 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.
0 Comments
 Cambridge Citywide Up-Zoning Simplified (Not Just for "Dummies!")
Proposed Citywide Up-zoning: This would allow multi-family housing citywide in every residential zoning district and uses one of our most dense zoning districts (C-1) citywide. This zoning is for market rate housing (or what the market will bear. This housing would be "as of right" without design review and oversight by one of our discretionary review and oversight boards. And would allow heights up to 6 stories in every residential district. Six stories here is defined as 75 feet in height (not 60 feet as is standard). Buildings are allowed to extend to the property line on the sides and rear, and a decreased front setback in some current districts. With properties of 10 units or more 20% inclusionary ("affordable") units are required. These would be without required parking. Glossary of Terms often used when discussing Housing policy TYPES OF HOUSING SFH Single Family Home TFH Two Family Home MFH Multi Family Housing ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit -- Usually a less than 1000 SF additional unit to permitted # of units. AHO Affordable Housing Overlay -- Occupancy is limited to those below a certain income threshold SRO Single Room Occupancy -- dorm room, hotel room, shelter room.. Triple–Decker 3 story building with stacked apartments TYPICAL ZONING REGULATIONS These are regulations, which along with use limitation, cities have employed to control the bulk and built character of areas of a city, so that for example, gas stations do not appear in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and factories emitting noxious fumes do not get built next to schools. Like building codes they are described as being designed for the health, safety and welfare of the community. They are laws, which are often not easy to change, and once enacted determine how much can be built, and where. If there are reductions in what was once permitted, then the city can be sued for “a taking”, or reducing the value of a property.
building design, often controlling building characteristics such as how long a façade can be without an change in plane, if upper floors need to be set back from lower floors, or if the first floor of a commercial building needs to be retail space, etc. Where certain sized buildings can be built is often laid out in very specific zoning maps to offer both clear opportunities and constraints on what kind of buildings can be built where. This can sometimes be welcomed by developers for its clarity, and also objected to by others for too much of an infringement on their free choice as land owners. (It is currently fully implemented in Somerville.) COMMON HOUSING RELATED ACRONYMS AND TERMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act - sets dimensional and other requirement ADU Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - an additional unit of housing AHO Affordable Housing Overlay - the Cambridge Ordinance AMI Area Median Income AHU Affordable Housing Unit AHR Affordable Housing Restrictions As of Right A development may proceed legally without any discretionary review process, usually in accordance with pre-set regulation rather than with case-by-case basis. In short, the owner of property has the right to use or develop it, without recourse to a public hearing process and related neighbor input. Intended to speed up the development process and often this precludes legal action CDBG Community Development Block Grant Chapter 40B If a community has less than 10% affordable housing, Board of Appeals must approve the project CPA Community Preservation Act CRA Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Density Number of dwelling units allowed on a specific area of land. This varies with eachresidential zoning district. Discretionary Review Process of review and oversight by community review boards like the CHC, BZA, or Planning Board (see below) Down Sizing. When developers or owners seek to transform a two family into a one family property and/or another property from one with more units into one with fewer units in order to gain more space for each unit. Dwelling Unit Any unit or type of housing SFH, TFH etc (see above) DHCD Mass state authority promulgating regulations targeted at income eligible households FHA Fair Housing Authority - sets standards for dimensions within housing financed federally FMR Fair Market Rent FMA Fair Market Rate JAS Just A Start - one of the city's public housing developers HFA Housing Finance Agency HRI. Home Owners Rehab - one of the city's public housing developers Inclusionary Housing % of lower income housing units required for market rate housing of 10 units or more Market Rate Housing Development of housing to sell for whatever the market price will bear. Also sometimes referred to as luxury housing because in Cambridge this tends to be very expensive Ordinance a city law - zoning ordinances become law once they are voted on affirmatively by the Cambridge City Council PHA Public Housing Agency Setbacks SHI Subsidized Housing Inventory Story The height of a given level of housing, usually measured as 10 feet per story. TBRA Tenant Based Rental Assistance Residential Zoning District - the city of Cambridge is currently divided into three residential main zoning districts (A, B, C) reflecting various property restrictions on type of housing, setbacks, and density allowed. CAMBRIDGE DEPARTMENT ACRONYMS BZA Board of Zoning Appeal CAHT Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust CDD Cambridge Development Department - Planning Agency for Cambridge: CHA Cambridge Housing Authority CHC Cambridge Historical Commission CRA Cambridge Redevelopment Authority DPW Department of Public Works Plan E Our form of government with a City Council who elects the Mayor and a separate city governance system under a City Manager who controls the various departments. PB Planning Board  The Cambridge Open Data Portal provides us with ample information to understand core information on housing availability, housing costs, and the impacts of related market forces. The greatest factor for housing cost in Cambridge is the very steep costs of the land itself, in short, the price of the properties on which our homes are built. Market rate factors are important too. Another factor taken up below is that around 30% of residential properties in