Recap: An Early Look at the MBTA Communities Permitting Pipeline
January 30, 2026
On Friday, January 30, 2026, Boston Indicators hosted an author briefing with Senior Fellow Amy Dain, presenting findings from the new report, "An Early Look at the MBTA Communities Permitting Pipeline.” The report and briefing focused on the implementation and outcomes of Massachusetts’ MBTA Communities zoning law and framed the law as a historically significant zoning reform that has produced real but still limited housing gains, while also setting the stage for broader future reforms.
Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators, opened the briefing by emphasizing both the ambition of the law and the institutional effort behind it. He praised the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) and local officials statewide for sustaining “steady, competent governance” during a politically contentious period for housing policy.
Dain characterized the MBTA Communities law as “the most significant wave of pro-housing local zoning reform ever in Massachusetts,” noting that advocates would have considered such reform politically impossible just a decade ago. At the same time, she cautioned that the results to date are best described as “real, but modest gains.” While thousands of homes are now legally possible in places where multifamily housing was previously prohibited, the scale of reform remains small relative to decades of underproduction.
Dain’s analysis focused first on housing production, identifying 102 projects totaling nearly 7,000 housing units in the MBTA Communities development pipeline across 34 municipalities. These projects range from small infill developments to very large, one-time redevelopments of underutilized land. Importantly, most projects are still in permitting, with only a small number under construction or occupied, meaning how many are ultimately built remains uncertain.
The rezonings themselves cover only about 1% of land area across the 177 MBTA Communities and generally allow moderate densities (around 15 units per acre). As a result, most participating municipalities fall into what Dain labeled an “incremental reform” category: they met the state’s minimum requirements but did not fundamentally reshape local growth patterns. Examples such as Bedford, Newton, Arlington, and Belmont illustrate how many towns enabled small-scale multifamily projects that add housing gradually but slowly.
Newton highlights both the strengths and limits of this approach. The city now has 15 projects in the pipeline, many tied to historic preservation incentives, yet these amount to fewer than 100 net new units in a city of roughly 33,000 homes. Dain described this as “a profound change” in zoning rules, but one with “a very minor rate of growth.”
Larger projects, meanwhile, account for a disproportionate share of total units. Braintree’s 752-unit redevelopment and Weston’s 480-unit project illustrate how single parcels can significantly affect local housing counts. In Weston’s case, one project alone represents more than a 10% increase in the town’s housing stock. Still, Dain emphasized that these are often “one-time” opportunities rather than signals of sustained production.
Only a small number of communities initially went “above and beyond” the state requirements. Lexington stood out as a key example. By zoning more land at higher densities and allowing multifamily housing as-of-right, Lexington generated 12 projects totaling 1,286 units—roughly one-fifth of the regional pipeline. Dain noted that if every community had followed Lexington’s lead, “this initiative might have…ended the housing shortage.”
.png?h=581&w=450&la=en&hash=8A9710FE4E952915CD6B39EAFEB5EDF6)
Agenda
Opening Remarks
Luc Schuster, Executive Director, Boston Indicators
Presentation
Amy Dain, Senior Fellow, Boston Indicators
Audience Q&A
However, Lexington later downzoned its MBTA Communities districts, reducing both size and density. A “plot twist,” as Dain described it, is that zoning freezes filed before the rollback may still allow up to 17 projects to proceed under the original, more permissive rules. This episode illustrates both the political fragility of local zoning reform and the lasting effects of even temporary policy windows.
The law’s second major goal—transit-oriented development (TOD)—has been only partially realized. Dain reported that roughly 30–35% of pipeline units are within a half mile of a rail station, with more than half located within a mile. While this initially appeared disappointing, both Dain and Schuster argued that the result is more understandable given that many MBTA Communities lack rail stations altogether.
Dain emphasized that TOD should not be narrowly defined by proximity to rail alone. Bedford, for example, placed its MBTA district intentionally in its walkable town center near bus routes and rail trails, rather than near a highway. “Bedford’s five projects are not by a train station,” she explained, “but they are still transit-oriented development.”
The discussion broadened TOD into a systems perspective: frequent service, good pedestrian infrastructure, managed parking, and nearby destinations matter as much as zoning. “Transit-oriented development is not just about putting homes by transit,” Dain argued, calling MBTA Communities “one part of a larger playbook.”
A key interpretive shift emerged in the discussion: MBTA Communities may be best understood as a fair-share zoning law rather than a transformational production strategy. By requiring every MBTA-served municipality to legalize some multifamily housing, the law “raises the floor” on zoning capacity across the region. As Schuster put it, this perspective suggests less focus on criticizing “paper compliance” and more emphasis on designing the next phase of state housing reform.
Dain agreed, noting that the statute’s implicit purposes extend beyond production to fairness, predictability, and regional equity. “Zoning reform is not destiny,” she concluded. “Zoning reform gives housing a chance.”