Boston Zoning

Written by: A. Vernon Woodworth FAIA

This paper explores the potential and limitations of zoning as an instrument of social policy in light of thepriorities of addressing deteriorated habitat, wealth inequality and the assorted development issuesraised by the consequences of climate change. Our assumption is that there is cultural momentum toaddress these issues at the local scale where zoning is adopted and enforced. This is also the scale atwhich the consequences of land use policy are experienced daily.

Zoning as a tool for legislating land use is often described as an attempt to protect the health and wellbeing of a jurisdiction’s occupants. It is in fact as an instrument of social policy, enforcing unacknowledged objectives that have little or nothing to do with public health. American zoning has a history of promoting suburban development, sprawl, segregation and the disenfranchisement of minority communities. In conjunction with redlining by lending institutions, discriminatory policies for home mortgage insurance by the Federal Government, and transportation policy that favors the use of automobiles, zoning has been complicit in the degradation of our urban, suburban and ruralenvironments, to the extent that it can now be seen to have failed in its stated mission for all but thewealthiest. Health and wellbeing cannot credibly be claimed to be furthered by our current zoning practices.

While the goals of promoting public health and the general welfare, protecting the character and stability of the jurisdiction, and limiting/directing growth remain the justification for zoning, these objectives can now be approached by means of new insights into social, economic, and ecological systems, such that their methods and expression become transformed. Zoning must be placed in a wider context of healthand wellbeing that serves all populations by creating healthy and resilient environments. This can be accomplished by means of a careful understanding of the current dynamics of urban development and arenewed statement of goals, achieved within the context of a public process that involves allstakeholders.

A first principle of urban development establishes the interaction between resources and density.Density is in itself a resource in a knowledge economy, and it may be the most powerful force driving urbanization in the 21st Century. Technology and infrastructure are also key ingredients informing urbanization, especially where infrastructure includes the availability of healthcare, education, internet access, parks and recreation, as well as transportation, roads and streets, water and sewer, and utility resilience. While zoning has been represented as an instrument for promoting harmonious growth andwellbeing, a primary application to private property has limited its impact regarding the dimension of infrastructure. As we will see this is changing.

A significant aspect of a city or town’s identity and appeal is its character, a quality anachronistically described by Kevin Lynch as “charm” in his book Site Planning. Due to the history of city building in the United States cities have traditionally housed the newly arrived

and those with fewer options, while rural living has lured the wealthy. In between lived the hopeful, as they worked their way towards the American Dream. The automobile, combined with an expanding middle class, inequitable federal programs and racist banking practices has left a legacy of sprawl, segregation, and under-resourced communities. “Charm” has surrendered to traffic planning and beenbanished from the planning vocabulary. Infrastructure has been undervalued except where it servesindustry, and technology has recently facilitated dispersal as much as, if not more than, density.

Most importantly, a lack of affordable housing threatens the value of density provided by youthful talent. Because affordable housing is a perceived threat to homeowners in jurisdictions where property values and taxes (based on infrastructure and public education costs) are primary concerns, zoning has sought to exclude its construction. This has forced state and federal governments to enact policies that mandate or incentivize affordable housing. Sometimes, as with Massachusetts’ Chapter 40B, these policies have been written to explicitly overrule local zoning.

This conundrum brings us to another critical dynamic in urban health: diversity. Cities thrive on a diversity of cultures, traditions, professions, diversions, and demographics, just as an ecosystem thrives on a diversity of species. This is because people thrive on a diversity of stimuli, interactions, opportunities, and relationships. The basis of discrimination is a lack of understanding and connection, a lack that forms a void that is typically filled with projection and uninformed prejudice. Where people interact on an equal basis, sharing entertainment, work, and worship, connection is established, creating trust and banishing prejudice. But connection requires exposure and frequency. The exurban world of autos and internet, malls and mobile phones, minimizes and commodifies relationships and interactions.Living in a city can be equally isolating, however the institutions and opportunities that cities provide offer an alternative that is too often lacking in bedroom suburbs and formless sprawl.

Finally, let’s include walkability as a principle element in urban vitality. The ability to walk to aneighborhood store, movie theater, and restaurant ought to be a basic human right. Diversity is an aspect of walkability as well. Diverse neighborhoods, vistas, building types and styles add interest and delight to a good walk, but go largely unappreciated from behind a steering wheel. For those who love to bike I will add this means of transportation for its multiple benefits, and I expect that the introduction of bike infrastructure to our urban environments will have an incalculable impact on individual and civic health ingenerations to come. So far, however, these benefits have reached only the brave and the few who are willing to share the road with automobiles.

Having established density, resources, technology, infrastructure, charm, affordable housing, diversity, connection and walkability as the key drivers of urban quality and livability, we can readily translate these into clear goals for public policy, whether through zoning or some other means.

Density: We have prioritized the single-family house for 150 years or more. Is it possible that we have built enough of these? The arguments against more single-family homes include sprawl-ification, pollution, inequity, infrastructure costs, habitat destruction, social isolation, and a reduction in diversity of environmental opportunities. Only the overly powerful trade organizations of the homebuilding and realestate industries can mount counterarguments to this list, and their motives are disturbingly transparent.“Missing Middle Housing”, as Daniel Parolek has dubbed the range of building types from duplex to three-story multifamily, creates neighborhoods, promotes walkability, prolongs independent living, andenhances the diversity of the built environment without elevators, intimidating scale, or excess vehicular traffic. If every single-family zone in America were rezoned to “Missing Middle Housing” we could solve sprawl, the housing crisis, and the economic collapse of many communities with minimal environmental impact.

Infrastructure: Even with our expanded definition is infrastructure a zoning problem? I will argue that it is.It turns out that the most effective response to climate change at the local level may be the vigorousdevelopment of green infrastructure. We do not have the advantages of Frederick Law Olmsted in connecting large swathes of an existing park network as an Emerald Necklace, or claiming 843 acres of the priciest urban real estate for a park, but we can increase our tree canopies and landscaped areas to absorb and divert stormwater, mitigate heat island effect, and enhance our daily connection to nature through zoning and other policies. Boston has established a zoning district for areas subject to flooding (Boston Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District) and uses zoning language for a wide range of other sustainability factors.

Another dimension of infrastructure that is only beginning to be recognized as essential is socialresilience. Institutions and organizations that facilitate interaction between neighbors and stakeholders build relationships that can prove critical in times of stress. In heat or storm events when normal life is disrupted and the near future becomes uncertain the presence of others in an organized context can make the difference between panic and perseverance. Traditional forms of social infrastructure such asreligious congregations are ill-prepared to contend with climate events. Empowerment and agency can be developed through preparedness exercises and established lines of communication. A recognition of thisdimension in community involvement has been growing in the development approval process with an increased emphasis on neighborhood participation.

Charm: I will use Lynch’s term as the indicator of attachment that we feel for landscapes of distinction. Charm incorporates beauty, imageability, and environmental coherence. It may seem that we have strayed far from the purview of zoning, but that is my point. Regulations address life-safety, density, and land use, but do little for the critical dimension of place-making. Yet clear wayfinding and an appreciationfor our surroundings is a deep animal need that informs our wellbeing and sense of self. The efforts of New Urbanism and form-based zoning begin to recognize this need. Recent evaluations of subliminalresponses to the built environment through biometric monitoring are uncovering the physiologicaldynamics that inform our aesthetic values. These explorations have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of human factors and, as a consequence, our design processes. It is a small step

from these insights to a digitally based evaluation of design impacts, a process already standard for computer companies and car manufacturers.

Diversity: Now we have arrived at the antithesis of traditional American zoning. Can diversity be mandated? Actually, it doesn’t have to be. It just has to be allowed. In the 21st Century there are very few uses that are incompatible with a healthy residential environment. We still hope to avoid a fire station located next to a hospital, or a cannabis facility next to a secondary school, but uses can be far more mixed and compatible than Euclidean zoning ever anticipated. The advantages of diverse uses, demographics, and activities far outweigh any detriments. Diversity strengthens the urban fabric inmultiple dimensions and promotes a society of opportunities for all. For each individual provided ameaningful life experience a cascade of benefits to the community accrues. In nature a mature anddiverse ecosystem takes time to develop. Our monoculture neighborhoods will require careful cultivationto evolve into resilient environments. Where tracts of single-family homes have produced car culture,sprawl and isolation, diverse developments of interdependence can mature into thriving and productive communities given proper stewardship.

Ownership: A concluding factor not previously discussed, ownership is a state of mind. Taking ownershipmeans assuming responsibility. The future is our responsibility. The future of our communities and our landscapes Is our responsibility. This land is very much our land, and our responsibility. This has been the stated intent of traditional zoning. Protecting the quality of a place now has more implications, however, and our understanding of what that quality requires has evolved. We can no longer dismiss poverty, sprawl, and degraded environments as accidental externalities. Taking responsibility for thefuture involves taking ownership of our past, a past marked by exclusion, prejudice, corruption andviolence. Ignoring this legacy promotes a collective dissociation that perpetuates cycles of defensivenessand denial.

Central to the legacy of ownership is our disenfranchisement of certain populations, and their on-going struggle for inclusion in the shaping of our future. Native populations have much to teach us regarding stewardship of the land, community life, and the meaning of sustainability. Afro-Americans have persevered in overcoming historical obstacles of extraordinary odds. Immigrants of all origins continue to ask only to contribute and be rewarded for their efforts. Providing opportunity for those who seek it isa legacy that we must continue to own and uphold. As a pledge to this most honorable legacy theestablishment of decent housing as a human right is a necessary step. And while there will always be advantages to renting for certain individuals at certain times, homeownership as an option for all is agoal that will strengthen our communities and invigorate our economy. Regardless of the intentions of our zoning past, the consequences have been largely destructive. Segregation of populations as well as uses, disenfranchisement as public policy, and sprawling characterless landscapes have been the result. We can replace zoning with owning, an environment shaped by stewardship and cultivation that brings people together in a common effort to make a better world. This is the true value of community, and the ultimate vindication of our unique place in the extraordinary process of evolution.

Interview With Vernon Woodworth, FAIA

 Below is an interview with Vernon Woodworth, FAIA about his motivations and experience as the founder of Urban Determination.

• Can you provide a bit of background on yourself and your professional experience?

I am a registered architect with an undergraduate degree in Urban Design and a Master of Theological Studies. Currently I wear three hats: 1) practicing architect and principal of a start-up architecture firm (Urban Determination); 2) Teacher (member of the faculty at the Boston Architectural College); and ‘Architectural Theologian’.  This last hat is a work in progress, involving understanding the role of the built environment in our physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

•  You've produced numerous publications and taught extensively throughout your career. What themes or principles from these works do you think will be most relevant to your work with Urban Determination?

I was lost in architecture school. I needed some guiding principle. So I went to Theology school and entered psychotherapy. A decade later I was unemployed with a degree that meant nothing in the marketplace. So I took a job as a building official. Gradually I came to understand that the underlying organizing principle of architectural practice is the governing codes. I still can’t believe that this is rarely taught in architecture programs! I absorbed the fundamental principles of life-safety and sequential review process, saw how zoning and building codes shape our built environment, and got a first-hand look at the helplessness of many architects in the face of bureaucracy. Contractors and developers are far better at expediting permits and securing variances. Upon rejoining the private sector as a code consultant I took it as my mission to facilitate approvals by documenting compliance and guiding the permit process. I also began my teaching career by focusing on codes.

•  In the course of your career, you've witnessed significant changes in architecture. As you shift towards dedicating full time to Urban Determination, what emerging trends or advancements do you see having the greatest impact on the future of your firm?

The technology shift is the biggest change, but there is also an ongoing marginalization of the architecture profession. I studied sustainability in college and saw that the future depended on changing our development patterns, but this did not become a priority for the profession for another thirty years and is still not a policy priority. However wetlands legislation, more stringent energy codes, and a growing understanding that automobiles are destructive to the central human value of community are all positive developments. A solution to the automobile-dominated lifestyle, to the housing crisis and to the commercial and social vitality of downtowns is a phenomenon known as “missing middle” housing. This consists of creating three- to four-story apartment buildings with street orientation and a maximum of six to eight units. Location is key, and walkability is the key. This approach can address empty-nester syndrome, and there is an obvious sustainability dimension as well.

•  What motivates you to take on this challenge and what do you hope to achieve? 

I see Urban Determination as a purpose-driven practice based on personal connections. We cannot live happily in a world built on economic formulas or abstract principles. This is what I set out to do in college, and despite wrong turns and apparent dead ends I have somehow arrived at my goal. Realizing that you are fulfilling your dreams is a powerful motivator.

•  Given the importance of sustainable and green architecture today, how does Urban Determination plan to integrate these principles into its designs, and how do you see this influencing the broader field of architecture?

I wrote a book that I wanted to title “Programming for Tomorrow” based on the obvious fact that we are constructing the world that future generations will inhabit. It was accepted in the midst of the pandemic and the editors changed the name to “Programming for Health and Wellbeing in Architecture”, which I am fine with because that also fits the content. But making sustainability the foundation of architectural practice has always been a priority. I was fortunate to represent the AIA on the drafting committee of the International Green Construction Code, which is now in its fifth edition. Massachusetts has led the nation in energy efficiency requirements and I have served on several sub-committees of the Board of Building Regulations and Standards involved in this work. My conviction is that a resilient community of social vibrancy is an essential component of a sustainable world. So health and wellbeing are also sustainability.

•  Can you share some of the most valuable insights you've gained over the years and how do you plan to incorporate these into Urban Determination's operations?

Humans are social animals, not productivity units or consumers. If we recognize this our whole cultural dynamic will shift. In addition to a supportive social context we require a healthy and thriving ecological context, for environmental services and emotional restoration. We cannot rely on media, no matter how stimulating, to restore the regulation of our central nervous systems. In my musings on our role in evolution I have concluded that we are intended to be stewards of living systems.  I just learned that there is a theology based on stewardship, so maybe that degree was valuable after all!

•  What is your vision for Urban Determination in the next 5-10 years? What steps are you planning to take to turn this vision into a reality?

I have been growing UD with the help of a small core of supportive and talented individuals for eight years. Our focus has been small scale residential projects, with occasional commercial and cultural projects. There is a demand for our services among homeowners and small businesses, and we can grow our brand by providing the highest level of service in these markets. With my attention directed full-time to this endeavor we can improve our delivery times and take on additional clients. I can’t predict number of employees or revenue growth, but I can sense the demand and know it will lead us to expand our impact. Slow growth has served us well, and that works for me.  A good outcome depends on the right fit of client and capacity. We can build our capacity based on demand, but also based on our sense of what we are capable of at any given time. We will add staff as the right people emerge, and I see training as my most important role for the future of the company. It is also not too early to be planning for transition. I want everyone to understand that they have a future stake in our success.