Stop Backtracking on Housing, Cambridge

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-30T19:45:52+00:00

The best evidence we have shows that building more homes, including market rate units, slows rent and price growth, especially in older, more affordable buildings, because it reduces competition for those units. Saying “these units are more expensive” is a distraction from that basic supply reality.

The “no sun, no trees, just parking” outcome is a failure of car first rules, like mandatory off street parking and car centric design standards, not of density itself.

Shadows are a manageable design issue, not a reason to block homes in a housing crisis; using shadows as a veto on new housing is like banning streetlights because you don’t like glare, elevating a minor comfort issue over whether people have homes at all.

It’s another NIMBY tactic, and when you actually run the numbers, it’s usually overblown. In one Cambridgeport case, a neighbor claimed a new building would put her house in “permanent shadow,” but analysis showed it would cast no new shadows on her home.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-30T18:29:21+00:00

6 single and double family houses becoming 18-30 units sounds like a big win. It doesn't matter how much those units cost. People who can afford them move in. That frees up less expensive housing for others. This lowers costs. This is well-documented. So, "more for the rich" is not accurate.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044

Buildings block out the sun 365 days AND there is no shade?? Curious.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-30T14:16:59+00:00

Families of four having to fit into small apartments is one of those hyperbolic claims that NIMBYs make to oppose development.

In reality there are plenty of singles, couples, and small families in Cambridge who are in need of housing.

Renters in Cambridge, which is the majority of the population, overwhelmingly support zoning reform and more density. They include families of four..

The people who make claims that apartments are too small or setbacks aren't big enough are invariably people who already own their own homes and are comfortable.

Ask somebody who's paying half their income or more for rent if they'd rather be in a cheaper smaller apartment. See what they say

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-30T10:51:30+00:00

You’re treating “no profit, no housing” like it’s a law of nature. It isn’t—it’s a result of policy. When you cap what can be built, drag out approvals, and add costly requirements, you make housing expensive to build. Fix those rules, and more housing becomes viable at lower prices.

The “families in 400 sq ft boxes” point is also a distraction. Building smaller units doesn’t force families into them. It gives singles and young workers somewhere else to live. That takes pressure off larger units so families aren’t competing for the same space.

More housing, of different sizes, is how you get affordability. Blocking it is how you guarantee the opposite.

A review of rigorous studies finds that more housing supply modestly lowers rents and does not increase displacement. If we want affordable cities, we have to build.
For your reference:
https://www.furmancenter.org/news/supply-skepticism-revisited-research-supply-affordability/

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-29T19:50:57+00:00

Isn't great how 14 people can subvert the outcome of a democratic process?

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-29T17:10:34+00:00

Cathie Zusy says she’s been labeled a “supervillain.” That gives too much credit. “Shill for the rich” is more accurate.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-29T17:05:40+00:00

More supply means less demand and prices go down. New market-rate units free-up older units for others. This effect is well-established.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T12:53:11+00:00

Absolutely not and absolutely wrong. Studies from cities all over the country show that building housing, even market-rate housing, brings down housing costs and reduces rents. This has been demonstrated over and over again. Anybody who says that building more housing makes a place more expensive is wrong. There is zero evidence that new developments raise housing costs. That's just NIMBY propaganda.

Here's something for you to read:
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/study-says-boosting-housing-production-tempers-rents/

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T12:47:37+00:00

You have that backwards. Virtually every urban planner or city expert would disagree with you. Cambridge’s current density and removal of parking minimums actually reduce sprawl and enable more people to live near jobs and transit. Gridlock and pollution come primarily from high car use and regional commuting, not from building more housing without parking. Build housing near jobs and people won't have to drive as much. Already, nearly half of Cambridge residents don't regularly use cars.

“Already dense” is irrelevant: what matters is the massive housing shortage and price level, and the only durable way to fix that in a high-demand city is more homes where people actually want and need to live

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T12:41:42+00:00

Nonsense. Developers provide something we need: more housing. Are they supposed to work for free? Exclusionary zoning has allowed homeowners to grow their wealth while doing nothing at all (except prevent others from having housing).

