Multifamily buildings on Franklin Street in Cambridge. iStock photo

Cambridge’s potential elimination of single-family zoning attracted criticism from affordable housing advocates and preservationists alike before a city council subcommittee backed the landmark reform.

The proposal is designed to control housing costs by removing barriers to multifamily development. Year-to-date through July 30, the median single-family home price in Cambridge has nearly reached $2.2 million, up 21 percent from the previous year, according to data compiled by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman.

The Cambridge City Council’s zoning committee last week voted unanimously to support a final proposal compiled by City Hall staff, which allows 6-story multifamily dwellings in all zoning districts and eliminates minimum lot sizes. The final council vote could take place by the end of 2024, according to a timeline presented by city officials.

The proposal eliminates the existing single-family zones, which are located in the western portions of the city between Harvard Square, Mount Auburn Cemetery and Alewife, allowing multifamily dwellings up to 75 feet.

According to estimates provided by city officials, the changes would generate 4,880 new housing units by 2040, compared with 1,440 under the current zoning.

Zoning Committee Co-Chair Burhan Azeem said the changes would stimulate an anemic housing pipeline dominated by small developments. Only 1 percent of the current developments are large enough to require income-restricted units, Azeem said, equating to approximately 20 units.

“A lot of the middle class just can’t survive here, which means we have a lot of rich people and a lot of low-income residents and not much of a middle class,” Azeem said.

City Councilors last fall amended the zoning code to allow 100 percent-affordable projects up to 15 stories, or 170 feet, along sections of Massachusetts Avenue and 12 stories, or 140 feet, on other major arteries throughout the city. A 2020 zoning change that raised height and density limits for all-affordable projects citywide generated over 700 new units in eight developments within the first three years.

At last week’s public hearing, speakers debated the supply-side strategy and whether it would drive up land prices further while encouraging gentrification and displacement.

“I do not buy the trickle-down argument that market-rate supply increases results in lower housing prices for all,” resident Tom Rawson said

Some opponents objected to excessive building heights and loss of open space and parking, warning that a wave of teardowns would destroy neighborhoods’ historical character.

But others said the changes don’t go far enough in addressing the region’s housing crisis, predicting most of the benefits would flow to developers and future residents of high-end housing.

Henry Wortis, a member of the Our Revolution Cambridge group, cited the city’s data indicating that the changes would only generate 920 affordable units by 2040. Wortis said the city should concentrate on rent control, eviction prevention policies and social housing production, in which public housing authorities operate mixed-income developments.

“This zoning proposal increases gentrification. Create an overall housing plan to maintain economic diversity,” Wortis said.

Another resident, Suzanne Blier, said the policy would accelerate displacement.

“To do it in this way, it’s going to remove so much housing for people who are already renting. They’re going to lose their homes as triple-deckers and others are torn down for much taller buildings,” Blier said.

Some speakers said the rezoning would encourage developers to build smaller projects to avoid affordable housing requirements. Projects with fewer than 10 units would not be subject to Cambridge’s inclusionary development policy, which requires a 20 percent income-restricted component in multifamily projects.

The proposal will be reviewed by the Cambridge Planning Board this fall before going to the full City Council for a final vote. According to a timeline presented by city officials, the council vote is scheduled for December.