10 Housing Policies That Created Boston's Segregation (And Why They're Still Legal)
From redlining maps to minimum lot sizes, these 10 housing policies created Greater Boston's racial and economic segregation—and most are still legal today. Understanding this history helps buyers recognize which towns maintain exclusion by design.
Greater Boston's segregation wasn't accidental—it was engineered through housing policies that are still legal today. Redlining maps (1930s), minimum lot sizes (1968-1975), single-family-only zoning, and exclusionary building codes created a system that effectively excludes Black and Hispanic families through price alone. We analyzed 10 policies that created segregation, why they're still legal, and what the MBTA Communities Act resistance reveals about which towns maintain exclusion by design.
Welcome to Listicle Tuesday #6
The Setup: Greater Boston's segregation wasn't accidental—it was engineered through housing policies that are still legal today. From redlining maps to minimum lot sizes, these 10 policies created a system that effectively excludes Black and Hispanic families through price alone.
Why This Matters: Understanding this history helps buyers recognize which towns maintain exclusion by design versus genuine integration efforts. It also reveals why progressive voting doesn't always translate to inclusive housing.
How We Identified Them: Historical analysis of housing policies from the 1930s to present, focusing on policies that remain legal and effective today.
Share Your Reaction: Which policy surprised you most? Share this with someone choosing towns.
1️⃣1. Redlining Maps (1930s) — Created Racial Boundaries That Persist Today
Share This Stat
The Policy: The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) created color-coded maps in the 1930s that graded neighborhoods A (green, 'best') to D (red, 'hazardous'). 'Redlined' areas were marked as too risky for federal lending.
Why It Created Segregation: Redlining maps explicitly used race as a factor in lending decisions. Black and immigrant neighborhoods were systematically marked as 'hazardous,' cutting off access to credit and homeownership.
Why It's Still Legal: Redlining itself is illegal (Fair Housing Act 1968), but the boundaries it created persist. Today's home prices and demographics still correlate with 1930s HOLC grades.
The Impact: Redlined areas remain lower-income and more diverse. Non-redlined areas remain higher-income and predominantly white. The boundaries persist through property values and lending patterns.
Why It's Here: Redlining maps created the foundation for modern segregation—boundaries that persist 90 years later.
2️⃣2. Minimum Lot Sizes (1968-1975 'Big Downzone') — Require $2M+ Entry Fees
Share This Stat
The Policy: The 'Big Downzone' of 1968-1975 saw Greater Boston towns dramatically increase minimum lot sizes. Dover increased from 7,500 sq ft to 40,000+ sq ft (1 acre). Weston increased to 40,000 sq ft. Lincoln increased to 2 acres.
Why It Created Segregation: Larger minimum lot sizes require more expensive homes. A 40,000 sq ft minimum lot means homes must cost $2M+ to be economically viable—effectively excluding families earning less than $400K.
Why It's Still Legal: Minimum lot sizes are legal zoning tools. Towns can set any minimum they want, as long as they comply with state mandates (like the MBTA Communities Act).
The Impact: Towns with large minimum lot sizes (Dover, Weston, Lincoln) remain 1-2% Black, compared to 9.6% statewide. The $2M+ entry fee maintains exclusion by design.
Why It's Here: The 'Big Downzone' is the most effective modern segregation tool—legal, enforceable, and still in use today.
3️⃣3. Single-Family-Only Zoning — Prevents Affordable Housing Development
Share This Stat
The Policy: Single-family-only zoning restricts land use to one home per lot. No duplexes, triplexes, or apartment buildings allowed.
Why It Created Segregation: Single-family-only zoning prevents affordable housing development. Multifamily housing (duplexes, triplexes, apartments) is more affordable and increases diversity.
Why It's Still Legal: Single-family-only zoning is legal in Massachusetts. The MBTA Communities Act requires some multifamily zoning near transit, but most land remains single-family only.
The Impact: Towns with 80-90% single-family-only zoning (Dover, Weston, Lincoln) remain predominantly white and wealthy. Multifamily housing is restricted to small areas or prohibited entirely.
Why It's Here: Single-family-only zoning is the most common exclusionary tool—legal, widespread, and effective at maintaining segregation.
4️⃣4. Exclusionary Building Codes — Setbacks, Height Limits Reduce Density
Share This Stat
The Policy: Exclusionary building codes include large setbacks (30-50 ft from property lines), height limits (35 ft maximum), floor area ratios (FAR limits), and parking requirements (2+ spaces per unit).
