Fostering land use dialog : community preservation as a growth management strategy in Massachusetts

The Community Preservation Initiative (CPI) was an innovative attempt by the Massachusetts state government to stimulate discussion about land use and growth management at the local level. Based on land use and zoning information, CPI relied on geographic information systems (GIS) to model a potential development scenario for each of the 351 municipalities in the state. The process for generating these buildout maps purposefully involved officials at local, regional, and state levels. This thesis examines the success of the CPI process in evolving land use dialog within and between communities, and amongst planners at all three levels of government. Town planners in two different metropolitan regions of Massachusetts – Boston and Springfield – were interviewed about CPI’s impact on local land use discussions. This research was supplemented by interviews with other regional planners and CPI staff. The results suggest that while CPI may eventually lead to changes in local land use, in the short term few changes have occurred to the dialog on growth management in the state. The results of this investigation should aid state and regional decision-makers in determining what future policies and approaches are needed to promote smart growth and regional planning in Massachusetts and other states Thesis Supervisor: Joseph Ferreira, Jr., PhD Title: Professor of Urban Planning and Operations Research Thesis Reader: Lorlene Hoyt, PhD Title: Assistant Professor of Technology and Planning Edward H. and Joyce Linde Career Development Chair

[1]  Anne Vernez Moudon,et al.  Suburban Clusters , 2000 .

[2]  Thomas Harvey,et al.  MAKING A MIDDLE LANDSCAPE , 1992, Landscape Journal.

[3]  Paul A. Jargowsky,et al.  Sprawl, Concentration of Poverty, and Urban Inequality * , 2001 .

[4]  L. Miller.  Family togetherness and the suburban ideal , 1995 .

[5]  Lyke Thompson.  CITIZEN ATTITUDES ABOUT SERVICE DELIVERY MODES , 1997 .

[6]  J. Grant.  Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle , 2002 .

[7]  T. Daniels.  When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth In The Metropolitan Fringe , 1998 .

[8]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Information in Communicative Planning , 1998 .

[9]  H. Savitch,et al.  Regional politics : America in a post-city age , 1996 .

[10]  Douglas Kelbaugh,et al.  Common place : toward neighborhood and regional design , 1997 .

[11]  A. Duany,et al.  Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream , 2000 .

[12]  J. Whitney.  Case Study Research , 1999 .

[13]  DISPELLING THE MYTH OF HOME RULE - Local Power in Greater Boston , 2004 .

[14]  M. P. Baumgartner,et al.  The Moral Order of a Suburb , 1989 .

[15]  M. Pastor,et al.  Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together , 2000 .

[16]  D. Nielsen,et al.  Above and beyond? , 2002, Hospitals & health networks.

[17]  R. Ewing.  Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? , 1997 .

[18]  Todd Zimmerman,et al.  American Households on (and off) the Urban-to-rural Transect , 2002 .

[19]  L. Ledebur,et al.  The New Regional Economies: The U.S. Common Market and the Global Economy , 1997 .

[20]  K. Hanna,et al.  The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of Information: A Case Study , 2000 .

[21]  Tony Lloyd-Jones,et al.  Place and space in the networked city: Conceptualizing the integrated metropolis , 1999 .

[22]  Michael Southworth,et al.  The Evolving Metropolis: Studies of Community, Neighborhood, and Street Form at the Urban Edge , 1993 .

[23]  P. Rossi,et al.  Keeping Up the Neighborhood - Estimating Net Effects of Zoning , 1981 .

[24]  T. Dye.  Urban Political Integration: Conditions Associated with Annexation in American Cities , 1964 .

[25]  M. Baldassare.  Trouble in paradise : the suburban transformation in America , 1988 .

[26]  Michael James Biddulph,et al.  Villages Don't Make a City , 2000 .

[27]  Stephen M. Wheeler,et al.  The New Regionalism: Key Characteristics of an Emerging Movement , 2002 .

[28]  Arza Churchman,et al.  Disentangling the Concept of Density , 1999 .

[29]  D. Appleyard,et al.  “Toward an Urban Design Manifesto” , 1987, The City Reader.

[30]  F. Alexander.  Inherent Tensions between Home Rule and Regional Planning , 2000 .

[31]  E. Talen.  Traditional Urbanism Meets Residential Affluence: An Analysis of the Variability of Suburban Preference , 2001 .

[32]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[33]  I. MacBurnie.  The Periphery and the American Dream , 1995 .

[34]  R. Klosterman.  Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning , 1997 .

[35]  Philip R. Berke,et al.  Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for Planning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century , 2002 .

[36]  H. Levine,et al.  The Politics of Exclusion , 2004 .

[37]  Frank L. Kudrna,et al.  Governance and opportunity in Metropolitan America , 2000 .

[38]  Ann Forsyth,et al.  Five Images of a Suburb: Perspectives on a New Urban Development , 1997 .