At the rate that teardowns have been happening for years, it seems that many houses must have a negative value, with the value of the property being higher as a buildable lot than with a house on it. It looks like it’s about to happen in my relatively modest neighborhord. The house in this photo has been vacant for a couple of years, it looks like the prior owners’ son bought it for $1, there are DigSafe marks all over the street, and now the sewer’s been disconnected.
Recently, someone I know in Newton Highlands got one of those ‘want to sell your house?’ letters that said it didn’t matter what condition it’s in, which she interpreted, not happily, as being told her house is a teardown.
I’m not sure what square footage in Newton is worth now, but I just had another indication it’s going 
up. I recently met Jack Leader, the candidate for Ward 2 ward alderman, at our 40th Newton High School reunion. One of his issues is, where are people our age going to live when we get (pick your term) old/elderly? We were talking about the Austin Street parcel (he was on the Joint Advisory Planning Group committee that developed the criteria for developers’ proposals to meet) as the type of housing that would be desirable for empty-nesters and pre-nesters. Another classmate said, that’s 18 units, where are the rest of us going to live, and Jack offered as one possibility, that the new owners of Shaw’s Supermarkets want to talk about developing their air rights over the Turnpike in Newtonville into some kind of multi-use project, residential, commercial, with parking. Interested to the extent of being willing to put in elevators to make not just the Newtonville commercial rail stop handicap-accessible, but also West Newton!
Maybe this is old news to people more up on development issues than I am (as well as being Mike Striar’s dream), but it was news to me. Given the discussion here a few months ago about the economics of air rights development, it makes me think acreage in Newton must really be going up in value.
I wonder, though, if the ‘empty-nester’ housing that everyone seems to want, will only accelerate the teardown phenomenon, which may be inevitable anyway absent some change in zoning. If the only thing keeping some people in houses larger than they need, is the lack of a smaller place in Newton to move to, providing that smaller option could speed up the loss of (relatively) affordable houses, and their replacement by the largest thing a developer can build. It’s great for the seller who is cashing out, and the developer making a profit, but what will it turn Newton into?
Lets put it this way… A couple making 250k a year would really think twice about buying in Newton. Yes… fantastic schools, but what will you get for that 700-800k house? Not a whole heckuvalot. Then the couple making 250k a year says “but I can’t afford to do the teardown route.” So they move on and look for cheaper pastures.
All in, your household income to get into this wonderful city has to be astronomical, unless you want to live in a house that hasn’t been updated since the 1970s. Those of you lucky enough to own here, I salute you. I don’t think I ever will.
Don’t get me started. It seems like there’s a Port-a-Potty on every street in Waban, and if you have one of these monster houses going up in your street, you have to watch the developers like a hawk or they break every rule in the book.
Lots to contemplate here. And I appreciate the acknowledgement of being a long time advocate of air-rights development. Regarding those air-rights, there won’t be any significant movement forward until the City of Newton clarifies the pathway for developers. So I’m not holding my breath on that one. Regarding tear-downs, I view them in a positive light, unless they impact something of historical significance. I do think that neighbors have to be considered. One of the things that would make tear-downs less burdensome on neighbors, would be for the city to prohibit the removal of ledge by jackhammer. Overall though, tear-downs are a renewal, and add value to the tax base.
There are currently 4 tear-downs within a block or so of my house. Single-familes and one two-family, all being rebuilt as multi-unit townhouse condos. I’m sure all will be 3 bedrooms, geared toward families. These are the kinds of teardowns we see all time in this area, and they contribute greatly to the enrollment issues at our schools.
@Tricia– That’s quite alarming. Single family homes turned into multi unit townhouses. Please don’t take anything I wrote to be supportive of that outcome. I wonder what mechanism is used to address zoning constraints. Do you know if these conversions are Chapter 40b, which allows developers to override local zoning?
This area isn’t zoned single-family, it’s a mix of single and two-family houses.
I suspect this may be a minority opinion … Tearing down a house to put in a 3 unit townhouse seems healthier for the city then tearing down a house to make a giant single family house.
Jerry-If the city had the funds to support the additional population to the schools, it might very well be a good solution. However, these units are located in a chronically overcrowded school district. Where are we going to put these kids? What is the plan?
Our neighborhood also has the “town house” complex. Older single homes are frequently torn down and a townhouse is built. Yes, the builder makes THREE times as much then one house, however now there are three families instead of one, all using the same resources. Instead of one family with two cars, we now have six cars. And if that happens THREE times in one year your neighborhood has more cars than it did two years ago.
We live in a house that would never be built again in Newton. We live in a three bedroom Cape Cod style home. Our house is 1,000 square feet. Our house was built in 1926.
There is no way our house would be built in Newton today. But I love my house. I just hope that when the other houses in my neighborhood turn over, we don’t continue to townhouse every property. We bought a house in the 1990’s that was “old” and needed to be renovated. . . . . and we lived there for 15 years before we updated the kitchen. This was our first home. Even though the kitchen was old, and the house was “small” we have made the house our home.
I would love to have some builders just update a home instead of tear it down to build a monster home or a town home. Where are those builders?
One of the first things I’ve seen many developers do, even if its just a minor rehab, is cut down all the major trees in the lot. Over the decades, we’ve lost a bunch of trees more than a century old in our neighborhood, thanks to developers who maybe feel it makes the lot look bigger, and the lawn look lusher.
@Newton Mom, I believe your post is the first time I’ve seen “townhouse” used as a verb. We would probably like each other’s houses. My kitchen has no place to even put a dish washer, but I don’t want one. My dishwasher is me. I do have a pantry that I love. 🙂
@dulles, you’ve noticed that, too, huh? The trees issue deserves its own thread, which I will try to do soon. But briefly, we do have a Tree Preservation Ordinance (See http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/forestry/ordinance.asp ) that works pretty well for large developments or institutions cutting down trees. But for teardown and other 1- to 4-family residential buildings, it’s a bit loophole-y. Developers are getting around the tree replacement requirements by getting the prior owner to cut down the trees as a condition of the sale (this happened on Wilde Rd recently). Or pre-selling to the ultimate owner who will then meet the 12 months residency requirement for exemption from the ordinance. Or the developer will claim exemption by saying they “intend” to occupy for 12 months.
Please read the ordinance, and if you can figure out how to fix that in a way that can get passed, we’re all ears!
@Juli.a – speaking of unusual language … I love “loophole-y” as an adjective
What I’m wondering is whether developers are using 40b to turn single family and two family homes into three or more townhouses. The impact of 40b on our schools is obvious when it’s a large apartment building. More insidious with smaller projects. Does anyone know what mechanism these developers are using to turn one and two-family homes into three or more townhouse units? I can’t imagine they comply with zoning.
@Mike, there are several options available to developers who want to create multi-family housing on a lot. In any residential zone, they could seek a special permit to create attached dwellings if the lot is greater than 15,000 square feet and the setbacks are sufficient. In some zones, developers could seek a special permit to create multi-family dwelling of three or more units. Or the developers could go the 40B route. But it does not necessarily follow that all of the units would be marketed to families. Indeed, if the units included studio or one-bedroom dwellings it would be ideal for seniors and empty nesters.
The 4 projects I’m referring to are all in Ward 3 – and 3 of them are on the same block on Elm St. (near West Newton Common.) I don’t believe any are 40B but I don’t know for sure.
Tricia, at least one of the projects on Elm Street is a special permit for attached dwellings, which allowed the developer to save a historic house. I am not familiar with the other 3.
The developer did “save” the shell of the former house (and I say shell loosely – you could see right through whatever was left, and for a while it was propped up several feet in the air and then dropped back down on a new foundation.) I just happened to drive by and could see down the driveway – it looks like there are at least two, maybe 3 sets of townhouses attached. So it went from a parcel with 1 or 2 units (I’m not sure if it was being used as a two family) on a large lot with lots of open space to at least 5 – 7 units that take up most of the lot, between buildings and driveway. From the foundations of the other 2 projects on Elm, it looks like one will be 4 units and the other at least 6. It looks like they will be the attached 2-story townhouse style, with garages and 2-3 bedrooms. Are the plans for these types of developments public?
