 Part Seven: Updates on new Projects since the Feb 10 Upzoning UPDATE 1: 26 Jay Street (Riverside). The current property is a 1902 three story structure containing five bedrooms in a two family home format that comprises 3,411 sq ft on a 5728 sq ft. lot with several large trees. This project came before the Cambridge Historical Commission on March 6, 2025 for review of the proposed new design and permission to demolish the current structure. The proposed new plan which was presented to the Historic Commission is for three 3-story homes in a pseudo row-house format that would comprise 9050 sq ft of living space with a total of 14 bedrooms. The plan calls for the removal of the trees on this lot. The current building value is $1,000,600 according to the city's assessor database. The land value is $1,044,000 for a total assessed value of $2,044,600. The CHC did not approve current plans, which will have to come back with revisions. Once a viable plan is approved, in all likelihood, each of the three new luxury homes will sell for over $2 million each, for a massive financial benefit to the developer who acquired this property. Adjacent homes will substantially increase in value as well once the new homes are sold.  UPDATE 2: 24 Newell St. (Neighborhood 9): This 1931 home came before the Cambridge Historical Commission on March 6, 2025 to consider the proposed plans for a replacement building following demolition. This is located in a formerly a C-1 district. In 2025 the building was given a value by the assessor of $278,400 and a land value of $699,200 for a total value of $977,600. The discussion is continuing, but most likely the new structure will be a much larger and far more expensive single family home on this 2,931 Sq Ft lot. The proposed new plan goes from 1125 sq ft of living space to 3600 sq ft, more than 3 times larger and with minimal setbacks because the "new zoning allows it." Trees will be removed.   UPDATE 3: 31 Thingalla Avenue (newly listed February 26, 2025) This is a two-family home listed for $2,495,000 and intended for an investor, here suggesting two luxury condos in place of the current 1928 two family home. It was last sold in 1996 and the current assessed value is $1,337,500. This is a very dramatic price increase e if it sells for nearly the asking price, just based on the city's recent upzoning ordinance. In this case as in so many others, no additional housing will be built in this case; instead, the buyer is urged to swap two luxury condos for a two-family home. But nearby property owners will also see their home values increase, along with their property taxes.  As the ad on Zillow states: "Exciting Investment and Development Opportunity in the Strawberry Hill area of Cambridge! Discover the potential of this prime location currently designed to build two luxury townhouses, each boasting over 2,400 sq ft of living space. These townhouses present an unparalleled chance to capitalize on the thriving market for high-end residential properties in Cambridge. Moreover, recent zoning changes unlock an array of possibilities, presenting the opportunity for innovative redevelopment and potential expansion into additional housing units. This is the perfect time to invest in the future of Strawberry Hill and shape the neighborhood's landscape with your unique vision. Don’t miss out on this exceptional opportunity to create something." UPDATE 4: 121 Rindge Ave. The cute 1851 home (below top left) on this North Cambridge Property had already been sold and received its demolition permit before the 2025 citywide luxury housing up-zoning petition was enacted. The new contemporary home on this oversize 6756 sq ft lot has yet to be built, but plans have already been drawn up for the lucky buyer with a bold, contemporary design of a much larger footprint replete with underground parking (see image lower right) along with 4 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms. According to the assessor's database this home was sold in 2022 for $1,250,000 and is now identified as the property of a Park Avenue NYC LLC. "6,756 sq ft built 2026. Your dream home awaits! Under construction" reads the ad. The fact that it is on the market at this over-the-top prices speaks to the craziness the luxury housing upzoning has promoted.  A March 1, 2025 Reddit story alerted us to this property, the author's child home as well as that of her parents' and grandparents. It was sold when the remaining grandparent died to provide for heirs. An earlier effort to renovate the exterior was apparently denied by the historic commission because it was not consistent with the Greek Revival style (note: nor are the iron porch features). But later a full demolition was allowed when a new developer applied. Lately here has been massive pushback against our Historic Commission (CHC) by members of the pro-developer political group, so it is more rare to deny a demolition permit if a structure has not been landmarked is rare. Most likely the bold contemporary design was approved by the CHC before the demolition permit was approved. This no doubt occurred well before the luxury housing upzoning was approved, and the property has been for sale for longer than most Cambridge properties no doubt because of the stunning $3.75 million price tag. An earlier Sotheby's International Realty ad, listed the home this way: "This classic Greek Revival gem is, south facing, light filled and sits on an oversized lot with a garage. It has been lovingly owned by the same family for 55+ years. With all the hallmarks to, again, be a superb 'dream' dwelling it awaits the next transformation to create your perfect home! Set back from the street, enjoy evenings on the front porch in a great neighborhood where everyone knows your name or retreat to the large rear yard and patios for summer entertaining. All of the 8 rooms are well proportioned and spacious with good ceiling height and excellent closet space. The eat-in kitchen features natural gas for cooking and laundry hookups. A commuters’ dream the BikeScore is 90 and the WalkScore 79, additionally it offers easy access to routes 2,128 and 93. This revered location is less than a mile from both Porter and Davis Squares as well as the Alewife T station. Savvy buyers take notice - revive this ‘diamond in the rough’ and create your own vision of perfection."  At this juncture, a new owner could potentially throw out what has been already started and build anything they want - no design oversight or review needed. With some humor, posters on Reddit noted grassy pasture setting on the upper right rendering was noted since Rindge today (as in the past) has an array of housing from this era, including one for at risk women. This is a very busy and often noisy avenue at times marked by loud sirens. The Reddit poster notes that "The reality is that this is a house in an old, crowded neighborhood. It's been like 20 years since any major work was done on the surrounding roads/sidewalks/sewer system.... Just feels kinda sad that I can't afford to live in my hometown anymore, despite having a great job." We agree! And as with the new and very expensive new Strawberry Hill, Riverside, Cambridgeport single family home and duplex properties this North Cambridge one fits in with the reality that our once more affordable neighborhoods are prime targets for new luxury homes. At least in this case current tenants were not forced out. Update 5: 161 Cushing Street (Strawberry Hill Neighborhood) A property that was highlighted on realtor websites on February 18 and 19, 2025 was a Strawberry Hill property on Cushing Street, advertised boldly as: "strategically located to take full advantage of recent zoning changes…. this property offers tremendous potential for redevelopment, including the option to build two luxury townhomes, each featuring off-street parking and approximately 3,500-4,000 sq. ft. of living space. With an estimated sellout of $6M based on comparable sales… this is an extraordinary investment opportunity. Alternatively, by-right zoning allows for the construction of 4-6 units, making it a prime buy-and-hold asset. For those looking to capitalize on the increased land value.” (emphasis added).  The listing price for this duplex now under construction is a whopping $2, 649,900. In short it is in the ball park of the many $2.5 million NEW, SPOTLESS, READY-TO-GO luxury homes now going up around the city. There is no doubt about it, the selling point for this Cushing Street property, which was built 100 years ago in 1925, is that someone with sizable financial means will be able to make a significant profit. It sits on a 5,000+ SF lot and has 6 bedrooms and 2 baths. The listing of this property on February 18, 2025 makes this clear: As of 3:45 PM on February 19, 2025, the day it was posted, the Reddit site listing had been viewed by nearly 2,000 people. It was listed on February 18 by the real estate agent for a whopping $2,649,900. At 5,000+ SF, this new Cushing Street project could go to 6 stories in height, provided it includes 10 or more units (20% of which would be inclusionary/affordable). Yet none of these new homes will be affordable. The realtor suggests this might be a 4 or 6 unit structure if an investor wanted this. In short these will be luxury units, likely to go for $2 million or more. None would be affordable to Cambridge librarians, police officers, or public school teachers. UPDATE 6: 18 Clinton St. (Mid-Cambridge) 18 Clinton St. sits on a large 6051 lot in a C-1 district near Central Square within the Mid- Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD). The original structure was built in 1858 and had served as a 4-8 unit apartment building. The city assessor's office appraised the land in 2025 as worth $1,344,000. They evaluate the building value as $891,600 for a total value of $2,235,600. The property (below) already had a plan approved by the Mid-Cambridge NCD and under construction when the citywide luxury upzoning petition passed on February 10. After this happened the developer decided to come back before the Mid-Cambridge NCD for a quite different plans that was based on the citywide upzoning. At the meeting, there was considerable discussion of the new plans in light of this February 10 decision, however, in the end the commissioners voted in support of the developer. Now there will be TWO very expensive homes on the property, replacing what had been identified by the assessor as 4-8 rental units (see new design below). Here again we see the impacts of the Cambridge upzoning, with the monetized decision to move to fewer larger units on property, removing green spaces and trees as part of the project more generally. We are finding the same thing happening throughout the city.  What might have been: the property is very close to Central square and on a 6,000 SF property one could well imagine a 6-story building here with 10+ units of which 20% would be inclusionary ("affordable") housing - or even a 4-story building with 4 large rental units. But since our City Council chose to leave our planning up to investors and developers, the results are what we would expect. No doubt in the end it will be an attractive and very expensive two family home property. One sad but perhaps not surprising aspect of this project, is that the pro-development group, A Better Cambridge (ABC), that rushed through the luxury housing upzoning, has used this example to argue that Neighborhood Conservation Districts, such as that that voted to allow this project to go forward, represent a problem.  Is the new plan a good one in architectural design terms? No. Is it a good design project in terms of increasing housing in Cambridge and lowering housing costs? Absolutely not, but this is what our new zoning is enabling developers to do with the blessing of the current City Council and its ABC majority members.  Indeed, the political group, A Better Cambridge, is now urging its supporters to contact City Council asking them not to renew any current NCDs (Mid-Cambridge is up for review shortly) and not to allow any new ones unless their review is "advisory" (non-binding). ABC is insisting that such programs have "the potential [to] misuse historical preservation or limit new housing." From this vantage maybe we should ban bikes or cars because of the potential of drivers to misuse stop signs. ABC's letter to members on March 12, 2025 also misstated the facts on the recent Mid-Cambridge decision concerning 18 Clinton where the developer wanted to change the plans to conform with the new zoning laws. As noted above, after considerable discussion this was permitted, and now a two family home will replace what were formerly six apartments. The previous Council was able to gut key elements by not permitting commissioners to rule on building heights or shapes. Read our other UPDATE 7: Investors in Cambridge. The image on the top left was received by many Cambridge residents today, urging people to sell out (no care for trees, lower income residents or other issues). This company specializes in "By investors for investors." 
0 Comments
 These images show documents from a Harvard undergraduate student group who has spoken out at the recent up-zoning meetings. At the last few meetings on the citywide up-zoning the people who gave public comment were roughly divided between proponents and opponents of the proposed ordinance, and concomitantly between largely older Cambridge property owners and largely younger Harvard & MIT students and others. Indeed, one commenter, noted that he could determine in advance the Pro- versus Con- viewpoint of a given speaker based on the relative youthfulness of their voices. Some of the intensity of opinions on these issues carries the flavor of the earlier generational divide during the Vietnam war era. In both cases core fundamental values and ideologies feature prominently in this discussion. When a society is facing tough issues concerning housing, affordability, livability, the environment, and infrastructure, then complex issues such as these often come into prominence. This is especially so when locally, nationally, and internationally the housing costs have grown exponentially, along with housing, property and related investments are bringing large returns, and a general sense that those who may have purchased earlier and are seeing their properties values (and taxes) increase so profoundly. There are other factors here as well, over the past 20 or 30 years the number of graduate students at our local universities have grown a lot, far outpacing the ability of schools to acquire needed housing. We know from the 2018 Cambridge Town & Gown Report the following housing facts: Students Living Off-Campus in non-University Housing Harvard 3340 (17.6% of all students in degree programs) MIT 2659 (23.8% of all students in degree programs) Hult School of Business 415 (39.3% of all students in degree programs) Lesley University 214 (5.8% of all students in degree programs). 6,228 (total # of students in Cambridge non-student housing) There are also another 6879 faculty and staff living in Cambridge as well as various post-docs. At some point this too needs to be addressed, as the number is increasing year-over-year (up 8.7% since 2014). However, in the current local, national, and university financial climate, as well as the increased costs of steel and other imported building supplies, this is not likely to be resolved without greatly reducing the number of graduate students, which in turn would impact university and program activities and revenues. What also needs to be stressed is that the growth of student population at two of the highest endowed universities in the world without university housing to mirror that growth has resulted in students driving up rents in neighborhoods, rent sharing in units that once housed working class families. Some also have been allowed t on affordable housing lists even though their income is temporary, by choice, and accompanied by the clear benefits of the degrees they are receiving. Let us explore this more closely by looking at MIT and Harvard public student engagement with the up-zoning proposal and ordinance. The MIT Graduate Student CouncilThe October 17, 2024 MIT Graduate Student Letter to City Councillors on the proposed upzoning ordinance is a very thoughtful one, laying out some of the problems that students are facing here not only with addressing housing needs, but also food insecurity.  The MIT Graduate Students Union raise two points of special interest and concern for them (see below). We appreciate these concerns, and their interest in bringing increased density (more residents) to the city as something important to both the success of our universities and technology industries here, as well as for maintaining and bringing new talent to our city. Similar increased population goals are in the city's Envision report.  At the same time, these students argue for the expansion of the citywide Affordable Housing Overlay (where and how is not indicated by them). What they do indicate is that they as graduate students want to be able to benefit from this part-publicly funded housing, alongside others of lower-and middle-income. As they note, "graduate students...mostly make less than 50% of area median income and often have difficulty finding housing at prices that do not result in severe rent burden." One former Harvard Graduate Student recalled to us how, in the past, students were encouraged to apply for federal and local funding set aside for others who would not share the same expectations of future significant earnings growth. In some ways this is also what MIT's students are suggesting. Yet, at the same time it is important to understand the responsibilities of this university (and others) to provide adequate housing in the area, in so far as they are receiving sizable tuition or grand funding and/or lab- teaching support that these students in turn are providing. In many ways students are simultaneously both an enormous resource and a driver of our housing costs. Since they receive receive regular housing allotment increases (to meet the increasing cost of housing here) and most are relatively short term renters, whose leases turn over every couple of years, their presence in our housing market helps push up housing costs with each new housing allotment increase, and with each lease termination. Indeed, it is at the time of lease terminations that rent prices increase most fast, presenting a classic "chicken and egg" problem. How we address this issue going forward has to involve MIT and other universities. Harvard's Undergraduate Urban Sustainability Student GroupThe "Cambridge Civic Taskforce" within the Harvard Urban Sustainabiliity Group states on their website that they are: "Interested in what’s going on where you live? Want to advocate for sustainable, just policy at the local level? We’re building a community of students who care about local politics and want to be knowledgeable and involved in Cambridge. This group will meet over a weekly meal to discuss local news, municipal governance, and opportunities for involvement. No experience in local politics is necessary!" We definitely applaud this, as we do their core"Community-First" orientation. As they state on their website: “The work we do can impact communities. We care about working directly with local governments or local impact groups. We work with a variety of stakeholders in order to ensure the research we provide is directly useful." This too is an ideal goal. We also applaud their focus on "Innovation" and specifically that "Making progress in the urban environment is all about thinking creatively. We values unique ideas and stories in order to make an impact." These are all laudable goals that we all share. We also support how they have encouraged fellow students to sign up and speak at City Council on this, as well as putting together and publishing a petition on this issue. This is all part of civic engagement and responsibility. Advising one's supporters on what they might say can also be helpful as they do here:  And what caught our attention here is not only that they are asked not to give their dorm name, but also that they are guided specifically to Councillor Burhan Azeem, the zoning petition's core sponsor, and the document that he and/or his office had prepared on this. This seems to us a rather one-sided perspective, and indeed a somewhat problematic influencing by Councillor Azeem to get the voices of these students (most of whom do not vote here) to come out in force on this issue. This "doc" with speaking talking points from Councillor Azeem's office is shown here. Many of us had wondered why so many of these youthful commenters were sounding so similar one to the others. You can see it here:  The information provided to these students at the Harvard "more housing" link at the Cambridge Civic Committee tab on the Harvard site also contains the following: "The below images are from a presentation by city staff on the original ordinance and a presentation by A Better Cambridge (a housing advocacy group) on how zoning limits housing options. [Emphasis added]These provide detailed explanations and examples if you want to learn more! While we support all residents and especially younger ones getting involved with civic issues in Cambridge, it is not a good sign that they have chosen, not to listen to various sides of the issue, but instead to follow the largely ideological driven views of this one political group. There were five different groups that spoke out against the the current upzoning ordinance. These included our group, Cambridge Citizens Coalition, the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, the Cambridge Residence Alliance, CARE Housing, NAACP, and Our Revolution. The pro-developer/pro-housing group A Better Cambridge (ABC) were the only main group in support of this plan, and because they now are a majority of Council, this large scale Zoning Petition has now been ordained. The link that is provided to the materials prepared by Azeem's political group (A Better Cambridge - ABC) includes glossy drawings and photographs of what this group believed (inaccurately in our view) will now be happening in Cambridge. See image below:  Finally, it is clear that, in addition to Harvard University Undergraduate Students and MIT Graduate Students (and others) sharing a responsibility to look broadly and deeply at the issues to better understand the issues, and get the facts right, we also feel that here too a line was crossed on the part of Councillor Azeem, much as he appears to have done with Cambridge's Plan E rules and possible issues around an investment property last May (see Part V). The petition that Harvard students are encouraged to sign (see below), takes the students directly to the A Better Cambridge mailing signup and volunteer possibilities.  Note what ABC is asking their student petitioners to support: apartments in Cambridge neighborhoods. Yet there is nothing in the ABC ordinance that requires or even encourages apartments to be built (unlike in some progressive upzoning efforts). Nor are there likely to be any apartment buildings constructed because they simply do not "pencil" out.
