A New Bold Plan For Boston

vanshnookenraggen

vanshnookenraggen

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6,963
Reaction score
1,585
I'm kinda amazed this hasn't been posted yet.

Plan envisions bustling town centers
By Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007

Planners mapping the future of Greater Boston want to encourage people to live and work in suburban town centers, and cut pollution, water usage, and traffic to improve the quality of life over the next two decades.

The "MetroFuture" planning recommendations by the quasi-public Metropolitan Area Planning Council were made after three years of discussions with 4,000 residents and public officials, and will be unveiled today at a Boston College citizens seminar in downtown Boston.

While short on specific means for reaching the goals, the plan urges lawmakers, private industry, and state and local governments to work together over the next two decades to shift growth from remote new suburbs to existing town centers. It calls on older suburbs to amend zoning codes to permit redevelopment and mixed-use development, such as housing above stores.

The aim is to have 80 percent of new housing and new jobs in cities and larger municipal centers such as Framingham, Peabody, Norwood, and Marlborough. That would enable more people to walk or use mass transit and thereby reduce traffic and pollution, according to the plan.

The plan also calls for a 20 percent reduction in water usage from residents and a 33 percent reduction in the projected usage from new housing; and it encourages a 25 percent increase in renewable energy as well as a 20 percent cut in carbon dioxide.

"Implementation will be hard ," said Marc Draisen , executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. "It is a bold plan with big ideas that requires change from the way we've been doing things. It's going to take time, and it's going to take effort."

Supporters say they believe that the plan will help municipalities plan for the long term and pool resources to improve the quality of life in the area.

"In the municipal world, we are reactive and deal with problems when it's too late," said Michelle Ciccolo , assistant administrator and community development director in Hudson. "This plan enables communities to look at plans and see what would happen if we don't change business as usual."

But some who laud the plan nonetheless question whether it can be implemented.

"The plan is fighting against both economic and political factors that will make this difficult," said Ed Glaeser , economics professor at Harvard University and director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.

Glaeser said that a growing number of people want to live close to transit and downtown centers, but others are interested in the new large-lot homes that populate new suburbs. Many of these people, he said, are the sort of workers Massachusetts is trying to keep and attract: young families.

Mark Leff , president-elect of the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts, agreed, saying, "Smart growth is part of the solution to the housing problem in the state, but not the entire solution. What we really need to do is take a look at providing starter homes for young families, and those are not going up around those urban cores."

In suburban areas, Leff added, the type of development called for in the plan is difficult because many town centers are already built out, and zoning laws can restrict housing units in the area.

Draisen said that communities need to work together and implement better zoning and planning tools. Then, as called for under the plan, 65 percent of suburban growth could be located in town centers and 45 percent of suburban housing could be created through redevelopment, such as converting shuttered factories into lofts.

"Wouldn't it be better to protect green space and steer development of small homes to near the town centers and transit centers?" he said.

The plan is similar to another proposed in 1989 by the group that failed to gain traction and eventually fizzled. Draisen said the difference between the two is that this time, he created the plan with input from 4,000 residents and public figures before publicly floating it.

He said he has not assessed a dollar figure for the plan yet, nor does he have a list of public officials who have offered formal support. He said that will come in the fall when an implementation plan is ready.

Mayor Thomas Ambrosino of Revere said he likes the plan's outline, so far.

"When you're planning for such a long-term vision, you have to be bold," he said. "You'd be crazy to be timid. If we come up a little short, what's the harm?"
Click to expand...

Link
 
Laudable goals, clueless in implementation.

I say we should encourage an 80% reduction in crime.
 
I think it sounds like a good idea but it seems from this article that thats all they have. There doesn't seem to be a concrete plan for implementing it, like a regional planning authority that has the power to direct development with economic incentives.

They will also find it hard to battle against NIMBY's and their protective zoning laws. This is one of those things that every one can agree with but once it comes down to their town...no way!

I'm glad there is also environmental ideals in there as well.
 
What planning board in MA has the desire to rezone residential areas that have been at their current density for over 50 years? The balls? It would definitely lead to litigation ... anybody know how the court in MA looks at area (or use) rezonings? Local precedents? Any MA property/land use lawyers on the forum?
 
^ We the people are our own worst enemies.



Who needs bin Laden to herd Lemmings into the sea?
 
I can definitely see the plan, and it's a great idea. But, as painful as this is to say, it'll never happen. I'm sure, eventually, it would work out-but not in twenty years, and not part of a unified plan. Various developers will be a little inspired by this, and build their buildings and developments near town squares. But it won't be a unifed movement. And it won't happen in my lifetime.
 
This is a great plan, really loving it.
I hope it is done, but like everyone has said, it probably won't.
 
Riiiiiiight...I see affordable housing in urban Boston....never. The people who already own or have the ability to purchase something downtown (in most metro areas, not just Boston) like to keep the value of their properties up. To do that you have to keep an area exclusive. To do that, you have to piss and moan about every project that attempts to achieve this because if these people want to live near you they have to work 25 times harder because the economy sucks and you are needed to continue paying into the social security system that will probably collapse with these baby boomers who are now entering retirement age during the largest national deficit this country has ever seen.............Sorry, got off on a rant there.
 
Future vision for Boston..............Tents being setup for Homeless in the heart of the downtown district. Filenes project offers site for next WWII film.
 
lol I totally forgot about this, and I'm sure 99.5% of the population (including the politicians who matter) also did. This plan is beyond useless.
 
You don't have to keep an area exclusive to keep property values up. Related to the Boston context, a 2004 MIT study showed 40B projects have no impact on neighboring property values. Glaeser at Harvard has done multiple studies showing that preferences for low-density are not 'rational' decisions, in the parlance of neoclassical economists, and this is exactly because higher values are not necessarily what drive peoples' opinions on land use decisions. Study of land use politics better fits in the realm of behavioral economics, if you're so inclined to approach the subject from the point of view of an economist.
Anyway, yes, this plan will not in itself have any teeth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top