Property Value Impacts & Upzoning by Charles Norris.

Charles River Boat Haven - Norris and Norris Associates

To the City Council:  
January 30, 2025 

As a long term Cambridge resident, professional architect, urban planner, property owner and community advocate, I ask the council members to please consider the impact of the accelerated rise in city-wide property values and rents that will occur on passage of the current multi-family zoning petition, and allow the petition to expire. Instead, please return to previously approved neighborhood, form-based moderate zoning changes through an inclusive public planning process, and in keeping with the adopted Envision Plan.  
While there can no doubt that the Council members earnestly believe the zoning changes will add affordability to Cambridge housing, the substantial majority of professional planning and architectural evidence presented indicates that the massive upzoning will have exactly the opposite effect; raising all housing costs from day 1.  In my professional opinion, passing this petition will be the worst mistake you can make for existing and new Cambridge residents, and will fundamentally change Cambridge, permanently eliminating affordability except for the relatively few in city subsidized units. 

The very notion that Cambridge population should grow by 25% by 2030 (touted by petition proponents) is not only preposterous and unachievable, and implies that in the next five years, about 1 in 4 current residential buildings will be knocked down and replaced by substantially larger buildings to meet the numbers needed for housing 40,000 new residents.  Such levels of higher density were never intended in the Envision Plan. Considering that no credible evidence has been presented that any of these new units will provide lower- or middle-income housing, the unfortunate pattern of exclusionary gentrification will accelerate greatly from current levels.  In addition, please prepare for a new wave of demands for further zoning changes and/or variances to allow for 25 storey towers in Central, Harvard, and Porter squares and Alewife as well as other corridor locations, similar to the 500 unit slab being proposed for Davis Square, all wrapped in the guise of affordable housing.  

After hearing multiple examples and results to date on recent zoning changes in various cities from planners and city managers, one common result jumps out. The near certainty of rapidly increasing property values appears to be common to all.  Further escalation of property costs should be a critical overriding factor in the proposed Cambridge zoning, and requires City attention before passing the current petition.  The multifamily zoning will have no moderating effect on the insatiable market demand for single family and luxury level housing in Cambridge.  

Proposed Multi-family Zoning Will Immediately Cause Major Increases in Property Values City-wide and Reduced Affordability for Renters and New Owners: Please stop and think about this contrary result of enacting the proposed zoning. The short term and lasting impacts of significant allowable new property build out will most certainly increase property values city-wide and push existing and new housing further beyond reach of lower- and middle-income residents.  
 

• Higher property values will result in higher purchase prices and tax valuations, and corresponding higher rental and ownership housing costs.  
• The zoning proposed will immediately result in escalation of residential site values and speculative construction in proportion to the substantial as-of-right increased building density allowable (height, lot coverage, reduced setbacks).  Even for a small lot under 5000 sf, the allowable increase in building area will be a minimum of 25%.
• Consider that many demolition projects currently underway will immediately request new building permits for expanded projects with the new zoning, and no abutter design notification or review.  
• Most importantly, before any new housing is built, let alone affordable housing, it is highly probable that the costs for most current renters and all new buyers will rise substantially beyond current levels in all parts of the city.
• Based on personal experience receiving multiple unsolicited out of state offers each week to purchase our house at above market rate prices, the out-of-town real estate speculation on residential properties is well underway and promises to continue.  
• Any conceivable moderation of property values because of substantial new units will likely be longer term (10 years?) if at all, while the short to mid-term rise in rents and ownership prices will happen right away.

​
Property Value Increases Can Be Expected (beyond current escalation rates) in Proportion to Added Building Area Allowed: Consider the potentially higher ranges of increased property values based on the proposed zoning. 

• In current A-1 and B-1 neighborhoods with characteristically larger lots, purchase price increases will be highest in proportion to large increases in individual lot capacities. 
• For lots over 5,000 sf the building density will be allowed to increase by 75% to 250% for four storey residential (increased building footprint x 4 storeys), and corresponding land values will also rise significantly in response to the increased allowable redevelopment potential. 
• In the current C-1 neighborhoods (as well as for smaller lots in B-1) under 5,000 sf, property value increases may be somewhat less but building mass will still be allowed to increase by 25% to 40% (varying based on current vs new setbacks). Even with the the minimum 25% allowable buildout, those properties can expect substantial market value increases.  According to one local investor, at least one local real estate agent touted the greater development potential of the new zoning in higher pricing, saying “the fix is in” with the City Council and the zoning is guaranteed to pass.
• For corridors allowing up to 9 storeys from the current 1 to 3 storeys, the allowable new square footage increases may range from 300% to as much as 900% depending on lot coverage and building footprint.  As presented, this includes several bus-served residential corridors (such as Concord Ave and Huron Ave) with smaller lots closely abutting densely built residential neighbors.
• Given the strong likelihood of major increases in property values city wide, it is difficult to identify where any new discretionary affordable units might be built, considering the corresponding baseline increases in development costs with increased 6 storey height, as the profits on added units would be proportionately less than for the as-of-right lower heights.  .   
• For current or new owner/developers, inclusion of affordable units also seems unlikely for the same reasons. While there may still be owners who would renovate to add several units rather than rebuilding,  there are no incentives to  renovate existing multi-family units, either a new owner or current owner occupant would have no incentives to renovate and provide affordable units, when market rate rents would be so much higher. 

