Two complicated political issues are rarely compatible, but the current multifamily zoning amendments and potential reduction in inclusionary housing percentages seem inextricably tied in Cambridge.
Since adoption of the multifamily zoning in February 2025, there has been outcry and division across neighborhoods. Drastic increases in height and density combined with zero minimum parking are a historic and dramatic change to lower-density neighborhoods – and the City Council did not just allow multifamily in low-density neighborhoods with A and B zoning; they substituted Residential C zoning (which allows multifamily with controls) and removed controls such as height, setback open space, floor-area ratio. Councillors might have done this along corridors and kept controls in place. The blanket approach made for easier drafting, but was much more bluntly impactful.
There are many examples of out-of-place large buildings in low-density neighborhoods that support the argument we’re seeing some overreaction to change. I grew up in one of those buildings, and agree.
The strongest argument for the multifamily zoning is housing supply, and I am, at my core, a housing supply advocate. Cambridge cannot exist in a vacuum, but holistically, supply and demand matter. (I experienced how rents decreased in a two-family I owned in the Cambridge Highlands after a large buildings going up in Alewife.) However important supply is, there is a valid concern around protecting character and livability of neighborhoods.
I also agree that neighborhood diversity matters and that some controls should be reestablished within those former low-density neighborhoods.
Yes, both sides will be unhappy, and politically that is a reason to do nothing – but it’s not good policy, and the political reality that councillors are elected. Zoning also requires six votes, so some populism is reality if pro-supply advocates want to continue to make strides.
I would argue that multifamily-zoning housing is not the only or best response to supply. The first inclusionary ordinance (which I co-sponsored when I was on the council) lasted from 1998 to 2017 with a requirement of 11.5 percent affordable in exchange for a 30 percent density bonus, and 920 affordable units were created. It worked.
Since the 20 percent increase in 2017, only around 160 units have been created. Really only one large residential building has been built under market conditions in 2017 under the 20 percent requirement at 55 Wheeler St. in the Cambridge Highlands.
Remember, many housing units permitted in our biggest developments (known as “planned unit development” districts) are required to be built only if and when commercial development occurs, and commercial development has stalled across all sectors. Housing production stopped for two reasons: Housing required by commercial upzonings stopped, and 20 percent was a huge new burden. Recent economic challenges and the macroeconomics of the Trump economy made things exponentially worse.
Lab is not going to warm up and definitely not going to reset for five or more years. Meanwhile, I am watching neighbors fight neighbors and so much political division over relatively small townhouse projects (mostly with zero affordable homes proposed) while we leave thousands of units sitting unbuilt: approximately 5,000 units already permitted in high-density districts, places such as along the railroad tracks in Alewife or in Kendall square and Cambridge Crossing.
Just one reduction in inclusionary could move the dial on 500 units; even at 10 percent affordable, we could generate 50 new affordable homes. That alone would add far more homes and far more affordable ones that all the multifamily zoning projects underway. Zero percent of zero is zero.
If supply matters, and it should, and neighborhoods matter, and they should, then modest amendments to the multifamily zoning and unlocking significant units in high density districts are not only compatible, but interlocked politically. The council should remember the first inclusionary ordinance at 11.5 percent was aggressive and worked.
Correcting both inclusionary and multifamily zoning makes perfect sense.
