Zoning Lessons From Other Cities (Will We Heed them?)

UPDATED 11.7.24 with Summary and insights 

The three buildings in the above composite photograph offer interesting insight on how design decisions get made. The design of each structure is an important one, depending on the site, date, and context. The English example on the left, long considered an eyesore, has now been demolished, less than 15 years after the 150’ (c.15 story) property was built by developers to serve as a hotel. In its place today is a far better designed student center admired today as simultaneously “classic” and “modern” – a work that fits remarkably well into this city center setting. Read more HERE. The contemporary concrete building on the right is frequently labeled sometimes as “what one can do if the land is small.” In the right setting, with other similar structures, it is a practical, visually interesting single-family home for a family of means. The example in the middle is from 231 and 235 Third Street in East Cambridge. This is a 2,613 SF historic duplex structure with land at the rear (totaling 5,559 SF), Zillow last advertised one of the two units as a $3,561 rental apartment. The structure sits in the heart of the East Cambridge redevelopment frenzy, next to a sizable parking lot, and has been approved for demolishment. It looks to have been a good candidate for moved elsewhere in the city rather than being torn down. Individually and together these structures represent the kinds of decisions that cities often are called on to make.

Many cities have begun up-zoning as they seek to add more housing at levels that will enable middle-income individuals to live there. Six examples provide us with particularly interesting parallels: Portland (Oregon), Austin (Texas), Chicago (Illinois), Los Angeles (California), San Francisco (California), and Vancouver (Canada). We also have several other international examples.

Before we begin, we note that
Cambridge, Massachusetts 

•  is 6.8 square miles and is already one of the densest cities in the country for our size.
• is an old city (founded 1630 – the first planned city in North America) 
• includes a rich heritage of well-built, attractive, desirable, and sustainable homes.
• Cares deeply about retaining our diversity and supporting our lower- and middle-income residents.
• has only 3,772 single family homes (6.52% of our total housing stock of 57.894 units). Well below other cities.

Cambridge is far denser than Minneapolis, MN (with 35% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 59 square miles), Austin TX with 41% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 305 square miles and Chicago, Il with 79% of their housing stock comprised of single-family homes on 234 square miles.

As one of the oldest, most sought after, and densest cities in the country situated adjacent to several other highly sought after cities with multiple local and adjacent universities and a large number of biotech and info-tech companies, with sizable numbers of well paid employees Cambridge has a unique set of factors that make it impossible for us to build ourselves out of our expensive housing situation.
 
OTHER US CITY UP-ZONING EXAMPLES:
 
Austin Texas is a city of 331.4 square miles and has a population density of 3,097 people per square mile. It is considered a low density city, ranking 157th in this city density assessment. Like Portland,  Austin chose to allow more homes per lot, and here specifically

• to allow 3 different SF zones (SF-1, SF-2, SF-3)
• reduce the minimum size of single-family lots from 5,750 SF to 2,500 SF
• allow up to three units per single family lot,
• with a front yard setback requirement of 15’
• a maximum building coverage of 40%.
• dwelling units may include “tiny homes” (400 SF excluding loft space).
• a program to incentivize “saving existing homes that conserve neighborhood character and help keep materials out of landfills” with Preservation and Sustainability Bonuses
• For more information read HERE and HERE

 
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago is a city of 234 square miles and has a population density of 11,847 people per square mile, and often ranked 5th most dense city. An article in the Nov-Dec 2024 Harvard Magazine provides results from Cook County Chicago that now simply

• allows multifamily housing to be built city wide.
• In Chicago “streamlining permitting” had a “negligible effect on generating new supply”
• But allowing triplexes in formerly single-family lots “led to more housing over time because the per-unit construction and development costs are vastly lower than for a single-family home.”  

 
Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles is 502 square miles, with a population density of around 8,300 people per square mile, and often ranked number 10 most dense city.  The Planning Board  chose

• To stay clear of 72% of residential land in the city (single family homes)
  • because city’s current zoning can’t handle all that growth.
  • Apartments are not allowed in 72% of LA neighborhoods,
  • This decision was made despite complaints of racist origins of SFH, concerns about city’s unaffordable rents, and the lack of family-size housing for young parents.  
• To build taller, denser buildings in neighborhoods that already allow for apartments
• Developers will have to keep some of those units affordable to low-income renters.
• City Council will make a decision in February.
• Read more HERE and  HERE

 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minneapolis is 58 square miles, with 7.96 people per square mile and generally ranked 46th in population density. Their plan

