Cambridge Is Rewriting the Rules of Housing. Will Other Boston Suburbs Follow?

One year after allowing multifamily housing citywide, here's what actually happened

For years, communities across Greater Boston have been trying to solve the housing crisis without fundamentally changing the neighborhoods people already live in.

And yet, home prices keep climbing. Inventory stays tight. And many of the places people most want to live have become harder and harder to afford.

So in February 2025, Cambridge decided to try something different.

On February 10th, the city voted to allow multifamily housing citywide, one of the most significant zoning changes we've seen in decades.

Supporters said it was a necessary step forward. Critics warned it would lead to demolitions, increased density, and permanent changes to neighborhood character.

One year later, we're finally starting to get some real answers.

This also matters beyond Cambridge, because if this experiment is viewed as successful, you could start hearing the same conversation in Brookline, Newton, Belmont, Lexington, Arlington, communities all across Greater Boston.

As someone who helps people buy and sell homes in this region every day, I've watched housing affordability become one of the defining issues shaping where people can live and what they can afford.

In this guide, we're going to break down what Cambridge actually changed, what's happened in year one, and whether this could be the beginning of a much bigger shift across the region.

Why Cambridge Did This in the First Place

The Affordability Problem

Let's start with the context, because it matters.

Cambridge is one of the most desirable cities in America. MIT, Harvard, Kendall Square, it's become a global hub for biotech, technology, and research. Job growth has been substantial. Demand for housing has only intensified.

And yet housing production has not kept pace with that demand. Home prices have soared. Rents have climbed. The inventory of available homes has stayed stubbornly low.

The Larger Massachusetts Problem

But this isn't just a Cambridge story. The entire Boston region is dealing with a housing shortage. Many younger households and families are being pushed farther out. Commutes are getting longer as people search farther and farther for something they can afford. The affordability crisis is reshaping who gets to live here.

Cambridge didn't wake up one day and decide it wanted more density. It was a reaction to years of rising housing costs and a growing belief that the existing system wasn't producing enough homes.

Something needed to change. And Cambridge decided to act.

What Actually Changed?

The Ordinance, Simply Explained

So what did the Multifamily Housing ordinance actually do?

Before the ordinance, much of Cambridge was zoned in a way that limited what could be built in many residential areas, primarily single-family or two-family homes. If you owned a lot, your options were constrained.

After the vote on February 10th, 2025, multifamily housing became allowed by right citywide, in every district except open space. That means property owners and developers no longer have to go through lengthy variance or special permit processes just to build a small apartment building or a set of townhouses.

The ordinance generally allows four-story multifamily buildings by right. On larger lots where developers include inclusionary affordable units, that can go up to six stories.

In plain terms: more types of housing became easier to build, in more parts of the city, essentially everywhere except parks and open space.

What Supporters Hoped Would Happen

Supporters of the ordinance believed that loosening those restrictions would unlock new housing supply, more units, more competition, more options for renters and buyers. They also expected it to generate more inclusionary affordable units, since larger projects trigger affordability requirements.

What Critics Feared

Critics had real concerns. They worried about demolitions of existing homes, particularly historic ones. They feared neighborhood character would change. They argued that what would actually get built would be luxury housing, not the affordable options the city needed. Some raised concerns about strain on infrastructure.

Those were the arguments in 2025. So what happened when the policy met reality?

One Year Later: What Does the Data Say?

Myth #1: Cambridge Is Tearing Down Hundreds of Homes

One of the most alarming claims circulating recently came from a Cambridge city councillor, who stated in an email that there are 148 projects in the pipeline, and implied that 148-plus houses are slated for demolition.

That number alarmed a lot of people. But when Councillor Marc McGovern went directly to the city's Inspectional Services Department to check, the real picture was very different.

According to ISD data as of May 28th, the city has issued only 22 permits for full demolition. Not 148. Twenty-two. And several of those are for 100 percent subsidized buildings constructed under the Affordable Housing Overlay, projects that have nothing to do with the Multifamily Housing ordinance at all.

So the actual number of full demolition permits tied specifically to the MFH ordinance is even lower than 22.

The Historical Commission Data

There's another number that got attention: 312 inquiries to the Cambridge Historical Commission since February 2025. The implication was that 312 historic homes might be at risk.

But here's the critical distinction: an inquiry is a question. It's someone asking, "what do I need to know before I do something?" According to the Historical Commission, those 312 inquiries led to just 59 permits. Not 312. Fifty-nine.

The takeaway: the demolition numbers are significantly lower than what's been claimed publicly.

Myth #2: Everything Being Built Is Luxury Housing

The second major concern was that the ordinance would only produce luxury units, with one claim putting prices at $2.5 to $3 million.

Councillor McGovern addressed this directly, noting that most of these projects haven't been permitted yet, and most are rental units, not for-sale luxury condos.

The Affordable Housing Production Story

More importantly, the data on affordable housing production tells a more optimistic story. In its first year, the Multifamily Housing ordinance appears to be generating more affordable units, not fewer.

Now, it's important to be clear about what "affordable" means here, because the word gets used in two very different ways.

If you mean subsidized or inclusionary units, the below-market apartments built as part of larger developments, the early signs are encouraging. Based on currently planned developments, McGovern says the ordinance could yield approximately 70 subsidized-inclusionary units. That would outpace what inclusionary zoning was producing in recent years, though it's worth noting most projects are still working through the approval process, so those numbers could shift.

If you mean "less expensive than what existed before", the ordinance is helping there too. A parcel that once would have produced a single large single-family home selling for over $3 million can now produce several smaller townhouses at significantly lower price points. More options, at lower costs, than the alternative.

What Critics Can Legitimately Point To

To be balanced: the concerns aren't entirely unfounded.

Demolitions are happening. The character of some blocks will change. Increased density is real. And we're still in the early stages, most projects haven't been fully approved yet, and the long-term effects on the city won't be fully understood for years.

The reality appears to be somewhere between the two extremes. The catastrophic scenario hasn't materialized. But this isn't a story without tradeoffs, either.

Could Other Towns Follow Cambridge?

Why This Matters Outside Cambridge

Cambridge is one city. But the housing pressures it's responding to aren't unique to Cambridge.

Brookline, Newton, Arlington, Belmont, Lexington, Winchester, these communities face many of the same dynamics. Housing shortages. Affordability challenges. State-level pressure to build more. And many are navigating MBTA Communities requirements, which require those communities to create at least one district where multifamily housing is allowed by right, generally near transit.

The question being debated in Cambridge today is likely coming to these communities soon: how much are we willing to change to create more housing?

What Makes Cambridge Unique

It's worth being honest that not every community can simply copy what Cambridge did. Cambridge has transit access, existing density, a massive employment base, and urban infrastructure that most suburbs don't have. The conditions that make multifamily development viable in Cambridge aren't identical everywhere.

What's More Likely to Spread

What you're more likely to see in other communities are conversations about missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units, small apartment buildings. These changes are more modest in scale, but they're already showing up on planning agendas across the region.

On parking: Cambridge had actually already eliminated parking minimums citywide before this ordinance passed. So that's less a new Cambridge outcome and more part of a broader housing policy trend that other communities are now starting to consider, and one worth watching as a signal of where things may be headed.

Cambridge's experience, whatever your read on it, is giving other communities real data to look at as they make their own decisions.

The Biggest Takeaway

Here's what I keep coming back to after following this story.

The most interesting thing isn't whether Cambridge got everything right in year one. It's that Cambridge is forcing a conversation that almost every community in Greater Boston is eventually going to have to face.

The Core Question Every Community Faces

How do you create enough housing for future residents while preserving the qualities that made people want to live there in the first place?

There's no perfect answer. If you build nothing, prices rise and inventory stays constrained. The people who already own benefit. The people trying to get in, especially younger households and families, get pushed further and further out.

If you build more, change becomes inevitable. Some of what exists today won't exist tomorrow. That's a real tradeoff, and dismissing it doesn't help anyone.

The Real Debate

The debate isn't really about whether change is coming to Greater Boston. It is. The debate is about what kind of change communities are willing to accept, and whether they're going to shape it proactively or have it happen to them anyway.

Cambridge is at least trying to shape it. Year one has been messy and imperfect, as most ambitious policy experiments are. But the data so far suggests the worst fears haven't materialized.

What We've Learned From Cambridge's Year One

What Happened

Cambridge implemented its Multifamily Housing ordinance on February 10, 2025, allowing four-story multifamily buildings by right throughout the city (six stories with affordable components).

What the Data Shows

After one year of implementation:

• 22 full demolition permits issued (not 148 as some claimed)
• 59 permits following 312 Historical Commission inquiries
• Approximately 70 subsidized-inclusionary units projected from planned developments
• Most projects are still in early approval stages
• Most developments are rental, not for-sale luxury units
• Multiple smaller units replacing single large homes at lower price points

What Didn't Happen

• The predicted demolition crisis hasn't materialized
• The massive wave of luxury-only development hasn't appeared
• Catastrophic neighborhood character loss hasn't occurred
• Infrastructure collapse hasn't happened

What Still Needs Watching

• Long-term effects on neighborhood character
• Full buildout and approval of 148 projects in pipeline
• Final affordability production numbers as projects complete
• Implementation effects on quality of life and infrastructure

The Regional Implications

For Communities Already Under Pressure

If Cambridge's year-one data is seen as positive or at least manageable, you can expect:

Brookline, Newton, and Belmont will likely face stronger pressure to loosen single-family zoning, especially near transit and in commercial corridors.

Lexington, Arlington, and Winchester will continue navigating MBTA Communities requirements, potentially looking at Cambridge's model as they design their own approaches.

Smaller suburbs may explore missing middle housing as a less disruptive alternative to wholesale zoning changes.

The Policy Trend

Broader policy trends moving across Massachusetts and other high-cost regions suggest:

• Parking minimums being eliminated or reduced
• Accessory dwelling units becoming by-right
• Four to six-story buildings becoming standard in mixed-use areas
• Inclusionary zoning expanding

Cambridge's experience is providing real-world data that other communities can use to make informed decisions.

The Bottom Line

The housing crisis across Greater Boston isn't solved by Cambridge's ordinance. One city's zoning changes, however significant, don't solve a regional affordability problem.

But what Cambridge is doing is important for a different reason: it's demonstrating that you can loosen restrictive zoning, allow more housing, and the apocalyptic scenarios some predicted don't necessarily materialize.

What Matters Now

Whether Cambridge's experiment succeeds or fails long-term won't be clear for several years. Most projects are still in planning. Affordability gains are still theoretical. Character impacts are still developing.

But at minimum, Cambridge has given other communities permission to consider possibilities they might have dismissed before.

The Real Question for Greater Boston

The real question for Greater Boston's suburbs isn't "should we copy Cambridge?"

It's "what are we willing to do to create housing for the next generation of people who want to build lives here?"

Because the status quo, where communities build almost nothing, protect single-family zoning absolutely, and watch prices climb, isn't sustainable. The people who can't afford to stay will leave. The people who want to move here won't be able to. And the region will gradually become accessible only to those with existing wealth.

Cambridge is attempting a different approach. It's messy. It's not perfect. But at least a year in, it's not the disaster some predicted.

Whether other suburbs follow that path remains to be seen. But the conversation is coming whether they're ready or not.