Everyone agrees that there is a housing crisis.  That there isn’t enough supply, that costs are too high and that someone has to do something about it.

Just not in my neighborhood.

Most conversations about housing in Massachusetts, and we assume in other places, inevitably end in discussions about local control and community character.  People argue that the impacts to their neighborhoods, schools, traffic, and history will be too great.  That new housing will destroy the character of beloved places and their long-established appearance.

But what is community character anyway? And if, as discussed in the last article, we are no longer who we think we are, what makes us think our towns and cities are also what we think they are?

The American Planning Association says that “community character refers to the distinct identity of a place…the collective impression a neighborhood or town makes on residents and visitors.”  But are those impressions based on the way a place looks?  The people?  The types of activities available? Is character based on architectural stye or density or some other measurable thing?  And what is density – is it building area, open space, height, people per acre?  Cars?

Is the character of a Northshore seaside town the same as one of the Cape?  Is a colonial era town just west of Boston the same as one in the Berkshires?  I think most of us would agree that they are not the same.  Cape Ann and Cape Cod are different, as are Lexington and Stockbridge.  So why are their land use regulations so similar?

Most of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts have been around awhile.  The last town to incorporate was East Brookfield in 1920. Many were established over 200 years ago, and it’s hard to argue that things haven’t changed in two centuries.  Agricultural communities became hotbeds of 19^th century industry, later evolving into gateway cities and bedroom suburbs.  The relatively recent transition to a knowledge economy, led by “eds and meds”, has changed who we are, how we live, what we do and where we do it.  From that perspective, even 40 years ago seem like ancient history.

Community character is clearly not immutable, and past attempts to freeze it took a terrible toll on the Commonwealth.  Fifty years ago, many communities attempted to protect community character by implementing exclusionary zoning.  Those restrictions caused populations and budgets to shrink and the economy to stagnate.  Quality of life, services, jobs and tax bases declined in rural and urban communities alike.  It took until very recently for most communities to return to their populations of 1970; some still lag today.

While zoning reform was only one of many causes of that difficult period, it certainly played a major part.  Communities were unable to attract new types of businesses and the young, educated people they employed.  The state’s population and economy went to places like Cambridge that were open to new uses like life sciences for formerly industrial buildings and disused land like Kendall Square.

That is not to say that protecting history and character is not important.  Cambridge carefully protected Avon Hill and Harvard Square.  But a meaningful conversation about community character and preservation requires a common understanding of what character means, how it comes about and how to let it transform over time as we, the people, change.

Zoning has proven to be a poor way to protect character and enable communities to evolve at the same time.  Most of the Commonwealth’s character was created long before zoning became legal in 1918 and most ordinances wouldn’t allow the places people cherish to be built today.  Zoning, as written, is backwards looking and prescriptive.  Many ordinances still regulate business and housing types like drive-ins and garden apartments that are rare today, while not knowing what to do about current building types like pharmaceutical manufacturing, e-commerce or apartments.

What’s worse is that the zoning put in place 50 years ago didn’t really reflect communities at that time, let alone the character that people today say they want to protect.  Historic downtowns and pre-zoning homes are “existing non-conforming” and cannot be reproduced as-of-right.  The charm and character people cherish come from things that were outlawed long ago, like close together buildings with little or no setbacks.   Open space and subdivision requirements reflect a ‘70’s suburban, rather than a historic, approach to building places.

And that’s not even talking about traditional, naturally affordable housing types like 2 families and triple-deckers that aren’t even allowed by-right almost anywhere.

Discussions about community character are caught between history, who we are now, and the future.  Communities that cannot accept change and who won’t meet an unknowable future head on will struggle and stagnate, as the not-too-distant past demonstrates.  Attempts to freeze time created this mess in the first place.  Exclusionary zoning helped create this housing environment where children can’t find a place to live where they grew up while teachers, police and firemen can’t afford the towns they serve.

Many communities rightly feel like they’ve added a lot of housing in the last decade.  But the reality is that they haven’t kept up with demand driven by changes in household size, let alone the Commonwealth’s slow population growth.  While unrestrained growth is unhealthy, no growth isn’t good either.

Massachusetts is a very diverse place.  Over 230 of its 351 towns and cities are smaller than 15,000 people while more than 40% of the population lives in the biggest 25.  Only 9 of those communities house more than 100,000 people.  We have strong agrarian and industrial roots and, if we solve the housing crisis, a strong knowledge economy future.

Some resistance to new housing is understandable.  It seems to be at least in part driven by a perceived lack of respect for the uniqueness and history of each community.  Solutions that make sense inside 128 may not make sense, or be economically viable, in smaller towns.  Town meeting should enable communities to maintain those characteristics they are proud of.  But along with the local control must come responsibility to their children, neighboring communities and the Commonwealth as a whole.  A thriving culture and economy are dependent on all of us doing our part.

Change is inevitable. Valuing our shared history and protecting the character of our neighborhoods is important, but turning our communities into museums will only make it even harder to imbue places with life.   We need to find a common language based on a shared understanding of what, and who, community is so we can talk about how to maintain what is cherished and continue to grow.

Scott Pollack is founder of SRPlanning (SRPlan.net) and serves as Co-Chair of ULI Boston/New England’s Housing Roundtable. Susan Connelly is Chief Operating Officer of Housing Opportunities Unlimited. Please send any reactions, comments, or ideas to Scott at [email protected].