Still from Metropolis (1927)                                      Paris Le Corbusier's Hi-Rise Plan                 St. Louis televised demolition of Prutti-Igoe                                          

Pruit-Ogie Housing Development Project, St. Louis Missouri, 1954  (Demolished 1972-1976)

 Riverview  Redevelopment Project                                      Riverview area removal project (CRA)                             18 story plans (1955-1965)

The important 2024 Greater Boston Housing Report Card notes that "...over the past nine years, the vast majority (86 percent) of new housing built in these 15 cities has come from just the top six producers—Boston, Revere, Quincy, Cambridge, Everett, and Somerville."  This is clearly of concern particularly for small cities like Cambridge with little available space. 

The Report highlights Boston. They note that "...while the MBTA Communities law does not apply to the Boston, the City is developing its own local policy that shares some commonalities. The Squares + Streets Initiative aims to rezone areas near major transit hubs to allow for development of multifamily housing, small businesses, public space, and arts and culture. A simplified zoning code was codified into city law April 17, 2024, and the City has outlined 18 areas in which it hopes to apply the new code. While this approach appears helpful for spurring more housing development in these transit-rich neighborhoods, there’s concern that it doesn’t go far enough. These 18 areas are generally larger chunks of space than those found in MBTA Communities, suggesting more physical space for the policy to have impact, but unlike MBTA Communities, there is no minimal requirement to what allowances these districts should have, which can leave opportunity for the new change to be less effective." None-the-less the designated "...Squares + Streets could generate about 10,000 new housing units for Boston" (and the area)." 

The Report places special emphasis on the need to make use of municipal land. This is something that many of us feel strongly that Cambridge should prioritize first as well. ​

​Sizable problems have emerged in Cambridge and elsewhere  in terms of housing affordability and availability due in large measure to investors buying up critically needed housing stock. See among other articles "What Happens When Wall Street Buys Most of the Homes on Your Block" New York Times (2023).  In 2021 Blackstone purchased some $325 million in housing in East Cambridge apartment housing investments, seeking to profit from the growing biotech industries and amped up housing need, furthering the costs of housing in the city HERE.  For more on our these concerns see our recent blogpost, Why Housing Prices Are So High and Going Higher. 

There is also the ongoing disconnect in housing re: the legacy of trickle down economic theory and the equally problematic "supply/demand" housing theory. We know that trickle down economic theory does not work (lower and middle income residents suffer most).  The same is  true for trickle down housing theory. In Cambridge, very few people move from their existing homes to take advantage newer ones that are even more expensive (leaving the present one at a lower price than market demands for someone seeking to move in with less financing means. Here and elsewhere, people tend to stay in the neighborhoods they first move to (work and family permitting), and if they do move, they are likely to seek top dollar housing return, if for no other reason than to help pay off new housing costs. When we throw in housing investors purchasing properties particularly in once lower income neighborhoods  simply to profit from the, trickle down theory in housing is equally if not even more problematic. The same is true for supply and demand housing theory in high demand high cost cities such as ours. Here, as in  other cities such as Vancouver,  there never can be enough homes to meet much less overcome demand leading to  housing costs magically falling to a price affordable to everyone. Each new and more expensive luxury housing property simply adds to the increased housing prices everyone must pay. 

​

​Here are a few recommended ones to watch this weekend (or any other)
 
1.Hands Over the City: Rod Steiger and the blistering film about land speculation and a vile land developer, as well as citizen activists up against a powerful city council by Francesco Rosi titled Hands Over the City, which won the Golden Lion Award in the 1963 Venice Film Festival (in Italian with English captions).  Set in Naples. Cambridge documentary Film Maker Federico Muchnik selection. See it on Criterion. Probably one can live stream HERE
 
2.Citizen Jane. The epic battle between Jane Jacobs versus Robert Moses. This 2016 Sundance competitor is titled: Citizen Jane: Battle for the City  is available on Youtube: HERE

3. Real Estate Expert Answers US Housing Crisis Questions Wired  (Kate Nelischer 2024)

4. How Britain (almost) Solved its Housing Crisis (Tom Nicholas 2024) HERE

5. Push: Documentary on Housing Crisis in Modern Cities (Fredrik Gertten 2019) 
Official Trailer    Review in  The Guardian
 
6. Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality and Urban Crisis: a Conversation with Patrick Condon and Andrew Berman (Village Preservation July 2024).

