Juggernaut or Not? September 30, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
The dreams of A Bigger Cambridge (who prefer to be called “A Better Cambridge” for political reasons) were delayed from last week via the Charter Right. At issue is a mega-proposal shepherded on a fast track through the Housing Committee by Co-Chairs Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui with the aim of doubling (and more) the permissible heights of residential buildings across the city – and packaged with the perfectly agreeable goal of allowing multi-family housing in all zoning districts. The rallying cry to “End Exclusionary Zoning!” is the tactic being employed to push through these two very distinct initiatives, but it’s really just the record-breaking upzoning proposal that is at the heart of the controversy.
There was a great event held last Tuesday at the Main Library called “100 Years of Zoning” marking the 100th anniversary of Cambridge’s first zoning ordinance. (There were actually various “proto-zoning” ordinances already in place before 1924 under our local Building Code – largely motivated by concerns about public health and fire safety.) It was made pretty clear by the presenters that a century ago there was a concern about the proliferation of “tenement housing” that accompanied rapid population growth largely associated with immigration – and at that time the triple-decker was seen in this light. The sorting out of residential zoning districts into higher and lower density zones came a bit later.
When I was growing up in New York City, the term “tenement” was largely associated with dilapidated housing stock in which people were packed – often in unsafe conditions. This is not how I saw our triple-deckers in Cambridge and Boston when I first arrived in 1978. To me, they were graceful residential buildings with front and rear porches that originally allowed a middle-class homeowner to live and thrive in the city and to also provide affordable housing to their tenants. I chose to live in a triple-decker, and I eventually bought the building and I’m still living at the same address. You will get no argument from me about the value of triple-deckers and similar buildings. However, I don’t think they’re for everyone nor do I think that living in or next door to larger apartment buildings is for everyone.
I like some of the lower density parts of Cambridge, and I’m glad that people have been able to settle into the kind of neighborhoods that suit their preferences. It does seem to me that the philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the densifiers at “A Bigger Cambridge” is that apartment buildings should be the standard across all of Cambridge – and if you don’t like it you should move or meet your maker. I could not disagree more.
There are plenty of locations in Cambridge that I could easily identify where a larger apartment building would fit in very well and be an improvement over existing conditions. I can also point out locations where dropping a larger apartment building in would be a radical and very unwelcome change. But that’s not the ABC way. Their “vision” is to impose a single high-density standard across all of Cambridge, and they are selling this under the questionable claim that this will miraculously cause all housing to become more affordable. I don’t question the economic principle that when housing supply is increased in an equilibrium situation, then purchase prices and rents may be expected to decrease. Cambridge housing right now is not really in an equilibrium state – largely due to a couple of decades of growth in university affiliates and our local high-tech economy and a national trend of people choosing to move into the cities and closer to work (a reverse migration compared to the suburban exodus of decades ago). I will also note that there has more recently been a double reverse outward for some people in the age of Covid and work-from-home arrangements, and if ever the dream of driverless vehicles is realized many experts predict even more outward migration.
The question of affordability is an interesting one. Everyone wants housing to be affordable, but the philosophy of those working in our Housing Department seems to be that the only way to do this is via subsidized, deed-restricted housing created via government mandate – hence the so-called “Affordable Housing Overlay” 1.0, 2.0, and I’m certain we’ll soon see 3.0 and beyond as they endlessly try to game the economics of housing development. It does seem to be the case that if developers are permitted to build twice as much as-of-right, the land values will jump accordingly and this will virtually guarantee an AHO 3.0 or other mechanism to further game the economics. This escalation seems inevitable, and some neighborhoods (particular those with “soft sites”) may be ground up under the wheels of this Juggernaut.
At the last City Council meeting, Heather Hoffman posed several questions to city councillors and City staff regarding these twin zoning proposals. Here are her questions (expanded and really deserving of their own article):
1. Would increasing the inclusionary percentage violate the MBTA Communities Act?
2. Would decreasing the inclusionary percentage mean that we could not increase back to where it is now without violating the MBTA Communities Act?
3. What analysis has been done on whether this proposal would cause displacement of currently housed residents? If the answer is none, why is that?
4. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on median rents? If the answer is none, why is that?
5. What analysis has been done on what sorts of properties would be demolished? If the answer is none, why is that?
6. What analysis has been done on how this proposal would affect currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing? If the answer is none, why is that?
7. What analysis has been done on what is happening to currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing under current zoning? If the answer is none, why is that?
8. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on the market value of properties that would be upzoned by it? If the answer is none, why is that?
9. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on development under the AHO? If the answer is none, why is that?
10. What analysis has been done on how this would affect the City’s finances, especially with respect to the City’s ability to maximize tax shifting from residential to commercial properties under Prop 2-1/2? If the answer is none, why is that? Would the City have to find new commercial development prospects in order to maintain its Prop 2-1/2 balance?
The final point I will make now (made extra clear by Heather’s great questions) is that there are MANY unanswered questions about these proposed changes, and virtually zero analysis about their intended and unintended consequences.
Here are the agenda items I find interesting this week:
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Preservation Restriction at 90 Brattle Street. (CM24#214) [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Half Crown-Marsh NCD Decennial Review Report. (CM24#215) [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to request that the City Council authorize the purchase of a parcel of land located within the town of Lexington identified as 0 Cambridge/Concord Turnpike in Lexington, Massachusetts. (CM24#216) [map]
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding an evaluation of the legal feasibility of the following proposals and analyze how much housing could be created under the following proposals. [text of report]
Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. [text of report]
Charter Right #2. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition -Part 1, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Charter Right #3. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition – Part 2, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Order #3. City Council support of the Week Without Driving challenge and specifically designate Oct 3, 2024 as a day in which participants are encouraged to use alternative transportation options such as public transit, biking, carpooling, and walking. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to produce the petition(s) necessary to accomplish the goal of lowering the speed limit as much as possible on all state highways that fall within Cambridge’s geographic boundaries, including and especially Memorial Drive. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order #5. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) NOFO as soon as possible. Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Comments and additional details to follow.