Literally north Brookline across from the B line are multiple Brookline neighborhoods of single family mansions like 100 feet from transit. Brookline doesn’t get enough hate for their discriminatory housing.

Until 2024 all towns in commuter rail towns all they have to do to remain compliant is to submit an action plan, they don’t have to actually implement anything.

My town did it it’s a worksheet they fill out. By 2024 they actually have to redone and that’s when you’ll see way more towns out of compliance.

What I really think is people on here from closer to the city kind of see these people as lesser, and therefore are just jumping at the chance to shit on them. You can and should disagree with them if you feel like they’re wrong, but they’re not worse people because they want to take a different approach.

Most just react to headlines. The Globe knows this, thus, hit piece.

Not providing enough housing supply for the top of the market is how you get gentrification as all others have to compete against them and lose.

Cause Waltham hasn't been gentrified enough already.

You guys should read the article, what they’re saying is that they’re pissed off they’ve been steadily building more and more housing around the existing T station and now the state comes in and jacks up the requirement to beyond where the town thinks is sustainable. I don’t see how that is an unreasonable complaint.

Ok, they still only make up 3% of the city's land mass. Compare to Newton where a Globe article noted that 80% of residential lots (almost 10,000 of them) within a half mile of the MBTA Express Bus service are zoned for single-family use.

Again, I think we agree, I just feel like the biggest impact can come from the communities that have not done their part to date.

CA implemented "builders remedy" in cases like this (and NY is proposing it). Essentially, if a town doesn't submit a compliant housing plan, their zoning gets suspended and developers are allowed to bypass the zoning code with certain types of buildings (like buildings with a certain amount of affordable units). I'd like to see MA move that way. We have a housing crisis - emphasis on crisis. People are leaving our state and there's a real possibility that MA will be losing a House seat in the next census. People are being pushed into poverty and into homelessness. I have zero sympathy with these towns talking about "neighborhood character" next to concerns like this.

The South Coast Rail plan is super dumb. No arguments there. But the town just has to change zoning near the station to comply this the law. It's up to private developers/builders to decide whether they actually want to build or not.

Where does the "Asking us to add another 1,500 units, essentially double what we’ve built recently, is absurd,” come from?

A simple google search for boston local meal prep turned up a bunch of results. I can't vouch for any of them but I did just recently subscribe to Factor and can say they aren't frozen and so far taste pretty decent.

There is no requirement to build, so yeah all but 4 are "going along with it"

If you want a requirement to build, please contact your state rep to push for that.

We should take a page out of the SB50 book and have a builder’s remedy for towns that refuse to do anything

They make up .7% of the dwelling units because there are so few of them, because of the zoning laws. Cambridge is only ~6.4 square miles. That area is not trivial in the slightest.

To say that "Cambridge is denser than its zoning allows" makes no sense to me, because Cambridge's zoning has nothing to do with whether the city is too dense or not. The zoning laws were explicitly implemented to drive certain demographics of people out of the city. The city can and should become marginally denser than it currently is, and in some areas (west cambridge) much denser.

Of the development areas you list, those developments had to go in front of BZA or get special zoning petitions from the city council in order to get built. I promise you it was not easy.

​

Yes, other towns are worse than Cambridge is. But Cambridge is already dense with a culture of apartment buildings, however the zoning code (not just household/lot caps) make building new apartments impossible without variances.

​

Pretty much every "beloved" triple decker in the city violates the zoning code.

Completely different argument and again not out of line with any other area.

Is it better to have a place that’s in line with its zoned 6,000 sqft lots, or a place that is historically so dense that it already exceeds its zoning?

You are arguing that Cambridge is actually more dense than its zoning indicates … which not only moots your initial point about Cambridge being not dense due to zoning (zoning having nothing to do with it, now), but also means Cambridge is underrated generally as the maps don’t reflect the real density.

Anyway, since we moved on from your large lots point and into multi families, the real issue is where density exists and where it can be built. You admit that Cambridge is already so dense that it exceeds its zoning, which is also denser than other towns on the T e.g. Malden. So I assume you aren’t saying Cambridge is egregiously not dense (would be ridiculous to say that right), but rather that nothing is being built compared to the Brooklines, Maldens, Reveres of the world.

Any trip to Kendall, Lechmere/North Point, Alewife would show you huge apartment complexes that weren’t there 5 years ago, with more to come … really only the Seaport compares to Kendall in terms of development and densification.

Basically everywhere is worse than Cambridge in terms of these issues, name a town and it will be the same stuff just worse.

So you're saying Andrew Brinker of The Boston Globe wrote a hit piece. Imagine going through life as a political puppet...yeesh.

I’m not defending Middleborough, but most towns are NOT going along with the new multi family housing law. You can require all the action plan you want, if the housing isn’t being built then towns are not going along with it

Sure, I agree in principal and fortunately there has been a lot of talk in the city about upzoning.

I just don't think that many of the cities north of the Charles are "particularly egregious"; to me that title should be pointed toward the cities and neighborhoods to the west and south that have always resisted upzoning.

Also, those 6000 sq. ft minimum lots make up .7% of the Cambridge's dwelling units.

Thing is, it only takes one town getting away with it before others decide not to follow as well. Once all the towns realize they can get away with this then why would they comply with anything the state says in the future

Middleborough's character is literal dog shit though already anyways so what do they care

Yes, but grading the greater Boston area on a curve like that is a poor idea.

​

There is so much low hanging fruit in Cambridge for completely inoffensive upzoning (3-5 stories by right) that would maintain the city's character and provide thousands upon thousands more homes.

But don’t you see?

In the mind of a NIMBY, once they purchase property, only then does the town magically become frozen in time, and should never have to ever change.

Imagine if the “neighborhood character” of forests and corn fields had been preserved. Most NIMBY suburbs wouldn’t exist.

In fairness to Cambridge, they have the second highest density in the state behind Somerville (and 26th highest in the entire country!). Room for improvement, but I think they are doing their fair share compared to just about every other city.

That's a funny way to write 'allow more market based housing via relaxed zoning rules in your community'