A Case for Supporting CDD’s Initial Changes to the Multifamily Housing Ordinance—and a Caveat

The September 16 meeting of Cambridge’s Housing and Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committees produced a somewhat mixed result.
The good news is that the Community Development Department’s proposed initial changes to the Multifamily Housing Ordinance are a step in the right direction. They recognize that the 2025 ordinance needs adjustments to address design, green space, trees, stormwater, utilities, building-code requirements, and the relationship between new construction and existing homes.

The caveat is a Council amendment that was presented to make even these modest improvements difficult to achieve.
The meeting did not itself change Cambridge’s zoning. The committees advanced an amended policy order directing staff to draft possible changes: [1]

The good: CDD is proposing practical corrections

CDD’s presentation makes clear that the City is not proposing to abandon multifamily housing. The core structure of the 2025 ordinance would remain: multifamily housing in all neighborhoods, as-of-right permitting, and a general framework allowing buildings of four to six stories.

At the same time, CDD acknowledges that the ordinance’s maximum zoning envelope does not always fit easily with other requirements. Projects must also accommodate stormwater systems, transformers and other utilities, emergency access, stairs and ramps, trees, plantings, driveways, building codes, and flood-resilience standards. On small lots, a few feet can determine whether all of these requirements can work together.

The proposed initial changes include the following:

1. More workable setbacks and open space
For nearly all city residential districts (the new C-1), CDD proposes increasing the combined front and rear setbacks to 25 feet, with at least five feet on each side. The combined side setbacks would increase from 10 feet to 15 feet, again with a five-foot minimum on each side.

The total open-space requirement would remain 30 percent, but the permeable portion would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. That could provide more room for trees, plantings, stormwater absorption, and healthier ground-level space.

These are not dramatic changes. They are intended to make the zoning envelope more realistic and reduce conflicts among competing requirements.

2. Clearer rules for projections, corner lots, and additions

CDD also proposes clarifications concerning enclosed bays and other building projections. Projections would not be allowed within five feet of a property line, while certain projections could still extend across portions of a building façade.

The proposal would clarify how setbacks apply to corner lots, vertical additions, and horizontal additions. These changes should make it easier for applicants, neighbors, and City staff to understand what is actually allowed.
CDD is also considering more flexible setbacks or open-space requirements for significant historic buildings, potentially tied to review by the Historical Commission or a Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. The goal would be to create an incentive for preservation rather than making demolition the easiest path to development.

3. Discouraging larger buildings with fewer units

One of the most important proposals would address projects that use the new zoning to replace a smaller home with a much larger building without adding many additional homes.

CDD is considering limiting such projects to three stories if the average unit size exceeds approximately 1,600 to 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Other possible requirements include 40 percent open space, side setbacks totaling 20 feet, and front and rear setbacks totaling 40 feet.

CDD is also considering removing the exemption for habitable basement space when calculating average unit size. The precise threshold has not been set, but the principle is sound: zoning incentives should not encourage the construction of very large homes at the expense of additional housing.

4. Better administration and public information

The City is also proposing a series of administrative improvements. These include a central permitting website with FAQs, checklists, and process maps; an early project-intake process so critical issues can be identified before a building permit is filed; and a housing dashboard that would track projects through City review and measure progress toward housing goals.

CDD is developing a Neighbor’s Guide explaining the permitting process, the multifamily amendments, and basic zoning concepts. It also proposes updates to urban-design review, green-building procedures, tree protection, and stormwater guidance.

These process changes matter. Clearer rules and earlier coordination can reduce delay, avoid preventable conflicts, and make it easier for both residents and applicants to understand what is happening.

The bad news: a net-unit requirement could become a poison pill

The troubling development was an amendment presented by Councillor Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, all members of the pro-development ABC political group. This amendment would require future changes to be neutral or produce a net increase in the number of housing units allowed under the current ordinance, while also protecting the number of affordable or inclusionary units.

That may sound reasonable. But it could make the environmental and design corrections described above nearly impossible to adopt. A setback or open-space change may reduce the theoretical maximum on one small lot even if it makes the project more buildable, safer, greener, and more likely to comply with all applicable regulations.

In other words, the amendment risks confusing the maximum number of units that can be drawn on paper with the number of homes that will actually be built. CDD told the committees that its projected housing production—roughly 250 to 300 additional homes annually—would remain unchanged under the proposed adjustments, but how this could be maintained is unclear on a project-by-project evaluation. [2]

The amendment also creates a rigid test for changes that should be judged by several goals at once: actual housing production, affordable housing, tree protection, stormwater management, neighborhood livability, and compliance with building and safety codes.

Councillor Catherine Zusy described the amendment as a “poison pill” because it could cause the entire effort to amend the ordinance to fail. She nevertheless voted to advance the policy order because leaving the existing ordinance untouched would be worse. The amendment advanced from both committees, although it was not unanimously supported. [2]

Housing demand has changed since the original upzoning debate

There is another reason not to treat the original housing-production assumptions as permanently fixed.

Cambridge still has a serious affordability problem, and the City should continue to produce affordable housing. But the economic conditions surrounding the 2025 ordinance have changed. The Cambridge office market has weakened substantially. CBRE reported a 26.9 percent office vacancy rate across Cambridge in the second quarter of 2026 and a 28.4 percent vacancy rate in East Cambridge, with availability in East Cambridge reaching 30.3 percent. [3]

The exact numbers differ depending on whether one measures vacancy, availability, office space, or a particular submarket. But the larger point is clear: the demand assumptions formed during the height of the Kendall Square expansion should be revisited rather than treated as permanent facts.
The universities that help drive Cambridge’s housing demand are also under pressure. Harvard announced a cut back of staff and grad students and has asked its schools and units to identify spending adjustments. [4] MIT has likewise reported a decline in federally funded research activity, lower graduate enrollment, and projected declines in new graduate enrollment in many departments. MIT’s president said that, outside Sloan and the EECS MEng program, new enrollment for the following year could be nearly 20 percent lower than in 2024—approximately 500 fewer graduate students. [5]
None of this means that Cambridge no longer needs housing. It does mean that the City should update its housing-needs analysis rather than using an old production target as a reason to block every reasonable correction to the ordinance.

What the City should do next

The City Council should support CDD’s initial changes while improving them in several ways.

First, the Council should not make every environmental or design correction contingent on preserving the theoretical maximum number of units on every individual lot. The City should instead measure whether the ordinance produces housing in practice, including affordable housing, and whether the resulting buildings meet environmental, safety, and neighborhood objectives.

Second, Cambridge should commission or complete an updated housing-needs study. That study should examine actual production under the 2025 ordinance, unit sizes, inclusionary housing, demolitions and displacement, office and university demand, vacancies, infrastructure capacity, tree loss, stormwater, and the cost of housing for different income groups.

Third, CDD’s proposals should be treated as a beginning rather than an endpoint. Cambridge still needs stronger measures addressing demolition and displacement, tree protection, flood and stormwater risks, design quality, community communication, and the production of genuinely affordable and family-sized homes.

In politics, one rarely gets everything one wants. CDD’s proposed changes do not solve every problem, and they may not go far enough. But they are a useful first step toward making Cambridge’s multifamily zoning work better for housing, the environment, and the people who already live here.
The right response is to improve these proposals—not to make them impossible.

See our proposed new   amendments   HERE

Sources
​
[1] City of Cambridge, September 16, 2026 Joint Housing Committee meeting
[2] Cambridge Day, “Zoning update may see major changes,” September 16, 2026
[3] CBRE, Cambridge Office Figures, Q2 2026
[4] Harvard University, “Financial Stewardship”
[5] MIT Office of the President, “A message about funding and the talent pipeline”