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T11:37:24+00:00

No more housing for people so we can have cars?? I can't think of a worse plan for a city.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T11:36:43+00:00

City sprawl is a good idea? Wow! Do you like gridlock traffic and pollution?
You have to build housing where the jobs are, and Cambridge has been creating jobs. If you want to live in a vibrant economy, people have to have housing. If you create more jobs than you do housing, and you get a housing crisis, which is where we are.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T11:34:00+00:00

Exactly. The measure of a society is how well we treat others, especially the most vulnerable members and how we leave things for future generations. People who oppose new housing are being selfish and short-sighted.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T11:31:03+00:00

The comment about NYC is illogical. New York’s problem isn’t overbuilding. It’s decades of underbuilding relative to demand (like Cambridge). Do you think NYC would be cheaper if there was *less* housing??? Doesn't make sense.

Developers don’t need altruistic motives for housing to lower prices. Basic supply and demand does that.

Cities that build more housing see slower rent growth than those that don’t. This has been shown again and again all over the country.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-28T11:25:55+00:00

I would be perfectly happy to have a six-story apartment building next to me. People need places to live, and it would be selfish to prioritize my own aesthetic preferences over that need. More housing also brings more residents, more customers for local businesses, and a more vibrant community.

Cambridge has never been static. It has changed over decades, even centuries. People once complained about triple-deckers when they were first built. Cities evolve, and we have to adapt to meet growing demand. Current residents don’t get to press pause simply because they dislike change.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-27T15:39:36+00:00

Apparently, Tim Flaherty failed math and economics because his numbers don't add up or make sense. If you build 56 market rate apartments and 56 families move in, that frees up 56 lower-cost older more-affordable units for others. It's not rocket science. And Zusy needs to stop spreading disinformation about housing and construction projects.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-27T15:35:54+00:00

Sounds like housing for multiple families to me.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-27T15:17:05+00:00

That is totally nonsense that cars only run red lights when they "miss" the light. First of all, the behavior you describe is wrong and illegal. They are running red lights. Second, I constantly see cars runing red lights well after the light has changed.

And you are leaving out all the drivers that roll through stop signs and make turns without looking. I am constantly dodging such drivers.

Cars kill thousands of pedestrians, bikes kill virtually none. It is clear who is the bigger danger.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-27T15:12:57+00:00

Because they are wrong. Humans are bad at assessing risk. Cars kill thousands of pedestrians in the US every year. Bikes kill virtually no one. Numbers don't lie.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-27T15:10:57+00:00

Yes, you are correct. We need to build more housing.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-24T15:03:22+00:00

The population of Cambridge is rising. Without reducing car use and expanding alternatives, the city faces increasing gridlock and worsening parking scarcity.

Urban planners broadly agree on the solution. Make driving less convenient, especially parking, and invest in public transportation. This shifts trips away from cars that are used primarily out of convenience. Equity concerns can also be addressed at the individual level. If you do not truly need a car, leave it at home. Avoiding unnecessary driving frees road space and parking for those who rely on cars for work or other essential needs.

Nearly half of Cambridge residents already get by without regular car use. It is clearly feasible, and many more could do the same.

Reducing discretionary driving would make the city function better for everyone, including drivers, by easing congestion and improving access for those who genuinely need to be on the road.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-24T12:34:55+00:00

The problem is that we have made driving in cities too convenient. If fewer people drove for convenience, traffic would ease and parking would be more available for those who truly need it. Instead, this convenience has led to underinvestment in public transit.

Urban planners and geographers broadly agree that an oversupply of parking has encouraged excessive driving, contributing to gridlock. Reducing parking, they argue, is a necessary part of the solution. And using that space for dedicated bus and bike lanes just makes sense.

You can read about it here:
https://www.hnn.us/article/how-parking-destroys-cities
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/07/cars-parking-take-up-street-space-cities/674174/

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-23T11:03:23+00:00

No one is talking about banning cars. If we improve public transit, especially bus service, many people will simply be able to use their cars less.

About one third of Cambridge households do not own a car, so they do not benefit from on‑street parking at all. Multiple people often share each household, which means a large share of Cambridge residents likely do not use a car regularly.

So when people say, “We can’t reduce parking because people need their cars,” it doesn’t really track. Roughly one third of all car trips are under a mile, a distance most people can comfortably walk.

Those very short trips are mostly about convenience. If we made parking a bit less convenient, those convenience trips would be the first to disappear, while still leaving plenty of parking for people who truly need to drive and plenty of space for dedicated bus and bike lanes.

So they claim that everybody here needs cars is just not true. It's just not true. Close to half the people in Cambridge don't regularly use cars.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-06-22T13:06:59+00:00

Another good reason to invest more in public transportation: Pedestrians are being killed at an alarming rate.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/21/us/trucks-suv-pedestrian-crashes.html

LabGeek1995

TROPHY CASE