• Allow construction of accessory dwelling units
• A variance is required to increase maximum height for single- and two-family dwellings and three-family dwellings in the two residential districts.
• Encourages apartment development on commercial corridor by adding several new zoning districts.
  • Allows three-to-six-story buildings along most of the city’s transit routes
  •  “transit” districts allow 10-to-30-story buildings on lots adjacent to light rail stations and bus rapid transit.
• Lowers the minimum lot size requirements in non-residential zones
  • To prevent the underutilization of property, particularly in areas near substantial public transit investments.
  • Minimum height requirements would only apply in districts where the comprehensive plan guidance calls for developing at a minimum building height
  • These districts would also be subject to a minimum FAR requirement in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services that their locations provide.
  • To prevent circumventing the intent of the ordinance, the minimum height requirement shall apply to the majority of the building footprint.
  • Additions to existing buildings would not be subject to the minimum height requirement unless the addition would exceed the existing floor area by 100 percent or more.
• Read more: HERE and HERE

Portland, Oregon: Portland is a city of 145 square miles, with a population density of 4,889 people per square mile. It ranks 26th for U.S. city density with populations over 100,000. They chose to encourage the conversion of single-family homes into duplexes if one:

• Acquires the necessary permits and adheres to specific building codes.
• SDC Fees are assessed (System Development Calculation) to help fund city infrastructure. These are based on the number and type of units and can be considerable (from $1000 to much more).
• Waivers are in place for those creating affordable housing with their ADUs. These waivers on affordable housing ADUs “…led to rise in the number of ADUs from 50 per year to 500 per year.”
• ADU’s (auxiliary dwelling units) must be no more than 75% of the primary structure’s living area (or 800 SF, whichever is smaller).​ Setbacks must be 5’ from the side and rear property line, and front setbacks match that of the primary dwelling, because “…these setbacks help maintain neighborhood aesthetics and privacy.”
•  For more information on Portland’s plan, see HERE and HERE.

​
San Francisco, California: San Francisco is 46.9 square miles, has a population density (per square mile) of 18,790.8, and often is ranked #2 in population density for large cities. Like Cambridge, it has a rich heritage of fine historic homes, a large university, and is a key center of biotech development. San Francisco has created

• a specific housing plan called the Residential Development Pipeline that “…
  • calculates a residential development pipeline of ~43,000 units
  • based on planned projects that are under formal review
  • have already received some degree of approval – such as a planning approval or a building permit.
  • Some units in very large master planned developments, both approved and proposed, could not be counted since they are anticipated to be built well after 2031.
• This plan calls for specific percentages of new housing types:
  • 25.4% Low Income 12,014
  • 14.6% Moderate Income 13,717 
  • 6.7% Above Moderate Income 35,471
  • 43.2% Total Units 82,069
• Non-site-specific development throughout the city, such as
  • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
  •  acquisition of residential buildings for permanent affordable housing and is expected to account for ~3,900 units.
• Underutilized and vacant sites throughout the city (that are either vacant or are not built out close to the full extent) are
  • expected to account for ~11,300 units.
• Read more  HERE and HERE

 
Vancouver, Canada: Downtown Vancouver is 44.5 square miles and has a population density of 14,892/square mile). It is the densest city in Canada and has faced sky rocketing housing costs.
Vancouver’s strategy focuses on an equitable housing system by:

• Shifting housing delivery to rental units to address the most pressing needs
• Building more family-friendly options to ensure a diverse range of housing types that meet current and future demands
• Following both a 3 year and 10 year plan.
• Creating and protecting “purpose-built rental housing”
• Housing options for lower density areas: provide more housing that falls between single-family homes and higher density apartments
• Multifamily - 3-6 units (up to 8 units for secured rental) depending on lot size. Up to 1.0 FAR
• Renovation and restoration of “existing character house” can include conversion to multiple units and/or addition of new building. Up to 0.85 FAR
• Duplex up to 0.85 FAR
• SFH (can have a  2ndary suite), added lane house. Up to 0.6 FAR
• Significantly increase the supply of social and supportive housing (community housing)
• Address speculation to ensure new and existing housing serves people who live and work in Vancouver.
• Read more HERE

 
International City Upzoning:  a March 2024 study by Cameron Murry and J.C. Gordon (and economist and political scientist) on land policy argues that

• “The public deserves a share in the value upzoning creates….”
• “Upzoning simply makes the inequality inherent in property ownership worse”  
• “Adding rights to property owners and giving nothing to non-owners.”
• “A lot of places don’t give air space,” he said. “They sell it.”
• Create a “betterment tax” to capture part of value created by public land use decisions.
• Sell air rights that the city wants to see redeveloped (Sao Paulo did this). These sold by auction with a percent going back to the city to pay for the infrastructure required to support the future density.
• Upzoning for public players - properties owned by public agencies, the benefits can be used for the sake of the public.
  • In Singapore, the state’s Housing and Development Board will buy and upzone land for public housing.
  • In the Netherlands, municipalities purchase rural land, develop it, upzone it and sell it to the private market.
  • In Hong Kong, the MTR transit operator benefits from upzoning by developing and managing its properties, allowing it to provide housing and reinvest profits back into public transportation.
• Charles Darwin visited Sydney in 1836 noting large numbers of new housing, and as a result “everyone complains of the high rents & difficulty in procuring a house.” He writes this in his diary before he looks to study animals.
• Read more HERE and HERE

 
Does the free market make housing cheaper? Murry and Gordon, the authors are not sure of the above study are not convinced.

• In Cambridge the highest rents and salaries are now in East Cambridge.
• East Cambridge also has the highest number and density of new homes built.
• Many of the East Cambridge units likely purchased by investors who do not live here.
• In the province of Ottawa, Canada, 85% of newly built condos have gone to investors.
  • Read more HERE
  
  
  
  

SUMMARY OF UP-ZONING POLICIES IN OTHER PROGRESSIVE CITIES 
Below is an overview of what these various cities have chosen to support in their plans to promote more housing. 
1. Number of units on SFH properties

• Different types of approaches
  • Simply allowing multiple family housing led to most new housing (slow but steady) citywide (Chicago)
  •  Three different single-family  zones & allow up to 3 units per lot (Austin)
  • Maintain most SF areas without apartments (Los Angeles)
  • increase # of allowable building  units (up to 3) on existing single-family properties if criteria are met (design, setbacks, etc) (Austin, Chicago, Portland)

2. Heights

• No city allowed as of right height increase in residential neighborhoods
• Require a variance to increase max heights of 1 and 3 family homes in residential districts (Minneapolis)
• Add a minimum height requirement for commercial and mixed use corridors near traffic hubs (Minneapolis)
• Allow 3-6 stories on major corridors (Minneapolis)
• Build taller, denser buildings in neighborhoods already allowing apartments (Los Angeles)
• Adding addition to existing building not subject to height requirement, unless exceeds existing floor area by 100% or more (Minneapolis)

3. Design Review/Oversight

• Required in all cases, except when permit process already in play (Minneapolis)
• Stream-lined permitting had negligible impact on housing starts (Chicago)

4. Setbacks

• Front setbacks consistent with neighbors (for neighborhood look); side and rear setbacks 5’ from property line (Portland)
• Buildings in residential districts limited to a maximum of 40% of lot (Austin)

5. Planning: Encourage specific house types

• Shift to rental properties only (as most pressing need)(Vancouver)
  • On corridors only (Minneapolis)
• Designated housing types: (25% low income, 15% Moderate income, 7% Above Moderate Income new homes -- all as part of planned projects with formal review with a focus on underutilized and vacant lots. (San Francisco).
• Increase supply of community housing (Vancouver)
• Residential properties acquired by city to keep it affordable (San Francisco, Boston)

6. Preservation

• In lower density areas encourage renovating existing “character” homes and focus on more family homes (Vancouver)
• Adding addition to existing building not subject to height requirement, unless exceeds existing floor area by 100% or more (Minneapolis)
• Incentivize saving existing homes and keeping them out of landfill with “Preservation and Sustainability Bonuses” (Austin)

7. Fees for Public Good

• SDC (System Development Calculation) fees based on # and type of unit (Portland)
• Provide fee wavers for affordable ADUs or rentals (Portland)
• Address speculation in housing (Vancouver)

8.International

• In Hong Kong, the Transit department develops and manages its properties for housing, with profits reinvested in public transportation.
• In Netherlands, gov purchases rural land, upzones it and sells it to private developers.
• In Japan, government provides lower cost housing for employees to occupy for set period, then they move on, and others come it. Employers also provide employee housing.

CONCLUSIONS:
Cambridge's plan is not consistent with what the new plans and proposed best practices are for other cities. This plan is unlikely to bring new needed housing at a price point that will benefit new or existing middle-income residents, it is likely to make housing more expensive here and to promote greater gentrification and increases of wealthy white populations as lower income minorities are forced out of the city.

Does Cambridge want simply more housing? Or does the city want housing that is affordable to middle- and lower- income people that also maintains the livability and look of our historic neighborhoods and does not promote even more gentrification?

• This is what the city must  now decide.​