The Modern American responds to my retort. I can quibble about some points (building transit takes considerable time, so it’s better not to wait til demand is there before doing any planning or budgeting), agree with others (let’s get rid of low-ridership suburban bus lines if they’re not filling a demand). But for the moment I’d like to focus on his call for looser zoning:
What I will say is this: if the various cities in the Boston metro area would allow developers to build more densely, this so-called "problem" will solve itself. Unfortunately, they don’t.
I’ll use Cambridge as an example, but only because they have more data online, not because of some secret anti-Cambridgian vendetta.
The most recent information there shows a disturbing trend whereby few to no new housing is built. In 2002, there were 43,160 total units, with 46 added and 16 destroyed for a net gain of 30. That’s only a 0.07% increase. It’s no wonder our population is stagnating as a region if we can’t house newcomers. This directly affects the MBTA. Since there are less people, there is more space for parking, both on and off-street. Why would anyone get rid of their car?
We can’t increase density unless the zoning boards approve more projects. There’s plenty of money to be made in construction; the cities themselves are responsible for holding back the developers….Loosening zoning means there is more employment due to housing and business construction.
My sympathies lie with his point. Now, I wouldn’t want to get behind completely loosened zoning. I’ve been to Houston and seen what that brings; it’s not pretty. Ultimately we face two competing ideals here: on one hand to maintain the aesthetic beauty and historic character of Boston, on the other hand to build housing and aid a functioning urban design. The city and its suburbs have done a great job at a) but have been misguided in ignoring b) - or in confusing a) with b). And there are so many areas where higher, denser construction would make so much sense - just last night I was walking down the stretch of Washington St. near Forest Hills and was struck how barren the area was and how vital it could be with more zoning foresight.
The politics of achieving that is another matter. I don’t follow Cambridge politics (who can?) but in Boston we’re in the paradoxical situation that people who want looser restrictions, with fewer restrictions by community and neighborhood NIMBY activists, and more transparency in the building process call for the end of an undemocratic BRA. Meanwhile, those progressives who want more neighborhood and community veto on development, and who in fact want no large scale development whatsoever call for the end of an undemocratic BRA. What’s striking is that while the BRA played at the edges of the mayoral race and the city council election, there was never quite a direct legitimation of any particular approach the city should take to housing, and much of the electorate was noticeably unengaged on it. I foresee that the political will for the kinds of zoning changes MA calls for is nowhere to be found anytime soon… expect more high-rise development of parcels in the Central Business District as they come available, none in the city’s residential neighborhoods.
No comments have been added to this post yet.