Building curbs lift housing cost here

Real estate developers often grumble about how difficult it is to win permission to build housing in the Boston area. Now they have proof.

Boston and its suburbs collectively ranked second, behind the Providence area, among major US metropolitan areas measured for the severity of their land-use restrictions on residential construction, according to a study released yesterday by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

"Almost everything in your metropolitan area is highly regulated," said one of the authors, Joseph Gyourko, a Wharton professor of real estate and finance.

Heavy regulation of residential construction by municipal zoning departments and elected officials is a popular tool to control growth, or preserve open space and historic structures. But these restrictions can drive up housing prices by making it more difficult for developers to build projects.

"It's helping cause high prices because it's a limit on supply," he said.

Housing prices are a major issue in Massachusetts. Economists have argued the costs hamper growth in the area. Many working-class families have been priced out of the housing market, and the state is losing younger professionals to parts of the country where housing is cheaper.

Wharton surveyors reviewed 2,649 cities and towns across the country, including Boston and 40 of its suburbs, and grouped results into 47 metropolitan areas. They used standard building regulations to measure receptivity to construction, such as allowable building height and neighborhood density, as well as the number of approvals required for a project.

The Boston-area ranking was influenced by policies in some communities that require minimum lot sizes that are much larger than in Midwestern and Southern cities and towns. Other indicators used by the Wharton group include the high level of involvement by local elected officials, neighbors, community groups -- and even the courts -- in reviewing or objecting to residential projects and zoning proposals.

Land-use and housing construction regulation is largely the domain of municipal governments, and the state has limited ability to override or change local rules. Former governor Mitt Romney pushed legislation that offers incentives and tools to municipalities to permit more developments, near transit stations for example.

Governor Deval Patrick will pick up where Romney left off, said Daniel O'Connell, secretary of housing and economic development. For example, the Patrick administration will target $100 million allocated last year by the state Legislature for roads, sewers, and other infrastructure to those municipalities that complete housing-permitting processes within 180 days, O' Connell said. Another new measure authorizes grants to municipal planners to help them analyze housing proposals submitted by developers, he said.

The goal is to "incentivize communities to welcome development," O'Connell said.

Municipal officials said criticism of local regulations tends to overlook the benefits such controls provide.

Lexington Selectman Peter Kelley said the regulations preserve a certain lifestyle in his town, which tends to attract people who are activist and take an interest in how the community is run.

"It's a desirable community. It's expensive to live here," he said. Regulation "keeps the developers honest and good, because if they're not, the marketplace won't accept them."

But developers, such as Carl Valeri , president of The Hamilton Cos., said limits on building heights and housing density have a "sobering effect" on construction, as does the time some municipalities take to review projects. High costs for land, labor, and infrastructure also drive up housing prices, he said. Due to these barriers, "the end product has to be priced for someone making a six-figure salary," he said.

Kimberly Blanton can be reached at blanton@globe.com.