Lego to move HQ to Boston

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by missionhill

All these examples are from neighborhoods laid out and built up in the horsecar/streetcar era when automobiles weren't in the picture, urban development patterns were necessarily cozy, and zoning didn't exist. Even with all that, Maryland and other states have zoning that permits houses on small lots. That's rare in Massachusetts except in places like your examples where the zoning reflects the existing development. Upzoning around railroad stations, even in beautiful historic places like Concord and many more ordinary towns, would bring more housing that's walkable to the railway stations. The other zoning change needed, at least in these locations near RR stations, is two-family houses as of right. Single-family large lot zoning is the NIMBY's friend.

The bolded is easier to do than creating bottlenecks of development around transit stations that only take money and vitality out of a community and arent very practical for people who don't earn high wages.

Smaller lots being permitted statewide would solve this affordability Crisis within a generation.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

The bolded is easier to do than creating bottlenecks of development around transit stations that only take money and vitality out of a community and arent very practical for people who don't earn high wages.

Smaller lots being permitted statewide would solve this affordability Crisis within a generation.

I mean, it should really be both. Sticking with the Maryland example, even the most affluent communities have higher density zoning and development around transit stations. Bethesda looks like this, but a few hundred feet away adjacent to the metro station, it looks like this. There's no reason you can't do similar in Massachusetts. You don't need to put "bottlenecks" around stations either. Assembly can support larger scale development than Middleborough/Lakeville, but a few condo buildings, some duplexes, and some retail around the Middleboro station isn't going to bring life to a halt.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I mean, it should really be both. Sticking with the Maryland example, even the most affluent communities have higher density zoning and development around transit stations. Bethesda looks like this, but a few hundred feet away adjacent to the metro station, it looks like this. There's no reason you can't do similar in Massachusetts. You don't need to put "bottlenecks" around stations either. Assembly can support larger scale development than Middleborough/Lakeville, but a few condo buildings, some duplexes, and some retail around the Middleboro station isn't going to bring life to a halt.

Hence why I saay Maryland is the model. Lol I was at that intesection like 7/8 days ago.

Towson is the same.

It should be both but you will get more pushback with Apartment buildings than with townhomes or duplexes...

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Hence why I saay Maryland is the model. Lol I was at that intesection like 7/8 days ago.

Towson is the same.

It should be both but you will get more pushback with Apartment buildings than with townhomes or duplexes...

Yeah, MD is definitely the model.

Absolutely. I've seen this first hand. But that's part of the reason I think the state needs to continue to push for this type of zoning around transit stations (in addition to allowing smaller lots). It's a lot harder for that pushback to have teeth when a developer no longer has to go through a hostile town meeting process in order to get zoning changed to allow them to build an apartment building near a T station in the 'burbs.

[Lampert]

Reading the title I thought they were leaving Denmark, instead it's the North American HQ, why not adding it to the title?

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Lampert

Reading the title I thought they were leaving Denmark, instead it's the North American HQ, why not adding it to the title?

just FYI you can't go back and change the title