{shortcode-d34e31dc7cd2bebe095f7e4e5a911688869d5386}
The Cambridge City Council asked City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 to draft zoning language to eliminate single-family zoning and allow six-story residential developments citywide, taking a step toward a policy that would make Cambridge a national pioneer.
The Monday vote was not exactly unexpected: the Council’s Housing Committee, whose five members form a majority of the full body, endorsed moving ahead with the proposal to abolish single-family zoning during an Aug. 21 meeting.
Still, the 90 minutes of public comment preceding the Council’s discussion underscored that the proposal to upzone Cambridge is far from universally popular — especially as the city prepares for a lengthy process of community engagement before finalizing the change.
The Council also approved a series of amendments to the policy order, including one asking the city to study an alternative proposal — one permitting even taller developments in certain high-traffic areas while limiting some areas currently zoned for single-family homes to four stories.
The amendments reflected the Council’s hesitance to move too quickly on an issue that sharply divided most of the 40 residents who spoke at the meeting.
Supporters of the policy argued that Cambridge’s housing affordability crisis is driven by a severe undersupply of housing, which fuels rising rent and home prices.
“The housing affordability crisis is the result of a serious shortage of homes,” Cambridge resident Dan Eisner said. “Cambridge can be a leader and show the rest of the country that it is possible to take the necessary steps to stop this crisis.”
But some opponents — including former City Council candidate Dan Totten and Richard Krushnic, who leads the political arm of the Cambridge Residents Alliance — raised concerns about the proposal’s potential to displace low-income residents.
“I share the goal of ending discriminatory zoning and housing policies in Cambridge, which are part of centuries of repression caused by our country's racial caste system,” Totten said. Still, he added, he was “concerned about the impact on displacement, particularly smaller constructions.”
Other residents, such as Merilee Meyer, said allowing developers greater freedom to construct larger buildings without explicit city approval could lead to unchecked development.
“Guardrails are diminished,” Meyer said.
Despite the Council’s willingness to move ahead on the issue, several members said they wanted to proceed with caution.
Councilor Ayesha M. Wilson — whose amendment asked city staff to consider making upzoning conditional on factors such as size and the number of units — said more analysis would help Cambridge prepare for such a significant shift in its housing policy.
“It’s going to help us to better position ourselves as we go into a zoning change like this,” Wilson said. “We want to make sure that we’re able to gather and capture as much information as possible as we go into this new zoning proposal.”
While Councilor Patty M. Nolan ’80 acknowledged the urgency of taking action to address the city’s housing crisis, she stressed the importance of requesting additional information from the city as well.
“We should not be making wide scale zoning changes using a model that is not robust, replicable, understandable, and fully transparent to the city,” Nolan said.
—Staff writer Benjamin Isaac can be reached at benjamin.isaac@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @benjaminisaac_1.
—Staff writer Avani B. Rai can be reached at avani.rai@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @avaniiiirai.
