Facts matter, that’s why I feel it’s important to correct some misinformation that is being circulated regarding the Multifamily Housing ordinance. Recently, one of my colleagues on the City Council stated in an email, “There are 148 projects in the pipeline now; that’s 148-plus houses slated to be demolished.” That number seemed high to me, so I met with the Inspectional Services Department to get the full picture. Sure enough, the real number is much lower.
According to Inspectional Services, as of May 28, the ISD has issued only 22 permits for full demolition. That is far fewer than what is being claimed. When you consider that several of those permits are for 100 percent subsidized buildings built under the Affordable Housing Overlay, and have nothing to do with the MFH ordinance, the number of full demolition permits – assuming the rest are MFH projects – is even less.
My colleague also stated that there have been more than 300 inquiries to the Historical Commission, and implied that 300 historic homes might be demolished. Although that number is correct (312 since February 2025), an “inquiry” is a question. “Inquiries” do not mean that further action will be taken, and according to the Historical Commission, those 312 inquiries led to only 59 permits.
My colleague also claimed that “the MFH Ordinance is producing luxury units priced at $2.5 million to $3 million.” It’s unclear where those prices came from. Most of these projects haven’t been permitted yet, and most are rental units.
In fact, in its first year, the Multifamily Housing ordinance has proven that it can and does result in more affordable housing in Cambridge. When we talk about housing policy, we need to be clear about what definition of “affordable” we are talking about. If by “affordable” we mean subsidized-inclusionary units, the MFH ordinance is clearly beneficial. Although it is impossible at this point to give an exact number of how many new subsidized-inclusionary units will be produced as a result, because most of the projects have not yet been approved and unit counts could change, the current planned developments will yield approximately 70, far outpacing the number of inclusionary zoning units we have seen in recent years.
If by “affordable” we mean “less expensive,” the MFH is helping there, too. For example, a parcel of land that before MFH would have resulted in one large single-family home, likely selling for more than $3 million, can now, after MFH, result in smaller townhouses that sell for far less, making those homes “more affordable” than what would’ve been there before the ordinance. Regardless of which definition of “affordable” we’re talking about – and those distinctions matter – this ordinance is making a net positive contribution.
The council has passed two major pieces of housing legislation in the past several years. The first was the Affordable Housing Overlay, which is solely about 100 percent subsidized housing, and has resulted in more than 1,000 permanently subsidized homes in the developmental pipeline. The MFH was the second, with its primary focus on adding more market rate housing to our housing stock. It is doing that. What would have been single-family homes are being replaced with multifamily homes. We have learned much over the past year and will be reviewing the ordinance in the upcoming months to address any amendments that may be needed. Those discussions are going to be more difficult if there is misinformation being circulated. Let’s work together to figure out how to fix what may not be working while continuing to address our housing needs. I look forward to those conversations.
Marc McGovern is a Cambridge city councillor.
About The Author
