 Above photo: Fire fighters at the Roberts Road Triple decker fire. Posted on Facebook by Kristen Eck. Two recent essays about fire safety and housing reveal more than a disagreement about building codes. They show two different approaches to public policy in Cambridge. On August 18, Cambridge Day published my essay, “Cambridge needs to update its fire codes to keep up with zoning changes,” after a three-family home on Roberts Road caught fire and displaced nine people and two dogs. The opinion piece by Suzanne Preston Blier, President of the Cambridge Citywide Coalition asked whether Cambridge had adequately studied the consequences of allowing larger buildings to be built closer together, including the risks of fire spreading between structures, the space firefighters need to work, and the vulnerability of older buildings next to new construction. [1] Justin Saif, the co-chair of A Better Cambridge, responded with “To improve fire safety, Cambridge must build more multifamily housing.” His central argument is that new multifamily buildings are generally safer than older homes because they are built with sprinklers, fire-resistant materials, self-closing doors, and stronger fire-separation systems. Although Saif’s article identifies it as coming from the Pew Research Center, the linked report was actually published by The Pew Charitable Trusts. This study shows that modern multifamily buildings indeed have significantly lower fire-death rates than older apartments and single-family homes. But this fact does not answer the questions raised by the CCC essay. A national comparison of fire deaths cannot by itself determine how Cambridge’s five-foot setbacks, projecting architectural features, narrow lots, firefighter access, and older wood-frame buildings will interact on particular blocks. [2][3] This is particularly important since most of the new developments are built adjacent to and in close proximity to much older homes. The safety benefits of new construction are real, but ABC’s solution has a concrete consequence that deserves equal attention. Replacing older buildings in Cambridge usually means demolishing existing less expensive housing, ending existing renters' leases, and constructing taller and larger far more expensive market-rate housing in their place. The resulting condos or apartments may be safer as structures, but they usually are priced far beyond the reach of most Cambridge residents—and beyond the reach of the renters displaced to make room for them. A new building can therefore be safer for the people who can afford to move into it while making housing less secure for the people who already live there. That is not an accusation about ABC’s intentions; it is a question about the real-world effects of the development model it supports. The difference between the two essays is therefore not that ABC supports housing while CCC opposes it because CCC strongly supports housing affordability, and was the first citizen group to submit a zoning petition to allow multi-family housing citywide, the Donovan Petiton. Not to be lost here as well in Saif’s response is is call for even more construction and the replacement of older buildings as the primary fire-safety solution. This is consistent with ABC’s broader pro-development orientation. The CCC essay takes a different approach. It recognizes that Cambridge needs housing and that modern construction can be safer, while insisting that the city understand and address the risks created when zoning changes alter the relationship between buildings. CCC is asking for evidence, public analysis, and practical safeguards before the city assumes that more construction automatically resolves every safety problem. Another factual point also deserves further attention. Saif writes that Cambridge “does not and cannot set its own building and fire safety codes” because those codes are established by the state. It is true that Massachusetts establishes the statewide building and fire codes, and Cambridge cannot simply replace them with an unrelated local building code. But the statement is too absolute. Cambridge’s official website currently lists Thomas F. Cahill, Jr. as the Acting Chief of the Fire Department, rather than a permanent chief. The City’s Fire Department also says that local fire regulations are orders issued by the Fire Chief under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 148, Section 28, and the state fire code. Section 28 authorizes the head of a local fire department to make orders or rules on their own as long as they are not inconsistent with the state code. Cambridge already publishes local fire regulations, including rules concerning automatic sprinklers in buildings located behind other buildings. [4][5][6]. But we have yet to read rules regarding the construction of newer buildings in relation to those around them, and the critical needs of fire fighters to move between and behind buildings to fight fires when they happen. This is a potential problem with the new zoning ordinance. The CCC essay never called for Cambridge to ignore Massachusetts law or create a redundant code. It called for the city to study and publish how state building and fire requirements interact with Cambridge’s new zoning rules. That is a legitimate responsibility of local government. Cambridge controls its zoning, reviews development proposals, manages its streets and infrastructure, operates its fire department, and has authority to issue certain local fire-safety orders. Residents should not have to assemble the implications from separate zoning documents, state codes, permit records, and fire regulations on their own. The strongest parts of Saif’s article are the proposals that move beyond slogans: replacing combustible siding, inspecting older buildings, and protecting tenants who may be afraid to report unsafe conditions. Those ideas point toward common ground. New multifamily construction should meet the highest safety standards, but existing buildings also need attention. Fire prevention should include inspections, retrofits, tenant protections, emergency access, and transparent data. Saying “build more” is not a substitute for answering how particular forms of development affect neighboring buildings, current tenants, and the ability of firefighters to respond. The Reddit discussion that followed also illustrates the difference between the two organizations. Saif later suggested on Reddit that his post was satire, but neither the headline nor the text signaled satire, and many readers reasonably understood it as a serious argument. In the Reddit discussion, many commenters did not address the technical questions about structure-to-structure fire spread, access, or older buildings. Instead, they repeated the familiar (and false) claim that CCC opposes all change, called the fire-safety concern a new excuse to block housing, and attacked the author personally. Those reactions show how quickly a policy discussion can be reduced to competing political identities. [7][8] In conclusion, the core issue is not whether Cambridge should build housing. It is whether the city can build housing while taking fire safety, affordability, tenant security, climate resilience, and neighborhood risk seriously at the same time. ABC’s argument reminds us that modern multifamily housing can be safer than much of Cambridge’s older housing stock. CCC’s argument reminds us that new buildings do not erase the risks facing the older buildings next door, nor do they automatically provide housing that displaced residents can afford. A responsible housing policy must do both things: support safe, well-designed new housing and require the city to make the evidence, standards, and public protections clear before asking residents to accept the consequences. Sources[1] Suzanne Preston Blier, “Cambridge needs to update its fire codes to keep up with zoning changes,” Cambridge Day, August 18, 2026: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/08/18/cambridge-needs-update-fire-codes/ [2] Justin Saif, “To improve fire safety, Cambridge must build more multifamily housing,” Cambridge Day, August 21, 2026: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2026/08/21/cambridge-must-build-multifamily-housing/ [3] The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Modern Multifamily Buildings Provide the Most Fire Protection,” September 30, 2025: https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2025/09/modern-multifamily-buildings-provide-the-most-fire-protection- [4] Cambridge Fire Department, “About Us,” identifying Thomas F. Cahill, Jr. as Acting Chief of Department: https://www.cambridgema.gov/cfd/aboutus [5] Cambridge Fire Department, “Regulations”: https://www.cambridgema.gov/cfd/firedeptdivisions/firepreventionbureau/regulations [6] Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 148, Section 28: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section28 [7] Reddit post, “To improve fire safety, Cambridge must build more multifamily housing”: https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/1vur5fc/to_improve_fire_safety_cambridge_must_build_more/ [8] Reddit discussion, “CCC concerned about fire safety”: https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/1vs04jm/ccc_concerned_about_fire_safety/
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |