Before the U.S. suburban boom of the post-World War II era, Greater Boston had an extensive suburbia shaped by public transportation and the country's first metropolitan park system. The Metropolitan Park System, which was established in 1893, provided some of the first parkland, parkway arterials, and general city planning to Boston's suburbs. The officially named "Metropolitan District" included Boston and 38 surrounding communities.
I described story of this pioneering effort at regional planning and park-making in "How Metropolitan Parks Shaped Greater Boston, 1893-1945," which is a chapter in the book Remaking Boston: An Environmental History of the City and Its Surroundings (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009). The weblink below will take you to the history of Boston's Metropolitan Park System.
Full article
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Rail-Volution Is Underway in America
I have been wanting to write a blog about the presentations, conferences, meetings, site visits, and odd trips I attend or take that are related to urban-regional planning and development. Living and working in Boston provides extensive opportunities for hearing and talking with hundreds of thoughtful people who are involved with developing local communities.
I would like to report on Rail-Volution 2009, a national conference about “Building Livable Communities with Transit” that was held in Boston at the Westin Seaport Hotel October 30-November 1. About 500 people attended from around the country and beyond. There were federal officials, state and local transportation staffers, developers, regional transit authority officials, bike and walking advocates, neighborhood activists, a couple academics, planners of many stripes, bloggers, and people interested in the next big thing in urban development.
Rail-Volution covered a wide range of topics with the biggest concentration on transit-oriented development (TOD) adjacent to rail stations. Portland, OR, seems to be at the cutting edge of this trend. The general take-away from the conference is that large cities across the country are developing new transit lines—subways and streetcars—and are building new buildings and neighborhoods around them. Though it’s an effective response to climate change, the real reason it’s happening is that some of the population wants a more walkable urban lifestyle. They are tired of having to drive everywhere and getting stuck in traffic.
Attending such a conference can be a hit-or-miss affair. Which sessions do you attend? The scheduled speakers are not always there. The program description is not always accurate. One speaker from London was supposed to discuss his hometown’s accomplishments, but he ended up speaking about Edmonton, Canada—it was informative nevertheless. One person who was supposed to discuss how Boston has been innovative with transit ended up trashing the MBTA and said Boston is so dysfunctional it is incapable of being innovative.
In this blog I only want to convey a couple insights about the overall direction of transit and transit-oriented development, as observed from a bevy of presentations and conversations.
The greatest progress has been made on the two coasts. There is much exciting development and policy about climate change in San Francisco-Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles, as well as in the old transit-oriented cities of Boston, New York, and Chicago. Some impressive work related to transit is taking place in Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, and Houston. These Sunbelt cities, which blossomed during the postwar auto age, are embracing transit and urban density with the zeal of converts.
Whenever you attend a conference that preaches to the choir, you wonder what outside people think. In particular, you wonder what the American public is thinking about how to cope with climate change. Polls show the percentage of Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change has dropped from about 77% to 57% in a little more than a year. As President Obama and Congress get serious about climate change legislation and the economy struggles, many Americans are skeptical of major new initiatives.
One of the most interesting points was made by Aaron Reen, of Chicago and Urbanophile Blog. His blog focuses on Midwestern cities, trend-setting Chicago (see the Chicago Climate Change Plan) and places like Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, which have been slow to get on the bandwagon for TOD. Reen’s blog is intended to share information between Midwest cities and hasten the adoption of transit-oriented strategies. Reen finds, however, that conservative Midwesterners (more small “c” conservatives than right-wing ideologues) are suffering from an industrial economy that is truly in crisis. Many of the Midwestern cities, with the exception of Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul have been slow to make the transition to the information-service economy. These communities are tied to their automobiles and wonder how transit can turn them around. This is the heartland of auto manufacturing, and many people are loathe to embrace development strategies based on transit.
Aaron Reen’s point is well taken. You can see where skepticism is coming from on the cap-and trade bill being discussed in Congress. For more on this check out Reen’s blog at www.urbanophile.com.
The transit proponents attending the tenth annual Rail-Volution believe that it is a matter of time before more of the country gets on the transit bandwagon. Former Massachusetts
Governor Michael Dukakis made the analogy that rail is where highways were in the early 1950s, before President Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act. Dukakis argued that, as gas prices rise, climate change becomes more accentuated, and the benefits of compact urbanism and transit become more evident, the revival of intercity rail (especially high-speed rail) and local public transit will accelerate.
I would like to report on Rail-Volution 2009, a national conference about “Building Livable Communities with Transit” that was held in Boston at the Westin Seaport Hotel October 30-November 1. About 500 people attended from around the country and beyond. There were federal officials, state and local transportation staffers, developers, regional transit authority officials, bike and walking advocates, neighborhood activists, a couple academics, planners of many stripes, bloggers, and people interested in the next big thing in urban development.
Rail-Volution covered a wide range of topics with the biggest concentration on transit-oriented development (TOD) adjacent to rail stations. Portland, OR, seems to be at the cutting edge of this trend. The general take-away from the conference is that large cities across the country are developing new transit lines—subways and streetcars—and are building new buildings and neighborhoods around them. Though it’s an effective response to climate change, the real reason it’s happening is that some of the population wants a more walkable urban lifestyle. They are tired of having to drive everywhere and getting stuck in traffic.
Attending such a conference can be a hit-or-miss affair. Which sessions do you attend? The scheduled speakers are not always there. The program description is not always accurate. One speaker from London was supposed to discuss his hometown’s accomplishments, but he ended up speaking about Edmonton, Canada—it was informative nevertheless. One person who was supposed to discuss how Boston has been innovative with transit ended up trashing the MBTA and said Boston is so dysfunctional it is incapable of being innovative.
In this blog I only want to convey a couple insights about the overall direction of transit and transit-oriented development, as observed from a bevy of presentations and conversations.
The greatest progress has been made on the two coasts. There is much exciting development and policy about climate change in San Francisco-Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles, as well as in the old transit-oriented cities of Boston, New York, and Chicago. Some impressive work related to transit is taking place in Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, and Houston. These Sunbelt cities, which blossomed during the postwar auto age, are embracing transit and urban density with the zeal of converts.
Whenever you attend a conference that preaches to the choir, you wonder what outside people think. In particular, you wonder what the American public is thinking about how to cope with climate change. Polls show the percentage of Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change has dropped from about 77% to 57% in a little more than a year. As President Obama and Congress get serious about climate change legislation and the economy struggles, many Americans are skeptical of major new initiatives.
One of the most interesting points was made by Aaron Reen, of Chicago and Urbanophile Blog. His blog focuses on Midwestern cities, trend-setting Chicago (see the Chicago Climate Change Plan) and places like Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, which have been slow to get on the bandwagon for TOD. Reen’s blog is intended to share information between Midwest cities and hasten the adoption of transit-oriented strategies. Reen finds, however, that conservative Midwesterners (more small “c” conservatives than right-wing ideologues) are suffering from an industrial economy that is truly in crisis. Many of the Midwestern cities, with the exception of Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul have been slow to make the transition to the information-service economy. These communities are tied to their automobiles and wonder how transit can turn them around. This is the heartland of auto manufacturing, and many people are loathe to embrace development strategies based on transit.
Aaron Reen’s point is well taken. You can see where skepticism is coming from on the cap-and trade bill being discussed in Congress. For more on this check out Reen’s blog at www.urbanophile.com.
The transit proponents attending the tenth annual Rail-Volution believe that it is a matter of time before more of the country gets on the transit bandwagon. Former Massachusetts
Governor Michael Dukakis made the analogy that rail is where highways were in the early 1950s, before President Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act. Dukakis argued that, as gas prices rise, climate change becomes more accentuated, and the benefits of compact urbanism and transit become more evident, the revival of intercity rail (especially high-speed rail) and local public transit will accelerate.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Insuring Planned Growth
The Massachusetts Community Planning Act
The stars seem to be aligning for a serious improvement in the way land use is planned and regulated in Massachusetts. “Smart growth” activists and environmentalists seeking to slow the loss of open space to development—currently about 40 acres per day—blame antiquated zoning land use laws for encouraging sprawl. Affordable housing advocates believe that state and some local land use laws induce a pattern of excessive land consumption that drives up the price of land and housing. Municipal officials assert that the state’s rigid restrictive zoning laws statutes prevent them from effectively planning their communities’ future. And developers claim that communities just don’t want growth. No one seems content with the existing Massachusetts system. The proposed Community Planning Act (House Bill 175), currently before the legislature, provides the opportunity to remove many state-imposed obstacles to effective planning and land use regulation.
People from across the political spectrum want new land use laws that encourage increased compact development where infrastructure already exists to accommodate it. This “smart growth” approach could produce more affordable housing in designated growth centers while taking the pressure off development on open land.
Yet it seems impossible to accomplish these goals because the existing Massachusetts land use planning and regulatory system is inadvertently set up to fall short. Cities and towns may have the responsibility for land use control, but state statutes deprive them of sufficient authority to carry it out. Harvard Professors David J. Barron and Gerald E. Frug’s study “Dispelling the Myth of Home Rule” (2004) found that “Massachusetts affords its towns and cities less control over land use than many people think.”
The state’s constraints on “home rule” often produce unplanned and unpopular development projects. For example, land use loopholes such as excessive “grandfathering” rights stymie the updating of local master plans and land use rules. A property owner can “freeze” existing zoning for eight years just by submitting a preliminary subdivision plan for development under the existing zoning code, without any intention of ever building according to that subdivision plan. Massachusetts “Approval Not Required” subdivision law (no other state has a provision like it) allows developers to subdivide and develop land along any road, sometimes including one-lane dirt roads, without local review. State laws make it difficult for communities to modernize their zoning by requiring a 2/3 super-majority vote of either the town meeting or city council. Because of these restrictions on a community’s capacity to regulate land use, every party can become dissatisfied with the planning process and the development it produces.
The Community Planning Act is nicknamed “CPA-II,” as a sequel to the highly successful Community “Preservation” Act, which has given municipalities the capacity to set aside local funds and obtain state matching funds for protecting open space, building affordable housing, and preserving historic structures. Yet despite this innovative financing tool, communities still lack substantive control over development and land use decisions, which the new Community Planning Act would help remedy.
The Community Planning Act imposes sensible limits on grandfathering, ends state-mandated Approval Not Required subdivisions, permits municipalities to assess reasonable and predictable impact fees on new development, provides the option to communities of adopting zoning by a simple majority, and requires communities to bring local land use regulations into line with their master plans. CPA-II also increases flexibility in granting local zoning variances and approving special permits, and strengthens measures to facilitate affordable housing, including allowing communities to require that a certain percentage of homes in residential subdivisions meet affordability guidelines. These provisions would allow municipalities to create land use patterns that encourage affordable housing and economic development, while preserving valuable open space.
The Community Planning Act has 56 legislative sponsors (a full quarter of the entire legislature) and the support of many organizations, including the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Massachusetts Chapter—American Planning Association, Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors, Massachusetts Federation of Planning & Appeals Boards, Massachusetts Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and many municipal boards and officials.
As pressure grows to increase the region’s affordable housing stock, communities seek to change local zoning to allow more compact housing development. The state’s financial incentives for compact affordable housing recently provided by the Chapter 40R and 40S programs are valuable initiatives. Municipalities are much more likely to rezone areas for denser development on their own if they have more effective planning tools and can check unwanted sprawl. The most successful way to develop affordable housing, preserve open space, and create more attractive neighborhoods is to maintain local controls while providing more incentives for intelligent growth choices. Adopting the Community Planning Act is the way to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
