A timely article in Globe West today about a contractor in Needham trying to save older affordable homes in Needham from demolition by buying, renovating and selling them. Here’s what the developer, Barbara Jones, told the Globe:
“Just to take down an old house because it is small and you can build a 4,000-square-foot home on the lot, it takes away that opportunity for a family just starting out,” Jones said. “I want to preserve the older homes and keep the charming feel of our 300-year-old town, while providing homes in the price range that is becoming increasingly rare — $600,000 to $800,000.”
I say timely because just yesterday I got a letter from the Newton Historical Commission, because a house across from me, built in 1900, is proposed to be partially demolished and added onto. (At least this time I got a letter, and a mis-delivered one that should have gone to another neighbor. Last demolition, I never got any notice at all from the city. The Historical Commission might want to consider certified mail.)I don’t know if this is a typical month, but I was rather taken aback by the volume: seven requests to fully demolish, one for waiver of demolition delay, and four requests to partially demolish and add additions.
One of the full demos is 111 Webster Park (pictured here in Google Street View), built in 1890 and “NR Listed” which I presume is National Register of historic buildings, because it is one of the remaining two-family “workers cottages” that are part of West Newton’s history. (There are two similar ones on Webster Street across from the playground.) Tearing this one down would be a singularly bad idea.
Are we doomed to see every moderately priced house in Newton eventually torn down for something bigger, probably 50% more expensive (if not more) and with the accompanying loss of permeable surfaces and open space?
Same thing happening in my neighborhood and at an accelerated pace. The mayor favors this kind of change because it greatly increases his tax base.
This is a tremendous problem for exactly the reasons the developer named above notes. We are losing our history and our architectural heritage. Just as importantly, we keep pricing Newton further and further out of the range of families just starting out. And then we wonder why our kids move away when they grow up….
So how do we do something about it?
A few weeks ago, out of the blue, I received a call from a realtor asking me if I was thinking of “moving down the road”. I asked him why would I move down the road when I had a perfectly fine house right here, and by the way what house down the road was on the market? There was a terribly awkward silence, as he tried to figure out how to tell me that he’d called because of my age. As he hemmed and hawed, the light bulb went off in my head and I was able to let him off the hook – in a way. I told him I was offended by the call and to please remove my name from his list. He apologized profusely and appeared to be extremely happy to end the phone call.
Funny story, but not a funny situation. Realtors and developers are actively seeking out long time residents and offering much higher prices for their homes than they could get on the open market. It’s changing the character of the city, and that’s a shame.
It’s making a lot of money for people with homes that might not sell so well, when all the developer wants is the land the house is on. It’s also making the city real estate much more valuable even for those who are still sitting in the houses that they’ve had for years, even if they’re purchased by people who really want the house. And the city looks nicer with more new and elegant houses, than with the houses that were built quickly after the war in the fifties in order to satisfy a growing demand for housing for vets who didn’t have a lot of money.
Many people buy their first house in a less expensive community than Newton and then buy up when their incomes rise and the equity in their houses allows a greater down payment. Nothing wrong with that. Every town doesn’t have to be a microcosm of the entire cross-section of the US. Weston isn’t, nor is Carlisle or Dover or many other very nice towns.
And, besides, there are still less expensive neighborhoods in Newton. These developers are focusing mainly on Newton Center and the south side.
@Barry – Much of this is of course in the eye of the beholder. One of the thing I most like about my neighborhood (Upper Falls) is that its filled with small older houses.
I think the general principle though is that the city’s zoning and other regulations should encourage the type of development that we as a community would like to see more of.
I was recently down in Dallas. Up until very recently they prided themselves on having just about no zoning of any kind. Their approach was to rely totally on market forces. You could build whatever you wanted wherever you wanted. The results are what you’d expect. Large chunks of the city have all sorts of development that few city’s would aspire to.
We can have all sorts of differences about what sorts of development we’d like to see more of. Replacing smaller houses with newer bigger houses is not necessarily an improvement to a neighborhood, though it certainly can be.
Tearing down that lovely house in Julia’s photo above to build one of the generic large new houses that are going up around the city would almost certainly be a net loss to that neighborhood.
How the city manages the new development is not a simple question but just answering it based on simply what makes the most money for the developer or what brings in the most tax revenue will tend to lead to plenty of development that none of us like. That’s why we have zoning regulations.
@Julia – I don’t believe this is an atypical month. Tear downs are happening at an alarming rate all across the city. Even Historical Commission members have expressed concern at the increased number of historically significant homes coming up for review before them. I think anything pre-dating 1900 should be put in a separate category from the rest and have a longer (maybe 2 yr) demolition delay than the standard 1 or 1.5 yr which can be imposed as an incentive to renovate and maybe modestly expand rather than tear down (there is still good money to be made even with the more modest homes). The footer on the City of Newton letterhead reads “Preserving the Past; Planning for the Future”. Seems to me we’re ignoring the first part. Getting back to Webster Park, I sure hope this house doesn’t get torn down!
Peter, it appears that your suggestion of lengthening the time of a demolition delay has been considered, and is something that has helped in other towns, but it does not appear to have been adopted in Newton. This memo from the Planning Department makes interesting, though rather depressing, reading. It seems that in the past, the Historical Commission and Planning were so inundated with waiver requests that they just granted them. They don’t do that anymore, but they have loosened the thresholds for what percent of an exterior facade being removed or covered requires staff or Commission review, so they don’t have to look at as many.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/32409
This is the current Planning Department webpage concerning demolition delays:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/histpres/projrev/demrevfaq.asp
It looks like the recommendation to not consider waiver requests until four months have passed was adopted, but increasing the demolition delay to 18 months was not adopted, even for National Register listed properties. Maybe someone knows why.
And then there’s the whole question of whether a demolition delay is even imposed. I’m not sure how often it even happens. The people in Oak Hill Park who are concerned about the loss of the original, affordable and accessible houses, have not had much success even in having houses voted ‘preferably preserved.’ So if the objective is to preserve older affordable homes, and architectural heritage, the demolition delay ordinance seems inadequate. The last revision to FAR doesn’t seem to be much help either. Or maybe it’s a case of ‘things could be even worse.’
Jane, interesting euphemism, that “moving down the road.” I expect he’s revised his pitch since then.
This blog has the most ridiculous crew. Let’s depress property values. You gotta be kidding me. Real Estate is an investment. It’s not a vehicle for to make no money. Give me a break.
When a home or other structure has genuine historical significance, I’m all for preserving it. Beyond that, I’d prefer not to cling to the past. I don’t assume the architects of yesteryear to be, for one reason or other, more gifted than the architects of 2014. It’s a cold hard fact of life… things change. You preserve what’s truly important, and let lesser important things slip into the past, preserving them only in memory… [The Pillar House comes to mind].
I was fortunate to have dual residency in the 90’s, splitting my time between Newton and LA. The San Fernando Valley was experiencing boom-times in tear-downs. In my honest opinion, it came out of it none the worse for wear. There were some amazing new homes constructed, and an expanded tax base to boot.
As Kim suggests, the best approach to reducing tear downs is to make the neighborhood unprofitable for new homes. That’s not what we want to do, right?
(I believe the house in the pic might be 1890s possibily, but the 1950’s era changes don’t really have the charm that speaks 1890s)
@Kim. Real estate is NOT solely an investment – that’s the problem. A home provides so much more than that – a place to live, to bring up families, enjoy one’s surroundings, and be part of and contribute to the community. Nobody is suggesting we depress property values, but we also can’t have every modestly sized home on a decent size lot, or every home in an MR zone be being targeted as a potential tear down. Do yourself a favor and drive down Elm St, or Webster, or Oak St near the baseball field and have a look at all the development going on there where modest homes have been torn down and replaced with large million dollar townhomes or existing homes have been tripled in size. The new builds may may look nice, but the density has more than doubled and a lot of green space gone. So we get progress in that we have more tax revenue, but along with it more people, more vehicles, less open space, fewer mature trees, along with an aging infrastructure which can’t handle these increases.
I had thought that there were zoning laws regarding the % of the lot that can be built on. Clearly, there isn’t. Or if there is, it isn’t enforced. All the new stuff in Newton Center covers a much bigger portion of the lot footprint than the original. Another lovely aspect of this is that I don’t have watch the Sopranos on TV anymore, I can just gaze with horror on the houses popping up all around me. I expect to see Tony Soprano walking out in his robe to grab the paper.
The answer is the city’s land-use laws. Older homes are subject to the historic commission’s demolition delay rule. Given the older age of many of Newton’s houses, a lot of houses will need to jump over that hurdle.
The new FAR feature of the zoning by-law was imposed to prevent overbuilding on the lot. It was meant to preserve green space on house lots.
Buildings deteriorate and need to be replaced or modified as living habits change and communities change. The original floor plan of 1890 house is unlikely to meet the expectations of a 2014 family.
It’s better that we allow our housing stock to be replenished and updated than for families to look to other communities to meet their needs.
Affordability is an issue, but that’s not fixed by keeping buildings in place just because they are older.
@Peter– It sounds to me like you object to the way the housing market works, and is supposed to work.
Most homeowners consider their home to be their greatest financial asset. Overregulation diminishes the value of their asset, and I don’t think it makes for good policy. We should work to save those structures that have genuine historic or architectural significance. That’s where the line should be drawn. Beyond credible preservation, things get very subjective. I don’t want the government making other decisions that make it difficult for people to sell their home. Things like a two year waiting period, cross the threshold of reasonableness, into the realm of punitive deal-killers.
I think the key issue with knockdowns is the size of the replacement house. If a home owner or new owner wants to rebuild or replace their house I don’t think we should be discouraging that.
The problems come in when a smaller house is replaced with a much bigger house – which is almost always the case. I’d like to see the allowed size of the replacement house be much more closely linked to the house its replacing.
If an old beat up house is replaced with a comparable sized new house, nearly everybody’s happy and the new house doesn’t significantly affect the surrounding neighborhood.
Jerry, I’d prefer that it does affect the surrounding neighborhood. They are usually an improvement and they increase the values of the houses that are still there. If a builder couldn’t build a bigger house, he wouldn’t buy the lot just to do a teardown and rebuild. A case can be made for zoning, of course, but I don’t think the developers are violating any zoning regulations in place at the moment.
Agreed Jerry. My biggest gripe with development in Newton is the sheer size of the builds being done by developers.
Barry – The big new house always increases the value of that property but often times decreases the value of the immediate abutters. This happened to us with the last house we owned. In some cases you’re right, it may increase the overall property values in the neighborhood. In others, not.
Maybe because we have some personal experience with it I’m particularly sensitive to the possible downsides for abutters when a replacement house mushrooms into a house that’s twice as big as the original.
Jerry, what is your definition (or better yet, what is an acceptable definition) of “an old beat up house? You say nearly everybody’s happy. One of the primary people who may not be happy by your proposed restriction would be the homeowner, who may have lived in that house for years and taken care of the property to the best of his/her physical and financial means. S/he invested in the house as a place to rasie a family and also as a financial nestegg for retirement. That has been an accepted method of personal investment for decades. Now all of a sudden you want to change the rules when it is too late to alter their retirement strategy. What is fair about that?
The FAR presently is tied to the property size not the size of the existing house. This rule is neutral relative to personal income. By changing it, one would now be favoring people with larger existing homes (in many cases wealthier people) versus smaller homes regardless of plot size.
Patrick – “an old beat up house” is beside the point. The owner can choose to rebuild or tear down their house for whatever reason they want.
Whatever the rules for tearddown/rebuilding, homeowners can continue to treat their houses as investments in hopes of appreciating real estate values.
Yes, if the city allows a small house to be torn down and a much bigger one built that will tend to increase the value of that property. Likewise, if the city allows a small house to be torn down and a five story, 10 unit building to be put in its place that would drive the price up even more.
By your logic, no zoning rules can ever be changed. For that matter, by that same logic, no zoning rules could ever have been first instituted.
You say that the existing FAR rule is neutral. I’d say it is no more or less neutral. Under FAR rules, some houses are allowed to be expanded, others are not. You say that changing the rules would somehow favor people with large houses. I don’t see how. Whether your house was small or large, a replacement house’s size would need to be proportional to the original.
The issue I mentioned earlier is also not “fair”. If one home owner rebuilds a house twice as big as the original and as a result the abutting houses are now less desirable and less valuable, how is that fair?
Or when a small to average house is torn down and three town houses go up! The property goes from two cars to six cars most likely…..and one house with two kids is now three houses with six kids.
Newton Mom,
I tend to more agree with you, but that’s an issue of zoning. Areas zoned for single-family homes are the ones where tear-downs occur like we’re discussing. To go to multi-family structures requires re-zoning, unless zoning already allowed it and no-one ever did it. That kind of re-building could reduce the value of neighboring single-family homes and change the neighborhood, and is a different discussion, I think.
@Barry. The house in question which kicked off this discussion is zoned MR1 so Newton Mom’s concerns are absolutely valid.
Peter,
So, I guess we all agree.
What I see, and what some people seem to be discussing, and what is really common now in Newton is small homes being torn down and replaced with very large and expensive homes. This is what I don’t mind, but seems to bother some people here.
@Barry. I see both forms happening – large singles in SR zones and large multi-family builds in MR zones like the area around Elm St, Oak and Webster in question. Both forms infringe on the neighbors and can negatively affect the value thereof because these are large builds on small lots. Large homes on large lots are not as intrusive because one can have sufficient space and greenery between neighbors.
Jerry, I was replying to you while you were replying to Barry. I now see that your recommendation is based upon your unpleasant personal experience, which is significantly different from what I have experienced in my neighborhood. I still do not agree with your thought process. I sense you are not interested in changing your position by anything I say. That’s fine; I do not think your comments have helped me to change my position.
I do not expect this blog to provide a solution to this complicated issue. I do hope the comments offered by both sides will be read by our elected officials, and that they realize they need to have a useful discussion to find common ground upon which to base any change to the existing laws and regulations. The answer is not as simple as limiting the new construction to the size of what it is replacing.
Patrick – yes, I agree. It’s a complicated issue and won’t be settled here or settled simply. Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting limiting a new house to the same size as a tear down. I was suggesting that it be limited to some size based on the original house size – e.g x 1.5 for example.
Its also clear that there’s no clear consensus, at least on this blog.
Jerry,
I think your suggestion about limiting the size is already covered by regulations on how close to lot boundaries a house can be built. It seems that you don’t like the regulations and simply want them to be different. But, limiting the new house to something like 1.5 x the original might be ridiculous if someone happened to own a house with, say, an 800 sq ft footprint on a lot that is 1/4 acre or more because 150 years ago land was plentiful in Newton and many lots, a lot of which have since been broken up into smaller lots, were much larger than today. I know of such cases.
It’s difficult to please everyone.
The Zoning and Planning Committee held a lengthy public hearing last night on a petition to rezone part of Newton Centre from multi-residence to single family, ostensibly to protect existing single family houses from demolition and replacement with monster houses and condominiums. This is a multifaceted problem that has no easy fix and invokes competing interests of homeowners, developers and residents. Candidly, I fear that rezoning to single family will only accelerate the demolition of modest houses in favor of McMansions in this highly desirable Newton Centre neighborhood, which is conveniently located close to stores, restaurants, and public transit and has a number of large Victorian era houses already.
Jerry we seem to have had a little success in that THM is now actively invovled with this thread. I know Ted has been involved for with issue for quite some time. I am not sure I agree with Ted; however I have complete confidence that he will ensure that there will be meaningful discussion at the right level. That is good in my book.
I am not a fan of McMansions, yet I am more opposed to government having an ever more intrusive impact in my personal affairs. I say that because of the way I interpret your suggestion regarding a rebuild factor. Let’s use the 1.5 as an example. Barry offers one concern; I have a different angle. Let’s say we have two equal size and value plots of land next to each other so as to eliminate the value of the land from this example. Plot A has a 2,000 sq. ft. house; Plot B has a 3,000 sq. ft. house presently. Both houses are torn down, and they are replaced with houses of equal qulaity construction. Plot A can be built to 3,000 sq. ft; Plot B can be built to 4,500. The overall value of Plot B grows more than Plot A because the differential between the two houses’ new values has increased. That is why I stated owners of larger houses would be getting an advantage over owners of smaller houses using such a build factor method. To me, that is unfair.
Here’s one thing that won’t be torn down, for the foreseeable future:
AOL just announced that it will sell a controlling interest in Patch to Hale Global, a special situations technology investment firm.
The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. That probably means AOL got little or zero money from Hale Global for Patch. At least AOL will retain a minority equity interest in the new Patch LLC.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-just-disposed-of-controlling-interest-in-patch-2014-1#ixzz2qWDeqKQR
Whew Joshua that segue way was quite a stretch.
It would be a good segue way to a new thread or updating and refreshing this old one.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/12/patch-coms-future-in-doubt/#comment-41713
Also on the docket for the upcoming Newton Historical Commission meeting on 1/23 is a partial demolition request of the Turtle Playhouse:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/56413
I wonder what is planned for the property?
Peter, thanks for figuring that out. I didn’t recognize the address. I don’t know, but it likely involves expanding into what is now the parking lot.
The primary problem as I see it is that the FAR is just simply too high.
Individuals building for themselves, build as a means of self expression. They build to occupy with pride the shelter they aspire to. Developers motives are to maximize their profits. They build as inexpensively as necessary, and as large as they can, to attract wealthy buyers to purchase their product. Most buyers are not so sophisticated to be able to discern differences in quality, or whether or not there is steel in a foundation, what the sheathing is under the clapboards or if the plastic windows installed are long lived or weather tight. Developers most often do not hire architects to insure same. An architect will usually present with embarrassing problems and will cause the developer expenses he otherwise need not incur, cutting into his profit margins. In general the results of current day developer action, is a good record of our time. A time of material waste, over consumption, , environmental excess, and greed.
Easy demolition, not only displaces middle income homeowners and tenants, it rewards poor and or deferred maintenance and in general depresses the quality of the image of the city. It forces those not economically able to afford to remain in their homes into the subsidized housing units the city is forced to build to provide for them.
Newton is a mature city. It has been built out. Almost every empty lot has been developed. Growth, a term bandied about as a positive objective, in our most recent city planning efforts, in any other living organism, is looked on with a certain degree of skepticism or fear.
Cancer is a growth, a malignancy that is usually cut out or at least put under some kind of control lest it kill its host.
Our city should be viewed in much the same way.
Newton was initially built in villages formed along rail lines for those city dwellers able to afford to escape the heat, smoke, smell and congestion found there. It imposed on itself zones for living that still, for the most part, remain in place and provide the suburban amenities that inspired the creation of the city in the first place. If we can preserve those amenities, and even exploit them, we needn’t worry about making this place a haven for the even more wealthy that might be the market for the monster house or condo. The value of our homes, environmentally and economically
will be much more greatly enhanced than if every one lived in huge McMansions, casting long dark shadows on our neighbors tiny gardens. The primary mechanism to control a homes size is the Floor Area Ratio which must be reduced radically to keep development in perspective and the image of the city under control.
Interesting insights, NHC member. I also noticed the incentive for neglect in reading the demolition delay ordinance. One of the ways to get the delay waived was to get Inspectional Services to condemn the building.
Are you really an NHC member? If so, what do you think can be done? What can us regular people do?
Julia, I’m not sure what ‘incentive for neglect’ you’ve found in reading the delay ordinance. If you are writing about Inspectional Services condemnation of a building, this rarely occurs, and then, at times, when NHC has already weighed in , or been consulted on a property. Condemnation only happens when a house becomes a dangerous place, and it’s in most cases probably warranted.
I have on numerous occasions spoken out insisting that the NHC not reward the lack of proper maintenance with an easy demolition waiver. Often times owners or developers (after acquiring a property) will plead an economic hardship to implement a restoration and therefore ask that the building be allowed to be razed. I say that the market has already spoken,.. that the principle involved has already enjoyed the economic advantage accrued either in not affording the necessary repairs, or in the diminished purchase price paid for the tattered goods. But I only have one vote.
Am I really a NHC member ? Yes but why do you ask?
What can we do? We can try and get an education on these issues, think about defining what the problem(s) really are, and speak out to the citizenry, and our elected officials. I’ve tried outlining above, what I think the problems to be ( aesthetic and environmental degradation ). One of a number of ways of addressing same,, is the radical rethinking and reduction of the FAR. Monster homes have very little to do with multi vs single family zoning, either will get built as big as possible, with all of the resulting downsides ( long shadows, front yard parking, drainage, loss of green space and trees, etc etc. ).
@NHC Member, I only asked because we don’t (I think) really police screen names. You could probably call yourself Barack Obama as long as you only posted under the one name. 😉
I’m curious, does your “market has spoken” argument — which I certainly agree with — against waivers of delay usually prevail, or how often does it?
@NHC Member– I’m curious… Can you point to any residential teardown anywhere in the city that has resulted in diminished property values for the neighbors? It seems to me you make a purely philosophical argument that disregards all economic considerations. Are you seriously comparing economic growth to “cancer”?
@Mike Striar, NHC Member likened what he, I, and others view as excessive growth as analogous to a cancer. That’s very different from economic growth. Economic growth is something that makes us better off. Economists use measures such as per capita income and take into account the quality of life in defining what is desirable economic growth. Many of us don’t see our quality of life in Newton improving with added density both of building size and population. Instead we see growing traffic problems and its associated environmental costs, we see tax overrides to meet growing school populations that effectively reduce, not increase our disposable incomes, we see the wanton clearing of old growth trees and it’s negative effect on the environment, we see our streetscapes changing from neighborhood-friendly porches to parking spaces leading to garages, we see new houses closer to lot lines and curbs thereby changing Newton’s attractive, suburban garden city character to a denser urban model with its loss of privacy. And we certainly don’t equate more housing as economic growth in the per capital incomes of Newton residents. So we are all in favor of things that increase productivity and incomes – real economic growth, but simply adding more and bigger housing is not economic growth. If you disagree, then let’s have a serious discussion about what the benefits are to Newton from adding density, and then we can decide if the label “economic growth” fits what is occurring.
Not that there has ever been anything that Somerville could possibly do that would be at all of interest to Newton (ha!) see Renee Loth’s piece in today’s Boston Globe.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/01/18/somerville-little-city-that-could/Oa7nklkmzYp3PPjArSCRCP/story.html
Imagine what citywide communication and planning could. Might beat the piecemeal reactivity that has governed development in Newton.
Ron, thanks for describing what I see, too, but more eloquently than I could have.
Max, that’s an interesting column about Somerville. They are actually developing 125 new acres of open space? Given how dense Somerville is, they must be reclaiming it from something with stuff on it?
It came up in our monthly Urban Tree Commission meeting yesterday, as we were talking about tree loss related to development, that Newton’s master plan has a goal of I think 15% growth in housing units, because the population is forecast to increase. But the increase in population is in the very old and very young (20-somethings), and what’s being built currently in new housing are BIG, the opposite of what those age groups need. Maybe someone who knows more about the master plan can comment.
@Ron– I agree with some of what you say. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in this community who has railed longer or louder than I have against massive apartment buildings that add scores of children to neighborhood schools.
I accept the distinction you’re making between excessive growth and economic growth, but disagree with your definition of “excessive.” I’m sure we’d find at least some common ground debating what’s excessive in terms of commercial properties. But I couldn’t disagree more with you and NHC Member when it comes to single family residential homes, duplexes, and triplexes.
Homeowners have rights. Their home represents the single largest investment most people will make in their lifetimes. They should have the right to what they want with their property, within reason and without conforming to your sensibilities. I will always stand up for those rights, with the notable exception being properties of genuine historic significance.
Now, as to where I draw the line, I believe it goes too far when a homeowner changes their property in a way that has a decidedly negative impact on their neighbor or neighborhood. Admittedly that’s a subjective standard. But in my opinion, if one neighbor wants to tear down their house and build a replica of the Tower of London, the ONLY ones who should have a say in that are his or her neighbors. It’s not the role of local government to control what people do with their homes, or their lots within reasonable distance of property boundaries, unless it’s unsafe or neighbors object. It is the role of local government to make sure that the rights of ALL homeowners ore protected.
Which brings me back to the question I asked NHC Member. This time I’ll address it to you. Can you point to any residential teardown anywhere in the city that has resulted in diminished property values for neighbors? The reason I’m asking this question, is because unlike any subjective standards we may employ, this standard of home value is definitive and verifiable.
@Mike Striar – Your comments just gloss over the fact that all existing zoning regulations do exactly what you are objecting to. FAR’s, setbacks, maximum heights, number of allowable units. Everyone of those zoning requirements limit what an individual property owner can do with their property and potentially reduce the potential profit from an individual tear down/rebuild.
All of those existing zoning rules are efforts at balancing rights of individual owners to do what they want with their properties vs trying to preserve the overall qualities of the city’s housing stock, and feel and attributes of the neighborhoods that we all value.
So yes, we can certainly disagree over whether or not we think its a good idea to put additional limitations on size of rebuilds for example but its misleading to imply that somehow that’s an extreme overreach against property rights, yet FAR limits or setbacks aren’t.
If you think the goal of zoning regulations should just be to allow a homeowner to maximize their property value and maintains safe buildings then they should be able to sell it to a developer who will tear down a single family house in a residential neighborhood and put up an eight story office building in its place. Clearly no one supports that sort of free-for-all zoning, even if it does maximize the property value of the home owner.
Jerry, you are trying to turn the discussion into an emotional one with your last paragraph rather than keeping with an exchange of useful ideas. Mike Striar had clearly stated that he believes the surrounding neighbors have a right to provide input as to what is built in their neighborhood. I do not think any neighborhood of single family homes would want an 8 story office building suddenly erected in their neighborhood. Look for a more realistic example to further your argument.
@Patrick – No, nothing emotional there, I was just trying to illustrate that the “property owner rights” and “maximum property value” arguments that have been mentioned by various people on this thread are very one sided.
With the current zoning rules, surrounding neighbors do not have any input if a development is being built “by right”. The only time neighbors input is part of the process is when a particular project strays outside those rules – i.e. special permit. That’s why the zoning rules are so important.
My only point with the admittedly silly example is to illustrate that ALL zoning rules balance owners individual rights vs maintaining the overall values of the community. Under today’s rules neighbor’s have a say if you proposed building an office building (via special permit) in a residential neighborhood. Neighbors have no say if you build a giant cube monster house next door so long as it meets the current zoning laws.
I get your point, Jerry. I do think there are certain standards that can be articulated through zoning regs. As an example, one of those standards is [and should be] to allow only single family homes in single family zones. I certainly didn’t mean to imply it would be okay to build an apartment building on a single family lot, or in a single family zone. But I believe some of our existing regs have gone too far, sometimes put an excessive burden on homeowners, and infringe on the private property rights that are a cornerstone of our economy. If a homeowner wants to add a bedroom or a porch, and none of the neighbors object, other than assuring safe construction methods and/or preserving properties of genuine historical significance, local government should keep their nose out.
@mike Strair – I totally agree
I just want to add this example from my personal experience…
I had an old carriage house in my backyard that I wanted to renovate in 2006. Despite the fact that it was an existing structure that had fallen into disrepair, it still cost me an extra $25K [approximately] to go through the approval process with the city. One of the aesthetic changes I wanted to make, replacing an old overhead garage door, with two faux carriage house doors, was rejected by the NHC, who made me duplicate a non-functional version of the old garage door.
That experience, along with comments like those from NHC Member above, indicate to me that the Historic Commission suffers from “mission creep,” their own perception that the job they’ve been asked to do is much larger in scope than intended.
There has been a lot of talk about Floor Area Ratios (FAR’s) being too generous. Additionally Alderman Hess-Mahan mentioned that he fears that if the petition to rezone part of Newton Center from MR1 to SR3 is approved that it’ll only lead to more McMansions being built. But in the area being petitioned someone could today already come along and tear down an existing home and by right build a single family (or multi-unit) McMansion with an FAR of 0.6 (if this is a small lot and they stick to the setbacks so as to gain the bonus 0.02) which is incredibly large any way one looks at it. Even if this area were rezoned SR3, on the smallest lots a FAR of 0.5 is allowed which is not much better, and that’s not even considering builds which might try for a special permit to go larger. I believe that the petitioners re-zoning proposal should not be opposed as Alderman Hess-Mahan seems to be doing on the groundless excuse that more McMansions might be built. The re-zoning is really about ensuring that any changes are at least consistent with the predominantly single family character of the neighborhood and avoiding all the undesirable consequences of multi-unit development that will result if re-zoning is rejected.
The issue of McMansions keeps coming up. It was discussed last year in the context of side lots where if I recall correctly Ald Hess-Mahan was advocating for them to become buildable lots (thus squeezing homes in on in many cases 5,000 sq ft lots) again because the alternative might be to demolish the existing house and build McMansions.
Most people (including I believe the majority of the Board of Aldermen) are in agreement that we don’t favor McMansions. The simplest way to control this appears to be to reduce the FAR allowances. The Board of Aldermen has discussed this issue for some time but it doesn’t seem like any progress has been made on this. We need to fix this and it seems the time is now to address it.
One final comment: It’s interesting to see the number of people responding to Jerry Reilly’s posting on King’s Handbook of Newton wanting a copy so as to get a glimpse of our history. And yet some of those same people are advocating that we throw our history to the birds in favor of apparent progress. I for one don’t want to see our rich architectural history only referenced in books but that seems to be where we are headed.
@Peter– Things change. What’s important is that we preserve those places or things with historic or architectural significance. When we overreach, and try to preserve things based on our emotion rather than their substance, we stop growing [literally, figuratively and economically] as a community.
Mike, Thanks,.. now we know where you are coming from.
In the interest of full disclosure, how is it that your carriage house came into such need of repair? Deferred maintenance, or did the previous owner sell you a property at a depreciated price? How much of the building did you plan on demolishing that Inspectional Services had you appear before the NHC ?
I would hope that you would be thanking the Commission for their guidance and free advice. $25,000 to go through the approval process ? Or to guide you in the right direction ? Perhaps you were able to save on architectural services ?
Now relative to a little “mission creep”, perhaps ‘much larger in scope’ than I should be introducing here, (and I’m sorry if I might be over stepping my ‘scope’ ) but I should tell you that because we were losing so many of these historically significant structures, there is now a move afoot, endorsed by the NHC, to convince the city fathers to allow/promote the reuse of carriage houses as second units.
Talk about zoning ‘not promoting economic growth’ ! One would hope that you might be able to bring yourself to support at least this little bit of zoning change.
Not too long after I moved into my neighborhood between Webster and Auburndale, Murray Rd & something east, which was and is almost all single-family, there was a successful effort to rezone our area from, I think it was also MR1 to SR3, by some neighbors on Stratford Road who were concerned about everything eventually turning into mega-duplexes. I recall some sort of paternalistic questions from the Board of Aldermen, ‘are you sure you want to do this, you’re limiting your development rights,’ but with I think one exception, the support was unanimous, that we liked our neighborhood the way it was. There have been some additions, a Cape with a second story added to become a Colonial, a couple of Capes bumped up in back to have a full second story, etc., but until the recent teardown on Larkin Road nothing really out-of-character.
I wish the people in Newton Centre luck in their effort.
@NHC Member– Yes, I’m extremely grateful the Commission guided me in the selection of a carriage house door.
This conversation reminds me of a scene from the film Dr. Zhivago, wherein the good doctor, having been kidnapped by the Red Army, returns home to find his house occupied by dozens of people he doesn’t know, after falling under communist authority.
My comparison to you is not the “communist,” it’s the “authority.” Because a free society requires that we question authority. You’d do well to remember that simply having the authority plus a strong opinion, does not necessarily make you right. For example, I believe the NHC was completely out-of-line, recently blocking the demolition of Zervas School. Not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of many others, that was a misuse of the Commission’s authority. The Zervas action, and your comments here minimizing the rights of homeowners, indicate a social agenda that goes beyond preservation. While this may assure some people that more of our past will be preserved, it sure as hell makes me worry about our future.
Jerry, silly example aside, I agree with your position to balance owners individual rights vs maintaining the overall values of the community. As we both said earlier in this thread, this is a complex issue that needs to be addressed by our elected officials.
Mike – I question your perception that the school enrollment increase has been the result of large apartment complexes. What about collecting data on people moving into single family homes? I suspect that the tear downs/McMansions have a significant impact on school enrollment but we have no data on that.
As I mentioned earlier, rather than encouraging empty nesters to remain in their homes, realtors/developers actively seek us out, encouraging us to move out of the city, thereby replacing a property owner who generates revenue with one who increases school enrollment and the decreases the tax base, given the per pupil cost. What part of the 80% of Newton residents who don’t have kids in the system did at one point, and would be happy to age in place if we felt welcome to do so? What percentage of those who buy these McMansions have kids who enroll in schools?
Jane– This is purely from memory, so I’m open to correction. I believe when Avalon on Needham Street opened, it added more than 60 students to NPS.
Clearly, there is a process of renewal that takes place in this city as well, with younger families moving into homes once occupied by empty nesters. While I believe that process to be a healthy one for our community, I agree completely with your suspicion that most new students come from single family homes rather than apartments. I have my doubts though that teardowns of single family homes impact that equation in any measurable way, as most are simply replacing one home with another. But when you add any new apartment building to the housing stock, it has an immediate [and sometimes overwhelming] impact on neighborhood schools.
@Mike Striar said: “I have my doubts though that teardowns of single family homes impact that equation in any measurable way, as most are simply replacing one home with another.”
Mike, The increase in Newton’s school population has multiple causes including your acknowledgement of Avalon effect (though that single project currently accounts for 101 students, not the 60 you mention) and “renewal” effects of replacing empty nesters. But why dismiss the teardown-and-build-bigger influence without doing any analysis? The NHC is seeing 5-8 applications a month and this is not all of the teardown cases so they could easily be averaging 10 per month. What we can reasonably assume is that the bigger houses have 4-5 bedrooms, suggesting they are mainly attractive to families with school aged children that would not have bought the smaller house that was torn down. So to put some very conservative numbers on the teardown effect: perhaps half of the teardowns (say 60 per year) result in families that otherwise would not have lived at those locations or elsewhere in Newton, and each such family has 2 children in Newton schools. This adds up pretty quickly, is far larger than the Avalon effect (30 last year from the four large projects, not just Avalon), and is a sizable portion of the annual increase in our school population of 188 per year over the last 3 years. You may doubt teardowns have no measurable effect, but what’s known strongly suggests otherwise. Jane was correct. So whatever else we believe about the desirability of the effects of teardowns on Newton, they are an important contributor and possibly the dominant effect in the recent increase in Newton’s school enrollments.
