My Vision for Housing, Zoning, and Development in Cambridge
Cambridge simply must continue to grow, but we have to do it with care, thoughtfulness, and equity at the forefront. I deeply believe in expanding our housing stock, especially for low- and middle-income residents, while actively preserving the unique character and livability of our neighborhoods. My goal is to support smart, targeted development that genuinely strengthens our community, protects our most vulnerable residents, and makes our city more inclusive—not more expensive and exclusive.
Why I Opposed the MFH Zoning Amendment
That’s precisely why I opposed the Multifamily Housing (MFH) zoning amendment that recently passed the City Council. I was the only vote against it—not because I’m against housing, but because I truly believe this policy will have the opposite of its intended effect. By allowing four-story apartment buildings as of right in all residential neighborhoods—with two extra stories for inclusionary housing on larger lots—this ordinance is likely to encourage tear-downs of existing homes. This will fuel the construction of high-end housing that most residents can’t afford, has already inflated land values, and will displace lower-income residents, all while degrading neighborhood character and producing very few genuinely affordable units.
Supporting Smart Development in the Right Places
At the same time, I’ve consistently supported development where it makes the most sense—particularly along our corridors, in our squares, and within our transition districts, just as the Envision Cambridge plan recommended. These areas are close to transit, already zoned for higher density, and are much better equipped to accommodate growth without overwhelming existing infrastructure. I’ve also pushed to incorporate form-based zoning into our toolkit, so we can shape development based on how it feels and functions within a neighborhood, not just how tall it is.
While taller buildings and larger developments can be appropriate for big, corner lots, especially if surrounded by open space, I believe as-of-right development for projects up to 75,000 square feet is a mistake. I’ve read David Glick’s Neighborhood Defenders and understand that neighbors can sometimes hinder development. However, they’ve also been crucial partners, for example, at Frost Terrace (1791 Mass. Ave.) and 2400 Mass Ave. (which was permitted), significantly improving project design and ensuring they integrate better into the broader community.
Neighborhood associations should absolutely play a role in identifying appropriate locations for development. In my own community of Cambridgeport, there are obvious places where greater density would truly work. On the 2023 and 2024 Cambridge Resident Satisfaction Survey, residents consistently listed housing affordability as their #1 issue. Let’s engage neighbors, who intimately know their neighborhoods, in solving this complex problem. I also support the nascent Cambridge Land Trust, which offers a vehicle for residents to deed their homes to become permanent affordable housing.
Addressing Unanswered Questions and Seeking New Solutions
I’ve also raised critical questions that, to date, remain unanswered: How many units are we actually trying to build, and for whom? What are the projected impacts on our infrastructure, green space, and tree canopy? What’s the plan for managing traffic and transit demands? We must be honest about these challenges—and hold ourselves accountable to results that truly match our community’s values.
I have supported the thoughtful upzoning of 320 Charles Street, where the developer, BioMed Realty, worked closely with the East Cambridge Planning Team and offered meaningful community benefits: new open space, over $30 million in public funds, and investments in affordable housing and local nonprofits. That kind of collaboration—community-led, transparent, and generous in return—is a model for how we should pursue development across Cambridge.
As Co-Chair of the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning Committee, I’ve organized public meetings on zoning and planning priorities, bringing in urban design experts from Harvard and MIT, as well as crucial neighborhood voices. I’ve asked the City to explore strategies for middle-income housing, the conversion of underutilized office buildings, and even innovative new models like Wilmington’s JumpStart program, which helps property owners become small-scale developers themselves. We need to be creative and inclusive in how we address the housing crisis—without relying solely on large-scale market-rate construction.
I also supported continuing the Half Crown Marsh and Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation Districts, which help ensure development that is in harmony with its surroundings. Contrary to critics’ claims, NCDs do not block growth—they shape it for the better.
My Guiding Principles for Growth
I believe our planning must be both bold and nuanced. We should be asking ourselves: What kind of city are we truly trying to build? Where is growth most appropriate? What trade-offs are we willing to accept? And crucially, how do we ensure that longtime residents, essential workers, students, and young families can all afford to live here?
Growth is coming to Cambridge. The real question is whether we actively manage it—or let it manage us. I remain steadfastly committed to smart growth, robust public input, and zoning that puts community, affordability, and livability first. Together, we can ensure that Cambridge grows into a more just, vibrant, and sustainable city for all.
# # #