Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

[kdmc]

Your argument has no basis in reality. Both Boston and Cambridge are still below their 1950 population numbers. In the same 75-year period up to today, Boston has lost a net 150,000 people, while the net Massachusetts population has expanded by 2.5 million. During the period when the Massachusetts Miracle was taking place in the suburbs of Route 128, "America's Technology Highway", Boston was a bombed-out backwater, with a steadily declining population. It's only begun to recover relatively recently and now, with the prospect of a catastrophic commercial real estate collapse looming on the horizon, that recovery may reverse -- especially if Beacon Hill can't get suburbanites back into all those half-empty towers in Boston's financial district. So who is reaping the benefit of whom?

Also, the hyper-fucking-local politics of Massachusetts is the only thing that has saved so many towns from the same fate as the West End, or Roxbury around Melnea Cass Boulevard, or the Wood Island neighborhood of East Boston, or the New York Streets of the South End, etc., etc.

1. The population hasn't hit its historic peak yet, but housing demand certainly has. Part of that is that people who want to live in Boston have the means to pay for more space. Triplexes that used to hold 3 families of 5-6 each now hold 3 floors of 2-3 twenty-somethings.

2. Commercial real estate is dropping in price, but as someone looking to buy, I can assure you that residential sure ain't tanking any time soon. If it does, I'll be very happy to admit I'm wrong.

3. It's BS to compare the old West End to the suburbs. The West End was razed because it was dense and car-hostile (a "slum" as they said at the time). Burlington MA was never at risk of that fate because *it already looked like a car-centric suburb*.

4. Sure, neighborhood-level influence did play a big part in saving the North End and stopping the Inner Belt project. But you know what else helped? A large, regional coalition of motivated people, which was eventually supported by the state (Gov Sargent). So, in 2024, I wouldn't exactly point to the West End as an argument for more local control.

5. All that said, fully agreed that Boston needs to allow by-right construction of way more housing, and ignore the Back Bay NIMBYs who want to live in their own little 19th-century shadow-free brick museum for rich people.

 

[DominusNovus]

It would seem to me that it would be far better to incentivize communities to do what the state wants through positive means than through mandates. Far less likely to encourage pushback, and far less likely to have unintended consequences.

Just spitballing an idea: if communities along a certain route conform to the idea of building some TOD, then the MBTA will pledge to increase service on that line - higher frequencies, maybe even an infill station. I appreciate that is easier said than done (and might not win people over), its just an example of a carrot rather than stick.

I live in Kingston. The current CR station is underutilized and its right next to a mall that is also underutilized (and a giant sandpit). In principle, I think its a good idea to develop things further, but I do not like the way its being done.

For example, in Kingston’s case, here’s a perfect unique situation: the station is adjacent to, but not connected to, a housing development where the sleazy builder never properly paved the road. The town does not want to take over the road, so you have a bunch of people with very nice homes stuck with a road that looks like… pick your typical run down inner city neighborhood. The state/mbta could come in and offer to give Kingston the money to pave the road if they a) assume control b) allow a connection straight to the station and c) support some additional development around the station.

Another general idea would be to support non-residential development in these TOD areas. I know a lot of towns are much more open to modest sized commercial developments than they are to similarly dense residential developments (offices and retail generally net a better tax-to-obligation ratio).

 

[Justbuildit]

Again, the only mandate here for the cities is to change their zoning overlays. There is not a construction mandate, there is not a requirement to build or physically do anything. It's a paper exercise that could be done in 30 minutes with like two lawyers. In the most cynical side of things, you could even re-zone in such a way that would make it tough to actually build anything. But even this extraordinarily low bar is too much for many cities to follow...

Regarding your commuter rail proposal, it's the perfect recipe for a free loader problem where intervening stations can do nothing and reap the benefit of increased service when an outside station satisfies whatever that requirement might be.

I don't know, it really doesn't seem like it's too much to follow the law that was passed by our representatives and signed by the Governor.

