Cambridge, MA Zoning Centennial
Chapter 3 - 1962
Changes in the City
Historical Context
After World War II, the U.S. experienced one of its strongest periods of economic and population growth. However, the Cambridge household population (not counting people in group quarters, like dormitories) fell from its peak of 113,643 in 1930 to 95,778 in 1960, and would continue to fall until the 1990s.
Source: Cambridge Historical Commission.
Many older cities experienced this trend as industries moved to the suburbs or to cities further west, led by government investment in roads, cars, and fuel. Middle-class families gained access to homeownership programs and cars that allowed them to move to the suburbs, but Black and poor residents were excluded from those opportunities. In contrast to the total population, the Black population of Cambridge grew from 5,280 in 1950 to 5,671 in 1960 and would continue to grow until the 1990s.
Post-War Urban Development
In older cities, the government invested in “Urban Renewal,” which involved purchasing and clearing land with what were seen as less economically valuable uses – including, in many cases, low-income and minority neighborhoods – to build highways, newer housing, or commercial space that was seen to have a greater economic value. A notable example is in Boston, where the Boston Redevelopment Authority cleared the entire West End neighborhood in the late 1950s.
In Cambridge, the Housing Authority founded in 1935 was active during this time. Following the precedent set by Newtowne Court and Washington Elms, nearly 1,000 units of public housing were built between 1943 and 1961, mostly in working-class neighborhoods.
Cambridge also created a Redevelopment Authority in 1956, which built some housing developments early on but eventually focused on redeveloping land in Kendall Square into technological uses. An early example was “Technology Square” (outlined in red), a project that demolished the mixed-use residential “Rogers Block” in favor of high-tech office and lab space. 1
Zoning in Massachusetts
A new statewide Zoning Enabling Act was enacted in 1954, which became “Chapter 40A” of the Massachusetts General Laws, replacing the 1920 Act.
Cover of 1966 Cambridge Annual Report. Community Development Department.
In addition to the earlier purposes of zoning, the new law allowed cities to regulate the “density of population” and cited as allowable purposes of zoning “to lessen congestion in the streets,” “to prevent overcrowding of land,” and “to avoid undue concentration of population.”
Another notable addition is that zoning ordinances or bylaws could make exceptions to their own regulations, which a board of appeal, city council, or board of selectmen could approve by granting a “special permit.”
Cambridge Planning
In this new era of urban development, Cambridge adopted a new Zoning Ordinance reflecting a different approach to planning. The Planning Board at the time was chaired by Josep Lluis Sert, the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a proponent of Modernist urban design. One key characteristic of the Modernist approach was to replace the more traditional urban pattern of lower-scale buildings set close together with a pattern of taller buildings on large blocks surrounded by open space. This approach became typical of many cities in the U.S. and worldwide, and informed Cambridge’s new zoning.
1962 Zoning
Purpose Statement
The purpose statement in the 1962 Zoning Ordinance refers to M.G.L. Chapter 40A and has a nearly identical statement of purpose to the 1954 Zoning Enabling Act, including concerns about “density,” “congestion,” “overcrowding” and “undue concentration of population.”
For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of Cambridge, the zoning regulations and restrictions of this ordinance...are designed...to lessen congestion in the streets...conserve health...secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers...to adequate light and air...prevent over-crowding of land...avoid undue concentration of the population...facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks...conserve the value of land and buildings...encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and to preserve and increase amenities.
Density Controls
Reflecting the concerns about density in both the statewide law and local ordinance, the 1962 ordinance introduced a new set of density controls by district.
Floor Area Ratio Diagram. Community Development Department.
A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) limited the amount of floor area that could be built on a lot of a particular size. The FAR limits ranged from 0.5 in single-family and two-family districts to 4.0 in the highest-density commercial districts.
Similarly, a minimum lot area per dwelling unit limited the number of housing units allowed on a lot of a particular size. The most restrictive (Residence A-1) districts required 6,000 square feet of lot area per unit, while the least restrictive districts required only 300 square feet per unit.
Height Limits
One notable feature of the 1962 ordinance was the elimination of height limits in the highest-density zoning districts. However, because of the new density controls, this didn’t necessarily allow more density, but it did support the Modernist ideal of taller buildings set within open space.
Built in 1964, Peabody Terrace exemplifies the height and FAR regulations of the 1962 Ordinance. Cambridge Historical Commission.
