As a native of the Midwest, I am often struck by the close, dense urban lifestyle of the Boston area. But density is only part of the New England landscape. Having spent several years in New England (I attended Colby College in Waterville, Maine), I am also acutely aware of the vast amounts of open space and scenic vistas in the Berkshires, in the Green Mountains, and in the White Mountain range. New England is a region of contrasts: rural vs. urban, traditional vs. high-tech, forest vs. asphalt.
It’s not surprising, then, that urban sprawl has emerged as a regional issue — an issue given a high-profile boost by the regional Environmental Protection Agency’s multimillion-dollar anti-sprawl proposal. In fact, Massachusetts cities and towns have been expanding for centuries. At one point, Dorchester, Roxbury, and Charlestown were suburbs of Boston proper. Now, the Boston metropolitan area encompasses 10 counties, including more than 600,000 people living in three New Hampshire counties.
But New Englanders should be wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing when it comes to policy on urban sprawl. Pitched as a way to promote “livable communities,” current attempts to control “sprawl” are more likely to increase housing prices and erode the quality of life for most residents.
The reason is simple: Critics of sprawl adhere to a narrow and outdated view of cities and land development. The anti-sprawl argument is cast in the following way: Population has remained stable, but land continues to be developed for housing, shopping malls, or office space. This is evidence of sprawl. The principle underlying the anti-sprawl campaign is that people should not be allowed to develop property at lower densities than already exist. In effect, land development should be restricted to high-density uses, so as to preserve existing open space.
This limits housing choice and potentially raises costs. Limiting the supply of land for housing affects the quality of life in other ways. For one thing, it will force people to live and work in closer quarters.
The effects of high-density restrictions on land use are already becoming evident in other parts of the nation. Portland, Oregon established an urban-growth boundary to limit land development outside politically designated areas in 1979. An economic recession kept housing prices in check in the 1980s. But by the mid-1990s, increasing demand combined with restricted land supply to push Portland-area housing prices to some of the highest in the nation. Portland went from being one of the nation’s most affordable mid-size metropolitan areas to one of the nation’s least affordable in less than a decade.
Now apply this argument to the state of Massachusetts, which already has some of the nation’s highest housing prices. Massachusetts is expected to grow by 780,000 people between now and 2025, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This suggests the state will need to accommodate about 300,000 new households over the next 25 years (if household size remains stable).
Where will this housing come from? Presumably, in the anti-sprawl scenario, through the more intensive use of already developed land. Boston’s future urban and suburban areas will look more like Brooklyn and Queens than modern-day Wellesley or Natick. The homes will be smaller, have minimal private open space (small yards), and will be closely packed together. Residents will have little choice but to stay in high-density townhouse and apartment developments. Spacious suburban living will become a choice available only to the well-off.
Portland’s experience, again, provides some insight into how public policy can alter the character of land use and development. As land has disappeared inside the metropolitan area’s growth boundary, multi-family housing shot up from 25 percent of all building permits in 1992 to 49 percent of building permits in 1997.
Portland’s regional planning agency is also promoting “infill,” the development of vacant land in already developed areas. Infill and redevelopment often are much more costly than developing vacant land on the fringe because the lots are small, have odd sizes and shapes, and are difficult to get to. Developers rarely benefit from economies of scale under these circumstances.
The tradeoff between high housing costs and open space might be acceptable if New England were facing a shortage of land. But in 1992, the last year for which state-by-state national land-use data were available, only 9.2 percent of New England’s land area was developed. If the regional EPA’s estimate that 1,200 acres are being developed every week were accurate for every year since 1992, just 10.1 percent of New England’s land area would now be developed. Despite the recent focus on sprawl, the rate of urbanization is actually falling in New England, as well as the nation.
State and local policy-makers can still use the private real estate market to achieve more compact development. The key will be removing barriers to land development rather than imposing new mandates and restrictions.
Rather than require higher densities or use growth controls to slow development, local policy-makers can reform zoning codes to allow a variety of densities and permit developers to trade off smaller lots for more open space. Research from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst’s Center for Rural Massachusetts suggests homeowners are willing to pay for open space. Let them.
Local governments can also price their infrastructure — roads, sewers, water — so new development fully pays its way. Many local governments price their infrastructure based on the average cost for the entire community. Full-cost pricing geared toward the infrastructure needs of individual sites and projects is appropriate — and doesn’t require existing residents to subsidize developers.
If these efforts are insufficient, local land trusts can selectively preserve open space in rapidly urbanizing areas to protect the aesthetic qualities of these communities.
Controls on land development must be weighed against the potential benefits and costs of land-use policies. Maine and Vermont already have statewide growth-management plans in place. Rhode Island has a nationally recognized, publicly funded program to protect environmentally sensitive lands. Attempts to restrict land development further are likely to exacerbate already high housing costs and force residents into a high-density lifestyle they apparently do not want.
Samuel R. Staley directs the Urban Futures Program for the Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute. He is the author of a recent Reason Institute report entitled The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City. A version of this article first appeared in the Boston Herald.