not sure of the above study are not convinced.

• In Cambridge the highest rents and salaries are now in East Cambridge.
• East Cambridge also has the highest number and density of new homes built.
• Many of the East Cambridge units likely purchased by investors who do not live here.
• In the province of Ottawa, Canada, 85% of newly built condos have gone to investors.
  • Read more HERE

Does Cambridge want simply more housing, or housing that is affordable to middle- and lower- income people that also maintains the livability and look of our historic neighborhoods and does not promote even more gentrification.

• This is what the city must  now decide.

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. ​

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. ​

​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. ​

​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.

In 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. ​

Each 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.

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. ​