We do not begrudge Councillor Azeem and the ABC political group that spear-headed this YIMBY up-zoning effort. We applaud them in their success in attracting the Cambridge university students to their cause (although few appear to actually vote here). However, we do feel strongly that they have an obligation to take ownership of the likely outcomes of this upzoning petition: to make housing even more expensive here for everyone, including student renters, and others. And we do feel strongly that when a Council Council leader remarks that the residents here are roughly divided on the issue, so it is up to his Council majority to take things in their own hands and decide, that he is mis-framing if not misleading the population by privileging the comments of our more youthful residents who appear to have been in large part funneled Councillor Azeem's literature, talking points, and strategies of engagement. advocacy. At the same time we, in our civic groups, as professionals, civic leaders, educators, parents, and mentors need to reach out further to this group and others, letting them know that this huge Cambridge YIMBY success is already leading to higher housing prices and larger single-family homes, and that there is very little possibility that an "affordable" housing (by way of inclusionary units) are likely to be created through this ordinance. THE END.  PART FIVE -- CAMBRIDGE IS NUMBER 1!!!Councillor Azeem highlights his enormous YIMBY success in his "Primer" featuring Cambridge's huge victory over other progressive cities. See the above chart among others. Now in Cambridge, as Azeem points out, one can squeeze 46 units into 1,000 sq ft/unit projects. He adds:
"Incorrect or incomplete" appears to be basis for this ordinance. And, as Azeem himself urges "we will be watching." Most other cities, simply added the number of allowable units on each property, seeking to increase housing incrementally. And one city (Denver) chose to go back to earlier single family zoning in some neighborhoods because of gentrification impacts. Indeed, as the 46 units in 1,000 sq. ft/unit unit allowance makes clear, the Cambridge equivalent is more like luxury SROs (single room occupancy) projects, perfect for the investor wishing to own and potentially profit from a piece of Cambridge very expensive "dirt." But are these tiny proposed units actually meeting current Cambridge market interests and needs? Likely no. And there are so many problems with this proposal, and more the current and ongoing impacts, that it is hard to grasp what "Number 1" really means here.  As we have seen, it is larger single-family homes that have most favored status, pricing, and financial return. This is leading to gentrification in many of the related neighborhoods. And for those who want to maintain many of our historic homes in Cambridge, that is a good thing. However, it is a bad thing for the ideologically oriented City Councillors and their supporters who maintained that this plan would bring Cambridge housing prices lower, or at least prevent them from rising as quickly. The examples shown in this post - Kirkland Street, Henry Street, Cushing Street and others, show that this is decidedly NOT the case. Property costs and values are rising even higher now as a result of this up-zoning initiative. Councillor Azeem also includes his bio in this celebratory YIMBY Bluesky post which reads: "Councillor Burhan Azeem is the current co-chair of the Housing Committee on Cambridge City Council. In previous terms, he was the main sponsor for removing parking minimums and expanding the Affordable Housing Overlay in the city. He is a founder and board member of Abundant Housing MA, a statewide pro-housing nonprofit that organized to implement the MBTA Communities act (require cities near transit to rezone for more housing) and legalize accessory dwelling units (ADUs)." His colleagues on City Council at the time may disagree with his assuming "main sponsor" accolades on these other initiatives, but we do not begrudge Azeem his success and cheerleadership. The X/Twitter Feed YIMBY Celebration Councillor's Azeem's X (formerly Twitter) and BlueSky social media feeds on February 10 and 11, 2025 celebrate what he believes his victory actually means. And he produces and links to a primer he has authored showing others how they too can achieve this success elsewhere. "If you want more nerdy details, I wrote a primer here" he writes. In response to various celebratory posts he responds to key questions in a frank and informative way. Writes Lib Development on February 11: "So the billion dollar question [is], does the city apply discretionary permits to any development in this area that is nominally by right? If so they'r still screwed but I wouldn't know." Azeem responds: "No discretionary review for anything under 75 sq ft." What Azeem means, in short, is that there is no design oversight and developers get to do pretty much whatever they want. Azeem adds "It's 4 stories with no conditions. To get to 6, you need 20% IZ and at least 5,000 sqft lot. But you can build 6 anywhere if you meet these conditions." Another comment, by the election support group "Run for Something" also celebrated the up-zoning news on Azeem's feed: "Huge shoutout to RFS alum @realBurhanAzeem for championing one of the biggest city zoning changes in decades while also eliminating housing scarcity for MA residents." [Emphasis ours. Note: very unlikely]. Another person adds to the social media thread: "I hope someone is monitoring how this is affecting land prices. [W]ith such a large uniform upzoning I would be super interested in its effects on land." [Alas, we already know the answer]. In response to another question on whether we will see more down-conversions [duplexes or triplexes to single-family homes], Azeem notes: "...limiting down conversions is on the radar and in research/drafting. Gives us time to evaluate how this goes and maybe people will be less worried by the time it comes up for a vote." When someone else points "There's a profound contrast between 'build what you want' and 'you can't turn the building that you own into a single-family house," Azeem responds "Yeah it's valid. I'm more in the former camp but there's been negative reaction to $10M large homes built from a dozen smaller apartments and so gotta do what you gotta do." [in short, Azeem recognizes this problem of creating more luxury homes and increased housing costs in his new ordinance, but forges on any way with a shrug "gotta do what you gotta do." Jason Furman, the Harvard economist professor of practice who lives on swanky Francis Avenue, had championed Azeem's effort in an earlier Boston Globe opinion piece. Furman writes here "Cambridge got it done! One day thousands of families will be living here, spending less of their budget on rent, and few of them will realize it never would have happened but for the leadership and persistence." [Note: let's have a bet, Professor Furman, on how much rent people will now be saving here now!] Another social media poster in this celebratory Azeem chain asks "Are there any rules against existing owners selling out to a developer? That's the fatal flaw in California's YIMBY reforms." Azeem replies "No. And no labor restrictions. It's mostly a clean bill. Only limitation you might not like is the 120% IZ [inclusionary zoning: Note: Is Azeem seems to conveying here opposition to affordable housing needs in Cambridge]] Another poster asks: "What is a new expectation for new units over the next 15 years with the zoning change?" Azeem states: "Maybe 12,500? Hard to really say given the tough economic conditions." [note: this is the housingnumber that CDD, the Cambridge Community Development group drew from thin air to add to the City's Envision housing goals]. Asks another person on this social media chain: "I remember reading a report showing that you had to go above 4 stories for single family infill to pencil with rents that middle class could afford. One question: how are open space requirements calculated?" Azeem replies "It's a bit complicated." [On open space]: "I'd say a rule of thumb is that 30% open space (so 3000 sq ft on a 10k sq ft lot) of which half needs to be permeable (like grass) and half can be decks or balconies or permeable. Setbacks count as part open space." [Note: There are some problems with this answer, since we have shown elsewhere that one could, using these guidelines, create new housing with no viable green space]. Writes another commenter on this celebratory announcement: "Have y'all considered funding the IZ via appropriations so that it pencils better? Or at least via tax abatement." Azeem answers: "Will examine the results of this and potentially. We hoped that we could zone enough that it would make IZ pencil." Note the term "pencil" here or the phrase "tough to pencil" means that there is no means financially for the investor or developer to do a project considering the costs of land, building supplies, labor and other factors. Explains another person, with an apt reality check "Certainly very permissive. My sense is there will be a lot of 4 story buildings. 5,000 min lot size +construction change (at 6) + inclusionary will be tough to pencil." This is very likely to be the case. Still another individual asks about "...measures to help preserve beautiful Victorian and other historic homes of Cambridge? Say one lives in Inman square on a street of historic homes - a developer could presumably outbid any family to buy any of them, tear it down, and build a 6 story building in its place?" To this question, Azeem answers "Yes in our historical commission ordinance we have a demolition delay ordinance for all homes older than 50 years." Alas, Azeem fails to point out that we have only a one year demolition delay and the Cambridge Historical Commission Executive Director can (and sometimes does) simply allow a demolition without commissioner (board) review. Immediately following the above comment, Azeem reposted one from YIMBYLAND that celebrated his great Cambridge success: "Thanks to the new reforms in Cambridge MA, gorgeous 6-story apartment buildings like these are now legal to build CITY-WIDE!" with the accompanying photograph.  See all the trees and planted green spaces in the above rendering? No. Nor did we. Notice all the preserved Victorian homes in this pretty rendering? No. We didn't either. Remember in our earlier post, the tearing up of inner city Medieval Paris that was part of the large boulevard's that Haussman created there. Where is the funding, will, or interest to do that here. Fortunately it will not happen. And if the YIMBY proponents of Cambridge's no-holds-barred up-zoning, think this will create a New England-based broad-boulevard style Paris, with elegant, stylistically congruent buildings facing our narrow quirky streets they might want to think again. Bay State Road As the citywide upzoning was being publicly launched in late spring 2024, Councillor Azeem purchased an 1890 2.5 story duplex home adjacent to the now empty Sozio store on Bay State Road from Louis Sozio. The property sits near the rotary overlooking Fresh Pond. He acquired in the late spring of 2024 around his citywide up-zoning proposal was being launched in public. According to a Cambridge Day report, he has stated that he is happy to have his current tenants remain there and we applaud him for this, even as the $1.197,000 property (like any property now in Cambridge) represents a great investment opportunity. It is now likely worth far more now that the up-zoning has passed. But at least he has made a commitment for the residents to remain there. Most Cambridge residents of residential units that get caught up in the up-zoning mayhem will not be so lucky.  Above image on the left: Beige 1890 two family home on Bay State Road acquired by Councillor Azeem. This citywide up-zoning project was well towards completion by the time it was presented in the form of a slide deck to the Housing Committee by Azeem and Jeff Roberts, the city's zoning expert in May 8, 2024: HERE. Clearly this city councillor and city staff were working closely together on this project far before it was presented to the public in a hearing, a concern that was raised to a resident by the late City Councillor Joan Pickett at the time. Some see this as a breech of our city's Plan E form of government.
In the end, the citywide up-zoning in Cambridge appears to be a major YIMBY success, but the consequences to date are not what the planners and proponents anticipated. Far from it. Rather than bringing down housing costs so more people can afford to live here, instead, housing costs are rising even higher, and with the new ordinance, realtors and purchasers of larger single- family luxury homes are the major winners! Go Cambridge. If this is indeed what the proponents wanted they have succeeded well. And as the Boston Globe editorial exclaims: "Bravo to Cambridge for ending single-family-only zoning." While City Council rejected the efforts by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition to do that in 2020 with our Advancing Housing Affordability petition, this part of the work is now over. The city’s move will create more housing and provide a valuable model for other cities in the Commonwealth." We disagree with the Globe's and YIMBY proponents main argument however, that the kind of new luxury housing being promoted in their Valentine's Day (February 14) Editorial piece (HERE) is the kind of housing we are looking for here and elsewhere. This new luxury housing is more akin the Great Gatsby and the Gilded Age. Emblazoned across the Banker and Tradesman's update on the zoning ordinance "Cambridge Upzoning Could Unlock 3.6K homes." This too is doubtful, but most of those that will be constructed are likely to be luxury housing units (single family homes and duplexes especially) and the chief beneficiaries will be the Realtors, Investors, and Bankers. More lower- and middle-income Cambridge residents will be forced out as housing prices escalate even higher. READ PART SIX: HERE  PART FOUR -- A PRIMER: OUR Revolutionary YIMBY Success StoryCITY COUNCILLOR Burhan Azeem has published a PRIMER on Upzoning in Celebrating his Huge YIMBY Victory in Cambridge! His celebratory YIMBY primer is getting a lot of hits, "shares" and positive comments on the new Bluesky social media site. You can read the Primer here: Primer on Cambridge's Multifamily Housing Zoning Cambridge City Councillor, Burhan Azeem Councillor Azeem writes in part: "The City of Cambridge, home to about 118,000 residents as well as Harvard and MIT, has had one of the most complicated and restrictive zonings in America—so much so that in a city of 55,000 housing units, just 350 units were expected to be built in the next 15 years in our neighborhoods. A full 85%+ of the neighborhoods were nonconforming, meaning that most of the buildings in the current city are illegal to build under current zoning (never mind adding new units). This issue, coupled with rising rental rates—the average rent for a one-bedroom in Cambridge is $3,466—and our national housing crisis, has made housing the forefront issue for many Americans. I, along with my housing co-chair (Cllr. Sumbul Siddiqui), and the rest of the Housing Committee set out to reimagine our zoning to match the moment. This culminated in a two-pronged approach: a citywide zoning effort to legalize six stories citywide, paired with another zoning reform to increase density in the corridors and squares, which we expect to begin later this year." Azeem includes the City's illustration below as part of this primer, perhaps to show both the massive extent of the up-zoning. Currently the average height of city homes is 2.5 stories (allowable to 35 feet everywhere). The above Henry Street project is typical. And while, the heights of the 6 story buildings came down from 75' to 74' this is not much of a negotiated reframing. Nor does he mention here that as part of the up-zoning ordinance, the city is now allowing 9 story buildings in every neighborhood if they are 100% affordable, partially public-funded projects conforming with our recently passed Affordable Housing Overlay. Azeem writes in this post:  As we see here, Azeem publishes his celebratory post with these words: "We just passed the single most comprehensive rezoning in the US--legalizing multifamily housing up to 6 stories city wide in a Paris style." We will address the Paris issue later in this post and in Part V but let's look at what this so-called primer actually states. Councillor Azeem goes on to write in this "primer" that: "•On February 10, 2025, Cambridge passed our Multifamily Housing Zoning, which ended exclusionary zoning in Cambridge. It’s one of the biggest rezonings in the country, which will set a great baseline for the city and hopefully cities across the country. •The original six-story proposal was built to set a strong pipeline for housing growth. It eliminated single-family and two-family zoning restrictions, permitting multifamily and townhouse residences by right in all residential districts. It also removed many dimensional restrictions except for a six-story height limit: no setbacks, no FAR (floor-by-area ratio), no dwelling unit per lot area, no maximum number of units, no townhouse restrictions, no minimum lot size, no special permits (for buildings under 75k sqft), and no parking minimums. It had a 30% open space requirement, a ten-foot front setback for trees, and mandated that 1 in 5 new units be affordable (for buildings with 10+ units). •We added three minor amendments: a five-foot side & rear setback requirement with exemptions; a requirement that buildings over four stories must include affordable units; and a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. for 5- and 6-story buildings. Overall, the changes were modest; it was a huge win for housing advocates everywhere." [emphasis added] Whereas other supporting Councillors, including Councillors McGovern and Toner have insisted that this was a real negotiation of various parties concerned with this upzoning, Councillor Azeem makes it clear here in his celebration of the "WIN" that any such changes were "MODEST"! That is indeed the case. Other than a one foot lowering of the heights of six-story projects, and a requirement that these be on 5,000 SF lots or larger, as well as moving back new developments from the property line to five feet from the property line, little else of merit was considered. And as many noted the shift from the property line to 5' inside the property line had more to do with fire protection and non-conforming properties in Cambridge than any real concession. And what about Paris? Specifically Haussmann's Paris that we see in the central city today. It must be remembered there are strict height and other design guidelines in Paris. This was also true in the period in which Haussmann's plans were under way from 1853 and 1870. The larger core of the Medieval city center was demolished, the historic Jewish and market quarters among these because they were thought to be overcrowded and ridden by disease. The glamorous wide avenues, squares, and parks came at the expense of many of the city's long term residents and the myriad homes in which they lived. In addition, the planned interior green spaces within each housing complex was clearly part of the goals aimed at making the city more modern and livable.  By way of conclusion, any primer on a subject as important a a massive citywide up-zoning should not only provide core, basic facts about the situation, but also accurate comparisons. This up-zoning successfully managed to remove core city planning and oversight of residential building city wide, leaving it up to the investors' and developers' own interests and how these projects "pencil" out (achieve the profit interests in play). The careful planning of Haussmann for Paris was very different in scope and impact. A more apt metaphor for what has happened in this Cambridge up-zoning is a combination of "move fast and break it" techno framing and let's sit back and simply let money talk. READ PART FIVE: HERE
 PART THREE -- Strawberry Fields Forever We see another fine new YIMBY example in the western part of the city in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood. Cushing StreetA property that was practically screaming off realtor websites on February 18 and 19, 2025 was a Strawberry Hill property on Cushing Street, advertised boldly as: ” strategically located to take full advantage of recent zoning changes…. this property offers tremendous potential for redevelopment, including the option to build two luxury townhomes, each featuring off-street parking and approximately 3,500-4,000 sq. ft. of living space. With an estimated sellout of $6M based on comparable sales… this is an extraordinary investment opportunity. Alternatively, by-right zoning allows for the construction of 4-6 units, making it a prime buy-and-hold asset. For those looking to capitalize on the increased land value.” (emphasis added). The listing price for this duplex now under construction is a whopping $2, 649,900. In short it is in the ball park of the many $2.5 million NEW, SPOTLESS, READY-TO-GO luxury homes now going up around the city. There is no doubt about it, the selling point for this Cushing Street property, which was built 100 years ago in 1925, is that someone with sizable financial means will be able to make a significant profit. It sits on a 5,000+ SF lot and has 6 bedrooms and 2 baths. The listing of this property on February 18, 2025 makes this clear: As of 3:45 PM on February 19, 2025, the day it was posted, the Reddit site listing had been viewed by nearly 2,000 people. It was listed on February 18 by the real estate agent for a whopping $2,649,900. At 5,000+ SF, this new Cushing Street project could go to 6 stories in height, provided it includes 10 or more units (20% of which would be inclusionary/affordable). Yet none of these new homes will be affordable. The realtor suggests this might be a 4 or 6 unit structure if an investor wanted this. In short these will be luxury units, likely to go for $2 million or more. None would be affordable to Cambridge librarians, police officers, or public school teachers. Lots of people have eyes on this property, whether as serious prospective buyers, as simply as gawkers. The realtor who posted the property and both its price and interest to for wealthy investors captured the interest clearly.  This property, currently a duplex, is located in the once moderate-income area of Strawberry Hill, the neighborhood to the far west of the city named, perhaps for the large number of wild strawberries that once grew here. Strawberry Hill has many deep yards, and is one of the neighborhoods most at risk in this YIMBY up-zoning, in danger of demolitions to create even larger single family homes, duplexes and condos.  What are the plans for this property? Time will tell. But quite possibly it will be taken down and instead an even larger VERY EXPENSIVE home (or homes) will replace it, perhaps a duplex or even an investors' dream 4-6 unit luxury condos.  Since this duplex is already owned by a developer/investment team, it looks as if they may be looking at another developer or investor team to take the next step, cognizant of what new potentials the recent up-zoning offers. The realtor who posted this property had no reason to believe this would include any "affordable units" - in short, it would not go close to the 10 units needed to require inclusionary. What we do know however is that there will be no design oversight and no means of legal appeal if things go terribly wrong. It is a good thing, however, that the owners of this development property also are local. One is a Marketing Director for a company that seeks to scale-up companies, with innovative deal structures, investment and tax strategies. The other is a real estate attorney with a global technology focus, who is highly skilled in global mobility, international corporate law, compliance, risk management. We wish the current owners well in selecting a new owner to create one or more new beautiful home(s) here, and hope that the new owners who will move into this wonderful neighborhood and be participants in it. 31 Thingalla Avenue (newly listed February 26, 2025)This is a two family home listed for $2,495,000 and intended for an investor, here suggesting two luxury condos in place of the current 1928 two family home. It was last sold in 1996 and the current assessed value is $1,337,500.  As the ad on Zillow indicates: "Exciting Investment and Development Opportunity in the Strawberry Hill area of Cambridge! Discover the potential of this prime location currently designed to build two luxury townhouses, each boasting over 2,400 sq ft of living space. These townhouses present an unparalleled chance to capitalize on the thriving market for high-end residential properties in Cambridge. Moreover, recent zoning changes unlock an array of possibilities, presenting the opportunity for innovative redevelopment and potential expansion into additional housing units. This is the perfect time to invest in the future of Strawberry Hill and shape the neighborhood's landscape with your unique vision. Don’t miss out on this exceptional opportunity to create something extraordinary!"  There are a number of row houses along with other duplexes in this neighborhood, but it most likely will not be refashioned into a larger project with 10+ units (along with 20% inclusionary ones). STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER On Sunday, February 23, 2025 Boston Globe posted a "bold call" for action by their YIMBY housing proponent and staff writer, Andrew Brinker. In this article titled “A bold call on housing to end the single-family” Boston Globe staff reporter, Andrew Brinker addresses the Ma. state commission on housing production as it targets single-family housing and other sweeping reforms. The title is a rather strange by weirdly appropriate one, since the commission’s interest would appear to NOT be to “end the single-family” as the title explicitly states, but rather change single family zoning regulations state wide. Alas this proposal (and Cambridge's new ordinance, will indeed increase difficulties single-families themselves may have staying together, with two partners and their children living together in the same place in a home that is affordable and in viable commutable distance from their respective work sites. We get that editorial errors sometimes happen, even on the Sunday edition above the fold title, but this is about more than that one mistake, or even the "Brain freeze?" that portends a disastrous near future for Cambridge and the Boston area in terms of new federal policies that will hit our city especially hard because of the importance of science money and federal workers her. The "Brain freeze?"commentary by Shirley Leung is an especially important and timely one to read now. And it is important to support local journalism, and at least some of what passes for thoughtful writing.  In this article on the state commission recommendations, Brinker cites "...a statement responding to the commission’s recommendations, the Massachusetts Municipal Association said it “would have significant concerns about many of the proposals.” We agree with them, but generally not for the same reasons. What we are seeing in Cambridge is the sizable impacts of this zoning ordinance increasing the costs of housing even further, and pushing even more properties into the real of unattainable for any but the most affluent residents and outside investors. "The proposed tying more municipal funding - like school and highway funds - to state housing goals so that 'communities will have stronger incentives to adopt pro-housing initiatives" is even more appalling in light of what is happening here, and the ways in which our housing policies (both luxury-market rate and "affordable") are pushing us into a set of increasingly segregated public schools in the city. The state commission also points to ending parking minimums as was done in Cambridge, without any seeming understanding that without a viable, inexpensive and sustained public housing transportation system here and throughout the state, some city and state residents no longer will be able to get to work, go to the doctors, or pick up groceries. We have found that decreasing parking minimums have only a minimal impact on the actual reduction of parking spaces, since as every market rate housing developer knows it is far easier (and more lucrative) to sell housing if there is on site parking as part of the project. Brinker then goes on to quote, and also to highlight visually the words of commission member, Jesse Kanson-Benanov, who happens to be a former Cambridge resident, a co-founder of the pro-developer political group, A Better Cambridge, and Executive Director of the pro-housing development group (Abundant Housing) on which Cambridge Councillor Burhan Azeem sits on the Board.  Far more soul-searching indeed indeed is in order, as well as fact based analyses. But pro-YIMBY groups in their celebration over Cambridge's great success, and the Globe editorial board and staff writer Andrew Brinker should step back and do real reporting on what the hard rightwing, libertarian, neo-liberal "move fast and break it YIMBY mentality has already started to do in Cambridge. The lyrics of the famous Beatle Song, Strawberry Fields Forever, alas are under copyright. But let is be said that they refer to a place where "nothing is real" and there is nothing to be hung up about, "...living is easy with eyes closed/Misunderstanding is all you see." For good measure here is a link to the Beatles Strawberry Fields video HERE The whole is sounding very much to us like YIMBY Cambridge (and Massachusetts' Commission") perspectives on adding more, far larger and more expensive luxury housing.  Beatles from Promotional video. Fair Use. Creative Commons Note: Updated to include a discussion of the Feb 23, 2025 Boston Globe article by staff writer Andrew Brinker along with an engagement with the Beatles' hit by this name. READ PART FOUR -- HERE
 PART TWO -- YIMBY Present and PastCouncillors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui were key sponsors of this up-zoning in the May 15, 2024 Boston Globe article: HERE On the image at the top of this post and the right hand side of the image bellow, we see the Kirkland Street property that was used in show-casing the upzoning petition's two main proponents, Councillors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddique (here shaded by the large Spruce tree that was cut down several days later). The Kirkland Street property appears again in the Boston Globe more recently, specifically in the February 2025 article celebrating Cambridge for its very YIMBY citywide zoning petition. This second photo was taken before the tall defining adjacent Spruce tree was fed to a wood-chipper, because of Insurance company concerns of possible structural harm.  Housing across the city has been horribly expensive for a while, and it was in part to redress this problem that Cambridge YIMBYs and others have advocated for and have finally succeeded in loosening the requirements for building, targeting the BZA and other Boards as well as some more restrictive requirements on set backs and heights consistent with neighborhood housing nearby. The Boston Globe's first post on the Cambridge up-zoning plan in May 15 2024, by their pro-YIMBY reporter, Andrew Brinker, featured the views of the two councillors promoting this vision, Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui, who were key sponsors of this up-zoning: HERE KIRKLAND STREETLet's take a closer look at a Kirkland Street property featured in the Boston Globe is an especially important one to explore further because it offers a number of insights on what is already beginning to happen here with the Multi-Family Housing upzoning. First some facts about the property from the City Assessor's Office, and the Online Property Database. We can see much of the data below. The Kirkland home is found in C-1 zoning, delimited as one of the city's most dense areas, but earlier with both specific height and set back criteria, along with design oversight criteria and a means of legal redress. Like many properties in Cambridge, the land is worth far more than the building itself. The property is a relatively deep one, with the the house located near the front of the lot with two parking areas, one on the left, and the other down a long driveway on the right that leads to a shed that abuts the rear property.  The title of the property identifies it as belonging to an LLC company, associated with a developer who lives a few blocks away in the same Kirkland Village neighborhood. The property is listed on the City database as being in "very poor" shape on the exterior and interior. It appears to have been used as offices in the recent past. It would seem to be a perfect candidate for demolition rather than repurposing, and possibly with a much taller and larger structure (or two). The land area of this very narrow property is 5,756 square feet, so according to the new upzoning, this property could go to six stories, provided that it is a building of 10 or more units, 20% of those being inclusionary ones that are "affordable" (meaning intended for people owning c. 60-120% average median income. This is VERY unlikely to happen however, since the price of steel is so high, and very few developers want to pay for the extra "affordable" ones, and the other tenants (or condo owners) would pay for the cost differential, escalating the prices even more. Neighbors of the Kirkland property are pretty lucky in that this current owner and developer is a neighbor who has indicated that he wants to get this project right. Plausibly this project will become two single-family homes, one at the front (closer to the street than the current home), and another behind it. In all likelihood the project will go to three stories, but two stories and four stories are also possible. In terms of style, we have learned that the architect is looking to create "box-like' contemporary homes that younger clients tend to like. We can't fault the developer or the architect on this front. Indeed, some of these contemporary box-like homes are very attractive and such plans tend to make good use of existing space.  Boxes take many interesting shapes, and likely the new single family homes (and their new owners) will be welcome additions to the neighborhoods, so too, would be the opportunity for architects to create new and sometimes creative approaches to the form. The structure on the left is featured as a "modern cozy box home" in Dwelling.Com. The one on the right called "a twisty box" was showcased in the November 11, 2020 Real Estate Section of Boston.Com. We won't know the final design of the Kirkland Property until the plans come to the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) for approval and permitting. We do know that these new homes, and every other must be compliant with BOTH Cambridge and the Mass State environmental rules. As more such homes get built the amount of electricity the city will need from Eversource or another source will increase substantially. Whatever the final architectural plans created for the site, the finished home(s) are likely to cost $2.5 million apiece or more. This is not the kind of housing that will work for our local firefighters, social workers, or teachers. American Dream Houses c.1900 What we also know is that the current "Gilded Age" mentality in Cambridge and around the U.S. by this YIMBY generation.is very different from what was happening 125 years ago when this Kirkland House was built ca.1900 right at the very beginning of a new populist movement to provide inexpensive homes via kits or accessible plans that would see a much less expensive grouping of homes rise across the area and elsewhere. When the existing Kirkland home is torn down, we hope that a neighbor (or even the developer) will have the foresight to look at the lumber to see if he can get the trademark name of the furnisher. Was it a Bennett home, or another model. 1900 was well before the 1910s when Sears & Roebuck were selling kit homes, which made them even more accessible to so many young people who wanted to bring up families in towns across the United States.  Where, we must ask, is the new "American Dream" in the far overpriced luxury McMansions that, Councillors Azeem and Siddiqui and their supporters on Cambridge City Council are now promoting in their recent upxoning ordinance, which might be better labeled "Mana from Luxury Mansion Heaven. These new homes, unlike the 1900 American Dream Homes are not about the "every person" or their needs. Even in the Gilded Age, there was a sense that hard working "regular" people needed a reasonably priced place to call "home."  Learn more about this American Dream House movement in sources like these:
Historic New England Kit Houses 1900s Kit Homes as Architecture Products Sears Houses in Cincinnati The Mail Order American Dream – uploaded to McMansion Hell We are now some 125 years post the American Dream House movement, though many are also still thinking about building kits, less expensive models and the need to house a new generation of workers and their families. But the $2.5 - $4 million costs per home, is not going to achieve any similar ends, and will do quite the opposite by increasing property values (and taxes) also of nearby homes, possibly forcing out lower- income and middle-income residents here and those fixed incomes. READ PART THREE -- HERE  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 Left Photo: Kirkland St home. (Kirkland Villages Neighborhood) Center Photo: Cushing St. Home (Strawberry Hill) Right Photo: Jay Street (Riverside) PARTS 1-6Part 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 goals 100 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. 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, and they are quite telling. Let's look at several local properties. Two of these property decisions show impacts that appear to be directly related to the recent radical citywide upzoning. The initial results are NOT what the promoters had hoped for, or had desired. We will get to these examples, but first some background. Cambridge McMansions: Already Happening HereHuron AvenueThis 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 StreetAnother 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 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 up-zoning 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." 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. PART TWO: YIMBY Present and Past Councillors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui, were key sponsors of this up-zoning in the May 15, 2024 Boston Globe article: HERE At the top of this post and the left image below, we see the Kirkland Street property that was used in show-casing the up-zoning petition's two main proponents, Councillors Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddique (here shaded by the large Spruce tree that was cut down several days later). The Kirkland Street home appears again in the Boston Globe more recently, specifically in the February 2025 article celebrating Cambridge for its very YIMBY citywide zoning petition. This second photo was taken before the tall defining adjacent Spruce tree was fed to a wood-chipper, because of Insurance company concerns of possible structural harm.  Housing across the city has been horribly expensive for a while, and it was in part to redress this problem that Cambridge YIMBYs and others have advocated for and have finally succeeded in loosening the requirements for building, targeting the BZA and other boards as well as some more restrictive requirements on set backs and heights consistent with neighborhood housing nearby. The Boston Globe's first post on the Cambridge up-zoning plan in May 15 2024, by their pro-YIMBY reporter, Andrew Brinker, featured the views of the two councillors promoting this vision, Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui, who were key sponsors of this up-zoning: HERE KIRKLAND STREETLet's take a closer look at a Kirkland Street property featured in the Boston Globe stories. The Kirkland property featured in the Boston Globe is an especially important one to explore further because it offers a number of insights on what is already beginning to happen here with the Multi-Family Housing up-zoning. First some facts about the property from the City Assessor's Office, and the Online Property Database. We can see much of the data below. The Kirkland home is found in C-1 zoning, delimited as one of the city's most dense areas, but earlier with both specific height and set back criteria, along with design oversight criteria and a means of legal redress. Like many properties in Cambridge, the land is worth far more than the building itself. The property is a relatively deep one, with the house located near the front of the lot with two parking areas, one on the left, and the other down a long driveway on the right that leads to a shed that abuts the rear property.  The title of the property identifies it as belonging to an LLC company, associated with a developer who lives a few blocks away in the same Kirkland Village neighborhood. The Kirkland property is listed on the City database as being in "very poor" shape on the exterior and interior. It appears to have been used as offices in the recent past. It would seem to be a perfect candidate for demolition rather than repurposing, and possibly with a much taller and larger structure (or two). The land area of this very narrow property is 5,756 square feet, so according to the new upzoning, this property could go to six stories, provided that it is a building of 10 or more units, 20% of those being inclusionary ones that are "affordable" (meaning intended for people owning c. 60-120% average median income. This is VERY unlikely to happen however, since the price of steel is so high, and very few developers want to pay for the extra "affordable" ones, and the other tenants (or condo owners) would pay for the cost differential, escalating the prices even more. Neighbors of the Kirkland property are pretty lucky in that this current owner and developer is a neighbor who has indicated that he wants to get this project right. Plausibly this project will become two single-family homes, one at the front (closer to the street than the current home), and another behind it. In all likelihood the project will go to three stories, but two stories and four stories are also possible. In terms of style, we have learned that the architect is looking to create "box-like' contemporary homes that younger clients tend to like. We can't fault the developer or the architect on this front. Indeed, some of these contemporary box-like homes are very attractive and such plans tend to make good use of existing space. Boxes take many interesting shapes, and likely the new single family homes (and their new owners) will be welcome additions to the neighborhoods; so, too would be the opportunity for architects to create new and sometimes creative approaches to the form. The structure on the left is featured as a "modern cozy box home" in Dwelling.Com. The one on the right called "a twisty box" was showcased in the November 11, 2020 Real Estate Section of Boston.Com. We won't know the final design of the Kirkland Property until the plans come to the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) for approval and permitting. We do know that these new homes, and every other must be compliant with BOTH Cambridge and the Mass State environmental rules. As more such homes get built the amount of electricity the city will need from Eversource or another source will increase substantially. Whatever the final architectural plans created for the site, the finished home(s) are likely to cost $2.5 million apiece or more. This is not the kind (cost) of housing that will work for our local firefighters, social workers, or teachers. American Dream Houses c.1900 What we also know is that the current "Gilded Age" mentality in Cambridge and around the U.S. by this YIMBY generation.is very different from what was happening 125 years ago when this Kirkland House was built ca. 1900, right at the very beginning of a new populist movement to provide inexpensive homes via kits or accessible plans that would see a much less expensive grouping of homes rise across the area and elsewhere. When the existing Kirkland home is torn down, we hope that a neighbor (or even the developer) will have the foresight to look at the lumber to see if he can get the trademark name of the furnisher. Was it a Bennett home, or another model. 1900 was well before the 1910s when Sears & Robuck were selling kit homes, which made them even more accessible to so many young people who wanted to bring up families in towns across the United States.  Where, we must ask, is the new "American Dream" in the far overpriced luxury McMansions that, Councillors Azeem and Siddiqui and their supporters on Cambridge City Council are now promoting in their recent upzoning ordinance, which might be better labeled "Mana from Luxury Mansion Heaven. These new homes, unlike the 1900 American Dream Homes are not about the "every person" or their needs. Even in the Gilded Age, there was a sense that hard working "regular" people needed a reasonably priced place to call "home"  Learn more about this American Dream House movement in sources like these: Historic New England Kit Houses 1900s Kit Homes as Architecture Products Sears Houses in Cincinnati The Mail Order American Dream – uploaded to McMansion Hell We are now some 125 years post the American Dream House movement, though many are also still thinking about building kits, less expensive models and the need to house a new generation of workers and their families. But the $2.5 - $4 million costs per home, is not going to achieve any similar ends, and will do quite the opposite by increasing property values (and taxes) also of nearby homes, possibly forcing out lower- income and middle-income residents here and those fixed incomes. PART THREE -- STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVERWe see another example to the west in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood. Cushing St.A property that was practically screaming off realtor websites on February 18 and 19, 2025 was a Strawberry Hill property on Cushing Street, advertised boldly as: ” strategically located to take full advantage of recent zoning changes…. this property offers tremendous potential for redevelopment, including the option to build two luxury townhomes, each featuring off-street parking and approximately 3,500-4,000 sq. ft. of living space. With an estimated sellout of $6M based on comparable sales… this is an extraordinary investment opportunity. Alternatively, by-right zoning allows for the construction of 4-6 units, making it a prime buy-and-hold asset. For those looking to capitalize on the increased land value.” (emphasis added). The listing price for this duplex now under construction is a whopping $2, 649,900. In short it is in the ball park of the many $2.5 million NEW, SPOTLESS, READY-TO-GO luxury homes now going up around the city. There is no doubt about it, the selling point for this Cushing Street property, which was built 100 years ago in 1925, is that someone with sizable financial means will be able to make a significant profit. It sits on a 5,000+ SF lot and has 6 bedrooms and 2 baths. The listing of this property on February 18, 2025 makes this clear: As of 3:45 PM on February 19, 2025, the day it was posted, the Reddit site listing had been viewed by nearly 2,000 people. It was listed on February 18 by the real estate agent for a whopping $2,649,900. At 5,000+ SF, this new Cushing Street project could go to 6 stories in height, provided it includes 10 or more units (20% of which would be inclusionary/affordable). Yet none of these new homes will be affordable. The realtor suggests this might be a 4 or 6 unit structure if an investor wanted this. In short these will be luxury units, likely to go for $2 million or more. None would be affordable to Cambridge librarians, police officers, or public school teachers.  Lots of people have eyes on this property, whether as serious prospective buyers, as simply as gawkers. The realtors which posted the property and both its price and interest to for wealthy investors captured the interest clearly.  This property, currently a duplex, is located in the once moderate-income area of Strawberry Hill, the neighborhood to the far west of the city named, perhaps for the large number of wild strawberries that once grew here. Strawberry Hill has many deep yards, and is one of the neighborhoods most at risk from this YIMBY up-zoning, in danger of demolitions to create even larger single family homes, duplexes and condos.  What are the plans for this property? Time will tell. But quite possibly it will be taken down and instead an even larger VERY EXPENSIVE home (or homes) will replace it, perhaps a duplex or even an investors' dream 4-6 unit luxury condos.  Since this duplex is already owned by a developer/investment team, it looks as if they may be looking at another developer or investor team to take the next step, cognizant of what new potentials the recent up-zoning offers. The realtor who posted this property had no reason to believe this would include any "affordable units" - in short, it would not go close to the 10 units needed to require inclusionary. What we do know however is that there will be no design oversight and no means of legal appeal if things go terribly wrong. It is a good thing, however, that the owners of this development property also are local. One is a Marketing Director for a company that seeks to scale-up companies, with innovative deal structures, investment and tax strategies. The other is a real estate attorney with a global technology focus, who is highly skilled in global mobility, international corporate law, compliance, risk management. We wish the current owners well in selecting a new owner to create one or more new beautiful home(s) here, and hope that the new owners who will move into this wonderful neighborhood and be important participants in it. STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVEROn Sunday, February 23, 2025 Boston Globe posted a "bold call" for action by their YIMBY housing proponent and staff writer, Andrew Brinker. In this article titled “A bold call on housing to end the single-family” Boston Globe staff reporter, Andrew Brinker addresses the Ma. state commission on housing production as it targets single-family housing and other sweeping reforms. The title is a rather strange by weirdly appropriate one, since the commission’s interest would appear to NOT be to “end the single-family” as the title explicitly states, but rather change single family zoning regulations state wide. Alas this proposal (and Cambridge's new ordinance, will indeed increase difficulties single-families themselves may have staying together, with two partners and their children living together in the same place in a home that is affordable and in viable commutable distance from their respective work sites. We get that editorial errors sometimes happen, even on the Sunday edition above the fold title, but this is about more than that one mistake, or even the "Brain freeze?" that portends a disastrous near future for Cambridge and the Boston area in terms of new federal policies that will hit our city especially hard because of the importance of science money and federal workers her. The "Brain freeze?"commentary by Shirley Leung is an especially important and timely one to read now. And it is important to support local journalism, and at least some of what passes for thoughtful writing.  