Cambridge, MA are likely owned by people or companies located outside the city, based on the fact that a significant portion of the city's housing stock is owned by investors and companies, many of which are not based within Cambridge itself. Much the same thing is now happening in Austin, Texas where 28% of the housing is owned by outside investors. Currently we have 119,008 city residents (based on May 2024 census). There are 66,700 Cambridge residents aged 16 and over who were employed in the year ending December 2023. Many of our current residents are students at our various universities. We also have a number of retired individuals in this 16 y.o. plus group who are not currently employed. This helps to explain the c.51,308 residents of the city who are not listed as being currently employed. The American Community Survey for 2022 reports that 138,658 persons worked that year in Cambridge. Some are current residents but many are not. White-collar workers make up 95.33% of the working population in Cambridge, while blue-collar employees account for 4.67%. There are 38,000 workers employed in private companies (53.59%) as well as 6,506 people working in governmental institutions (9.18%). and 4,569 individuals who list themselves instead as entrepreneurs (6.44% of the workforce). What this suggests is that if we were going to try to house all those who currently live in cambridge plus all those who currently work here or go to school here (the latter not now living on campus) we would need a massive increase in the number and type of housing available - likely more than double the current city size of 119,008 residents - all this on our tiny 6.8 square mile land mass, nearly all of which is now built up except our cemeteries, university campuses, and drinking water supply area (Fresh Pond). If we add together the number of Cambridge employees at our various larger and smaller companies + students (not now in campus housing) the numbers are revealing. Listing only our top 20 city employers we have the following: Universities: 25, 125 individuals (see below) Local biotech companies: 72,960 individuals (see below) Other top 20 employers in the city 20,117 employees. This number includes the city itself with 3,594 employees TOTAL 118,202 Cambridge employees plus students/post docs who need off-campus housing NOTE: this total (118,202) is roughly equal in size to the size of our current population (119,008), and would double the city population size, all on only 6.8 square miles of land mass. This in turn would likely need to double the size of our fire department (people, engines, stations), police department (officers, cars, buildings), schools (staff, buildings), hospital staff and social workers, as well as increasing the capacity of our water, sewage and electric systems. We can see some of these variables across the different zip codes in the city, where we see notable differences in the population numbers, numbers of households and income variations across our five zip codes. Area 2 (MIT) has the highest average incomes ($195, 846) and by far the lowest number of residents and households (4,474 people in 2,140 households). Mid-Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Riverside, and The Port comprise the zip code (02139) and have the highest number of residents, households with 38,856 people in 15,995 households and roughly "average" Cambridge incomes ($160,365). North Cambridge (02141) where many of the historically segregated publicly-financed housing is located has the largest number of people for household (21,553 in 9,949 households) and the lowest average income $119,320. Neighborhoods in the 02138 zip code comprising West Cambridge, Baldwin, part of Mid-Cambridge, Riverside, Strawberry Hill and parts of Cambridge Highlands has roughly the same number of people and households as 02139 with 38,006 people and 14,480 households, and incomes averaging $182,108. East Cambridge (02141) historically one of the city's important immigrant community centers has 14,402 people in 7,069 households with an average income (of $142,367) which lies rought midway between residents of 02139 and 02140. What our zip code (and census) data reveals is in some ways more revealing than the historic city neighborhood breakdowns of this same data. Among other differences we see is that the residents of 02140 have far larger families (fewer households per people) than other city neighborhoods, where the average is closer to 2+ people per household unit.  Housing Stock and Neighborhoods: Here we see the different types of housing (single family, two family, three family and more) as well as the total number of housing units. Our city, as of July 1, 2023, has 57,894 housing units. This figure includes development completed since 2020 and units currently under construction. We also know the numbers of Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family homes in each neighborhood in the accompanying chart (and at the city’s Open data link found HERE One can see in the chart below a breakdown of total housing units per neighborhood. The largest number of housing units are found in East Cambridge which has 8,690 units as well as North Cambridge with 8,032 units. The largest per capita type of residential unit in Cambridge is single-family dwellings (SFH), which accounts for 35% of the city's total residential land. Two-family dwellings account for 21%; 13% of Boston's residential land is devoted to three- family dwellings, commonly known as triple-deckers. However these numbers can be deceiving, since SFH account for only 6.5% of our total housing stock, far fewer that many other cities What is also clear is that our 6.5% Single-Family Homes to total housing units is a stunningly low percentage (and number) in comparison with other major cities:
 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (SFH): These are far more expensive than other units in Cambridge in part because we have so few of them (3,772 total) This represents 6.52% of our total housing stock of 57.894 units. West Cambridge and Neighborhood Nine have the most Single-Family Homes while MIT (which as zero SFH, along with Cambridge Highlands (with 84 SFH) and Strawberry Hill (with 110 SFH have the fewest number. The number of SFH around the city is rapidly changing however since increasingly developers and individuals are purchasing two-family homes and downsizing them to single family homes. TWO FAMILY HOMES: Our city stock of two-family homes, numbering 7002 in total represents 12.09% of our total housing stock. These are at greatest risk of down-sizing. The greatest numbers of these two-family homes are in North Cambridge (1240 units) and West Cambridge (1277 units), Neighborhood Nine (800 units) and Cambridgeport (748 units). THREE FAMILY HOMES: These number 6195 properties or 10.7% of our total housing stock. The largest number of our 6195 three-unit housing stock are in Cambridgeport (915 units), North Cambridge (912 units ) and Mid-Cambridge (816 units). Some of these are rental properties occupied by area graduate students and post-doctoral students/interns. However, an increasing number of these three-unit structures are also now being converted into condos. We have the fewest number of these three family structures in MIT (0) and Cambridge Highlands (9) - the latter neighborhood comprising one of the furthest from both our universities and Kendall Square. Four family (4 unit) properties in the city amount to 5138 examples or 8.87% of our housing stock. These are most abundant in our denser and once less expensive neighborhoods of Wellington-Harrington (858 units), Cambridgeport (691 units), Mid-Cambridge (673 units) and The Port (506 units). The fewest number of our 4-unit properties are in MIT (6 units), Cambridge Highlands (9 units), and Strawberry Hill (56 units). Housing Price Changes: A Year by Year Analysis The steep rise in housing costs accompanies the circa 2018 rise in the biotech industry in Cambridge - see below, and has only continued to rise as Cambridge has become a major target of biotech companies and others in this city. While all housing prices have rises, single family and three family homes (the latter as likely tear-downs for fewer and more expensive one or two-family units have risen the most significantly. What we also see in this graph is the little impact that the 2008 recession had little impact on Cambridge housing costs. The same is true for COVID. Indeed COVID appears to have further pushed up housing costs here as many local residents and outsiders chose this city as a positive place to work from home "wherever." We can see how these major housing cost increases having played out over over various time periods and different types of housing.   Rental prices also vary significantly across our neighborhoods. East Cambridge, MIT, and Wellington-Harrington which are located closest to Kendall Square have the highest rents. The MIT neighborhood, as we have seen, also has the city's highest salaries.  The chart above shows the average 2024 rent prices by neighborhood across the 13 neighborhoods, with East Cambridge being the most expensive and Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill, and West Cambridge being the most affordable. Below we see the actual prices. In the data below we see the actual rental prices based on the average 2024 rent prices by neighborhood across the 13 neighborhoods. East Cambridge is the most expensive neighborhood for rents; Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill, and West Cambridge being the most affordable.  These values show a variation in rent prices, with East Cambridge being the most expensive and Cambridge Highlands, Strawberry Hill and West Cambridge being the most affordable neighborhoods.
Sources: (Redfin)(RentCafe)(Zumber - Apartments for Rent & Houses)(RentHop)(Rent).  Cambridge's housing data related to factors such as housing starts, housing permits, neighborhood locations, differentials in the number of units, demolitions, costs and dates tell us a lot about what is happening in Cambridge, and what the near future might look like with or without changes in our zoning. This overview of Cambridge city housing trends analyzes this data and what they reveal about housing changes in the city. The first of these graphs addresses the neighborhood breakdown for both new housing starts for multi-family housing and the percentage breakdown between single family home starts (in orange) and multifamily housing starts (in purple).
  These trends are also evident in the number of units being built across various A, B, C residential districts each of which are zoned differently with A largely zoned for single and two family homes, B to include larger multifamily homes, and C including the latter at greater scale and density. Our city's poorer and denser neighborhoods are already getting hardest hit by gentrifying impacts of new development, forcing out residents, and disrupting life in these neighborhoods as wealthier individuals and investors buy up properties, replace existing homes and add larger structural additions. One can see the ready impacts of this in the number of building permits pulled within each neighborhood as well as the number of new housing starts. Increasingly larger one family homes (SFH) are replacing multi-family housing as the number one target of these changes. These changes have a major impact on both neighboring property values (adding to the increased taxes that have to be paid) and often at the cost of trees, green spaces, and the environment more generally. The data for the charts below are taken from related city databases, and these trends are likely to continue throughout much of the city with the proposed upzoning. In the graphs below, we see how this plays out across the various neighborhoods specifically with one and two unit projects and the number of units in each. West Cambridge has the most 1 unit residential projects (SFH) in the works; North Cambridge and Neighborhood Nine lead for two unit structure (TFH), followed up by Cambridgeport and Mid-Cambridge. BELOW: Housing Start Data by Neighborhoods and the Number of Units   Down Sizing TrendsACROSS THE CITY: One thing is very clear in the data: Owners and Investors are primarily interested in downsizing e.g. decreasing the number of units on a given property.  
|
Author:Suzanne P. Blier is one of many active civic leaders in Cambridge. She serves as president of both the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and the Cambridge Citizens Coalition. She is the author of the 2023 book, Streets of Newtowne: A Story of Cambridge, MA. She is a professor of art and architectural history at Harvard and teaches a course on the history of Cambridge and contemporary issues here. Archives
August 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