Tricia, the special permit project on Elm Street went from two units to 4 attached dwellings.
My mistake then – it sure looked like at least two or three attached structures (hard to see as they run directly behind the house), and each structure looked like a duplex. So four total units, including the main house? Meaning occupied by four families? If that’s the case, then those are 4 big units – certainly not studios or one-bedrooms.
All I can say, is come on over to Oak Hill park if you want to see teardowns and mcmansionization on steroids. This is of real concern to many of us in the neighborhood. The historical significance and integrity of this originally public/private partnership designed as an affordable neighborhood for returning WWII Newton GI’s and their families is one of the only neighborhoods that one can get an ‘affordable’ (OK 350,000-450,000) small home in a beautiful parklike setting. But estates are selling faster to builders than the builders can even solicit; which they do; relentlessly. Some homes are going on the market and being renovated with care and integrity for the neighborhood. Oak Hill Park is also one of the only starter communities in metro Boston that has flat topography and homes that are conducive to wheelchair accessibility and aging in place. Because of loopholes in the building code, the changes in grade in the new construction of homes in OHP CREATE barriers excluding people with disabilities, our older and newly disabled veterans and older people the opportunity to buy both starter and retirement homes. The city really needs to stop talking out of both sides of its’ mouth when it comes to affordability, accessibility, preservation and conservation and be consistent with policies and regulations that ensure both future growth but also a place for all of us to live.
@Julia, thanks for the link! Unfortunately all the recent projects in our neighborhood have been owner/developer projects. Nobody knows if work is being done on a property prior to the owner moving in, or if the house is just going to be flipped — that is, until the for-sale sign goes up again. These people come in and cut down the trees; bump out, renovate, or otherwise re-muddle the property to dress it up; and then put it back on the market for a huge upcharge.
There are some established, small-scale developers who are conscientious and concerned about doing quality work; but I would characterize the ones in our neighborhood opportunists, who are trying to flip while the economy’s hot.
Tricia, the units are all around just under 3000 square feet. Despite the downturn in the housing market generally, units like these generally sell pretty quickly and for top dollar because Newton is close to Boston and West Newton has public transit to downtown. If you are interested in a specific project, you can visit the Inspectional Services Desk on the second floor of city hall, give them the address and you can review the plans (which are now scanned and can also be printed out).
Just found the petition for “a total of four attached dwellings in two structures at 37 ELM STREET.” http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/38499
Unless something changed, four units in two buildings. (The main house, a unit attached to the main house, and a separate building with 2 units.) All over 3,000 sq feet. With 2-car garages. Doesn’t sound like they are geared to empty-nesters.
So what’s your guess? Does Burr School 6, 8, 10 or 12 new students? I say 10.
Tricia, the units were reduced in size prior to approval of the special permit. But, you are correct, these are not going to be marketed to empty nesters.
Jane, two new units (in addition to the two existing units on the site) probably equals maybe 4-6 additional kids in the Newton Public Schools spread out over K-12, plus additional tax revenues for the city.
Ted, you are probably correct that this project would equal 4-6 kids. But the there’s the other 2 projects on the same street, plus another coming on the next street over (Oak). Plus there’s the new one 2 blocks away on the corner of Waltham and Webster, and I just noticed today that the house behind that one on Webster is down to a shell. None of them are “big” deveopments. But all these smaller projects start to add up to a lot of kids – and they’re all Franklin/Day/North. (Would have been Burr until 2 years ago when they moved the buffer zone lines due to overcrowding at Burr.)
Ted – you clearly haven’t been watching the numbers climb at Burr School in the last few years. Each tear down, development of new streets, and redevelopment, more kids have enrolled at Burr. The answer is always the same from the aldermen – some underestimate of new students, and the overcrowding persists.
Jane,
You are so right…..somehow the Avalon apartments attracted more families than expected…..which was a surprise to some alderman, but not the general public. If 50 single family houses are converted to four unit town homes a year…..we have over crowding. Street and school. I hope this discussion brings that point out to some.
Jane and Tricia, by right, the developer of the four attached dwellings on Elm Street could have waited out the demolition delay, torn down the existing historical house with two units, and built a monster two family house and garages on the property, and made a tidy profit. Visit West Newton Hill and you will see what I am talking about. Throughout the neighborhood, people are selling their multi-million dollar Victorian homes to developers, who scrape the property and put up 11,000 square foot houses by right without needing any zoning relief from the Board of Aldermen or the Zoning Board of Appeals at all. So you may see some gigantic new two-family dwellings in your neighborhoods that are 3000 plus square feet, that will be be flipped and converted to condos that sell for over $1 million, because the market is hot for it. I suppose we could lock the door to anyone who wants to move into Newton that has kids, but that just doesn’t seem right to me. For me, I would rather see smaller attached dwellings in neighborhoods that are mostly two families than monster condos.
The Burr district knows all to well about residential development. Forget about tear downs – in the Burr district, they create whole new streets. This is a school that will be at risk for overcrowding.
This whole conversation seems to center on over development and therefore overcrowding in a multitude of ways which create s a bigger drain on the city; congestion, overcrowding in schools, energy consumption, green space, affordability, historic preservation, accessibility for people with disabilities and our aging population. etc etc etc
Measures could be put in place that center more on quality of life vs profit. Can the Board of Alderman take a look at this and put a moratorium in some areas; like Oak Hill Park and others mentioned?
Tricia, I did want to follow up about Elm Street so I took a stroll this morning to see the new construction. It appears to me that the builders are constructing what look like very large attached dwellings with separate foundations by exploiting what I consider to be a loophole in the city’s definition of “two-family dwellings.” I have docketed a couple of items on two families and attached dwellings that were discussed in the Zoning and Planning Committee earlier this week, which are intended to close this loophole and lead to better design. Thanks for giving me a heads up.
What Lisa said!
Tricia, I did want to follow up about Elm Street so I took a stroll this morning to see the new construction. It appears to me that the builders are constructing what look like very large attached dwellings with separate foundations by exploiting what I consider to be a loophole in the city’s definition of “two-family dwellings.” I have docketed a couple of items on two families and attached dwellings that were discussed in the Zoning and Planning Committee earlier this week, which are intended to close this loophole and lead to better design. Thanks for giving me a heads up.
THM – How many houses are they putting in at the New Construction on Watertown Street near the BG club? It certainly seems pretty big.
Joanne, that is another two-family that resembles attached dwellings. This was one of the projects that prompted my docket item.
Several years back, when I served on the City’s Planning & Development Board, we had a wonderful committee member, Professor Siciliano. We noted the same phenomenon at that time and the professor described it as connecting two single family homes with a “string of linguini” in order to get past the requirements……the City did not seem to want to take note then; hopefully, Ted, you can do something now, probably a decade later.
Native Newtonian, the current ordinance actually was supposed to address the so-called “linguini effect” by requiring that two-family dwelling must have living spaces that share a common wall and a common roof. Nevertheless, the way it was worded left open the possibility that, as in a number of new constructions, add a small living space separated by a common wall and joined by a common roof behind a garage which connects two structures on separate foundations.
As part of its zoning reform efforts, the planning department and the board of aldermen are looking at “form based zoning” which uses both words and illustrations to promote better design that is more in character with surrounding structures. The committee gave the planning department the go ahead to use the for based zoning approach to fix the ordinances relating to two family dwellings and attached dwellings. This approach could serve as a template for future zoning reform efforts if it is successful.
A damper on the size of a house or a housing unit by a builder would be most encouraged by a reduction of the allowable Floor Area Ratio, ( FAR ). ie, the amount of floor area you can build on any given lot size.
Currently you would be allowed to build 5,200 square feet of construction on a 10,000 square foot lot. That is a FAR of .52 , currently in effect on a MR1 property. That would provide for 2 symmetrical units of 2600 sf each which a clever designer could easily get 4 bedrooms into.
Obviously the easiest way to reduce unit size, number of bedrooms etc. would be to lower the FAR. For example the reduction from .52 to .40 would produce a unit of 2000 sf. This unit would cost less, produce a 3 bedroom unit and most likely impact the developers profit margins resulting in a probable loss of enthusiasm in the pursuit of a project, on his part, and a slow down in the teardowns we see so much of.