Cambridge Corridor & Square Upzoning: Let's Do This One Right

On March 4, 2025 the City Council Housing Committee fresh off its Luxury Housing upzoning YIMBY success, will venture into new  upzoning plans for squares and corridors. Here is what we would like to see; 

In brief: One size does NOT fit all. Don’t cherry pick to exclude sites like Central Square or River St). Be responsible: 5-6 stories is what Envision planners likely were exploring; Maintain design oversight and legal rights of abutters; Provide step downs to neighborhoods; Preserve historic buildings. Address specific city need for apartments (not luxury condos). Provide critical green space and courtyards. Highlight financial impact studies on infrastructure and resident cost increases; Require developers to pay a percent of this. Take care not to create canyonization as current proposals for 20+story heights in Central Square and 18+story heights in Porter Square are threatened to do. 

See the graphs below from MAPC and problems in Vancouver. As noted in a recent Vancouver Sun report calls their recent upzoning efforts on the corridors the “Uglification of Metro-Vancouver Mass-Upzoning”(11.28.24) HERE.

Let’s not make the same mistake in Cambridge of leaving out green spaces, trees, inner courtyards and more. As noted in this article: “Politicians are asking tower developers for fewer aesthetic features and community amenities. But residents lose, and prices still don’t go down.” 

1) One size does NOT fit all, and keep Central Square & River St in this process (don’t cherry pick);
2) 5-6 stories is what Envision planners were exploring;
3) Maintain design oversight and legal rights to challenge;
4) ) Provide step downs to the neighborhoods;  
5) Specify apartments (not luxury condos) for projects six stories or higher);
6) Require financial impact information of new infrastructure, property value increases;
7) Insist that  developers to pay a percent of property value increases be used to fund infrastructure and/or energy cost increases
8) Keep our historic buildings and keep it livable.
8) Add lots of viable  green spaces, trees, and interior courtyards. 

Note: What students speaking and writing to Council during the luxury up-zoning debates had thought they were getting was more apartment buildings. That will not happen, but Council should here support mainly apartment buildings on the corridors and squares for this purpose. More investor-driven luxury condos will simply increase housing costs of renters and are far more likely to remain empty. ​

The author who published the above graph writes that: Per data on Vancouver I’ve compiled through Altus Group: inventory is piling up. “Developers are sitting on a lot of available inventory. This inventory is predominately off market, and not listed on the MLS. Let’s call it shadow inventory:" HERE And recall that 85% of all new Ottawa condos were purchased by investors. ​

Background on these points:

1. All squares and corridors must be part of every plan (Central Square and Riverside included), not just cherry picked areas because of the elections AND NOT, “one size fits all” even in the same street or square.
2. Our Envision report planners seem to have had 5-6 story corridor heights in their sights. This should be the max target now except in places that already have greater heights.
3. All projects MUST have design oversight AND means of legal redress. Enough of the undemocratic “as of right” and no design oversight of the recent upzoning.
4. It is not just about height, but also neighborhood step-backs, and providing current property owners with city support (access to financing help, tax relief) to build higher without having to sell properties or partner with others.
5. Limit projects of five stores+ to apartments, not luxury investment condos that remain vacant or rent for high prices. This is what MIT and Harvard students thought Council was going to accomplish in the last upzoning. Require it here.  Note: 85% of Ottawa condos went to investors. 40% of new Vancouver condos remain empty. High cost housing is not housing affordability.
6. Address upfront financing costs for new infrastructure to support greater city density has to be part of the discussion. The City allowed Eversource costs for commercial & other projects to be borne by all the rest of us. Other costs and infrastructure factors must be addressed upfront. Adding more density should cost current residents LESS money, not more.
7. Require developers to pay a percent of property value increases be used to fund infrastructure and/or energy cost increases
8. Add lots of viable  green spaces, trees, and interior courtyards. This not only is important for health reasons for children and seniors but also helps lower heat island impacts.