Why It Created Segregation: These codes reduce density and increase costs. Large setbacks mean larger lots. Height limits prevent efficient development. Parking requirements add costs. The result: more expensive housing that excludes lower-income families.
Why It's Still Legal: Building codes are legal zoning tools. Towns can set any requirements they want, as long as they're not discriminatory on their face.
The Impact: Towns with exclusionary building codes (Wellesley, Lexington, Newton) maintain higher home prices and lower diversity. Affordable housing development is effectively prevented.
Why It's Here: Exclusionary building codes are subtle but effective—they maintain exclusion while appearing neutral.
5️⃣5. Restrictive Covenants (Until 1968) — Legal Until Fair Housing Act
Share This Stat
The Policy: Restrictive covenants in property deeds explicitly prohibited ownership by 'non-Caucasian' people. Common language: 'No person of African, Asian, or other non-Caucasian descent shall own or occupy this property.'
Why It Created Segregation: Restrictive covenants explicitly excluded Black, Asian, and other non-white families from entire neighborhoods. They were legally enforceable until 1968.
Why It's Still Legal: Restrictive covenants are now illegal (Fair Housing Act 1968), but the patterns they created persist. Property values and demographics in formerly covenanted areas remain predominantly white.
The Impact: Neighborhoods with restrictive covenants (Weston, Dover, Wellesley) remain 1-3% Black, compared to 9.6% statewide. The exclusionary patterns persist through property values.
Why It's Here: Restrictive covenants were the most explicit segregation tool—legal until 1968, and their effects persist today.
6️⃣6. Urban Renewal (1950s-1970s) — Displaced Black Communities
Share This Stat
The Policy: Urban renewal programs used eminent domain to demolish 'blighted' neighborhoods and replace them with highways, parking lots, and luxury housing. Boston's West End (Italian/Jewish), Scollay Square, and Roxbury (Black) were targeted.
Why It Created Segregation: Urban renewal disproportionately displaced Black and immigrant communities. Residents were forced to relocate, often to other segregated areas. The new development was too expensive for former residents.
Why It's Still Legal: Urban renewal itself is less common now, but eminent domain remains legal. The patterns it created persist through neighborhood demographics and property values.
The Impact: Formerly Black neighborhoods (West End, Scollay Square) are now predominantly white and wealthy. The displacement created patterns that persist today.
Why It's Here: Urban renewal was the most destructive segregation tool—displacing entire communities and replacing them with exclusionary development.
7️⃣7. Highway Construction (1950s-1960s) — Destroyed Black Neighborhoods
Subscribe to Market Pulse
Get weekly Boston suburban real estate insights delivered to your inbox.
Share This Stat
The Policy: Highway construction in the 1950s-1960s routed interstates through Black neighborhoods. I-95, I-93, and the Central Artery demolished Roxbury, Dorchester, and the South End to connect white suburbs to downtown.
Why It Created Segregation: Highway construction disproportionately destroyed Black neighborhoods. Residents were displaced, and the highways created physical barriers that reinforced segregation.
Why It's Still Legal: Highway construction remains legal, though environmental and community impact reviews are now required. The patterns it created persist through neighborhood demographics.
The Impact: Formerly Black neighborhoods (Roxbury, Dorchester) remain lower-income and more diverse. The highways created physical and economic barriers that persist today.
Why It's Here: Highway construction was the most visible segregation tool—destroying entire neighborhoods and creating barriers that persist today.
8️⃣8. Public Housing Location (1940s-1960s) — Concentrated Poverty
Share This Stat
The Policy: Public housing was built in specific neighborhoods (Roxbury, Dorchester, South End) rather than distributed across the region. This concentrated poverty and Black residents in urban areas.
Why It Created Segregation: Public housing location concentrated Black and low-income residents in specific neighborhoods. Suburbs had no public housing, effectively excluding lower-income families.
Why It's Still Legal: Public housing location decisions remain legal, though fair housing laws now require more equitable distribution. The patterns it created persist through neighborhood demographics.
The Impact: Formerly public housing neighborhoods (Roxbury, Dorchester) remain lower-income and more diverse. Suburbs remain higher-income and predominantly white.
Why It's Here: Public housing location was the most concentrated segregation tool—creating patterns that persist through neighborhood demographics.
9️⃣9. School District Boundaries (1970s-Present) — Maintain Segregation
Share This Stat
The Policy: School district boundaries align with town boundaries, creating separate districts for each town. Towns with high home prices (Dover, Weston, Wellesley) have separate districts that require $2M+ entry fees.
Why It Created Segregation: School district boundaries align with housing prices. Towns with high home prices have separate districts that exclude lower-income families. The result: segregated schools that reflect segregated housing.
Why It's Still Legal: School district boundaries are legal. Towns can maintain separate districts, as long as they don't discriminate on their face. The MBTA Communities Act doesn't address school boundaries.
The Impact: Towns with high home prices (Dover, Weston, Wellesley) have separate districts that remain 1-3% Black, compared to 9.6% statewide. The boundaries maintain segregation.
Why It's Here: School district boundaries are the most persistent segregation tool—legal, effective, and still in use today.
🔟10. MBTA Communities Act Resistance (2024-Present) — Reveals Exclusionary Intent
Share This Stat
The Policy: The MBTA Communities Act (2021) requires 177 towns near transit to zone for multifamily housing by right. Some towns (Milton, Marblehead, Dover) have resisted or fought compliance.
Why It Created Segregation: MBTA Communities Act resistance reveals exclusionary intent. Towns that vote progressive nationally resist local housing integration. The resistance maintains exclusion by design.
Why It's Still Legal: MBTA Communities Act resistance is legal (though non-compliance has consequences). Towns can fight state mandates, as long as they're not discriminatory on their face.
The Impact: Towns that resist the MBTA Act (Milton, Marblehead, Dover) maintain exclusionary zoning. Towns that embrace it (Arlington, Newton, Brookline) show genuine integration efforts.
Why It's Here: MBTA Communities Act resistance is the most revealing segregation tool—it shows which towns maintain exclusion by design versus genuine integration efforts.
📊The Pattern: What This Tells Us
All 10 policies share the same pattern:
1. Historical Policies (1930s-1970s) Created Boundaries
Redlining, restrictive covenants, urban renewal, and highway construction created racial and economic boundaries that persist today.
2. Modern Policies (1968-Present) Maintain Exclusion
Minimum lot sizes, single-family-only zoning, exclusionary building codes, and school district boundaries maintain exclusion by design.
3. Resistance to Integration (2024-Present) Reveals Intent
MBTA Communities Act resistance shows which towns maintain exclusion by design versus genuine integration efforts.
4. Legal But Effective
Most policies are legal (or were legal when created). They maintain exclusion through price, not explicit discrimination.
5. Progressive Voting ≠ Inclusive Housing
Towns that vote progressive nationally (Milton, Dover, Wellesley) often resist local housing integration—revealing the gap between rhetoric and practice.
What This Means for Homebuyers
• Research your target town's zoning history and MBTA Communities Act compliance
• Look for towns that embraced (not just complied with) the MBTA Act
• Understand that 'excellent' schools often come with exclusionary costs
• Compare towns that balance school quality with genuine diversity
If you prioritize school quality above all:
• Understand that you're buying into an exclusionary system by design
• 'Excellent' schools often reflect student demographics, not just instruction
• Value districts (Hopkinton, Acton-Boxborough) deliver identical outcomes at half the price
If you want to understand town history:
• Research redlining maps, zoning changes, and MBTA Act compliance
• Understand which towns maintain exclusion by design versus genuine integration
• Compare towns that embraced housing reform versus those that resisted it
🤔Which Policy Surprised You Most?
The 'Big Downzone' of 1968-1975? Towns increased minimum lot sizes during the busing crisis—effectively excluding Black families through price alone.
Restrictive covenants legal until 1968? Deeds explicitly prohibited 'non-Caucasian' ownership until the Fair Housing Act.
MBTA Communities Act resistance? Towns that vote progressive nationally resist local housing integration—revealing the gap between rhetoric and practice.
Highway construction destroying Black neighborhoods? I-95, I-93, and the Central Artery demolished Roxbury, Dorchester, and the South End to connect white suburbs to downtown.
Share your reaction in the comments, or tag someone choosing towns who needs to see this.
🔍 Understand Your Target Town's History
Use our Town Finder to identify communities that balance school quality with genuine diversity. Research zoning history and MBTA Communities Act compliance.
Try Town Finder📚Further Reading
Related Posts:
- The Progressive Fortress: How Boston's Liberal Suburbs Built America's Most Effective Segregation System — Deep dive into the 'Big Downzone' and structural racism
- MBTA Communities Act: Boston's Housing Revolution — Which towns complied, which fought, and what it means
Next Week: Listicle Tuesday #7 drops next Tuesday at 10 AM. Subscribe to ensure you don't miss it.
Need Custom Analysis?
Want deeper insights for a specific property or neighborhood? Get a custom research report tailored to your needs—from individual property analysis to comprehensive market overviews.
Request Custom Analysis