At the January 8, 2024 meeting of the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee chaired by Councillor Cathie Zusy, all three of the urban planning experts focused on the need for Cambridge to move to Form-Built Planning. What is Form-Based Zoning: Form-based planning comprises a variety of development regulations that emerged at the end of the 20th century as an alternative to the Euclidean zoning codes. Cambridge currently follows the latter model. With form-based standards, members of the community, or different neighborhoods in the community, are brought together to help decide what they would like their community to look like in the future: the types of buildings, amenities, and infrastructure. Plans are drawn up complete with imagery of allowable building types and amenities (such as parks, grocery stores, and other factors of importance). Form-based zoning prioritizes the physical appearance and design of buildings, focusing on how they relate to the street and public spaces, rather than strictly separating land uses, with key guidelines including: regulating building placement, facade design, street-level activity, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and clear visual cues for the desired neighborhood character, all presented with readily understandable graphics and clear language to promote community engagement and predictable development outcomes. Cities like Somerville and Portland Maine have already turned to form-based plans and a key question is why Cambridge so far has chosen not to. This is an especially important question because we spent so much time and money on our Envision Report, but did not take the final step to encode the desirable outcomes in that plan into actual zoning code and criteria. For this reason we have a number of criteria in the current upzoning proposal that directly contradict core criteria, values, and desired outcomes in the Envision report itself. Environment and climate change, as well as neighborhood and demographic concerns, transit considerations are key among them. The City's GIS system is now complete, a first-step to undertaking the community meetings to undertake Form-Based zoning plans. The city staff and consultants who built our City GIS system did an excellent job. Their site allows you to look up every property in the city by street address and view it in different formats. You can find the searchable city GIS website HERE We also must consider some related factors around minority impacts of gentrification. One of the things that good form-based planning can take into account is important factors such as minority residences and nearby properties, as well as environmental and other factors allowing greater heights and densities primarily in those areas where these individuals and related factors are less likely to have an impact. None of this is considered in the current Cambridge up-zoning proposal. Form-Based Planning in Cambridge has long been part of the Cambridge planning considerations, going back at least to the Fall of 2021 prior to the January 4, 2022 Community Development Department Report to the Planning Board of Cambridge Single-Family, Two-Family and Multi-Family Zoning Districts: PDF HERE. Citizen Petitions to End Exclusionary Zoning: Donovan & Ronayne The image at the top of this page is taken from that report, and appears to have been in response to the first of two citizens petitions to end exclusionary zoning in Cambridge known as the Advancing Housing Affordability Petition, otherwise known as the Donovan Petition, named after Francis ("Fritz") Donovan, consistent with city tradition to name a petition after the petition's first official signer. Fritz Donovan, the former President of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association is one of the founders of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition, and still is an active member of our advisory team. One can read the Donovan Petition HERE. Cambridge Citizen Coalition members and others had worked over the spring and summer of 2021 to research and write the petition and had submitted it on September 1 with the hope of passage in January or February of 2022. A key aim of the Donovan petition was to preserve as much as possible the historic architecture of the city and the distinct qualities of our various neighborhoods, while providing guidelines for additions and modifications toward the backs of these structures that would facilitate the additions to increase the number of units in each. In the Apr 8, 2024 citizens up-zoning petition to end exclusive single family zoning districts in Cambridge submitted by Joe Ronayne, and others, what stands out today, is not only that City Council and the Planning Board refused to seriously address this document, but also that, incorporated among its pages, was the document positioned at the top of this report. The Ronayne Petition proposed a means for increased density - HERE - also was a citizen led effort to allow multi-family housing in every neighborhood. . Both to these proposals were turned down by City Council. The City's Community Development Department (CDD) Up-zoning Plans as Presented to the Planning Board January 4, 2022Instead of following the guidelines advanced in both the citizen-led Donovan and Ronayne petitions, Cambridge's CDD presented to the Planning Board a January 4 2022 report that included the chart at the top of the page of various paths to move forward. They also are considering different changes to base zoning (and related maps) and are suggesting to study how zoning works in various neighborhoods. They consider increasing FAR (density - how many people can live within a given building). They consider changing set back and open space requirements to allow larger buildings, and they are looking at how larger lots (especially in A-1 and A-2 districts can be subdivided. In short they also want to see us, rather than maintaining neighborhood uniqueness to have "equitable treatment" everywhere, though acknowledging that there will be different market conditions and physical realities that will have an impact as well. What we see here most significantly on the top line of this chart is a desire to change all districts to the criteria of the most dense districts of the city (C or C-1). We note in turn on the bottom line, that doing a large scale study and redrawing boundaries would take time. Also of concern is the issue of "Preservation" versus adding "New housing opportunities" Note that none of the "preservation" versus " new housing opportunities" issues are addressed in the current up-zoning proposal (although it is in the rezoning of other cities. Note too, that no where in this January 4, 2022 CDD report is there any desire or suggestion to raise heights everywhere as of right and without design oversight to 4, 6 or 9 stories. In this same January 4, 2022 report, CDD proposed rezoning all city districts to a single district city-wide. CDD here suggests choosing the densest of our city districts (C-1) as that standard that could be sought for the rest of the city. See chart below. Other proposals that could be done but would take more time and expense including a broader study of conditions and in each district and adjusting them to meet desired outcomes. Included as well was a possible plan to study and redraw all the residential zoning districts and overhaul development standards citywide, redrawing the zoning maps along with this. Coloring and Bias in Content SelectionThe approach advanced by CDD to the Planning Board in the January 4 2022 report included the chart at the top of the page of various paths to move forward. This chart reads: CDD HAS RANKED THE MOST ACTIONABLE CHOICES TO ELIMINATE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ONLY ZONES LEASE EXPENSIVE (time, resources): Study Existing conditions: lot area, unit density, FAR, height; use Cambridge Assessing Dept., GIS MEDIUM-LOW (time, resources): Study Development trends/changes; Resources: Building Permits, Census Data. MEDIUM-LOW (time, resources): STUDY Existing setbacks & open space; Resources: Cambridge GIS. MEDIUM-HIGH (Time, resources): Study Impacts on citywide planning goals (Envision Cambridge); Resources: Evaluation of livability, diversity & equity, economic opportunity, sustainability & resilience, community health & wellbeing, learning. MEDIUM HIGH (time, resources) Study Economic effects of zoning changes; Resources: Market data, Development Economics, Consultant HIGH (Time, Resources): Study Alternative zoning approaches (e.g. affordability, form-based standards. Resources: Consultant support, legal review, extensive discussion. The map of city zoning districts provided in the CDD report, also makes it very clear by its selection of colors for each district that C-1 and C were the positive choices (they are indicated by BRIGHT BLUE, AQUA BLUE, and GREEN), while B and A-1 are presented negatively (shown here as ORANGE and RED). Nothing in their assessment is indicated as to other criteria worth considering like the soundness and historic importance of the architecture in each area or the size, number and importance of associated mature trees and green spaces, or the availability and proximity of near by parks. In short, the only issue that seems to have been in play was housing unit numbers and ease of the process to get to that end. If we look at the above chart, we see a similar code in place with the color GREEN being used to highlight the "Low Degree of Difficulty" text "Rezone all of A-1, A-2, B to another existing district (e.g., C, C-1), whereas ORANGE is used to address the "Medium Degree of Difficulty texts to "Study conditions, adjust district designations and development standards" as well as to do a "Complete overhaul of current development standards (Citywide). The color RED in turn was used to designate the item of "High Degree of Difficulty" namely to "Redraw zoning map and overhaul development standards." The color choices suggest a decided bias at the outset on the part of CDD staff with certain neighborhoods of the city (largely West Cambridge) and the need to do tasks considered higher difficulty of work (in terms of time and expense). However it seems as if the City is well on its way to advancing the work on Form-Based zoning, as can be seen in their 2023 guide to Cambridge neighborhoods discussed in a follow up blog post. RECOGNIZING BIAS IN THE TYPES OF HOUSING SHOWNThis perception of bias on the part of CDD and the City to certain neighborhoods and certain groups of residents continues in the types of homes selected to showcase in the CDD report in their included examples of residences and lots for most of the districts, but for some reason chose to leave out A-1 (the larger property zoning of West Cambridge from this analytic). Whereas ALL districts of the city from East Cambridge to West Cambridge and from Riverside to North Cambridge with Mid-Cambridge in between, have examples of stunning historic single family homes or duplexes that are important to the identity, legacy and vitality of these neighborhoods, CDD staff chose to include only what appear to be multi-family properties. They also chose to leave out examples of the many multi-family homes that exist in A and A-1 districts already. One has to wonder why. The parts of the city facing gentrification forces most severely, through the demolishment or renovations plus frequent additions to buildings and sales to wealthier owners most frequently is happening today in our once poorer neighborhoods - North Cambridge, Strawberry Hill, Riverside, Cambridgeport, Inman Square, and East Cambridge. Discussions Around Form-Based Zoning in CambridgeIn the entire 35 page report of the CDD to the Planning Board on January 4, 2022 the term "Form-Based" appears only twice, namely in the two graphics (red and white) white below. With so many other cities, including Somerville and Portland, Maine undertaking this critical work to rethink zoning using the best option used today, why has Cambridge CDD not gone forward to under take this process here. Why did CDD not allow the excellent design firm UTILE and Tim Love complete the work of our Envision Plan by putting into place the necessary zoning code changes, mapping and form-based standards that a plan like Envision would need in place going forward. The Envision Report includes 6 different categories of factors important to our planning: Climate and Environment, Community Well Being, Economy, Housing, Mobility, Urban Form. Color coding here too seems to be important. Mobility (specifically and almost exclusively bicycle lanes) was given top RED alert priority. Housing - specifically and almost exclusively meaning facilitating developers to build new housing, rather than buy properties to keep them affordable, or building city-owned apartments, or building out on city-owned or other vacant lots - is given an ORANGE energy priority. Urban Form and Community Well-being are given the calm and advancing Green color (implying everything is fine). Climate received the color Purple (creativity, independence, wisdom, pride), and the Economy receives a Grey color (age, neutrality, depression). Again one must be careful NOT to overdo color symbolism. More to the point, the current city upzoning proposal will have proven harmful impacts on several of the other elements of our Envision plan: the environment (through the removal of mature trees & green spaces and the demolishment of existing homes); mobility (by increasing the number of people and cars on the streets), community well being (by lack of care for the preservation of existing homes and neighborhoods, and the lack of addressing needed amenities and infrastructure, as well as likely decreases in minority residents), and economy (because the increasing property values will mean that many people now living here will no longer be able to afford to because their home taxes and rents will increase. In the proposed changed by CDD in the January 4, 2022 report we see factors such as: 1) allowing multifamily dwellings citywide, removing minimum parking numbers. But they also have questions about allowing greater density (more people) within a property, the subdividing of larger lots. There is also divergent views on allowing multiple primary buildings on each lot (as opposed to a main building and an auxiliary unit). They bring into play whether they should maintain current height, open space and set back requirements, as well as the what should be done with non-conforming buildings and if they should be different from new building requirements. ![]() To conclude: in the January 4, 2022 report, there are indications that CDD seems amenable to maintaining current heights and open space in these districts. although if the plan was to go to C-1 districts citywide that certainly would decrease setbacks and open spaces. This is also true if they were to, as proposed here, "Allow subdivision and more compact development." Another key point in the chart below is allowing greater flexibility for older non-conforming buildings. Most likely this means in proposed modifications to existing plans in terms of the need to bring projects before the BZA or other judiciary body. It is not clear if CDD is planning to to move forward with a form-based zoning model but we hope to learn more in the months ahead. In the meantime we see evidence that they are seeking neighborhood specific input on possible zoning changes that indicate some level of planning.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |