Boston’s housing crisis demands urgency—but not at the expense of equality. Squares + Streets zoning is a case in point. According to Greater Boston Legal Services, this zoning probably undermines affordable housing production and accelerates displacement and gentrification by allowing unrestricted development.
Roslindale, in District 5, stands alone in being rezoned because, without explanation, the Hyde Park, Codman Square and Field’s Corner programs were stopped. Considering a severe housing crisis, how could these communities be put on hold? Roslindale was also excluded when the Planning Department discussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) implementation in non-public meetings with Dorchester, Roxbury and Jamaica Plain residents. No residents of Roslindale were included, the only community being rezoned.
Roslindale’s Squares + Streets statistics from the Planning Department illustrate how residents and business owners from protected groups were effectively overwhelmed. In less than six months, decision-making was dominated by homeowners (80%) and whites (82%). Contrast this with participation by Latinos at 6% and Blacks at 4%. A stark lack of representation becomes undeniable when compared to Roslindale’s actual population: less than 50% white, with 27% Latino and 24% Black residents. The Planning Department ceased displaying demographics without explanation shortly after posting these figures.
Residents with limited English proficiency (LEP) were all but excluded. The Planning Department declined to provide materials in home languages for Roslindale’s Asian LEP business owners. Only about 20 of roughly 2,600 Spanish-speaking residents participated in structured Spanish informational sessions.
Planning did pursue inclusiveness through non-standard outreach: attending community events, hosting coffee hours and conducting pop-ups. However, no participation demographic data was collected, making meaning ful impact unmeasurable and preventing adjustments to assure effective engagement of diverse communities.
The Small Area Plan survey results were critical to supporting Planning’s zoning changes. Accessibility, however, was questionable.
The survey was written at a college reading level and available only online. Survey participation was not available to mobile device users. There was no way to know if diverse communities were reached or whether respondents even lived in Roslindale because Planning, inexplicably, did not collect demographics.
City councilors, regardless of district, have critical oversight when city processes are inequitable. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., unequal treatment in one district is inequality in all districts. Yet, Roslindale was set aside despite advocates’ updating at-large and the District 5 councilors and providing petitions from roughly 300 residents calling for an AFFH/Squares + Streets docket. Disappointingly, no councilor agreed to sponsor it, leaving concerns about City Council oversight.
In contrast, community advocates, including Coalition members, focused on equality: distributing information materials widely, canvassing high-risk displacement areas and visiting food pantries. Nearly all of the canvassed Spanish-speaking residents and pantry clients did not know about the rezoning.
Residents and owners of color met with municipal departments and voiced concerns. Coalition members offered to partner with the City to establish demographic equality. Latino church members offered to connect with often-excluded residents, and Coalition members with survey and evaluation expertise volunteered to advise.
Seemingly, Planning acted on only one Coalition offer — a Spanish-language business walk — and ignored others. Rezoning seemed to be a fait accompli at this point.
The Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) Board approved the Small Area Plan on Feb. 13, 2025, and the zoning draft was released the next day.
Residents questioned how zoning could be drafted during a public comment period.
Subsequent procedural flaws further eroded public trust. The draft zoning was revised twice before the comment period ended, which had been extended by only five days. The Planning Department first justified the changes by claiming that 75 % of comments supported increased density — a figure that could not be replicated. Then, just two days before the BPDA Board vote, more revisions were released. Residents were left with the near-impossible task of responding to new material within 48 hours. Despite these concerns, the BPDA Board approved the zoning unanimously.
The Zoning Commission presented the final opportunity for feedback. Two perspectives emerged in public testimony: concerned residents and strong supporters. The former raised equality issues, low participation from protected groups, disregard for small business owners and the potential displacement of current Roslindale residents. Non-adherence to Mayor Michelle Wu’s AFFH order was described as a too-fast-paced, opaque and confusing process. Residents expressed surprise at seeing zoning for 12- to 16-story towers late in the game.
Supporters argued that tall, dense buildings were essential to address the housing crisis and that engagement had been overly lengthy. They did not address equality, displacement or AFFH concerns. Instead, commissioners described the need for greater housing density and faster rezoning. They voted unanimously to approve.
All told, equality should not be eclipsed by zoning, even during a housing crisis. City Councilor Miniard Culpepper’s civil rights hearings offer critical opportunities to examine the rezoning through an AFFH lens and confront the harm done. Revisiting — and thoughtfully revising — Roslindale’s Squares + Streets zoning could repair the unequal treatment.
Dr. Laurel Radwin is a Researcher at Patient Centered Care.
