Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1998_2009_2016 t1_j8ngriv wrote

Reply to comment by IntelligentCicada363 in Most towns are going along with the state’s new multifamily housing law. Not Middleborough. by TouchDownBurrito

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".

3

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.

1

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.

3

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.

1