Gosh, seems like something a mayor should initiate, no? The most amazing thing to me about Mumbles is that virtually everyone complains about the way he handles development battles. Pro-development people point to the fact that this is the hardest city in the US to build in, and NIMBYs complain that developers are always building more than zoning allows. And they are both right, by design. The Mayor has publicly stated that he wants zoning to be so restrictive so as to basically disallow everything that could feasibly be built in central Boston, because that means that virtually every project needs special approval - by the Mayor, effectively. So, Ed, I'm sure you know this, but he is at the heart of the issue. He has created a system where EVERY project in Central Boston needs special permission to get built, by a body (the BRA) that does whatever he says. Imagine if zoning actually put forth the vision you talk about, so we could all embrace it and debate it, instead of being designed to let a door to door insurance salesman from Hyde Park make every decision.

I agree that some good projects are scuttled in Boston, where I live, and probably Cambridge as well, because of neighborhood concerns.  I also agree that there seems to be an irrational fear of tall buildings in Boston and Cambridge and I wish that we could focus on design instead of height.  A beautiful tall building (like the Hancock Tower) beats a squat short tower (like most buildings in the CBD in Boston) every time.  But to, in one broad sweep, argue that the zoning code in Boston is antiquated and prohibits mixed use development, or that developers need to be pushed to build out retail space at street level is absurd.  The central part of Boston is covered with mixed use development, street retail (in fact, there is an oversupply of retail space in Boston), and precisely the kind of urban development that Professor Glaeser pines for.  

He complains that the Cambridge City Council blocked a life sciences building in Central Square.  I'm not familiar with the proposal, but Central Square is a terrificly interesting and fun neighborhood as it exists today.  Adding a 14 story tower has the potential to disrupt the complex mix of people, buildings and activities that make Central Square what it is. This is why we do land use planning, and why we have public process.  The impact that large additions to any residential neighborhood will have on it need to be considered carefully.  Sometimes that results in a project being built, or it being built with some modifications, or not being built at all.  In the South End, the public review process for the redevelopment of the old Boston Herald site was panned by the neighborhood because it was not ambitious enough and not big enough.  I've had to confront neighborhood opposition to developments that I was responsible for shepharding through the process, and it can be frustrating when there is no consensus or when people seem, to me, to be short-sighted, or missing an opportunity.  

But Professor Glaeser seems to be stuck on this point - that we are doing it all wrong and need to reform in order to create the kind of city that he longs for.  This may be the case in a lot of other places, but most people think Boston is a pretty terrific place to live, as evidenced by a residential vacancy rate in the low single digits, new development popping up everywhere (look, especially, at the South Boston Waterfront, where a whole new "city within a city" is emerging), and the prices that sellers and landlords are obtaining for space in Boston and Cambridge.  

So this column seems to smack of sour grapes.  One development that the author feels would have benefitted Central Square (though he nevers say why) didn't get approved, and the entire zoning code should be thrown out.  Surely, we can have a more nuanced discussion about development in the Globe than this.

Mr. Glaeser, I seem to have missed your point.  Cambridge, as much as you would like to stereotype is not trying to block development and growth.  If you have had the chance to come down Mass Ave, you must have certainly seen the cranes erecting massive new building for Novartis and Pfizer and if you turn down Main Street you might notice a rebuild Tech Square.  Head down Third and you can not miss the new  residential tower and ground level shops.  I almost forgot the new MIT and Broad buildings. Yes, Cambridge is stuck in early 20th century still trying to revitalize its soap and chocolate industries.

Perhaps you are saying Cambridge and Boston and cities in general should take one for the (suburban) team. If that is the case then the cities should open up city council seats to members of neighboring communities so their views are fully represented. 

Ed, Ed, Ed.  How many marvelous towers must we build in Boston, how many science complexes must blanket Cambridge, to entice you to leave your leafy acres in Wellesley and join us here the dense "inner city"?  When will you fearlessly embrace the marvelous hustle-bustle urban vision you recommend for the rest of us, while you extend your exurban status quo endlessly into the future?  You're a NIMBY too, but you don't need to to keep harmful development out of your back yard; you, unlike most of your readers, could simply choose to move your yard.  

It's all better in theory, isn't it, for the armchair urbanist?  And I know it's nice to have a real city within a short drive, so you can go to the theater, work in a big university, eat in sophisticated restaurants, walk the busy streets, see "diversity" (oops, maybe not that!)  -- yes, we in the city provide you with a nice amenity.  Thanks for visiting, and for telling us we need to do more, more!

As others have said, if we had competent political leaders who undertook genuine planning, we might have an enlightened development process that preserves and adds to what's good about the city. But we don't, and this kind of writing just encourages more of the cronyism, corruption and shallow self-aggrandizement of the powers, political and corporate, who evoke community distrust and resistance.

Well said! People in Boston and Cambridge prefer the status quo because of visionary urban design decisions made in the past have created many wonderful places. But people, lifestyles and places change - we seem to recognize this in every other part of the human experience other than urban design. At the very least, we should perpetually engage in a process of evaluating whether the places we live and work best serve us and future generations.

These comments are funny. I can't believe how many people routinely say "eh, such and such proposal for change is a bad idea. We don't need change, we're perfect! Everyone wants to live here." Except...those people are always over the age of 50, or moving here for a job, not for the city. Boston is mocked by citizens of more vibrant places so frequently that it is shocking that members of our insular little community don't see it. Much like the Republican party, Boston just has to wait for all the old conservative white people to die off before we'll have a chance to right our ship. 

Boston/Cambridge has a highly vocal minority of very regressive individuals. It's long past the time when we need to move forward to a higher density, energy efficient, more creative urban core. The Seaport/Innovation District is ample proof that there are plenty of companies that are willing to invest large sums of money in the Boston metro area if just given the chance to do so.

While Prof. Glaser has many good notions, and his breathless vision of the future megalopolis often sounds enticing, it's scale inevitably results in a world where wealth and power are concentrated in just a few hands (no NIMBY worries there!), but for me, when you consider the details, it begins to look a lot more like Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner' than some Bel Geddian Utopia. / / / "Triple-deckers, for instance, were a brilliant means of providing inexpensive housing a century ago. They are not the right housing for the mid-21st century."......Aren't they?   In a world where few college grads start out earning one year's tuition, 3-Ds make more sense than ever.  Low investment threshold, owner occupied, and income producing, they not only stabilize neighborhoods and serve the needs of the tenants, but also give the owner a boost up the economic ladder. / / /  A 125 foot limit is too low???  In Paris the height limit is 121 feet, and if you've ever been there you may have noted that, while it's 10 times bigger than Boston, it's still a pretty nice place to live. / / / I heartily agree large scale planning is needed, but, in order to create truly livable cities of the future, with very few exceptions (core city, transport, infrastructure), we must never let our dreams exceed the human scale.

 Hey Edward, it already was debated. In fact, this has been debated many times over. Most people living in Cambridge don't want things any tighter. Now move along.