On Sept 10, 2019 Council Voted to table the Affordable Housing Overlay
until next Council term​

The Council voted to do this without prejudice which means it can come up next term (beginning January 2020).
​We need now to work hard to bring a better result in the upcoming Council elections.

Residential Districts
   The new 100% affordable housing projects will reach 4 stories (c. 45 feet) in height and instead of 1 or 2 family homes these will be far larger structures with 40 plus residential units to be most economically viable. Green spaces may be dramatically reduced and existing trees as well as parking places removed to maximize the number of residential units on the lot. 
   These affordable housing projects will tower over neighboring one-, two-, or three-story houses and will follow different design guidelines. Design oversight will change from the city's citizen Planning Board to the developer and staff under our unelected city manager. High  density housing is encouraged in all these projects to allow the largest possible number of occupants.
      Design criteria will shift from the current FAR (floor-area-ratio) criteria which encourages design flexibility, pitched roofs, dormers, porches, and setbacks  to new form-based criteria that encourage large box-like flat-roofed structures using only building height and.distance from the property line. 
   Generic designs similar to those of other national low income housing will be encouraged because such structures are less expensive to build. Simple easily replicable designs will be favored over attention to historic details such as mullions or turrets  that may fit better with local neighborhood style. 
   In all these AHO projects building design will become"as-of-right," meaning that the current rights now allowed for neighbors or others to legally appeal a decision will no longer be possible.
     Cambridge Historical Commission will likely play a stronger role in decisions because they control demolitions of buildings over 50 years old,  but unless a structure is truly unique (and worthy of "landmark" status) many of this city's significant historic buildings will likely be demolished in favor of new larger generic structures. 
      Parking will not be required so a project, including those with 40 plus units (60 or more residents) and residents will need to find parking on the surrounding streets  if they own cars to travel to work at odd hours, for, grocery shopping or other activities. 
   Many existing trees will be demolished since projects may extent to 7.5 feet from the side property line (or even closer). And, since increasingly developers are purchasing several adjacent properties for these projects, current green spaces and mature trees will be greatly diminished. 
     This AHO plan represents an anomaly from other U.S. zoning models, in that it is a  city-wide  rezoning model that has never been tried, and whose impacts are simply not known. There are many far better ways to add even more affordable housing than Cambridge has built in recent years.
  These projects represent a now-discouraged and outmoded social model of economically segregating individuals and families into separate housing projects - distinct from their neighbors in both building form and amenities. 
     Fewer than 105 new housing units per year are expected to result from this  city-wide overlay (fewer than three  40 unit structures). So the question remains why Cambridge officials want the city to undergo this drastic zoning change for so few units? The answer lies in part in the potential for this change to open up the city for even more development even if such projects are likely to make housing in the city even more expensive. While the AHO is only intended for 100% affordable projects, these over-sized buildings become part of the neighborhood context around which all other future housing is engaged.
     These projects offer no respite for distressed middle income families (teachers, social workers, police and others) now too frequently forced to live a sizable distance from Cambridge. 

    

Corridors and Mixed Residential areas
    Even larger 100% affordable housing projects will be allowed along the main avenues of the city - Mass. Avenue, Mt. Auburn, Concord, Cambridge St., Charles St. and others. These "corridor" projects can reach 8 stories (c.80 feet in height, dwarfing nearby store or residential units of one, two, or three stories. Sunlight, trees, and green spaces will be greatly diminished. On adjacent streets AHO projects will be only slightly curtailed to 5 stories in height, which again will tower over nearby structures.
  Current ground floor businesses along these corridors will likely close since it is very difficult to endure a year plus of no commerce and then return to a building with increased lease rates when the new much larger structure finally reopens. 
    As with residential AHO projects  in the city, design oversight will change from the city's citizen Planning Board to the developer and staff of the unelected city manager.
    Design criteria will shift from current FAR (floor-area-ratio) which encourages design flexibility and setbacks to form-based criteria that encourages box-like structures maximizing height and massing from the ground level up. n
  Cambridge Historical Commission will likely play a stronger role in decisions because they control demolitions of buildings over 50 years old,  but unless a structure is truly unique (and worthy of "landmark" status) many of this city's significant historic buildings will likely be demolished in favor of new larger generic structures. 
    High  density structures (with the largest possible number of occupants) will be encouraged
   Generic designs that are less expensive to create will be favored over historic design details such as pitched roofs, turrets, or other details that may fit better with the local neighborhood style. 
    In all these 100% affordable housing projects building design will become "as-of-right," meaning the removal of current rights for neighbors or others to legally appeal a decision if the structure meets its basic form criteria. 
    Parking will not be required so a project, including those with 40 plus units (60 or more residents) and residents will need to find parking on the surrounding streets  if they own cars to travel to work at odd hours, for, grocery shopping or other activities. 
  These projects represent a now-discouraged and outmoded social model of economically segregating individuals and families into separate housing projects - distinct from their neighbors in both building form and amenities. 
   These projects offer no respite for distressed middle income families (teachers, social workers, police and others) now too frequently forced to live a sizable distance from Cambridge. 
     This plan represents a veritable anomaly as in U.S. zoning models in that this kind of a  city-wide residential rezoning model has never been tried. The financial and other impacts are simply not known.     
     There are many other far better ways to introduce affordable housing. 

Concerns and Alternatives
    The causes of our current affordable housing problems are complex. The issues are at once international, national, regional, and local. With more and more financial investment  going into property, local property values have increased making all of housing more expensive.  
    Cambridge has witnessed a vast increase in new luxury housing and commercial development in the last few years. This increase has not  improved the housing cost situation and may have aggravated it.
     Indeed some 10% of our housing units remain vacant (a strikingly large percentage considering the need for new housing in the city. Alas, much of this housing has been for luxury investors and occupants. 
     Cambridge is also experiencing a large gentrification increase largely as a reflection of this luxury housing. More and more long-standing city residents are being forced out of their homes to make way for wealthier occupants - both local and from the outside. What happens to our longstanding residents when their leases are not renewed or their rates are increased beyond their ability to pay? Some end up homeless, others move in briefly with friends or relatives; most end up leaving the city and their friends. 
      While gentrification has hit every part of the city, it has especially hit those neighborhoods where housing is less expensive - neighborhoods like the Port, Riverside, North Cambridge and Cambridgeport which often have higher proportions of minority populations and blue collar workers. Increasingly the city is becoming a place of the wealthy and the poor. In recent years we have lost some 12% of our African American population. 
     The Affordable Housing Overlay does nothing to help or slow the devastating prospect of gentrification and its devastating impacts on local neighborhood communities.       
       The arrival of new tech companies from the West Coast and other companies has added additional pressures not only on housing but also on infrastructure - impacting local neighborhood. For example East Cambridge faced with the possibility that a large electric power generator will be built  adjacent to their local primary school.
     We need to address the sources of the problems before we turn to possible solutions. 
    Cambridge is already a very dense city, indeed we rank c. fifth most dense in the country for urban areas with populations above 100,000. For us it is not simply a question of adding more density but of thoughtful planning. Making use of available city-owned properties such as parking lots, vacant lots, and adding upper stories to libraries or other city and business structures needs to be a priority. 
     Cambridge is also one of the older cities in the country (indeed the original capital of Massachusetts) with a rich historic architectural legacy that over the centuries we have fought hard to preserve.   uRather than rush to tear down sturdy and functional buildings that have served us well over the centuries, instead we should focus our attention and funding on repurposing them through subdivisions and stylistically coherent additions. 
       We need the city's companies that have the largest numbers of employees to share the burden of housing them in affordable units - our universities (Harvard, Lesley, MIT) should be required to provide area housing for their undergraduate and graduate students as well as their large staffs. Google, as well as Bio-Medical and Health Companies need to also provide area housing for their Cambridge employees. We need the city staff to require this of new companies before they provide them with deals to move here.