Possibilities for Affordable Housing in Cambridge
Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay is a proposal to significantly change the zoning restrictions on developers building affordable housing in Cambridge. The proposal eliminates restrictive floor area ratios in favor of a “form-based approach” which regulates elements like setbacks, maximum height, and number of floors, creating an opportunity for more dense housing options without special permits.
The more I learn about the possibilities that this change would create, the more excited I am for such a change. Recently, I learned about one possible example from my own neighborhood:
At the end of my street, there are two adjacent properties owned by the same property owner. The properties in question have a combined lot size of 11,399 square feet, and currently house one multi-unit dwelling and an auto-repair shop. They are in the residential neighborhood of Cambridgeport, where I have lived now for 14 years.
Under current permitted rules, there is a limit on Floor Area Ratio — the ratio between the total amount of usable floor area and the lot size — of .6:1 for this space, meaning that the maximum floor space would be 6840 square feet, only enough for about 6 units of housing.¹ Realistically, I think it would be unlikely to see these properties converted to more housing under the current zoning rules: A 6-unit building simply wouldn’t be sufficiently profitable to make sense for commercial developers, and wouldn’t provide sufficient new housing availability to make it worth pursuing it as a non-profit venture.
Under the Affordable Housing Overlay, this restrictive floor area ratio would change: instead of being limited to a .6 floor area ratio, the property would simply be required to reserve 30% of the lot as open space, with required setbacks from front, back, and side, leaving the remainder available for affordable development up to 4 stories tall.
If the property was developed to the fullest, it could possibly support up to around 30,000 square feet of usable floor area: almost 5 times the space. A generous assessment might suggest that there is room for 30 units, held under affordable housing requirements permanently.²
By comparison: the recently completed 88 Ames Street development is 250 feet tall, and created 280 units of housing — but prices range from $2550/month for a studio to $5700/month for a 2-bedroom spaces. In the end, out of the 237,000 square feet of housing built, only 36 units were designated affordable.
To me, the possibilities of an affordable development like this in Cambridge is absolutely incredible. A property like this seems like it might create a real opportunity to have an actual, affordable housing development, available right in the neighborhood I love so dearly.
These residents would be within walking distance of the Red Line and close to Dana Park, a lovely spot in Cambridgeport that provides an amazing open space to the community.
They would be nearby the dozens of shops and restaurants in Central Square, as well as within walking distance of Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, in addition to the other shops dotted throughout Cambridgeport and the Central Square Library branch.
If a developer opted instead to develop the first floor as retail space — granting them an additional 5 feet in height allotment under the proposed overlay — they could create an easily walkable retail space for thousands of Cambridgeport neighbors, adding to our already vibrant neighborhood.
Because the property is within a half mile of Central Square, as well as on a high-throughput bus line, no off-street parking would be required³ — though if the building did not include enough off-street parking (.4 spaces per unit), they would have to subsidize a Blue Bike membership or 50% of a monthly MBTA pass for the first three months of occupancy⁴.
Currently, the space is taken up by a small multi-unit residence on the corner, and an automotive repair shop on the other side. The auto repair shop property passes all the way through the block. In part because of the restrictive Floor Area Ratio cap, this property has massive setbacks: the entire corner of the property is a parking lot for cars under repair, often in bad shape. This has always felt out of place in our residential neighborhood.
The buildings next to this are already pretty tall, dense buildings: the remainder of the street on this side is 3-story tall apartment style buildings, so extending this further would not feel out of place.
The property has limited trees — only three small ones on the frontage of the residential property — and almost no permeable space, as the entire automotive property is currently taken up by concrete parking area for cars. This means that a redevelopment would create additional permeable open space compared to the current state: important, as we continue to tackle increased inclement weather in our community, caused by climate change .
In short: This is a picture-perfect spot for the potential that the Affordable Housing Overlay has to bring to our neighborhood: It could establish a local retail space, additional permeable open space (15% required)⁵, while affecting little in the way of tree canopy, nor feeling out of place with the existing structures.
It could replace an aging auto repair shop and a parking lot full of cars waiting to be repaired with 20–30 units of housing, within easy walking distance of public open spaces. Thanks to the increased density available under the Housing Overlay, a development like this could be financially viable: The assessed value of these two combined properties is under $2M, while an affordable development of 25 units in this space could make a reasonable investment even to a potential for-profit developer.
(I’m personally no fan of the “free market” as a solution to affordable housing: I think that developer profits should be a non-goal in our efforts to provide a better community for ourselves and our neighbors. However, as Cambridge has chosen to focus on improving housing via market approaches, I’d like to make sure affordable housing gets its foot in the door, not just luxury units like the ones recently built on Ames.)
Living on this street for nearly five years now, I can not imagine preferring the status quo — a parking lot of cars awaiting repair, piles of tires, and trash…
… to a four story housing space like those that already dot our landscape.
Or even to more modern structures, like the one that has caused so much turmoil from residents in recent Cambridge history.
The reality is that Cambridge is already peppered with properties that are as dense as the Affordable Housing Overlay would allow — not just through special zoning permits, but also because much of our existing housing was built before the current zoning rules existed. The overlay doesn’t allow developers to drastically increase density in our neighborhoods: instead, it brings back the ability for developers to create housing options that match those already common in the landscape, but built long before we changed the rules in search of preventing new construction.
Across the street from the auto repair shop is a property built in 1902. This building, 3 stories tall, holds 6 housing units — and counter to the permitted .6:1 FAR on this street, it has a FAR of 1.75:1. Properties like this simply can’t be built anymore in Cambridge, due to the current zoning rules — but with the Housing Overlay, we could create an opportunity for these properties to be built, and to be held permanently as affordable units.
If the fear that folks have is that we will have more housing units like this in our city, then I really simply can’t empathize. To me, the variety and diversity in Cambridgeport has always made it feel like a special place. Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, I know all too well what cookie cutter development looks like.
As a 14-year resident of Cambridgeport, I want to make this an accepting place for more people, and new groups of people, to call home. It’s a great place, and I’ve loved living here for all that time.
I’ve lived in units in the literal shadow of 12-story housing developments…
In a squat two-flat surrounded on both sides by taller buildings…
And in a gorgeous cottage thriving in the shade of a lovely tree providing canopy for much of my block.
More than anything, what these places have taught me is that more than any personal opinion on aesthetics, which I want to see in my neighborhood is variety. Small housing! Big housing! Single family housing! Apartments! Community housing! I want it all!
I welcome the diversity of housing in Cambridgeport. I’ve always loved the range of buildings in our community. Whether they’re four-story buildings in our inner neighborhoods, or taller spaces along our major thoroughfares, I think that my home neighborhood has plenty of room for variety of housing. Those different styles of buildings just show me that I’m living in a neighborhood that is still growing, changing, and adapting to the people who live in it. And that’s what matters most to me.
Christopher Schmidt
Cambridge Resident
¹ The properties are currently in Cambridge’s Zone C zoning district.
² The overlay requires 30% of space on the property to be held as open space. It also requires specific setbacks, and for this property the front, rear, and side setbacks would require a minimum of 3,930 square feet of setbacks — more than the 30% open space requirement — resulting in a first floor usable area of 7469 square feet.
³ Section 6.1(b) of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal.
⁴ Section 6.5(a) of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal.
⁵ Section 5.2.3(b) of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal.
