 Left Photo: Kirkland St home. (Kirkland Villages Neighborhood) Center Photo: Cushing St. Home (Strawberry Hill) Right Photo: Jay Street Proposal (Riverside) Part One -- Take a Look: It's Already Happening! We see here photographs of two structures in play in the recently ordained Multi-Family Housing petition, one in Kirkland Village, and the other in Strawberry Hill. We address each in turn. We look at related outcomes as well as lower income housing goals100 years ago. Following the 2018 buildup of Cambridge's biotech industry, and real estate investment firm, Blackstone's purchase of $325 million in rental properties in East Cambridge, we have seen home and rental prices increase exponentially higher. This trend is also fueled in part by large amounts of national and international investment capital and the arrival of a new workforce of employees here, many with outsize salaries and housing needs to match. We are not the only city to face these issues, indeed places like Vancouver, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin Texas have seen faced similar concerns. But in many ways Cambridge is very different. Not only is it far smaller (at a mere 6.8 sq miles), but is far denser (we are the fifth most dense city in the country with a population over 100,000. We also are a deeply historical city, with an array of well-maintained housing dating back 50 years, 100 years and more. With two large university campuses, we have very little open land or vacant spaces. Cambridge like some of these other cities is also a target of investor moneys - local, national, and international. The Boston Globe chose to feature the Kirkland property for both its initial article on the Cambridge citywide up-zoning and for its "Bravo to Cambridge" pro-YIMBY Op Ed following the new zoning's ordination in February 2025. The evidence is already beginning to come in on the impacts of the new ordinance impacts, and they are quite telling. Let's look at several local properties. Three of these decisions show impacts that appear to be directly related to the recent radical citywide up-zoning. And the initial results are NOT what the promoters had hoped for or had desired. We will get to these examples shortly, but first some background. On February 17, one week after the passage of this ordinance, a Cambridge-based realtor reached out to a CCC affiliate in East Cambridge with a very large yard, writing the following: "February 17, 2025 Dear ... I wanted to make you aware that Cambridge has recently implemented city-wide zoning changes that may have significantly increased the value of certain properties. Specifically, lots over 5,000 square feet may now support larger, multi-unit developments due to the City's effort to address the ongoing housing shortage. I am currently working with a client who is actively seeking properties like yours for potential development. My role is to advise on development potential and future values, and I am reaching out to gauge your interest in discussing a potential sale. Please note, I am not acting as a broker in this process--there would be no fees or commissions owed by you should a sale occur. My client is committed to paying fair market value for properties with development potential. They are not seeking below-market deals, as is often the case with direct outreach from other buyers. If you would be open to a conversation, or simply want to learn more, please feel free to reach out at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards.... This realtor's website notes that he has 20 years experience and was previously in the construction business. He self-identifies as an expert on local zoning and building codes. He has reached out in this letter to an East Cambridge home owner with a 5,000+ lot only one week after the passage of the up-zoning petition. Like this individual, many local realtors, as well as local architects, are likely to be key beneficiaries of our new YIMBY ordinance. The response to the realtor's letter in this case was for the spouse to suggest that if the realtor calls to "tell him we would be willing to sell for $25,000,000, and see what he says." Not every Cambridge resident is likely to do that, and we are already seeing some of the consequences of this recent ordinance: namely larger luxury single family homes or duplexes. This has already been in play. Cambridge McMansions: Already Happening HereHuron Avenue This West Cambridge property, as recently as 2021 a former funeral home on Huron Avenue was repurposed into an attractive, and attractively priced luxury duplex that has a nice historical fit in this historic and somewhat quirky mixed residential and commercial avenue, one that now is slated to go far taller. Few residents would have qualms about the repurposing of this site, and the outcome, a stunning luxury duplex is a nice addition to the neighborhood and to Huron Avenue itself.  The Huron Avenue project is the kind of expensive project that residents looking to find more affordable housing have been frustrated by. Why? Because it is built and marketed for the luxury housing market in Cambridge, and those who can afford such a home. In many ways this example speaks to what already is happening here (and elsewhere), the replacement of existing properties with newly repurposed and/or rebuilt properties. YIMBY - Yes in My Back Yard - as here can have positive outcomes, but often the results are for more expensive housing, as well as wealthier home owners. A combination of new wealth, younger well-heeled owners, and scarce vacant land has led younger potential owners of means to contemporary very expensive single family homes or duplexes on the few sites that become available around the city. Older homes are selling for far steeper prices in places like West Cambridge, but newer very expensive homes are popping up everywhere, as are advertisements for existing properties that could be demolished and rebuilt as far larger and taller single-family homes and duplexes. This is happening in many neighborhoods, but especially in once poorer neighborhoods such as North Cambridge, Inman square, East Cambridge, Riverside, Cambridgeport, and the Port. It was in part to address these steeply escalating housing costs that Cambridge's now famous YIMBY upzoning plan was enacted, an ordinance intended to allow developers to build higher and larger, so as to build more MULTI-FAMILY housing, with an aim of bringing all the housing prices down, or at least lowering the rates of increase. Alas, this does not appear to be happening, and indeed it seems to be the opposite. Market trends favor Single Family homes by far, so these are becoming increasingly expensive. What is also not generally acknowledged is that if you have the misfortune of living near one of these McMansions that is selling for $2 million, $3 million and higher, nearby property taxes will go up exponentially, and possibly well beyond your means to pay. That certainly will be the case with lower- and middle-income residents who live in adjacent properties. And for renters who once lived on these sites whose leases were terminated to make way for new owners, you likely will be out of luck entirely. Henry Street Another recent example of upsizing, in this case also accompanied by repurposing and good design can be seen on Henry Street in Cambridgeport. This project is said to have irked key members of City Council. But it is a clearcut example of how badly they have misread the market, choosing only to believe pro-YIMBY ideologues who have insisted that the upzoning plans will bring MORE units of housing to Cambridge, and concomitantly lower housing costs for everyone.  The Henry Street property, until recently, a two-family home, sitting on a 2,968 SF lot, and identified on the assessor's database as in excellent condition both inside and out. The interior included 5 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, and 2 kitchens. In Spring 2022 the home was listed by the assessor for $2,150,000 with its land value roughly equal to the home value. In September 2024, with the City Council up-zoning ordinance well into the home stretch, the property sold to a couple returning to the Boston area for $4.5 million. They had no interest in tearing it down to build 4, 6, or 10 units on the lot, but to repurpose it as a single-family home. It is a wonderful home and neighborhood and it is great to have them here as contributors to the community. They would have the opportunity now of taking advantage of the citywide up-zoning to go to 4 stories in height and extend the foundation to 5' from the property line of this corner property, but instead appear to have chosen to maintain the current green space, trees, and the core structure of this structurally sound 1894 building and we applaud them for this. This kind of decision is not what the City Councillors who voted for the YIMBY up-zoning have anticipated would happen, but we are seeing this kind of thing in play throughout the city. Yes, nearby property values and taxes will increase, impacting residents of lower- and fixed incomes especially, but that has been happening for a while. In the May 15, 2024 Boston Globe article on the up-zoning by Andrew Brinker as the upzoning action was getting publicly underway, Azeem's goal is stated clearly: “Our goal is to take a big shot at making our zoning much better than it currently is, in a way that is going to promote affordability and density and more housing.” As the article notes: "They argue that the scale of the proposal meets the scale of the problem. By some measures, Cambridge has the worst localized housing crisis in Massachusetts and some of the highest housing costs in the United States. The Globe reporter targeted the main opponent as our group, writing that "Last Friday, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition, a resident group that has frequently opposed upzoning proposals, published its opposition to the proposal. Allowing six-stories everywhere, the group said, would only further drive up the price of housing because it would incentivize market-rate construction, while encouraging developers to replace yards and other green space with brick and concrete. And, they said, Cambridge’s original zoning was never grounded in racism, so there is no history of exclusionary zoning to undo. 'We will see very little affordable housing from this proposal, just more very expensive units for the very wealthy, including increasing numbers of McMansions,' the group wrote." HERE Jay StreetIn the Riverside area we find several projects in play. One of these is on Jay Street where a triple decker (the kind of housing often providing lower- and middle-income rental residences, is being replaced by a structure with three luxury homes. Each is likely to cost over $2,000,000. The investor and developer will do very well. Notable too, this new three unit project is designed with a similar three story height as the original triple decker, and likely could have been accomplished in our prior C-1 zoning guidelines. This is a prime city location from the vantage of proximity to transportation, a once thriving city square, and ease of commute to MIT, Kendall, and Harvard Square.  This Jay Street project includes plans dated February 3, 2025 that were is before the Cambridge Historical Commission (CHC) for review. By this time it was clear that the upzoning petition would prevail, yet the developer chose to keep to a three story height. Future projects of this size and larger will have no design oversight unless they involved buildings of 50 years or older. The current structure was built in 1901.  This no doubt will be an interesting case for review, and neighbors and professionals will have a chance to participate in the design discussion. It looks as if there will be very little green space for ground plantings and trees, but this was also true of the original triple decker in this already very dense Riverside community. We wish the new owners well. They are lucky to have a home in Cambridge. But this is not the kind of development: 3 luxury condos (or rentals) replacing 3 lower- or moderate-income housing units. Kinnaird StreetTwo Kinnaird Street properties have been recent beneficiaries of our new YIMBY up-zoning. Situated in the C-1 district of the Riverside community, these two adjacent 1894 residential properties have an interesting past. According to the title records, the owners, a Mom and a Dad gave one of the properties to one son and the other adjacent one to the other son, retaining life estates in both cases. When Dad died and then Mom died, they left each son with full ownership of one house apiece. According to the assessor, one of these homes is a two-family residence and the other is a single family residence. Neither one very large. Each lot is 2880 s.f. Together however they comprise 5760 s.f. It appears that the two properties were merged for zoning purposes before the recent change because each lot was below the minimum lot size in the district. The same entity bought the two properties on January 31, 2025 for $1,400,000 each. This fact, along with the name of the LLC, suggests that the intention of the new owner is to bulldoze whatever's there and replace it with something different and more expensive, enough more to justify a land cost of $2,800,000. The date of sale, January 31, 2025 is noteworthy because by this time the up-zoning ordinance had passed the first reading and already assured ordination on February 10, 2025.  The first property, the two-family residence is listed by the city assessor as having a land value of $829,400 and a building value of $348,800. The second property, the single family home, has exactly the same assessor's value. The land is valued at $829,400 and the structure comes in at $348,800. This again indicates how much higher land is valued in Cambridge than the structures that sit atop them. One can see the two structures below:  What will happen to this property, we will likely learn soon enough. Considering its prime location, and how close it sits to its neighbors, our guess is that it will become a handsome and very expensive luxury single-family, three story home. Possibly the architect will retain some of the classic characteristics of the 1894 original structures. We don't know. However what we do know is that the new far higher price tag of this new Riverside residence will greatly increase property values (and taxes) of nearby homes in this once lower- to middle-income historically African-America residential neighborhoods. Harvard Square-Adjacent One of the most consequential of the likely new up-zoning impacts may be a potential hotel or hotel/condo project in a residential neighborhood adjacent to Harvard Square. This project incorporates the 1846 former home and boarding house of the well-known African American author, abolitionist, and women's rights advocate, Harriet Jacobs. The house was also the 1873-1877 residence and gathering place of Harvard faculty and area luminaries who came together here with Harriet Jacobs to discuss issues of the day across the "color line." Her autographical memoir, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written by Herself, published in 1861, was well known then and continues to be widely read today. Her majestic former home is in relatively poor shape and is largely used for offices -- a far cry from the once elegant rooming house residence a century ago. Plans have been underway for a while for a hotel project incorporating the original Jacobs home and a much larger replacement structure for the adjacent triple decker (originally residences, now offices) where a majority of the new hotel units likely would be located. Together the properties comprise 19,648 sq ft according to a Sotheby's listing. Any unusually tall structure on the site of 60' or more, may cloak adjacent abutters' homes and green spaces with deep shade much of the day.  