Is the Boston area beginning to sprawl? (Worcester, Lowell: neighborhoods, buying)

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by xo_kizzy_xo

When someone says "sprawl" I think of places like Dallas/Ft. Worth, or LA/SF, maybe the DC metro area -- places which have literally physically sprawled so that towns maybe 30 miles from the city itself are still considered part of the "metro area". We're more like NYC but on a much smaller scale because 1) we just don't have the land to sprawl like the cities I mentioned, and 2) but we do have a transportation network which has its faults but it's a network.

I don't know about the Metroplex, but LA and SF are also much denser over their contiguous urban areas, and better serve mid-level employment and urban centers, public transportation (in the form of a bus), and social and cultural phenomena.

Also, the remark that we don't have the land to sprawl like those cities is false. It's just...not true at all. If anything we have a lot more buildable land then say a SF surrounded by water and mountains or a western metropolis surrounded by desert and mountains.

[BitofEndearment]

I'm going to throw this article into the thread. I've probably posted it before. Boston's urban area sprawls more than that of Phoenix (by the different kinds of measurements of urban planners, data analysis experts, etc. not by your niche concept of what "sprawl" is): Understanding Phoenix: Not as Sprawled as You Think | Newgeography.com

[Whatsnext75]

Well maybe this state is as built up as it is meant to be. Why kill off more wildlife to build more homes. People will have to find somewhere else to go

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by BitofEndearment

I'm going to throw this article into the thread. I've probably posted it before. Boston's urban area sprawls more than that of Phoenix (by the different kinds of measurements of urban planners, data analysis experts, etc. not by your niche concept of what "sprawl" is): Understanding Phoenix: Not as Sprawled as You Think | Newgeography.com

So it actually is tough to nail down a quantitative value for what constitutes sprawl. You're right in hat Western cities often rate less sprawling in many of those measures but Boston doesn't rate low in all of them. The pre-WW II development isn't really sprawling at all (if one considers sprawl to be auto-centered development) and accounts for a larger proportion of our population than most other cities. The more recent development is really low density though.

What Density Doesn't Tell Us About Sprawl - ACCESS Magazine

[bohemka]

I lived in Phoenix for a number of years. What was happening while I was there and what it's become since I left can only be described as sprawl.

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

Well maybe this state is as built up as it is meant to be. Why kill off more wildlife to build more homes. People will have to find somewhere else to go

I'm not sure if you're saying this as a desire or an expectation...It's definitely not something that is/will happen on a total scale. "Sorry folks, we're full up find some place else." No. The only people who will HAVE to find some place else to go are people who cannot afford to live here, which seems unjust. And all you'd be doing is displacing the problem, anywhere people they'll be killing off wildlife (for the most part, and in some places more than others, but still). Even in Massachusetts, if the economic demand exists, expect more homes to be built. There are residential developments going up all over this metro area from Chinatown to the 495 suburban belt.

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

So it actually is tough to nail down a quantitative value for what constitutes sprawl. You're right in hat Western cities often rate less sprawling in many of those measures but Boston doesn't rate low in all of them. The pre-WW II development isn't really sprawling at all (if one considers sprawl to be auto-centered development) and accounts for a larger proportion of our population than most other cities. The more recent development is really low density though.

What Density Doesn't Tell Us About Sprawl - ACCESS Magazine

This is a great article/analysis. Thank you.

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by bohemka

I lived in Phoenix for a number of years. What was happening while I was there and what it's become since I left can only be described as sprawl.

I mean, but what kind of development are we expecting? Growth is happening in the population, so there needs to be growth in the built environment.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by BitofEndearment

Even in Massachusetts, if the economic demand exists, expect more homes to be built. There are residential developments going up all over this metro area from Chinatown to the 495 suburban belt.

This is largely town dependent and quickly drops off once past the 495 belt.

I see a number of central MA towns making active moves away from further development. For instance, Dunstable just acquired a massive tract of land which was highly developable/desirable for conservation purposes. Groton likewise. In fact, a number of central MA towns (Berlin, Sterling, Paxton, etc.) have been intentionally stifling development for years by requiring private septic ... developers seem to hate this, I assume because it reduces margins.

Even Shrewsbury, a town which has shown no hesitance in developing every inch land, is no longer providing public sewer hook ups ... which effectively stifles future development. A few land owners in town are very unhappy about this.

There is also the reality that land is expensive and/or unavailable in many of these towns (either because of massive post-war development, conservation efforts, and/or active/viable farms). And unlike the 'burbs of Toronto, locals (and building code) will not tolerate 3000 sqft homes on 4000 sqft lots.

Surely this won't stop land development in the area; however, it is likely to drive the type of housing built. We aren't likely to replicate the types of massive/dense post-war developments which were built from the '50's through '90's . Most of the recent builds I see in the area are 2600sqft+, 2+ acres, and high price tags. Buying a new home is a luxury.

[lrfox]

Boston's "sprawl" is hidden by a bit of veneer. Most of our "lower-density" suburbs are kept lower density through regulation and zoning to "preserve the historic character of the community." Larger minimum lot sizes prevent the higher density suburban development that you see in suburbs a similar distance from the city center in places like Boston, LA, Phoenix, etc. Boston has low-density "sprawl" radiating out in further distances than many other cities because the inner suburbs have zoning that prevents the higher density development that could accommodate the population growth. It's part of the reason why prices are so high in so many communities and it's part of the reason so many people are commuting from the Worcester area, Southern NH, Northern RI, and the Southcoast.

Frankly, I'd like to see more effort going into encouraging redevelopment of our older urban centers outside of Central Boston (i.e. Lynn, Haverhill, Medford, Malden, Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, etc). Our zoning and general NIMBY attitude toward larger scale development outside of the city center prevents the type of development you see in the Bay Area, LA, or even places like Tyson's Corner in Virginia. Repurposing some of the older urban centers ringing Boston would be a great way to accommodate growth, add more affordable housing to the metro area for the working and middle class, and maintain the charm that makes places like Weston, Wellsely, and Sudbury so attractive.