
Thoughts one whether you think the new Cambridge zoning laws are producing outcomes promised
TL/DR: the city of Cambridge provides a lot of city-run programs that benefit people from lower income households. It prides itself on its socioeconomic diversity, which is rapidly declining as housing increases in price, so these lower income families can no longer afford to live here and thus don’t get to benefit from the programs that were created to support them. The new zoning laws were allegedly supposed to address some of these issues by providing more affordable housing, yet the new developers are providing housing that can only be afforded by people more financially well off. If you don’t see a problem with that, then that’s your right, but the point of the post wasn’t to argue whether that’s right or wrong.
I’m genuinely curious how other Cambridge residents feel about some of the development we're seeing under the new zoning rules, and whether there are reasonable amendments that could address some of the unintended consequences without preventing new housing from being built.
One example is 16 Field St. An existing affordable 2-family rental house (affordable likely because it’s outdated) is proposed to be replaced with a 9-unit development. According to the flyer being circulated in the neighborhood, the project would have no off-street parking, remove mature trees, leave very little green/permeable space, and contain no affordable units. Supposedly, if the building housed 10 units instead of 9, the developers would require the units to be affordable. This is one of many new developments being put up in a relatively quiet neighborhood with narrow streets and not much street parking as is.
I understand the argument for allowing greater housing density in Cambridge, especially given how expensive housing has become. But I'm wondering whether the current rules have struck the right balance.
A few questions I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on:
Affordability: If one of the major public-policy arguments for upzoning was improving housing affordability, should larger projects receiving substantially increased development rights be required to include at least some income-restricted affordable units? The flyer claims this particular proposal has 9 units because a 10-unit project would trigger an affordability requirement. If that's accurate, should the rules address that incentive?
Parking: Should developments of this size be required to provide some off-street parking in residential neighborhoods with narrow streets and already-limited street parking? Underground parking exists in some multifamily developments, so could requirements vary based on neighborhood conditions rather than having a blanket rule?
Trees/green space: Should increased density come with stronger requirements for preserving mature trees, maintaining permeable surface, managing stormwater, or replacing lost tree canopy?
Neighborhood context: Is there a reasonable way to accommodate substantially more housing while also considering the scale of the surrounding street and existing residential buildings?
I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who support the multifamily zoning ordinance as well as people who have concerns about it. Are these simply necessary tradeoffs of building more housing, or are there specific changes you think would make the ordinance work better?
And for anyone familiar with Cambridge government/zoning: what is actually the most effective way for residents to advocate for amendments? City Council? Planning Board? Zoning petitions? Are there already proposals addressing parking, affordability, trees, or projects that fall just below affordability thresholds?
I'm not looking to stop housing construction. I'm interested in whether we can build more housing while doing a better job on affordability, street capacity, trees/green space, and neighborhood impacts.
In addition, if you do have problems with some of these new developments, my neighbor sent me a link to sign a petition to amend the new zoning laws that I believe can be improved to actually provide affordable housing: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/modifying-the-mfh-ordinance?source=direct_link&clear_id=true&