Bottom Lines on Current Up-Zoning Plans: Important Amendments

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

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