By David P. Parish, Senior Vice President / Housing and Community Investment, Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston

Choices — on why, where, and how to develop — were the theme of the day at the Bank's recent New England Community Development Conference in Worcester, Massachusetts. In a plenary session entitled "Alternative Growth Options for New England," James G. Stockard Jr., director of the Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, moderated a panel discussion on how communities can grow smartly and remain viable. And, though the panelists' backgrounds and experiences may vary, several premises emerged time and again.

Why
As the country closes out a full decade of economic prosperity, more people than ever own homes. Unfortunately, this growth in homeownership has also resulted in sprawl and communities that are "increasingly homogenous, socially and economically," said David Lee, a partner in the Boston-based architectural firm of Stull and Lee.

Many suburbs and an increasing number of urban neighborhoods are now only affordable for those earning more than a moderate income, making it difficult — if not impossible — for firefighters, teachers, police, and other workers to afford to live near where they work.

Compounding the problem, said Mr. Lee, are outcroppings of new, expensive homes in areas that force people to drive everywhere. According to Betty Weiss, executive director of the National Neighborhood Coalition in Washington, D.C., the trend toward creating whole new communities of wealthier residents has created a gap in the quality of schools, health care, and even the air communities breathe, with lower-income, established neighborhoods coming out on the losing end.

Sprawl has also made New England a prime example of vanishing resources, said Carl Dierker, regional counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're losing 1,200 acres a week to development in New England," he said. Sprawl both cuts out the tax revenue that would result from redeveloping vacant buildings and forces residents to spend more time than ever in their cars. In Boston alone, people spend an average of 66 hours a year in traffic jams, while the vehicle miles traveled have increased at three times the rate of the population growth.

Where
A common problem with current development is the tendency for too much growth in some areas and not enough growth in others, said Ms. Weiss. Meanwhile, inner cities and older suburban neighborhoods have fallen by the wayside — and by extension, so have some of the people who live there.

"We need to focus on reinvesting in places that are home to small businesses, low-income people, working families, immigrants, and people of color," said Ms. Weiss.

The panelists agreed that smart growth should ensure that communities include everything from low-income apartments to mixed-use buildings to expensive single-family homes — all within reach of public transportation.

How
In New England, where land is precious and resources are limited, planners must realize that every city or town plays a large role in the health of those around it, said Mr. Lee.

As did the other panelists, Mr. Dierker favored increasing density in existing communities before developing elsewhere. For an example of a growth plan that works, New Englanders can look to Portland, Oregon. The country's fifth-fastest growing metropolitan area, Portland has focused its growth on downtowns, suburban centers, and communities abutting the transit system.

"It's trying to get the right stuff in the right location, putting well-designed development where it will strengthen communities," said Robert Stacey, former executive director of policy and planning for the Tri-Met Regional Transit Agency in Portland.

To encourage high-density building in areas where growth is desirable, while protecting forests and farmlands from development, Portland assigned minimum and maximum densities to areas and pre-zoned land for every housing type. This streamlined the permitting process, which was often a source of frustration and expense for builders and residents alike.

Finally, if affordable housing is restricted to poor, urban areas or the fringes of towns, communities will eventually find themselves hard-pressed to attract the workers necessary for sustained economic growth. Smart growth involves changing the public's perception of affordable housing, which for many years failed to complement surrounding architecture. Creating attractive and functional units could help turn long-standing arguments over whether to build affordable housing into constructive talks on where next and how best to build it.

Although some might say smart growth should mean no growth, the panelists agreed that all communities can benefit from well-planned growth in areas that suit them economically, environmentally, and socially.

This article originally appeared in the Bank's Tools for Housing and Community Economic Development newsletter (issue 16, Winter 2001).