Cambridge Market Rate Housing Affordability is More Likely with Current Zoning Compared to Proposed Zoning: It should be noted that current zoning, with all its imperfections, seems to favor renovation of multi-family units by owner occupants, which we see around town today, while new zoning will encourage knockdowns and new construction to achieve added bulk allowances.  

• it would be helpful to compare affordability of ownership and rental housing under current or similar zoning to the proposed multi-family zoning given the near certainty of substantially increased property values and development costs.  
• In terms of net housing affordability we may be far better off with relatively stable existing zoning and current property value trends, than with up-zoning and its escalated property rates and construction costs.  Looking around the City, a considerable amount of new and renovated multi-family housing is already occurring within current zoning and high demand. 
• With current or refined C-1 zoning city-wide (in A-1 and B-1), the opportunities for adding units could be even more substantial, along with lesser rises in property values.  Increased multi-family construction would most likely occur in the current B-1 areas because of frequency of larger lots. 
• Affordable units can continue to be built through a refined AHO program with increased funding, possibly focusing along major subway corridors on selectively identified and city acquired feasible sites. 
• With the proposed zoning the only affordable middle-income units left in Cambridge will be those in existing owner occupied multi-families, whose owners prefer to remain in Cambridge with their families.

Many professionals have provided comparable examples showing that upzoning and accompanying escalated property values will not result in adding affordable market rate units but instead may undermine current affordability in Cambridge by raising housing prices beyond present levels.  As many have asked, with so many uncertainties and questions, what is the hurry? Unless this Council is committed to (what seems to many residents) an unrealistic and likely detrimental plan for redevelopment and rapid population growth, this petition needs serious reconsideration and public response before proceeding.  Any future zoning should seriously consider measures that stabilize current housing rather than accelerating rising real estate values and increase housing costs. 

Many of us (of a certain age) may recall the last time Cambridge had affordable housing for lower- and middle-income residents was under rental control (as flawed as it was). My understanding is that rent control was adopted after WWII to allow Cambridge veterans to return home and start afresh. Somewhat ironically, rent control was ended by a statewide petition sponsored by the real estate industry, not by Cambridge residents.  While rent control may not be the answer for today, any equitable and inclusionary new zoning, whether incremental or for the current petition should include deliberate mechanisms for rent stabilization, rather than risk destabilization.   

We all can agree on the goals of the zoning changes in elimination of exclusionary zoning, increasing affordable housing, social equity and sustainability for our uniquely diverse and vibrant community. There is also a strong sense by residents and property owners that current zoning can and should be updated to be more efficient and equitable for all, consistent with the Envision Plan.  All agree that we need to expand current efforts to add affordability for lower- and moderate-income residents.  However, aside from agreeing to support elimination of A-1 and B-1 zoning, there has been earnest and well documented disagreement that the current up-zoning petition will result in increased housing affordability.  

Even if there is some remote, longer term possibility that the City petition will have positive affordability results, many residents feel there is an equal or greater possibility that it will have the opposite effect in the short and medium term. And no, the major price escalators for new housing based on increased price per square foot, let alone negative environmental and abutter impacts, cannot be corrected “later: by amendments after passage.  Shouldn’t the unanswered questions and concerns of so many residents be enough to hit the pause button? 
In my opinion, the Council needs to be more thoughtful and responsive to its citywide constituents in demonstrating conclusively that the proposed zoning will result in stabilized property values and rents, and will result in more, rather than less, affordable housing.  It should be remembered that the petition was not generated by or supported by a majority the City residents.

For the reasons and unanswered questions stated above and in previous letters, Council members who own and pass the current zoning petition should not expect support in the upcoming election.

Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Norris

*Charles Norris  is an urban designer, architect, and visual artist working in the waterfront realm. He is a founding principal of Norris & Norris Associates, a planning and design practice in Cambridge, MA. which focuses on waterfront projects specializing in ferry transportation, urban waterfronts, water sheet planning, port planning, and waterfront adaptation to climate change. Mr. Norris has also taught Architecture and Urban Design in Boston, Bennington, and London. His partner, Diane Charyk Norris focuses on architectural design including museums, art galleries and studios, boat houses, and residential work.