 Sept 30, 2026 new units in MFHO. Source:; Cambridge Redevelopment Tracker. Cambridge’s redevelopment pipeline is often described as a way to create abundant new housing. But a closer look at the city’s housing tracker shows a more complicated pattern: most projects add few or no net new units, while a small number of larger developments account for most of the housing increase. The pipeline also includes many demolitions, replacements, rear-lot buildings, additions, and projects whose prior site conditions are not clearly documented. I downloaded the Cambridge Housing Map Tracker which was created by a developer based on Councillor Zusy's crowdsourced Cambridge Redevelopment Tracker on September 30, 2026. The snapshot contained 589 projects. I excluded 18 projects previously identified as commercial, retail, parking-lot, or primarily mixed-use projects, leaving 571 records. Of those, 234 projects reported a nonnegative net-unit figure. Net new units were calculated as proposed units minus existing units. Thirty-one records reported a negative net change, and 306 did not provide enough information to calculate net new units.  Above Image from Cambridge Housing Map The 234 projects from the Cambridge Housing Map with usable figures represent a total of 1,603 net new housing units. As we can see in this website, however, 30.8% of the projects have no new units, and 38.9% have only 1-3 new units. Both are likely to be very expensive $1.5-$2.5 million homes, out of reach for most Cambridge residents. Together that is 69.7% or nearly 2/3 of all projects. When we add in the 4-9 additional units we see another 20.1% of all units.  above chart shows data from the Cambridge Housing Map on Sept 30, 2026 The central pattern is clear.
Projects adding 0 new net units account for 30.8% of MFHO projects, basically larger versions of the same homes. Those adding 1-3 net new units comprise 38.9% of the new projects. Those adding 4-5 net new units are 3.4% of the new projects. Those adding 6-9 net new units are 16.7% of the total. In short, those projects with fewer than 10 net new units account for 210 of the 234 projects, or 89.7% of the share of projects. This is important because none of these require inclusionary or affordable units. By contrast, the projects adding 10-19 new net units account for 2.1% of the new net units. And those adding 20-29 net new units represent 1.7% of the net new units. Projects with 30 or more net new units represent only 6.4% of the MFHO projects. In short, those with net new units that are adding inclusionary ones comprise only 10.2% of the total. And the 15 projects adding 30 or more units alone account for 59.3% of all net new housing. This means that the city’s housing production is highly uneven. Most projects are small in terms of net housing gain, while a relatively small number of larger projects produce the majority of the new units. A project that replaces a two-family house with a two-family house, for example, may involve substantial construction activity but add no net housing. The tracker also provides information about building height, although the story data are incomplete. Among all 234 projects, 5 involve two-story buildings, 37 involve three-story buildings, 27 involve four-story buildings, 3 involve five-story buildings, and 13 involve six or more stories. Six projects are listed at one or two-and-a-half stories. The number of stories was not reported for 143 projects, or 61.1% of the total. Among the 91 projects with story information, six-story-or-higher buildings account for 14.3%. There is an additional limitation in how project types are recorded. Using the tracker’s structured project-type fields, the 234 projects can be divided into 31 demolition-related projects, 6 additions not also labeled as demolitions, 3 clearly identified new buildings on empty or undeveloped lots, and 194 projects that fall into an “other” or unresolved category. These categories add to 100%, but the 194 should not be interpreted as one coherent type of project. A closer review of the descriptions, community notes, and permit information shows that the residual category is mixed. Among those 194 records, 45 contain some demolition-related language or permit evidence. That includes full-building demolition and replacement, but also partial demolition, interior demolition, garage demolition, and planned demolition. Ten are explicitly tagged as renovation projects, and 25 mention rear-lot buildings, detached structures, carriage houses, accessory structures, or other secondary construction. These are overlapping evidence flags rather than categories that can simply be added together. The review also shows why the residual projects should not be treated as ADUs. Only one project—17 Clay Street—is explicitly described as converting a carriage house to an accessory apartment. It reports one proposed unit and one existing unit, for zero net new units. Other projects may involve rear-lot or accessory construction, but the tracker does not identify them as ADUs. For example, 29 Follen Street involves a new three-family building in the rear while the existing two-family house is restored. At 110 Auburn Street, the notes describe an addition that preserves the original house while adding seven units. At 5 Hawthorne Park, the proposal includes a fourth-floor and rear addition. These are not the same thing as an ADU. The demolition evidence is also significant. At 15 Forest Street, the notes say the entire existing two-unit structure was to be demolished and replaced with a 10-unit building, producing a net increase of seven units. At 96 Jackson Street, demolition was completed before construction of a new nine-unit building. At 9 Copley Street, an existing two-family house was demolished for a six-unit building. Other projects involve more limited interventions, such as removing a garage or part of a structure while retaining the main house. The tracker therefore supports a more careful conclusion. Cambridge’s redevelopment pipeline is not simply a story of new buildings on vacant land, nor is it a pipeline dominated by ADUs. It is a mixture of demolition and replacement, small additions, rear-lot construction, conversions, larger multifamily projects, and records where the prior site condition remains unclear. What can be stated with confidence is that most projects add fewer than 10 net new units, while most of the new housing comes from a small number of larger developments. The data also suggest that demolition and replacement deserve separate attention because they can produce construction activity without producing much net housing—and may involve the loss of existing homes before new units appear. Source: Cambridge Housing Map tracker. Information downloaded September 30, 2026.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |