Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

Good for Marshfield. This law is awful and the one-size-fits-all urban planning it imposes is equally awful. If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.
 
Beantropolis said:
Good for Marshfield. This law is awful and the one-size-fits-all urban planning it imposes is equally awful. If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.
Click to expand...
Nothing says one size fits all like basing targets on existing levels of housing in each town and then letting the individual towns each draft their own plan.

This law is a NIMBY’s wet dream. And it still isn’t enough for them. There’s no adults in the room, and the state shouldn’t go full appeasement mode anymore.
 
Beantropolis said:
Good for Marshfield. This law is awful and the one-size-fits-all urban planning it imposes is equally awful. If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.
Click to expand...

This is the opposite of one-size-fits-all. Indeed there are different tiers based on the transit type in your town or the adjacent town. It was also passed into law by both chambers and signed by the Governor, not some unelected commission. So, yeah, not sure what you mean.
 
Last edited:
TallIsGood said:
How about getting rid of zoning? The best urban areas and dense town centers were all built pre-zoning.
Click to expand...

The little economist in me would start dancing if this happened, too bad even the economic conservatives around here support government meddling in real estate markets.

Beantropolis said:
Good for Marshfield. This law is awful and the one-size-fits-all urban planning it imposes is equally awful. If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this is one of those things where I feel needs to be kept as far away as possible from local control. Local control means old, rich, white homeowners (the only ones who pay attention to very local politics) have a disproportionately large say over what happens. I would prefer no zoning at all, but I'll accept a more distant government disempowering NIMBYs if it moves the needle at all in the right direction.
 
sean99090900 said:
Honestly, this is one of those things where I feel needs to be kept as far away as possible from local control. Local control means old, rich, white homeowners (the only ones who pay attention to very local politics) have a disproportionately large say over what happens. I would prefer no zoning at all, but I'll accept a more distant government disempowering NIMBYs if it moves the needle at all in the right direction.
Click to expand...
The West End says hold my beer.
 
West End urban renewal happened about 70 years ago. In that time Boston added the Central Artery, a huge mistake, and then fixed it. Boston is now one of the tightest real estate markets in the country and current urban planning goals are to increase housing substantially, whereas urban renewal in many cases led to a massive decline in livable units.

Every time you do this you’re calling for the protection of parking lots, which is where most of this development is going to happen.
 
Justbuildit said:
Boston is now one of the tightest real estate markets in the country and current urban planning goals are to increase housing substantially, whereas urban renewal in many cases led to a massive decline in livable units.
Click to expand...

That's one of my beefs actually... new construction build quality is terrible.
 
jklo said:
That's one of my beefs actually... new construction build quality is terrible.
Click to expand...

Without disagreeing with that at all (look at Marina Bay in Quincy for example) why is that?

The paradigm of the past ~45 years has been absolute accommodation to all concerned parties, which has made development prohibitively expensive. As stated above that’s a reaction to very real problems, but it’s time we acknowledge it’s been an overreaction that’s caused larger problems than it’s solved. The displacement of the west end was awful. The reaction to it is causing the displacement of the metro’s entire middle class.
 
Wonk said:
The West End says hold my beer.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment, but I think there's been such a groundswell and reckoning against projects like the West End and Scollay Square that we've gone a bit too far the other way. We can't actually change anything. So when the City commissions a plan for Government Center - it is branded as "an iconic public space" that holds a "special place in the city’s consciousness as the site of countless concerts, rallies, and festivals." The Public Garden holds a special place in the public consciousness, same for the Esplanade and Harborwalk. Government Center, not so much. The messaging is that we're not actually planning anything, we're not allowed to. We're only allowed to mildly enhance the existing very shitty public space. And so we plant a few trees, install a playground, add some flower boxes, and tadah, you have the new Government Center and everyone gets a pat on the back.
 
I mean, it's highly valued in expensive, ultraluxury developments because the margin on returns to the developer becomes feasible when you're charging >>$2,000 psf. The new construction units I've been inside over the last few years have exceptional finishes and quality.

One way to enable higher quality building is by lowering the price of development by creating clear, veto-proof zoning codes so builders aren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, consultants (shadow and wind studies!!), local advocates, 8 public meetings, and then making concessions on FAR or other value drivers to their projects. Yes land is expensive and inflation is hurting everyone, but a lot of this is an unforced policy choice because politicians bend over to the loudest NIMBYs and end up protecting strip malls, parking lots, and other awful forms of land use.
 
Justbuildit said:
I mean, it's highly valued in expensive, ultraluxury developments because the margin on returns to the developer becomes feasible when you're charging >>$2,000 psf. The new construction units I've been inside over the last few years have exceptional finishes and quality.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say that the one thing they do put in is superficial things like SS appliances.
 
jklo said:
For whatever reason... build quality is something that isn't valued much.
Click to expand...
It’s not for whatever reason though, and this vague hand waiving always seems to be the response to people whining about those damn developers. The build quality is a direct reflection of how difficult we’ve made it to build anything. From the supply side, it’s a massive lift to get anything built, and from the demand side, so little is getting built/vacant that there’s no incentive to build anything but the bare minimum.
 
TallIsGood said:
How about getting rid of zoning? The best urban areas and dense town centers were all built pre-zoning.
Click to expand...
"You want the benefits of the metro region, you have to do your fair share to support it. Your town's share of new transit-accessible housing units is XYZ. If they're not built or under active construction by 2030, you lose all local zoning/approval of multi-unit housing other than enforcing the state building code. Didn't want a 20-story tower with zero parking next to your train station? Shouldn't have been selfish and isolationist."

Realistically, I think a useful addition to the law could be an instruction for the MBTA to develop housing on parking lots it owns, focusing first on communities that don't comply with the law. (That doesn't help with communities that don't have stations, but it's a start.) Make it a carrot-and-stick: if you work with the MBTA to built TOD, the state will assist with expanding schools and other public services to match increased population. The MBTA already works with some areas for TOD - see slides 28-31 from yesterday's meeting: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2024-04/GM Report to the Board 04.25.2024 v7a.pdf
 
KCasiglio said:
It’s not for whatever reason though, and this vague hand waiving always seems to be the response to people whining about those damn developers. The build quality is a direct reflection of how difficult we’ve made it to build anything. From the supply side, it’s a massive lift to get anything built, and from the demand side, so little is getting built/vacant that there’s no incentive to build anything but the bare minimum.
Click to expand...

Presumably before they even call the Bag Men, the Developers are doing some sort of market analysis... maybe not themselves but convincing whoever is funding the thing that there's a market for it. That would have to include things it's gotta have in order for it to sell.

And stuff is being built in Da Burbz. None of it is cheap though.

Again, you are trying to convince people to spend 600k+ (plus some decent condo fee) for public housing grade condos. In Da Burbz. The "People who are mad becuase their Davis Square rents are skyrocketing" don't seem to understand this for some reason.

The EGE said:
"You want the benefits of the metro region, you have to do your fair share to support it. Your town's share of new transit-accessible housing units is XYZ. If they're not built or under active construction by 2030, you lose all local zoning/approval of multi-unit housing other than enforcing the state building code. Didn't want a 20-story tower with zero parking next to your train station? Shouldn't have been selfish and isolationist."
Click to expand...

That's when people start getting voted out.
 
people really think that their neighborhood of 3 bed ranches is going to get demolished and a 5 story apartment building is going to get built next to them with these laws
 
The EGE said:
"You want the benefits of the metro region, you have to do your fair share to support it. Your town's share of new transit-accessible housing units is XYZ. If they're not built or under active construction by 2030, you lose all local zoning/approval of multi-unit housing other than enforcing the state building code. Didn't want a 20-story tower with zero parking next to your train station? Shouldn't have been selfish and isolationist."

Realistically, I think a useful addition to the law could be an instruction for the MBTA to develop housing on parking lots it owns, focusing first on communities that don't comply with the law. (That doesn't help with communities that don't have stations, but it's a start.) Make it a carrot-and-stick: if you work with the MBTA to built TOD, the state will assist with expanding schools and other public services to match increased population. The MBTA already works with some areas for TOD - see slides 28-31 from yesterday's meeting: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2024-04/GM Report to the Board 04.25.2024 v7a.pdf
Click to expand...
I generally agree with you, so sorry if this sounds like nitpicking, but...

It seems a little weird to view this a "carrot-and-stick" situation, as if new housing would be some kind of punishment. This feels like accepting some NIMBY premise that new developments will be bad and harmful. People advocating for new housing probably shouldn't frame it that way. If towns can't comply with this law, I agree that they should probably lose some zoning powers, but that's just because they can't handle using that authority to actually benefit their community.
 
Beantropolis said:
If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.
Click to expand...

+1. We should outlaw zoning all together.

Wonk said:
The West End says hold my beer.
Click to expand...

The West End was torn down by the public sector, not the private one. The city of Boston and state of MA did it to themselves. If anything, less local control might have saved the neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top