For example, in the 1943 zoning, a Residence C-3 district allowed up to 10 story buildings with 40% lot coverage, which would translate to an FAR of 4.0. The 1962 zoning set a maximum FAR of 3.0.
Not all height limits were removed. Residence A-1, A-2, B, and C-1 districts kept a 35-foot height limit plus the new density controls. In the 1943 zoning, a Residence C-1 district allowed 2½-story buildings with 50% lot coverage, which would translate to an FAR of 1.25, and did not limit the number of units. The 1962 zoning set a height limit of 35 feet, a maximum FAR of 0.75 and required 1,200 square feet of lot area per unit. Flat roofs were allowed again, but the allowable density was decreased overall.
Formula Setbacks
Another innovation in the 1962 zoning was requiring setbacks (yards) based on a “formula” by adding the height and length of a building facing a particular lot line and dividing it by some number (4, 5, or 6) to get the required setback. This requirement made design very difficult on smaller lots without much space to work with, and favored development on large lots where larger setbacks could be created.
These setbacks applied mostly to multifamily housing – they were not required for commercial buildings in Business districts – and are still required in the 2024 zoning. Homeowners or developers of smaller lots often need to seek relief from them.
1962 Formula Setbacks Diagram. Community Development Department.
Signs and Illumination
Cambridge NASA Space Center Signage. 1964. Cambridge Historical Commission.
The 1962 zoning also for the first time introduced limits on the number, size, and location of signage that could be placed on a building, as well as limitations on “billboards” (advertising for something other than what was on the premises). Limits were placed on floodlighting and decorative lighting in Residence A-1, A-2, B, and C-1 districts that are still in place in 2024.
Parking in Kendall Square. 1968. Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.
Minimum Parking Requirements
The 1962 ordinance for the first time included minimum parking requirements for all uses. For residential uses, required parking ranged from 8 to 10 spaces per 10 units. Non-residential parking requirements varied more widely. The combination of allowing taller buildings and requiring increased setbacks resulted in many new buildings surrounded by large surface parking lots.
District Changes
The set of zoning districts in 1962 was the same as in 1943, with one exception – the creation of an “Office” district. While Business districts allowed many commercial uses including retail stores, restaurants, and recreation, the new Office district only allowed commercial offices without retail functions and research laboratories with limits on manufacturing. Office zoning, which would expand in coming years, showed the city’s desire to evolve from older commercial activities to a new high-tech economy.
Though Office and Business districts both continued to allow housing, the 1962 zoning did not allow housing in Industry districts, which covered large areas of the city.
Map Changes
Overall, the 1962 map kept most of the already high-scale districts the same or higher, while keeping the already low-scale districts the same or lower. For example, Harvard and Inman Squares were zoned to the denser Business B district along with Central and Porter Squares and much of Mass Ave. Most of Harvard University’s campus, along with the evolving MIT campus, was zoned to Residence C-3.
Most neighborhoods east of Harvard Square were zoned Residence C-1 or C-2. By this time, most of the neighborhoods west of Harvard Square had been rezoned to Residence A-1, A-2, or B.
1962 Zoning Districts
Buildings of 1962
01 / 04
1
Central Plaza at 675 Mass. Ave
Built in 1966 and designed by Eduardo Catalano, 675 Mass Ave is an iconic office building on the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street.
2
Rindge Towers
Completed in 1970s, Rindge Towers were designed in a similar way to other affordable housing developments of the time. Rindge Towers still serve as affordable housing in 2024.
3
Smith Campus Center (Holyoke Center)
Designed by Jose Lluis Sert, the Holyoke Center opened in 1966 is an example of 1960s brutalist architecture and the first high rise on Harvard's campus.
4
1010 Memorial Drive (Ten Ten)
Ten Ten was completed in 1963 and at the time was one of the tallest buildings in the city. The building had 86 apartments at the time of opening in 1965.
Cambridge in the 1960s was going through existential changes. People understandably wondered if older cities like Cambridge would become obsolete as activity moved rapidly to other cities and to the suburbs. Older development patterns were rejected as people embraced the modern, and that is reflected in the zoning of the time. Simultaneously, and conversely, by imposing new standards and limitations, zoning continued to play the role it had established in previous decades: it functioned as a way to "protect" against urban growth, which the existing population (especially in established Cambridge neighborhoods) had begun to see as detrimental.