 

[RandomWalk]

It’s not directly related to zoning, but I would recommend reading Don’t Blame Us by Lily Geismer. It uses the 128 belt as a case study about liberalism, and the origin of some of the dysfunction in development and planning we are dealing with today.

 

[Wonk]

It's BS to compare the old West End to the suburbs. The West End was razed because it was dense and car-hostile (a "slum" as they said at the time)

This is a dangerous way to ignore the lessons learned from the West End. The city of Boston, the Commonwealth, and the MBTA are still suffering from the negative consequences of that transportation oriented central planning effort after seven decades. The debt that the MBTA is dealing with now is directly related to the cost shifting that was done for the Big Dig (the West End, Downtown, and Chinatown being significant obstacles to the elevated central artery construction plans at the time). And whatever you think about the Lindeman/Hurley/JFK/City Hall buildings from an architectural point of view, from an urban planning point of view they have not aged well. While local input can delay development timelines, it seems unwise to disregard it entirely.

Here's a useful site published by MAPC for 3A planning: 3A District Suitability Explorer - Jan 2024 Update (arcgis.com)

Use Woburn as a case study. They have been working together proactively with developers resulting in considerable amounts of new housing over the past two decades, most of which if built moving forward would not be considered transit oriented by this law. At the same time, the MBTA built a parking lot large enough for an amusement park with zero housing at Anderson/Woburn. If you use that map link above, Anderson RTC is in the “Lowest Suitability” for development by the MAPC tool.

I’m not confident this law is going to solve any housing problems, but rather just antagonize cities and towns. Changing zoning bylaws doesn’t create new housing. You need developers and investment dollars and banks willing to lend in order to achieve that goal. And in most cases the requirements the law creates are either already in place or can be met with just a few modifications for communities to comply (maliciously or otherwise). What it doesn’t address is the fact that most of the areas it’s trying to encourage development in are already developed or aren’t really suited for the type of development it proposes. Rockport harbor is within the law’s definition of suitable for TOD. Should the town have a say as to whether a large apartment building gets built on the harbor, or rather south of the train station just beyond the law’s stipulated distance? I think so.

The station locations were fixed in time long before the West End was demolished, and cars will continue to be a requirement for living in all but the a few of the affected communities for the foreseeable future. To tell them they must allow 5-over-1s in their downtown district or SFH neighborhoods and not expect push back is just foolish. There are better ways to encourage and incentivize communities to expand their housing stock. A lot of them already are doing so but are feeling the state is penalizing those efforts because they do not conform with what this law stipulates.

 

[DominusNovus]

Again, the only mandate here for the cities is to change their zoning overlays. There is not a construction mandate, there is not a requirement to build or physically do anything. It's a paper exercise that could be done in 30 minutes with like two lawyers. In the most cynical side of things, you could even re-zone in such a way that would make it tough to actually build anything. But even this extraordinarily low bar is too much for many cities to follow...

I think you underestimate just how resentfully intransigent suburban voters can (and are) be about this.

Which means the state has burnt political capital to achieve… nothing. Brilliant.

 

[KCasiglio]

Your argument has no basis in reality. Both Boston and Cambridge are still below their 1950 population numbers. In the same 75-year period up to today, Boston has lost a net 150,000 people, while the net Massachusetts population has expanded by 2.5 million. During the period when the Massachusetts Miracle was taking place in the suburbs of Route 128, "America's Technology Highway", Boston was a bombed-out backwater, with a steadily declining population. It's only begun to recover relatively recently and now, with the prospect of a catastrophic commercial real estate collapse looming on the horizon, that recovery may reverse -- especially if Beacon Hill can't get suburbanites back into all those half-empty towers in Boston's financial district. So who is reaping the benefit of whom?

Also, the hyper-fucking-local politics of Massachusetts is the only thing that has saved so many towns from the same fate as the West End, or Roxbury around Melnea Cass Boulevard, or the Wood Island neighborhood of East Boston, or the New York Streets of the South End, etc., etc.