7.  Pause the Plan (Vancouver Canada - Rally at City Hall, Nov. 23, 2024). 

8.Metropolis: And not to be forgotten, is this frightening Fritz Lang 1927 silent film, about a grim futuristic city of Metropolis, pitting wealthy greedy industrialists against workers barely able to survive.  HERE is the trailer. ​

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

The link shown above is the slide deck for the recent up-zoning presentation at the Porter Square Neighborhood Association (PSNA) meeting. One resident who viewed the slide deck posted on the PSNA listserve states:

​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 city's Community Development Department (CDD) has stated as a basic premise that Cambridge  will not meet our 2030 Housing Goals without a radical up-zoning. However this assumption is highly questionable. 

One city resident has looked at the numbers posted by CDD and addressed this on a neighborhood listserve. They have pointed out that 3050 units have been created since 2019 (source: CDD's June 30, 2024 on the Public Housing Inventory. When we add to this 750 units now being built and the 3,950 units that have now been permitted after June of 2023 (source HERE)  we come up with a total of 7750 units of the city's 2030 goal of 12,500 units (or 62% achieved based on the 2018 goal based on housing data at that time. This makes it likely we will meet the 2030 goal without a radical up-zoning. In short, the rationales for this radical up-zoning are based on faulty assumptions, and this is not even taking into account the enormous impacts that COVID has had locally and around the world on the construction industry, including parts availability and workers.  ​

The current Cambridge Up-Zoning proposal is focused on the residential areas of the city. A key goal is to allow multi-family housing to be built citywide, as was done before the 1930s eras zoning which advantaged those areas furthest from former factory sites. Most Cambridge residents, City Councillors and city staff strongly support rezoning to simply allow multi-family housing citywide. Most other progressive cities have done so by allowing more units to be built on the same (larger) lot - for example up to 3 units, and decreasing required lot size modestly in some cases. In Cambridge, because we are an already dense city that is also in high demand, most of the impacts of up-zoning would be the demolishment of existing homes to replace them with others. CDD was not able to tell City Council where the demolitions most likely would happen, but a quick look at the city's own database make it very clear that the main targeted areas will be in our once lower income areas.

Generally speaking to build a taller structure with more housing what one also needs to address is the relative cost of the property. In the maps below, we see that the areas with the less expensive properties for the 4,000 SF to 6,000 SF sites are in North Cambridge, Strawberry Hill,  as well as in Cambridgeport and East Cambridge among other areas. As is happening now with investor purchases, these are likely to be special targets. And, most likely these properties will be used for taller and larger and even more expensive single family homes, and/or the occasional very expensive ($1.5 to 2 million dollar) condo. ​

Planning for housing needs includes not simply factors of cost and "a roof over one's head" but also key issues like bedroom types.

Our Public Housing Goals are also important to keep in mind, whether we are talking about exclusionary buildings (AHO or lower income Section 8 housing), or our more integrated "Inclusionary Housing" (set now as 20% of all new residential buildings with over 10 units).

The data on Cambridge public housing ia interesting, because the results reveal how relatively widely spread across the city these units are,  especially with inclusionary housing). 

The map below is from a "live" map created here:   City Map of Public Housing Locations (by Housing Type).​

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

UPDATED 11.7.24 with Summary and insights 

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 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,  Austin 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 100,000. 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
• 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 and 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 Cameron Murry and J.C. 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

 
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
  
  
  
  

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.

CONCLUSIONS:
Cambridge's plan is not consistent with what the new plans and proposed best practices are for other cities. This plan is unlikely to bring new needed housing at a price point that will benefit new or existing middle-income residents, it is likely to make housing more expensive here and to promote greater gentrification and increases of wealthy white populations as lower income minorities are forced out of the city.

Does Cambridge want simply more housing? Or does the city want 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.​

                                                BIOTECH IMPACTS ON CAMBRIDGE HOUSING COSTS

64% 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
                                 

                                 72,960 BIOTECH EMPLOYEES work in Cambridge:
​                                                        Where will they find housing? 

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, alongside sizable 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 NUMBERSIn 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 .​

                                                                          OUTSIDE HOUSING INVESTORS 

Investors constitute a significant part of our home purchases - roughly 18.1%  (one in five homes).  Large and institutional investor transactions between 2004 and 2019 constitute 27.6%.  Two- and Three-Family homes are the greatest subject of these investments at 32.4% and 31.3% respectively. The share of flip transactions in Cambridge between 2002 and 2021 is 7.1%  Find related data at Homes for Profit: HERE If Cambridge chooses to remove current perceived "barriers" to investors (zoning controls and review processes such as the BZA, Planning Board, and CHC) the numbers of these investor-led property changes that seek to profit from Cambridge housing is likely to increase far more.