In this article on the state commission recommendations, Brinker cites "...a statement responding to the commission’s recommendations, the Massachusetts Municipal Association said it “would have significant concerns about many of the proposals.” We agree with them, but generally not for the same reasons. What we are seeing in Cambridge is the sizable impacts of this zoning ordinance increasing the costs of housing even further, and pushing even more properties into the real of unattainable for any but the most affluent residents and outside investors. "The proposed tying more municipal funding - like school and highway funds - to state housing goals so that 'communities will have stronger incentives to adopt pro-housing initiatives" is even more appalling in light of what is happening here, and the ways in which our housing policies (both luxury-market rate and "affordable") are pushing us into a set of increasingly segregated public schools in the city. This state commission also points to ending parking minimums as was done in Cambridge, without any seeming understanding that without a viable, inexpensive and sustained public housing transportation system here and throughout the state, some city and state residents no longer will be able to get to work, go to the doctors, or pick up groceries. We have found that decreasing parking minimums have only a minimal impact on the actual reduction of parking spaces, since as every market rate housing developer knows it is far easier (and more lucrative) to sell housing if there is on site parking as part of the project. Brinker then goes on to quote, and also to highlight visually the words of commission member, Jesse Kanson-Benanov, who happens to be a former Cambridge resident, a co-founder of the pro-developer political group, A Better Cambridge, and Executive Director of the pro-housing development group (Abundant Housing) on which Cambridge Councillor Burhan Azeem sits on the Board.  Far more soul-searching indeed indeed is in order, as well as fact based analyses. But pro-YIMBY groups in their celebration over Cambridge's great success, and the Globe editorial board and staff writer Andrew Brinker should step back and do real reporting on what the hard rightwing, libertarian, neo-liberal "move fast and break it YIMBY mentality has already started to do in Cambridge. The lyrics of the famous Beatle Song, Strawberry Fields Forever, alas are under copyright. But let is be said that they refer to a place where "nothing is real" and there is nothing to be hung up about, "...living is easy with eyes closed/Misunderstanding is all you see." For good measure here is a link to the Beatles Strawberry Fields video HERE The whole is sounding very much to us like YIMBY Cambridge (and Massachusetts' Commission") perspectives on adding more, far larger and more expensive luxury housing.  Note: Updated to include a discussion of the Feb 23, 2025 Boston Globe article by staff writer Andrew Brinker along with an engagement with the Beatles' hit by this name. PART FOUR -- A CAMBRIDGE UP-ZONING "PRIMER"CITY COUNCILLOR Burhan Azeem has published a PRIMER on Up-zoning in Celebrating his Huge YIMBY Victory in Cambridge!His celebratory YIMBY primer is getting a lot of hits, "shares" and positive comments on the new Bluesky social media site. You can read the Primer here: Primer on Cambridge's Multifamily Housing Zoning Cambridge City Councillor, Burhan Azeem Primer on Up-Zoning Councillor Azeem writes in part: "The City of Cambridge, home to about 118,000 residents as well as Harvard and MIT, has had one of the most complicated and restrictive zonings in America—so much so that in a city of 55,000 housing units, just 350 units were expected to be built in the next 15 years in our neighborhoods. A full 85%+ of the neighborhoods were nonconforming, meaning that most of the buildings in the current city are illegal to build under current zoning (never mind adding new units). This issue, coupled with rising rental rates—the average rent for a one-bedroom in Cambridge is $3,466—and our national housing crisis, has made housing the forefront issue for many Americans. I, along with my housing co-chair (Cllr. Sumbul Siddiqui), and the rest of the Housing Committee set out to reimagine our zoning to match the moment. This culminated in a two-pronged approach: a citywide zoning effort to legalize six stories citywide, paired with another zoning reform to increase density in the corridors and squares, which we expect to begin later this year." He includes the City's illustration below as part of this primer, perhaps to show both the massive extent of the up-zoning. Currently the average height of city homes is 2.5 stories (allowable to 35 feet everywhere). The above Henry Street project is typical. And while, the heights of the 6 story buildings came down from 75' to 74' this is not much of a negotiated reframing. Nor does he mention here that as part of the up-zoning ordinance, the city is now allowing 9 story buildings in every neighborhood if they are 100% affordable, partially public-funded projects conforming with our recently passed Affordable Housing Overlay.  As we see here, Azeem publishes his celebratory post with these words: "We just passed the single most comprehensive rezoning in the US--legalizing multifamily housing up to 6 stories city wide in a Paris style." We will address the Paris issue later in this post and in Part V but let's look at what this so-called primer actually states. Councillor Azeem goes on to write in this celebratory "primer" that: "•On February 10, 2025, Cambridge passed our Multifamily Housing Zoning, which ended exclusionary zoning in Cambridge. It’s one of the biggest rezonings in the country, which will set a great baseline for the city and hopefully cities across the country. •The original six-story proposal was built to set a strong pipeline for housing growth. It eliminated single-family and two-family zoning restrictions, permitting multifamily and townhouse residences by right in all residential districts. It also removed many dimensional restrictions except for a six-story height limit: no setbacks, no FAR (floor-by-area ratio), no dwelling unit per lot area, no maximum number of units, no townhouse restrictions, no minimum lot size, no special permits (for buildings under 75k sqft), and no parking minimums. It had a 30% open space requirement, a ten-foot front setback for trees, and mandated that 1 in 5 new units be affordable (for buildings with 10+ units). •We added three minor amendments: a five-foot side & rear setback requirement with exemptions; a requirement that buildings over four stories must include affordable units; and a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. for 5- and 6-story buildings. Overall, the changes were modest; it was a huge win for housing advocates everywhere." [emphasis added] Whereas other supporting Councillors, including Councillors McGovern and Toner have insisted that this was a real negotiation of various parties concerned with this upzoning, Councillor Azeem makes it clear here in his celebration of the "WIN" that any such changes were "MODEST"! That is indeed the case. Other than a one foot lowering of the heights of six-story projects, and a requirement that these be on 5,000 SF lots or larger, as well as moving back new developments from the property line to five feet from the property line, little else of merit was considered. And as many noted, the shift from the property line to 5' inside the property line had more to do with fire protection and non-conforming properties in Cambridge than any real concession. And what about Paris? Specifically Haussmann's Paris that we see in the central city today. It must be remembered there are strict height and other design guidelines in Paris. This was also true in the period in which Haussmann's plans were under way from 1853 and 1870. The larger core of the Medieval city center was demolished, the historic Jewish and market quarters among these because they were thought to be overcrowded and ridden by disease. The glamorous wide avenues, squares, and parks came at the expense of many of the city's long term residents and the myriad homes in which they lived. In addition, the planned interior green spaces within each housing complex was clearly part of the goals aimed at making the city more modern and livable. By way of conclusion, any primer on a subject as important a a massive citywide up-zoning should not only provide core, basic facts about the situation, but also accurate comparisons. This up-zoning successfully managed to remove core city planning and oversight of residential building city wide, leaving it up to the investors' and developers' own interests and how these projects "pencil" out (achieve the profit interests in play). The careful planning of Haussmann for Paris was very different in scope and impact. A more apt metaphor for what has happened in this Cambridge up-zoning is a combination of "move fast and break it" techno framing and let's sit back and simply let money talk. PART V -- CAMBRIDGE IS NUMBER 1!!!Councillor Azeem highlights his enormous YIMBY success in his "Primer" featuring Cambridge's huge victory over other progressive cities. See the above chart among others. Now in Cambridge, as Azeem points out, one can squeeze 46 units into 1,000 sq ft/unit projects. He adds:
Alas, "incorrect or incomplete" is what the basis for this ordinance itself is. And, as Azeem urges, "we will be watching." Most other cities, simply added the number of allowable units on each property, seeking to increase housing incrementally. And one city (Denver) chose to go back to earlier single family zoning in some neighborhoods because of gentrification impacts. Indeed as the 46 units in 1,000 sq. ft/unit unit allowance makes clear, the Cambridge equivalent is more like luxury SROs (single room occupancy) projects, perfect for the investor wishing to own and potentially profit from a piece of Cambridge very expensive "dirt." But are the tiny proposed units actually meeting current Cambridge market interests and needs? Likely no.  As we have seen, it is larger single-family homes that have most favored status, pricing, and financial return. This is leading to gentrification in many of the related neighborhoods. And for those who want to maintain many of our historic homes in Cambridge, that is a good thing. However, it is a bad thing for the ideologically oriented City Councillors and their supporters who maintained that this plan would bring Cambridge housing prices lower, or at least prevent them from rising as quickly. The examples shown in this post - Kirkland Street, Henry Street, Cushing Street and others, show that this is decidedly NOT the case. Property costs and values are rising even higher now as a result of this up-zoning initiative. Councillor Azeem also includes his bio in this celebratory YIMBY social media post which reads here: "Councillor Burhan Azeem is the current co-chair of the Housing Committee on Cambridge City Council. In previous terms, he was the main sponsor for removing parking minimums and expanding the Affordable Housing Overlay in the city. He is a founder and board member of Abundant Housing MA, a statewide pro-housing nonprofit that organized to implement the MBTA Communities act (require cities near transit to rezone for more housing) and legalize accessory dwelling units (ADUs)." His colleagues on City Council at the time may disagree with his assuming "main sponsor" accolades on these other initiatives, but we do not begrudge Azeem his success and cheerleadership. The X/Twitter Feed YIMBY Celebration Councillor's Azeem's X (formerly Twitter) and BlueSky social media feeds on February 10 and 11, 2025 celebrate what he believes his victory actually means. And he produces and links to a primer he has authored showing others how they too can achieve this success elsewhere. "If you want more nerdy details, I wrote a primer here" he writes. In response to various celebratory posts he responds to key questions in a frank and informative way. Writes Lib Development on February 11: "So the billion dollar question [is], does the city apply discretionary permits to any development in this area that is nominally by right? If so they'r still screwed but I wouldn't know." Azeem responds: "No discretionary review for anything under 75 sq ft." What Azeem means, in short, is that there is no design oversight and developers get to do pretty much whatever they want. Azeem adds "It's 4 stories with no conditions. To get to 6, you need 20% IZ and at least 5,000 sqft lot. But you can build 6 anywhere if you meet these conditions." Another comment, by the election support group "Run for Something" also celebrated the up-zoning news on Azeem's feed: "Huge shoutout to RFS alum @realBurhanAzeem for championing one of the biggest city zoning changes in decades while also eliminating housing scarcity for MA residents." [Emphasis ours. Note: very unlikely]. Another person adds to the social media thread: "I hope someone is monitoring how this is affecting land prices. [W]ith such a large uniform upzoning I would be super interested in its effects on land." [Alas, we already know the answer]. In response to another question on whether we will see more down-conversions [duplexes or triplexes to single-family homes], Azeem notes: "...limiting down conversions is on the radar and in research/drafting. Gives us time to evaluate how this goes and maybe people will be less worried by the time it comes up for a vote." When someone else points "There's a profound contrast between 'build what you want' and 'you can't turn the building that you own into a single-family house," Azeem responds "Yeah it's valid. I'm more in the former camp but there's been negative reaction to $10M large homes built from a dozen smaller apartments and so gotta do what you gotta do." [in short, Azeem recognizes this problem of creating more luxury homes and increased housing costs in his new ordinance, but forges on any way with a shrug "gotta do what you gotta do." Jason Furman, the Harvard economist professor of practice who lives on swanky Francis Avenue, had championed Azeem's effort in an earlier Boston Globe opinion piece. Furman writes here "Cambridge got it done! One day thousands of families will be living here, spending less of their budget on rent, and few of them will realize it never would have happened but for the leadership and persistence." [Note: let's have a bet, Professor Furman, on how much rent people will now be saving here now!] Another social media poster in this celebratory Azeem chain asks "Are there any rules against existing owners selling out to a developer? That's the fatal flaw in California's YIMBY reforms." Azeem replies "No. And no labor restrictions. It's mostly a clean bill. Only limitation you might not like is the 120% IZ [inclusionary zoning: Note: Is Azeem seems to conveying here opposition to affordable housing needs in Cambridge]] Another poster asks: "What is a new expectation for new units over the next 15 years with the zoning change?" Azeem states: "Maybe 12,500? Hard to really say given the tough economic conditions." [note: this is the housingnumber that CDD, the Cambridge Community Development group drew from thin air to add to the City's Envision housing goals]. Asks another person on this social media chain: "I remember reading a report showing that you had to go above 4 stories for single family infill to pencil with rents that middle class could afford. One question: how are open space requirements calculated?" Azeem replies "It's a bit complicated." [On open space]: "I'd say a rule of thumb is that 30% open space (so 3000 sq ft on a 10k sq ft lot) of which half needs to be permeable (like grass) and half can be decks or balconies or permeable. Setbacks count as part open space." [Note: There are some problems with this answer, since we have shown elsewhere that one could, using these guidelines, create new housing with no viable green space]. Writes another commenter on this celebratory announcement: "Have y'all considered funding the IZ via appropriations so that it pencils better? Or at least via tax abatement." Azeem answers: "Will examine the results of this and potentially. We hoped that we could zone enough that it would make IZ pencil." Note the term "pencil" here or the phrase "tough to pencil" means that there is no means financially for the investor or developer to do a project considering the costs of land, building supplies, labor and other factors. Explains another person, with an apt reality check "Certainly very permissive. My sense is there will be a lot of 4 story buildings. 5,000 min lot size +construction change (at 6) + inclusionary will be tough to pencil." This is very likely to be the case. Still another individual asks about "...measures to help preserve beautiful Victorian and other historic homes of Cambridge? Say one lives in Inman square on a street of historic homes - a developer could presumably outbid any family to buy any of them, tear it down, and build a 6 story building in its place?" To this question, Azeem answers "Yes in our historical commission ordinance we have a demolition delay ordinance for all homes older than 50 years." Alas, Azeem fails to point out that we have only a one year demolition delay and the Cambridge Historical Commission Executive Director can (and sometimes does) simply allow a demolition without commissioner (board) review. Immediately following the above comment, Azeem reposted one from YIMBYLAND that celebrated his great Cambridge success: "Thanks to the new reforms in Cambridge MA, gorgeous 6-story apartment buildings like these are now legal to build CITY-WIDE!" with the accompanying photograph.  Do you see all the trees and planted green spaces in the above rendering? No. Nor did we. Notice all the preserved Victorian homes in this pretty rendering? No. We didn't either. Remember in our earlier post, the tearing up of inner city Medieval Paris that was part of the large boulevard's that Haussman created there. Where is the funding, will, or interest to do that here. Fortunately it will not happen. And if the YIMBY proponents of Cambridge's no-holds-barred up-zoning, think this will create a New England-based broad-boulevard style Paris, with elegant, stylistically congruent buildings facing our narrow quirky streets they might want to think again. Bay State RoadAs the citywide upzoning was being publicly launched in late spring 2024, Councillor Azeem purchased an 1890 2.5 story duplex home adjacent to the now empty Sozio store on Bay State Road from Louis Sozio. The property sits near the rotary overlooking Fresh Pond. He acquired in the late spring of 2024 around his citywide up-zoning proposal was being launched in public. According to a Cambridge Day report, he has stated that he is happy to have his current tenants remain there and we applaud him for this, even as the $1.197,000 property (like any property now in Cambridge) represents a great investment opportunity. It is now likely worth far more now that the up-zoning has passed. But at least he has made a commitment for the residents to remain there. Most Cambridge residents of residential units that get caught up in the up-zoning mayhem will not be so lucky.  Above image: Beige 1890 two family home on Bay State Road acquired by Councillor Azeem. This citywide up-zoning project was well towards completion by the time it was presented in the form of a slide deck to the Housing Committee by Azeem and Jeff Roberts, the city's zoning expert in May 8, 2024: HERE. Clearly this city councillor and city staff were working closely together on this project far before it was presented to the public in a hearing, a concern that was raised to a resident by the late City Councillor Joan Pickett at the time. Some see this as a breech of our city's Plan E form of government. In the end, the citywide upzoning in Cambridge appears to be a major YIMBY success, but the consequences to date are not what the planners and proponents anticipated. Far from it. Rather than bringing down housing costs so more people can afford to live here, instead, housing costs are rising even higher, and with the new ordinance, realtors and purchasers of larger single- family luxury homes are the major winners! Go Cambridge. If this is indeed what the proponents wanted they have succeeded well. And as the Boston Globe editorial exclaims: "Bravo to Cambridge for ending single-family-only zoning." While City Council rejected the efforts by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition to do that in 2020 with our Advancing Housing Affordability petition, this part of the work is now over. The city’s move will create more housing and provide a valuable model for other cities in the Commonwealth." We disagree with the Globe's and YIMBY proponents main argument however, that the kind of new luxury housing being promoted in their Valentine's Day (February 14) Editorial piece (HERE) is the kind of housing we are looking for here and elsewhere. This new luxury housing is more akin the Great Gatsby and the Gilded Age. Emblazoned across the Banker and Tradesman's update on the zoning ordinance "Cambridge Upzoning Could Unlock 3.6K homes." Doubtful, but many will be luxury housing and the chief beneficiaries will be the Realtors, Investors, and Bankers. More lower- and middle-income Cambridge residents will be forced out as housing prices escalate even higher. PART VI: The Role of Students in Our Recent YIMBY Victory These images show documents from a Harvard undergraduate student group who has spoken out at the recent up-zoning meetings. At the last few meetings on the citywide up-zoning the people who gave public comment were roughly divided between proponents and opponents of the proposed ordinance, and concomitantly between largely older Cambridge property owners and largely younger Harvard & MIT students and others. Indeed, one commenter, noted that he could determine in advance the Pro- versus Con- viewpoint of a given speaker based on the relative youthfulness of their voices. Some of the intensity of opinions on these issues carries the flavor of the earlier generational divide during the Vietnam war era. In both cases core fundamental values and ideologies feature prominently in this discussion. When a society is facing tough issues concerning housing, affordability, livability, the environment, and infrastructure, then complex issues such as these often come into prominence. This is especially so when locally, nationally, and internationally the housing costs have grown exponentially, along with housing, property and related investments are bringing large returns, and a general sense that those who may have purchased earlier and are seeing their properties values (and taxes) increase so profoundly. There are other factors here as well, over the past 20 or 30 years the number of graduate students at our local universities have grown a lot, far outpacing the ability of schools to acquire needed housing. We know from the 2018 Cambridge Town & Gown Report the following housing facts: Students Living Off-Campus in non-University Housing Harvard 3340 (17.6% of all students in degree programs) MIT 2659 (23.8% of all students in degree programs) Hult School of Business 415 (39.3% of all students in degree programs) Lesley University 214 (5.8% of all students in degree programs). 6,228 (total # of students in Cambridge non-student housing) There are also another 6879 faculty and staff living in Cambridge as well as various post-docs. At some point this too needs to be addressed, as the number is increasing year-over-year (up 8.7% since 2014). However, in the current local, national, and university financial climate, as well as the increased costs of steel and other imported building supplies, this is not likely to be resolved without greatly reducing the number of graduate students, which in turn would impact university and program activities and revenues. What also needs to be stressed is that the growth of student population at two of the highest endowed universities in the world without university housing to mirror that growth has resulted in students driving up rents in neighborhoods, rent sharing in units that once housed working class families. Some also have been allowed t on affordable housing lists even though their income is temporary, by choice, and accompanied by the clear benefits of the degrees they are receiving. Let us explore this more closely by looking at MIT and Harvard public student engagement with the up-zoning proposal and ordinance. The MIT Graduate Student CouncilThe October 17, 2024 MIT Graduate Student Letter to City Councillors on the proposed upzoning ordinance is a very thoughtful one, laying out some of the problems that students are facing here not only with addressing housing needs, but also food insecurity.  The MIT Graduate Students Union raise two points of special interest and concern for them (see below). We appreciate these concerns, and their interest in bringing increased density (more residents) to the city as something important to both the success of our universities and technology industries here, as well as for maintaining and bringing new talent to our city. Similar increased population goals are in the city's Envision report. At the same time, these students argue for the expansion of the citywide Affordable Housing Overlay (where and how is not indicated by them). What they do indicate is that they as graduate students want to be able to benefit from this part-publicly funded housing, alongside others of lower-and middle-income. As they note, "graduate students...mostly make less than 50% of area median income and often have difficulty finding housing at prices that do not result in severe rent burden." One former Harvard Graduate Student recalled to us how, in the past, students were encouraged to apply for federal and local funding set aside for others who would not share the same expectations of future significant earnings growth. In some ways this is also what MIT's students are suggesting. Yet, at the same time it is important to understand the responsibilities of this university (and others) to provide adequate housing in the area, in so far as they are receiving sizable tuition or grand funding and/or lab- teaching support that these students in turn are providing. In many ways students are simultaneously both an enormous resource and a driver of our housing costs. Since they receive receive regular housing allotment increases (to meet the increasing cost of housing here) and most are relatively short term renters, whose leases turn over every couple of years, their presence in our housing market helps push up housing costs with each new housing allotment increase, and with each lease termination. Indeed, it is at the time of lease terminations that rent prices increase most fast, presenting a classic "chicken and egg" problem. How we address this issue going forward has to involve MIT and other universities.
|
