Behind census numbers
Glaeser's Op-Ed piece on the demographic change in Massachusetts via the 2010 U.S. Census Data was well-crafted: Although Massachusetts as a whole showed slow growth between 2000 and 2010 (3.1%), Boston and Cambridge grew more rapidly compared to the rest of the state based on the high demand to live there. He stated housing demand is based on an area's income, quality of life, and the supply of livable space. Glaeser insinuated that areas which haven't grown as rapidly (yet also show a high demand for growth) are caused by overly strict land-use regulations which limit housing supply (such as Middlesex County). His comment on select areas of the state enacting overly-strict land-use laws is causing a ruckus with local planners (Have you read the MassPlanners Listserve?).
"The shape of our state and the nation is now formed by the most parochial local land use policies that make it impossible for the new building that would allow the state to grow in the areas where people most want to live. We should rethink the local regulations that push growth to other states."
Next question... Cape Cod and the Berkshires have an "abundant" supply of housing (do they?) but lack a strong housing demand since Boston is the state's economic engine (with job growth) and the Cape and the Berkshires act as a vacation-land (which therefore doesn't lead to growth). I agree, to a point, but feel that the Cape no longer has an abundant supply of housing. Therefore, the Cape and Berkshires are lacking in demand based on jobs, which is a slightly different variation from the "income" category, while ranking high in quality of life and livable space.