A building of the historic importance and majesty of the Harriet Jacobs house (see below right) would not be demolished. Indeed, preserving the siting of this mansion is delineated as a priority in the Harvard Square Conservation District Guidelines. We will soon know how this proposed project will develop, but sizable financial costs will likely factor in. The Harriet Jacobs house and the adjacent 1930 triple decker building have been valued by the city accessor at $979,400. The land value is listed as $7,000,100. In March of 2020 the properties sold for $16,100,000. The previous assessed value was $9,607,800. It is owned by an LLC. Hotels are classed in our zoning code akin to residences. Since the citywide luxury housing up-zoning passe, the structure replacing the triple decker could go to 75' tall. It will no longer need to go before the BZA for a Special Permit or come before City Council for approval if that was the route chosen. With FAR (density) requirements now a thing of the past in residential projects, this one plausibly could incorporate a massive 90 or 100 occupants in micro-units. Ostensibly this project could become one of the "new" hybrid endeavors, a condo-hotel (also called condotel, hotel condo, or contel), perhaps 50% condo and 50% hotel units. The former generally are individually outside investor-owned condos used by some as short-period residences. Usually the remaining units function like hotel units, operated by a management company with or without union labor. Investor/owners of the condos often affiliate with the hotel program, so the hotel management can rent them when not being used. Trump International Hotels in Las Vegas and Chicago are examples of this, but there are many others too. This type of large scale micro-unit luxury hotel or condo-hotel project is likely not what City Council and their YIMBY supporters envisioned in passing this ordinance, particularly on a large square foot and square/transportation adjacent project such as this one. If it becomes a hybrid condo-hotel, it would mean that the residential micro-units likely would not be required to have inclusionary (20% affordable) rooms, even though such hotel or hotel-condo developments are considered as housing within our zoning. This kind of project also counters the benefits of having long-term market rate and inclusionary residents in this neighborhood and in Harvard Square itself.  Although this project will no longer need to go before the BZA for special permitting because it does not meet prior density restrictions, a project totaling nearly 20,000 sq ft, would need to go to the Cambridge Historical Commission and perhaps the Planning Board where impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as infrastructure might be addressed (specifically electric, heat, noise, water, sewage, trash, parking).
A project of this scale could have been strictly a residential one incorporating 20 affordable units within a 100 micro-unit plan. This is what the upzoning was intended for, but here, as in the other projects we have seen, this one too will remove key housing possibilities from the neighborhood and city as well as increasing the property values, taxes, and overall housing prices of those living near it. And this project will replace local businesses occupying the various offices here (or reconverting them back to residences). Instead these tiny luxury units are intended almost exclusively for individuals outside the area. This too contributes to the overall gentrification of the neighborhood and city. It is a far cry from what Harriet Jacobs house and memory represents. This project is also a far cry from the YIMBY push of Councillor Azeem urging Harvard and MIT Students to show up at City Council and speak out for this up-zoning specifically to build "more apartments" in Cambridge as we discuss in Part Six. In conclusion, all the properties addressed above exemplify how this new citywide YIMBY up-zoning ordinance enthusiastically endorsed by and enacted by 8 of our 9 City Councillors, and by the City staff along with it, likely will expand gentrification in Cambridge, bringing with it sizable costs to our social fabric and pocket books. Before we address other key changes underway with this YIMBY ordinance, it is important to acknowledge other aspects of what is already happening here and what the massive up-zoning was intended to change. READ PART TWO -- HERE
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |