Do current (and proposed) measures to encourage denser development actually prevent not-”smart” development elsewhere? Eg, when a dense development is approved in Cambridge with the argument that it’s “smart growth,” does that mean that a significant (“equivalent”?) amount of open space was preserved elsewhere, as a direct consequence? If not, more dense development just means more development.

Another false carbon-savings scenario is when a builder replaces a building with a “green” but larger building which ends up using just as much energy as the old building. Is the larger building really needed? Also, if I understand correctly, MA is building more housing units for fewer people. (I can’t find a reference offhand, but I did find a document that says that household size in Cambridge — where there is a lot of development — decreased from 1980 to 2000: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/data/neigh/neigh_hhsize.pdf).

Would so many people be motivated to live in these dense developments rather than outlying areas anyway? The most likely outcome is perhaps a total increase in housing units without any appreciable decrease in sprawl, which encourages smaller household sizes and in-migration to MA from other states. Both effects might be desirable to some planners, but they would not result in any carbon savings.

Any strategy to encourage denser development has to be done in a larger framework if we really want to see any carbon savings. A carbon tax/gas tax (or similar) would be required to make commuting costs outweigh the benefits of a single-family house and yard. Measures encouraging/allowing dense development must be planned on a state or at least regional level, or else the burden would be unevenly spread (eg, if Belmont had a density-friendly policy and surrounding towns didn’t, developers would descend on Belmont). More dense development must be compensated with less development elsewhere or else we’ll just get more development on balance.

Also, the dense developments must be livable. You mention public safety and traffic/housing congestion mitigation. These points must be emphasized. Building standards for soundproofing and ventilation must improve (or at least reliable reporting of a building’s quality must be required) if people are to be encouraged to give up their single-family homes.

If we encourage more dense development *and* get no carbon savings, we will have seriously diminished our quality of life and not gotten any benefit in return. Development can’t be undone very easily or quickly.

Caroline

Please help support the bill for Animal Control Laws that was talked about on the “Lobby Day For Animals”.
Thank you,
Mark W. McCabe
4 Dorothy Road
Arlington, MA 02474