IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8n8mny wrote
Reply to comment by TightBoysenberry_ in Most towns are going along with the state’s new multifamily housing law. Not Middleborough. by TouchDownBurrito
Cambridge’s situation is particularly egregious IMO. 6000sqft minimums on SFH in some parts of the city.
SnooMaps7887 t1_j8njq68 wrote
In fairness to Cambridge, they have the second highest density in the state behind Somerville (and 26th highest in the entire country!). Room for improvement, but I think they are doing their fair share compared to just about every other city.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8nk7xe wrote
Yes, but grading the greater Boston area on a curve like that is a poor idea.
​
There is so much low hanging fruit in Cambridge for completely inoffensive upzoning (3-5 stories by right) that would maintain the city's character and provide thousands upon thousands more homes.
SnooMaps7887 t1_j8nn7ly wrote
Sure, I agree in principal and fortunately there has been a lot of talk in the city about upzoning.
I just don't think that many of the cities north of the Charles are "particularly egregious"; to me that title should be pointed toward the cities and neighborhoods to the west and south that have always resisted upzoning.
Also, those 6000 sq. ft minimum lots make up .7% of the Cambridge's dwelling units.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8nr1wh wrote
They make up .7% of the dwelling units because there are so few of them, because of the zoning laws. Cambridge is only ~6.4 square miles. That area is not trivial in the slightest.
SnooMaps7887 t1_j8o4c3h wrote
Ok, they still only make up 3% of the city's land mass. Compare to Newton where a Globe article noted that 80% of residential lots (almost 10,000 of them) within a half mile of the MBTA Express Bus service are zoned for single-family use.
Again, I think we agree, I just feel like the biggest impact can come from the communities that have not done their part to date.
1998_2009_2016 t1_j8ngriv wrote
Cambridge is not bad at all, just a popular target.
Look at Malden where 80% of the town is on 6000 sqft min lot size, that they want to make 7,500.
Malden: https://www.cityofmalden.org/DocumentCenter/View/5562/Zoning-Map-FY2022
All of that light yellow is 6,000 sqft.
Cambridge: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Maps/Zoning/cddmap_zoning_base_11x17_202102.pdf
The light yellow "A-1" between Harvard and the cemetary is the only 6000 sqft remaining.
Nowhere in the same UNIVERSE much less "egregious".
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8nj3g8 wrote
Cambridge's dimensional requirements make virtually every multifamily structure in the city violate the city's zoning code and have to go in front of the BZA, by design, even if multifamily housing is technically "allowed". And it is 100% intentional. So yes, it is egregious.
1998_2009_2016 t1_j8norvn wrote
Completely different argument and again not out of line with any other area.
Is it better to have a place that’s in line with its zoned 6,000 sqft lots, or a place that is historically so dense that it already exceeds its zoning?
You are arguing that Cambridge is actually more dense than its zoning indicates … which not only moots your initial point about Cambridge being not dense due to zoning (zoning having nothing to do with it, now), but also means Cambridge is underrated generally as the maps don’t reflect the real density.
Anyway, since we moved on from your large lots point and into multi families, the real issue is where density exists and where it can be built. You admit that Cambridge is already so dense that it exceeds its zoning, which is also denser than other towns on the T e.g. Malden. So I assume you aren’t saying Cambridge is egregiously not dense (would be ridiculous to say that right), but rather that nothing is being built compared to the Brooklines, Maldens, Reveres of the world.
Any trip to Kendall, Lechmere/North Point, Alewife would show you huge apartment complexes that weren’t there 5 years ago, with more to come … really only the Seaport compares to Kendall in terms of development and densification.
Basically everywhere is worse than Cambridge in terms of these issues, name a town and it will be the same stuff just worse.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8nqmap wrote
To say that "Cambridge is denser than its zoning allows" makes no sense to me, because Cambridge's zoning has nothing to do with whether the city is too dense or not. The zoning laws were explicitly implemented to drive certain demographics of people out of the city. The city can and should become marginally denser than it currently is, and in some areas (west cambridge) much denser.
Of the development areas you list, those developments had to go in front of BZA or get special zoning petitions from the city council in order to get built. I promise you it was not easy.
​
Yes, other towns are worse than Cambridge is. But Cambridge is already dense with a culture of apartment buildings, however the zoning code (not just household/lot caps) make building new apartments impossible without variances.
​
Pretty much every "beloved" triple decker in the city violates the zoning code.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments