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.