Adding density, as legislated in the MBTA Communities Act and proposed by Newton, would transform the built environment in our village centers from New England village feel to Urban/City. It is unnecessary and does not address housing affordability.
The Urban Institute has concluded that up-zoning does not lead to greater affordability. “[W]e find no statistically significant evidence that additional lower-cost units became available or became less expensive in the years following reforms.” (C.P. Stacy et al, “Land Use Reforms and Housing Costs,” Urban Institute, March 29, 2023)
On the broader subject of sprawl, another Urban Institute study came to a very interesting conclusion, dispelling the commonly espoused notion that there is a “systemic” association between sprawl and social inequity:
“The central question of this paper is whether there is a systemic association between sprawl (as measured by the dispersion index) and social equity (as measured by the economic opportunity index). The starting hypothesis is that social equity declines with rising levels of sprawl. The results presented in this paper suggest that indeed there is an association between sprawl and social equity. However, the relationship is in the opposite direction than expected. Social equity seems to increase with rising sprawl. Indeed while several metropolitan areas, such as Portland and Minneapolis-St. Paul, considered examples of progressive planning, had among the smallest increases in dispersion (sprawl) between 1980 and 1990; they also had among the smallest increases in economic opportunity (social equity).” (John Foster-Bey, “Sprawl, Smart Growth and Economic Opportunity”)
Marc S. Hershman AIA, Architect