Oh come on, this is some college freshman level analysis. At every step of the way you’ve failed to ask “why is that” and are just reacting to outcomes.

 

[KCasiglio]

It would seem to me that it would be far better to incentivize communities to do what the state wants through positive means than through mandates. Far less likely to encourage pushback, and far less likely to have unintended consequences.

Just spitballing an idea: if communities along a certain route conform to the idea of building some TOD, then the MBTA will pledge to increase service on that line - higher frequencies, maybe even an infill station. I appreciate that is easier said than done (and might not win people over), its just an example of a carrot rather than stick.

I live in Kingston. The current CR station is underutilized and its right next to a mall that is also underutilized (and a giant sandpit). In principle, I think its a good idea to develop things further, but I do not like the way its being done.

For example, in Kingston’s case, here’s a perfect unique situation: the station is adjacent to, but not connected to, a housing development where the sleazy builder never properly paved the road. The town does not want to take over the road, so you have a bunch of people with very nice homes stuck with a road that looks like… pick your typical run down inner city neighborhood. The state/mbta could come in and offer to give Kingston the money to pave the road if they a) assume control b) allow a connection straight to the station and c) support some additional development around the station.

Another general idea would be to support non-residential development in these TOD areas. I know a lot of towns are much more open to modest sized commercial developments than they are to similarly dense residential developments (offices and retail generally net a better tax-to-obligation ratio).

Absolutely agreed in principle, though I don’t think it can be solely carrot any more than it can be solely stick. There are plenty of communities who would view these carrots as nothing of the sort. Increased frequency means more opportunity for Those People to come into our quiet suburb and Do Crime

 

[DominusNovus]

Absolutely agreed in principle, though I don’t think it can be solely carrot any more than it can be solely stick. There are plenty of communities who would view these carrots as nothing of the sort. Increased frequency means more opportunity for Those People to come into our quiet suburb and Do Crime

I don’t think anyone is concerned about bad elements taking the commuter rail. They are concerned about a bunch of other issues related to density.

(I appreciate that Milton is a different case)

But if they don’t want increased frequency, there’s gotta be something else the state or MBTA could give them. Say, take care of paving the roads within a given radius of the stations, or buying them new DPW vehicles, etc.

Oh, or how about dealing with grade crossings? Using Kingston as an example again, the crossing at Summer st is a bit of a cluster (especially because it is squeezed between two side streets). Raise or lower the track. Yes, thats not simple, but you’d win over a lot of locals.

 

[Highwayguy]

That would put a hardship on communities such as Scituate that zoned for denser development near their train stations years ago. When the Greenbush line was re-activated in 2007, Scituate did quite a bit of zoning work to encourage multi-family development around the town's two train stations. It's been a bit of a slog, but there has finally been quite a bit of development around the Greenbush train station over the last few years. We just voted some small tweaks to the zoning earlier this month to be fully compliant with the MBTA Communities Act. If the state comes back saying the existing housing isn't covered, then that's a HUGE deal for places like Scituate that had already been quite proactive about zoning.

Wow, a good faith discussion over zoning?!? Gotta go play the lottery after this…

I totally get your point and this is an aspect where l think, counterintuitively, the MBTA Communities bill being more forceful would be more equitable towards the towns that have previously upzoned.


Rather than leaving most of the implementation up to the towns, in broad strokes, the law should have prescribed a radius from a transit stop and density requirement, both decreasing based on quality of service.
E.g, within 0.75 miles of a rapid transit stop, quadplexes shall be allowed as of right, within 0.5 miles of a commuter rail stop, triplexes shall be allowed as of right, ect, ect…

Whatever those exact radii and densities (and whether the density is determined by FAR or units per lot) may be, the upshot is that the greater amount of density already permitted by a municipality within the catchment area of transit, the less additional development (allowable) would be mandated. Not only would this eliminate the ‘games’ being played by municipalities in their minimum compliance plans, but ensure development is happening in the places best suited to accommodate it while being equitable to towns who were proactive.

(I also realize the political compromises needed to get anything done precluded a bill similar to that idea from happening)

In a situation like Scituate’s where the underlying municipal services (or lack thereof) represents a real barrier, l would like to say there could either be a waiver process or a grant program to pay for those upgrades. Although, the above is hand-wavy as the implementation of either of those ‘solutions’ would be admittedly fraught. Hopefully people smarter than some random internet commentator can figure out a workable solution.

 

[KCasiglio]

I don’t think anyone is concerned about bad elements taking the commuter rail. They are concerned about a bunch of other issues related to density.

What issues?

 

[Blackbird]

What exactly is the logic there?

How dare you overreach my overreach!

 

[DominusNovus]

What issues?

Off the top of my head, you have the general change in the character of a town as the population density goes up - particularly when comparing single-family homeowners vs other residents - as well as the various strains on public services and utilities.

To use Kingston as an example again, in the past 30 years, its population has increased by over 50%.

Regarding your commuter rail proposal, it's the perfect recipe for a free loader problem where intervening stations can do nothing and reap the benefit of increased service when an outside station satisfies whatever that requirement might be.

Forgot to mention this before, but nothing says the CR *has* to stop at every intervening station. In fact, it can be an incentive for those communities that jump on board first. “Whats that, half the towns between you and Boston are turning their nose up at our offer? Oh well, guess you and the towns that do want it get an express line! And those other towns, well, its too bad that they have so many at-grade crossings. All the burden but none of the benefit…”

You can play hardball without looking like you’re playing hardball.

 

[Justbuildit]

Or you could just moderately upzone and not recreate the MBTA commuter rail schedule.

If your town can’t handle growth of public utilities and services as a few more people move in, this seems like the perfect time to increase your tax base and fund those improvements so you’re not at the mercy of old, obsolete systems. Upzoning wins again!

 

[DominusNovus]

Or you could just moderately upzone and not recreate the MBTA commuter rail schedule.

If your town can’t handle growth of public utilities and services as a few more people move in, this seems like the perfect time to increase your tax base and fund those improvements so you’re not at the mercy of old, obsolete systems. Upzoning wins again!

Many towns have done the math, and have decided that the benefit of increased tax base from more housing is not worth the hassle of more housing.

And “a few more people” is a rather understated way to describe larger developments being built in low density suburbs.

 

[Justbuildit]

Many towns have also voted into office elected representatives who have passed a law that requires modest zoning changes in municipalities that benefit from proximity to Boston. Considering that this law only requires zoning changes and not construction per se, the sense I get from the non-compliant municipalities is that they’re terrified of…something, I guess, and can’t handle having to make the smallest changes to their precious zoning codes.

 

[DominusNovus]

Many towns have also voted into office elected representatives who have passed a law that requires modest zoning changes in municipalities that benefit from proximity to Boston. Considering that this law only requires zoning changes and not construction per se, the sense I get from the non-compliant municipalities is that they’re terrified of…something, I guess, and can’t handle having to make the smallest changes to their precious zoning codes.

That response presumes that all state legislators from the towns opposing this voted in favor of it. It also ignores the fact that state legislative districts do not conform to municipalities’ borders for the most part.

Our system of government enables people to have a say through multiple different means, and the legislatures are merely one of those means.

Would you want Congress in DC regarding opposition to the laws they pass with this level of disdain?

 

[Beantropolis]

Many towns have also voted into office elected representatives who have passed a law that requires modest zoning changes in municipalities that benefit from proximity to Boston. Considering that this law only requires zoning changes and not construction per se, the sense I get from the non-compliant municipalities is that they’re terrified of…something, I guess, and can’t handle having to make the smallest changes to their precious zoning codes.

To most of the affected 177 municipalities, these are not modest zoning changes; they're quite dramatic. The mandated EOHLC guidelines force municipalities to designate a single-use, multi-unit residential district overlay that can accommodate at least the number of units equal to 5% - 25% of the total residential units existing within that municipality (depending on the municipality's category). For instance, if the municipality contains a total of 8,000 existing residential units within its boundaries, and it has a commuter rail stop, then its new MBTA district must accommodate at least 1,200 potential units. Additionally, each parcel within this overlay must allow as of right a residential building of at least 3 units, but in many cases, the imposed EOHLC calculation necessitates much higher required numbers of units-per-building. The minimum area of the district is 1.5% of the total developable land area of the municipality, or 50 acres, whichever is less. The minimum average number of units required per acre for the district must be at least 15, but again, in many cases this average will necessarily be much higher. And, this district overlay must be located within .5 miles of a subway, commuter rail or bus station, if possible.

The EOHLC guidelines also decree that these as of right multi-unit residential buildings must have some very interesting allowances and restrictions. For example, municipalities cannot limit the number of occupants per unit, nor can they limit the number of bedrooms per unit. Municipalities are also prohibited from setting a minimum square footage for bedroom size. Prohibited, as well, are cities or towns from requiring ground-floor retail or other types of mixed-use within the overlay district. And, if they want to set an affordability requirement, they are limited to a maximum of 10%. These things are all explicitly specified in the guidelines.

So, this is not just a little cosmetic tweak of the town's zoning. Supporters of this law are simply being dishonest when they repeat these sorts of dismissive statements. 3A will be quite transformative to many of these affected municipalities. Not to mention, this is really just shitty urban planing. It is indifferent to the unique needs and conditions of the place it is being imposed on. It's mindless density without urbanism. It's also the type of top-down planning that I thought had been pretty universally acknowledged as a bad idea and abandoned for good, but I guess our culture currently has severe amnesia.

 

[Justbuildit]

That sounds pretty modest to me, frankly, and the unique needs of the towns are balanced by the type of transit access they have. Add the overlay on top of the inevitably underused commuter rail station and call it a day (looking at you Hingham).

I guess my question is, what are the municipalities realistically going to do about it? NIMBYs are great at whining and litigating things to find a veto point where one should never exist, but I don’t see how this law pre-empting local zoning is going to be thrown out when it was passed by our legislative process. Seems like you have two options. Vote for new leaders or take the financial penalty. The third obvious one is just adjusting your overlay zone to follow the law and be done with it.

As to top down planning, our culture has recognized that intransigent small towns no longer get to benefit from being near Boston and restricting regional growth. This isn’t totalitarianism and it’s not urban renewal.

That response presumes that all state legislators from the towns opposing this voted in favor of it. It also ignores the fact that state legislative districts do not conform to municipalities’ borders for the most part.

Our system of government enables people to have a say through multiple different means, and the legislatures are merely one of those means.

Would you want Congress in DC regarding opposition to the laws they pass with this level of disdain?

Our system of government has concentric levels of power that use the force of law to enact policy change. Congress “merely” tells me the taxes I have to pay even if I don’t want to, and my refusal to do so would land me in jail. I don’t expect them to defer to my personal desires. I look forward to the “other means” being attempted in court, which is probably the only other route. Good luck!

 

[KCasiglio]

Off the top of my head, you have the general change in the character of a town as the population density goes up - particularly when comparing single-family homeowners vs other residents - as well as the various strains on public services and utilities.

You know as well as I do, and as every municipal official dating back to the 50s did, that single family sprawl is a much more massive strain on public services and utilities. Dense urbanism can actually bear its own costs, and help the town in its subsidy of single family neighborhoods.

As for character, what a farce! The character of an area is its people. How about pearl clutching about “character” be spent on worrying about how high housing costs impacts the character of formerly affordable towns? The incredibly, inadequately modest expectations of this law allow the individual towns to develop the overlay. Zoning for a small village center does not turn the town into the seaport.

What is an actual negative impact that this imposes on a town? What is a burden they have to bear?