This article sums it up better than I ever could, but (as any housing advocate has known), the MBTA communities law really isn’t going to impact housing in the way it’s intended because of where towns are placing their districts. Sudbury, Wayland and Chelmsford put their districts entirely over existing apartments. North Andover put theirs in areas that almost certainly won’t be developed on. And it doesn’t help that the state reduced requirements for units in many towns last year (over 60,000 zoned units across the state were removed, and in Norwood’s case, 700 more units would’ve been required). The 15 units per acre threshold is already being met in enough town centers or apartment complexes that it really isn’t gonna mean anything, but of course the NIMBY crowd thinks otherwise and will block some towns from even ZONING for housing — when if there really wasn’t a demand for multi family residential, there wouldn’t be a need to ban it.
Boston Globe article on MBTA Communities
MBTA/Transit 🚇 🔥Communities thinking they're clever by not producing any new housing aren't going to like the second round of this, where the state gives them fewer options after economic reality forces the issue.
The state isn't going to do anything. Maura Healey hasn't lifted a finger and the most powerful person in the legislature lives in Quincy and hasn't taken the train into office in like 40 years (he drives into his personal parking spot). They live in a bubble and don't understand the realities on the ground. We're never going to get change if we keep electing these types of Democrats. The state is going to die unless something radical changes but I don't see that happening, do you?
Yeah they won't even pass a basic zoning change to allow ADUs: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-eyed-as-low-hanging-housing-win/
The lowest hanging fruit. It could help a ton of older residents age in place. How many empty nesters have a 2,000+ sq foot home on a half acre lot that they don't need but don't want or can't afford to move? Let them split the house or build a small accessory unit to live in. This could free up space for their kids, relatives or tenants to live in the big house. And you don't even have to do this - just having the option is useful and could be a selling point for larger housing lots.
ADUs could add 5,000 housing units across the State. That's something but last I saw the Boston area needed hundreds of thousands of new housing units by like 2030 or 2040 to meet demand. That means legalizing triple deckers everywhere minimum if not allowing for 5 stories in downtown centers.
Yeah they need to move on stuff like ADUs: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-eyed-as-low-hanging-housing-win/
And then move on triple deckers and 5 story buildings. Triple deckers allowed by right everywhere. 5 stories in all downtown centers by right with parking maximums. That's if the State were serious about this crisis. They're not, so I expect ADUs to be approved in 2026 and triple deckers in 2030. By which point the State's economy will already be collapsing, so it won't matter much anyway.
MA is going to have to do more. Other states like CA have made more aggressive moves while MA made this one tame move and then sat back like they expected the Communities law was just gonna solve it.
Nope. It's time to get the lead out. Legalize ADUs. Allow far more housing by right. De-power local zoning boards.
Yeah ADUs have been on the proposal for the last year: https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/accessory-dwelling-units-eyed-as-low-hanging-housing-win/
Just pass it already. It's a no brainer. What aging boomer doesn't want the option to age in place? It's just a zoning change. You don't have to change your house or build anything. But having that option is important. Many people are hitting retirement age with an empty nest and a massive single family house. Let them sub out the basement or build a cottage on the lot. Let their kids live in the big house with the grandkids. Solves a lot of problems for those who want the multi generational housing style. Those who don't want it, don't have to do it.
5,000 new housing units from this proposal. Not bad, but we gotta do a lot more. Multi family allowed by right might give us more like tens of thousands of new housing units. I'm thinking triple deckers everywhere by right. Somerville is super dense because of triple deckers. We can densify some of the State this way. Focus on transit stations (TOD) but also allow it anywhere. Then allow 5 stories in downtown centers. Maybe even allow for more in some already dense areas.
Density is the only solution to the housing crisis. Adding more Single Family Homes won't solve the 100k+ housing unit need in the State. In fact, that'll make traffic worse when your only option to get around is to drive. Density can enable bus/train/walking/cycling and avoid adding more dependency on automobiles.
Most new density would be focused around transit stations as well, since TOD is one of the best ways to add new housing units without impacting traffic.
That couldn't be further from the truth lol. Take a browse of /r/bostonhousing or search this sub for the sheer amount of people looking to live here. Including in apartments.
I’m confused the law requires X amount of additional units to be zoned for above what already existsÂ
So if you already have 15 units/acre you need to zone for 30 units/acreÂ
The fact Chelmsford upzoned areas with apartments just means they have to build more apartments thereÂ
No it doesn’t, you’re misunderstanding the law.
This is what the Town was telling me went I went to our town meeting. So unless we did our entire process incorrectly then I don’t think I’m wrongÂ
If the town told you that then they told you wrong - the regulations clearly state that the numbers are counted as “zoned capacity” regardless of what already exists on the land
They don’t have to build anything. Just zone for it. By doing it where apartment complexes already exist, nothing will end up getting built becuase it will be too expensive to tear down said complexes to build bigger ones. The return on investment won’t be there for potential developers so things will just stay as they are.
Zoning just means someone could build more apartments there, if it makes economic sense. In no way shape or form does zoning mean anything new will be immediately built. Odds are it doesn’t make economic sense to tear down one apartment building and replace it with a somewhat bigger building.
Zoning just means that something needs to be allowed to be built if it meets certain requirements. For example, Single Family Zoning allows for a single family house (1 housing unit) to be built on a plot of land that is zoned for SFH. It does not mean that you need to build a house there just because you own the land and it's empty. You have the right to. You can keep it an empty acre of land if you want to. Many people own lots around their houses and keep them empty for privacy or nature, but keep owning the land and paying property taxes as a future investment. "Land holding" basically - a way many generations of Americans have made money by owning property and selling it decades later for more money than it was worth when they purchased or inherited it.
So for those areas where Chelmsford has zoned for 30 units an acre, it just means whoever owns property there has the right to build more density. They do not need to build more units if they do not want to. For example, if a 3 story apartment complex is already there but now they can build a 6 story complex they can, but do not need to, build a new apartment complex on the land.
There are also ways around zoning (zoning variances) but those are difficult and require a lot of hoops to jump through.
In this case it just sounds like Chelmsford was malicious in its compliance. It knew no sane developer would tear down existing apartments unless they weren't profitable or were at the end of their life. By zoning the areas with high density housing as more dense, they made sure to comply with State law without having to expect any major changes in the next few years. It might take decades for apartments to become old enough to justify a complete replacement with something taller or more dense.
It was a shot on goal. If cities behave like this, it just gives the state more justification to use a top-down approach like California did.
What an absolute embarrassment. For both the lawmakers and the people in these suburbs who are knowingly deceiving the intent of the law.
Glad the Globe decided to cover this 6-12 months after a bunch of towns and cities had already finalized their plans. And even before that, a lot of people were saying this was going to happen. Great journalism, guys! Really on the forefront of news and happenings around the area!
But do I think these towns who have commuter rail stations should be doing more, yes, obviously, but cities like Quincy, Braintree, Medford, Malden, etc. who have subway service, really need to be called out for their crap. Quincy's and Braintree's plans in particular are going to result in zero change. I posted about Quincy's plan in December. And a lot of the comments were supportive and even fighting people on it, yikes, even though it's quite obvious what was happening.
https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/18l7dfe/quincys_last_minute_zoning_plan_to_comply_with/Â
I don't think we have what's needed in this state to fix the housing crisis. I think we're going to dwindle away and become the next Connecticut.
I feel like there has been a ton of building in Medford and Malden; the area around the Malden Center T stop in particular has been completely transformed.
From what I've seen posted on /r/medfordma we're actually building more housing than our neighbors in Somerville and Cambridge, who've focused a lot more on commercial development (biotech). I believe Malden is similarly focused on housing around Malden Center.
We could certainly do more, and I believe our City govt is focused on zoning improvements in the near future that might enable that. But just one or two cities can't keep the entire metro afloat. Suburbs need to pull their weight too.
People genuinely have no idea about the density of towns around Boston. You can look up the numbers even in a neighborhood and do the simple math to see that most of these places are high density already, or that making an area high density would change very little. You might change a small NE town to look more like what, Arlington? People on this sub still have no idea that Somerville and Cambridge are two of the densest cities in the entire US. It just doesn't feel that way because they're older cities and very green in places, plus "hip", if I can use that word (and date myself). They're also communities, unlike the ones springing up with new buildings - the kind that look like total dogshit.
They're also communities, unlike the ones springing up with new buildings - the kind that look like total dogshit.
I'm not excited about the pretentiously named 5 over 1s either, but communities have done this to themselves by making more organic development (like the multi-unit stuff in those two communities) economically infeasible.
Cambridge doesn’t look like “royal dogshit”. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Many residential areas of Cambridge feel almost suburban because Cambridge knows how to create residential density without having it “feel” dense. Somerville and Cambridge have similar densities yet Somerville “looks” denser in many areas
The most dense city in the US is over three times more dense than the most dense city in Massachusetts, Somerville. I don't know what Metrowest suburb you're from, but Somerville doesn't feel that dense. The vast majority of the city is 1-2 family houses.
And how about this, take the Street View thing on Google Maps and drop it into the densest city in the US, Guttenberg, NJ. It doesn't look or feel that dense. It's just the buildings on the water that make it dense, and 99% of the rest of the land of the city is 2-3 story buildings.
You gotta get off of Wikipedia and start walking around to seeing how "dense" places actually are.
Data does that when you're at the top and the bottom. That shouldn't be a surprise.
The fact that you're basing all this on what you feel about where I'm from (swing and a miss on that one, huh?) comes off like you're playing a character. My whole point is that it doesn't feel as dense because it's an older place, and it's lived in. It's not some industrialized section of a city that was built up for an industry that is no longer around.
You gotta get off of Wikipedia and start walking around to seeing how "dense" places actually are.
I can already tell you how dense some users are here lmao.
Won't someone think of the "community character"??
Character naturally comes from communities. The issue is we aren't creating communities but campuses.
The full Globe article appears to be archived for posterity on Archive.is
There are ways around the paywall such as cookie editing and archive.is
Disable Java > read article > re-enable Java. Pics won't load, but 99% of the time they're not needed anyways.