iStock photo illustration

Oh, how the upscale suburbs of Greater Boston love to be seen as leading the way when it comes to saving the planet. 

Having previously pushed to ban new natural gas hookups, pricey suburbs like Acton and Lincoln are now rushing to mandate net zero carbon emissions in new homes, apartments and other buildings under tough new state regulations. 

But when it comes opening their doors to actual human beings who may want to live in town, but can’t find an apartment and can’t afford to spend $2 million on a single-family home, the eco warriors of Acton, Lincoln, Wellesley and elsewhere have been rather less than eager. 

Somehow the enlightened elite that governs human affairs in Boston’s ’burbs just can’t seem let go of their large-lot zoning, which ensures the only new homes that get built are mansions. 

And when it comes to new multifamily buildings, well forget it. Developers face a veritable gauntlet of local zoning obstructions and NIMBY objections when it comes to building new apartments in the suburbs. 

If it were not for the MBTA Communities law, which requires cities and towns to roll out new, apartment- and condominium-friendly zoning rules around T stations, most communities would be content to do just what they have always done – which is nothing. 

So, here’s an idea: Why not let posh suburbs like Wellesley and Lincoln, as well as their hipster urban cousins in Cambridge and Newton, pass all the green mandates and regulations they can dream up. Virtue signaling? No problem! Go for it! 

But this would come with just one requirement: Get serious about helping Greater Boston come to grips with the dire housing affordability crisis that has made life here increasingly tenuous for all but the well-off. 

Big Asks Deserve Big Gives

That means getting rid of all that large-lot zoning and making some room for either less expensive starter homes, or, more realistically, condos and townhomes – the new starter homes of today – especially in expensive suburban towns closer to the urban core. 

It also means allowing new apartment and condo construction in multiple areas around town, not just around MBTA stations. Oh yeah, and maybe stop trying to circumvent or find loopholes in the new MBTA Communities law, while you’re at it. 

And here’s what would also be great: Taking seriously the concerns raised by a new study by researchers at MIT and Wentworth Institute of Technology about the state’s new “stretch” energy-efficiency building code that uber-progressive suburbs and cities have been scrambling to adopt. 

The new regs have the potential of slapping anywhere from $10,000 to $23,000 onto the cost of building a new single-family home or townhouse, according to the study, commissioned by the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts. 

In fact, the new regs would cause the percentage of families making between $80,000 and $130,000 locked out of market to jump to 47 percent, up from 41 percent now. 

Construction of new condo and apartment buildings would also take a hit, with costs rising 2.4 percent – hardly a negligible number at a time when inflation and higher interest rates have pushed many new multifamily projects to the edge of viability and beyond. 

There are certainly tax incentives and other subsidies the state government should consider buffer the construction cost increases and prevent them from being passed on to buyers and renters. 

But suburbs and towns have the most effective means of offsetting the cost of mandating more energy-efficient homes and apartments. And that would be none other than taking on a sweeping program of zoning reform along the lines of the measures outlined above, allowing denser and less expensive housing to be built on smaller lots of land. 

All those McMansions on 2-acre lots are carbon emissions disasters and a waste of valuable land, which they are not making any more of here in Greater Boston.  

When it comes to clamping down on carbon, opening the door to apartments and townhomes would be far more efficient. Plus, it would help put a dent into rents and home prices. 

Sounds like the classic win-win. So, what are we waiting for? 

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.