Cambridge public comment session centers on multifamily zoning; residents sharply split over 4+2 compromise

About 150 people had signed up to speak at a Cambridge City Council public-comment hearing on a proposed multifamily zoning ordinance, during which dozens of residents, housing advocates, architects and senior advocates urged opposing views and a range of amendments.

Supporters of the 4+2 compromise — which would allow four stories by right in many residential areas with an additional two stories subject to inclusionary requirements in some locations — said the change is a necessary step to increase housing supply and keep people who work in Cambridge from being priced out. "I would like to see multifamily zoning. I would like to see taller buildings," said Itamar Turner, a resident of 139 Oxford Street. Brennan Waters of Remington Street told the council: "I'm asking the council to pass the multifamily zoning ordinance." Several speakers urged the council not to add further discretionary reviews or special-permit requirements that they said would delay projects and raise costs.

Opponents warned the ordinance as drafted would incentivize demolitions of older three-deckers and modest homes, producing luxury market-rate units rather than deeply affordable housing. "This will benefit the wealthy at the expense of more rent-burdened residents," said Kathy Watkins of 90 Faucet Street, who urged adoption instead of Councilor Wilson's 3+3+3 alternative. Many speakers — including members of the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition and the Mass Senior Action Council — pushed for zoning that would require more inclusionary units and for immediate municipal subsidies to protect low-income renters.

Multiple commenters called for concrete affordability measures alongside zoning changes. Several public speakers repeated a request for a $6,000,000 tenant-based municipal voucher program to subsidize rents for low- and moderate-income households. Others urged a higher inclusionary requirement (speakers commonly cited 20%) or that higher floors be reserved for 100% affordable buildings. Advocates for design standards and solar access also sought protections: Liz Loya cited Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 9B, urging the council to consider solar access protections in zoning.

Speakers included professional planners, architects and university-affiliated groups. Architect Alex Van Praagh and representatives of the Harvard and MIT graduate student bodies urged more housing by right, while other design-focused speakers asked the council to pair any upzoning with form-based standards or a meaningful design-review process to avoid "ugly boxes" and protect neighborhood character.

Council procedural notes and next steps were part of the meeting: the chair reiterated that the session was a public-comment-only meeting and that no zoning votes were being taken that night. Staff and the chair outlined the schedule the council will follow for the petition: the ordinance committee will meet again on January 16 (no public comment), the City Council will consider committee recommendations on January 27, followed by first reading on February 3 and a second reading on February 10. The chair also reminded speakers that council members may propose amendments on the floor at later stages.

The council recorded and acted on a few procedural motions during the meeting: an early motion to extend the public-comment session, a later motion to add another 15 minutes to the schedule, and a final motion to adjourn; all procedural votes recorded eight members in the affirmative and one absent (Mayor Simmons was recorded absent during roll calls reported in the transcript). No ordinance votes on the multifamily petition occurred that night.

Public comment exposed a consistent split in priorities: those who support the upzoning petition as a way to expand housing supply and reduce pressure on rents, and those who argue the measure as written lacks guarantees for deeply affordable housing, risks demolition-driven displacement, and needs stronger design, environmental and affordability safeguards. Several speakers called on the council to let the current petition lapse and return with a more detailed, neighborhood-sensitive plan, while others urged immediate passage of the 4+2 compromise to begin producing new housing.

The council will receive written testimony and may consider amendments in committee and on the council floor in the weeks ahead. The public was told how to submit additional comments by email to citycouncil@cambridgema.gov.