@Ron– My experience as a long time Newton resident, leads me to a different conclusion than you’re reaching. I believe many [if not most] families who move to Newton, or within Newton, decide where to buy a home based on school district.
A new, larger home is clearly more appealing to some, but alternatively they would buy a smaller home and expand. The later has been a repeated pattern in my neighborhood, but that may not be reflective of the city as a whole.
Now you could certainly make the argument that expansions are preferable to teardowns. And I’d tell you, you’re entitled to that opinion. But as a matter of policy, in cases that do not involve homes of historic significance or architectural uniqueness, I believe it should be the homeowner’s decision. I’m of that opinion for two reasons. First, I believe in private property rights, [until and unless those rights clearly infringe on neighbors or the surrounding neighborhood]. Second, I’m not a betting man, but I’d be willing to wager that in virtually every case of a single family teardown, the new home is assessed for a higher value than the home it replaced. I see that as a positive thing for the city.
I must have knocked on at least 500 doors during the past year collecting ballot signatures for the Mayor, Alderman Brian Yates and my own run for Newton Highlands Area Council. This total also includes a number of doors I knocked on earlier in the year in the Winchester Street area to collect signatures for expanding our Area Council’s boundaries into that neighborhood.
After schools and parking, the issues I heard raised most were the ones discussed in this blog–residential over development, monster homes and related issues involving contractors, homeowners and residents. And the depth of passion against this was far more intense than any of the other issues. It wasn’t voiced just by people living on a street where a tear down had taken place, but quite often by homeowners far removed from where a development project(s) had taken place. These profoundly change the character and cohesiveness of whole neighborhoods. I don’t believe this opposition would exist if it didn’t have a negative impact on affected streets and neighborhoods. I think this whole problem could lend itself to a reasonable solution within zoning restrictions that is somewhere between opposing any tear downs or major changes to existing houses and the position that homeowners and contractors should always be free to derive the maximum return from their investment.
@Mike – I think that one’s perspective in this issue will differ significantly depending on one’s experience. It sounds like in your experience is of single-family homes that are demolished and replaced by their owners with new (albeit bigger) single-family homes that their owners intend to live in. In my experience in a multi-family zoned area (that is predominantly single-family), single-family and multi-family homes are purchased by developers and replaced with monster-size multi-families and townhouse developments. Within a half-mile radius of my house, there have been 7 teardowns (a couple involved keeping a shell or facade, but basically teardowns) of 2 single family and 5 multi-family houses in the past year. What had been about 14 or so units of housing, many occupied by empty-nesters or young singles, is becoming 20+ large (3-bedroom, 2-bath or more) high-end units, the vast majority of which will be occupied by families. And each footprint maxes out the lot – some so close to lot lines I can’t understand how they get away with it.
I can see the same discussion happening in the 1950s where someone would say they lived in a quiet Newton neighborhood for a long time then developers bought land, subdivided it and now we have overcrowding. It’s one thing if the discussion is about lot density — that is a discussion the BoA addressed and if we don’t like the result, we need them to fix it. But it’s quite another thing if we don’t like condo life and the families that enjoy living in Newton for a lower price than some neighbors. That discussion is way too uncomfortable. Why on earth does anyone care if 2,500 sq feet if occupied by one fat cat, or 3 families?
@Hoss – these are not your grandfather’s condos. We’re talking about 4 bedroom units going for $750k and up – same or HIGHER price than neighbors. And the original properties are not owned by “fat cats”. Instead of a 1 regular or often skinny-cat family, we have 3 or 4 “plump cat” families in the same space, with 3 or 4 times the kids, cars, etc.
@Tricia– I agree that this issue impacts neighborhoods differently, and people’s perspective may be shaped by what they’ve seen in their neighborhood. I’m not immune to that syndrome, although I do try very hard to look at the big picture. So let me ask you this question… What direct impact have teardowns in your neighborhood had on you, the enjoyment of your property, and your property value?
My principal advocacy is not pro-teardown. I’m interested in preserving the rights of homeowners. That interest extends to the rights of neighbors who may be negatively effected by a teardown.
I’ll add that I have had some bad experiences with both teardowns and expansion/renovations in my neighborhood. These have mostly had to do with the noisy process of ledge removal, which I do think needs to be addressed by the BoA.
One thing that I vehemently object to, is the NHC self-extending their mandate of historic preservation. It’s not the role of the NHC to protect neighborhoods from development. Although topically different, I think this “mission creep” mindset was fully evident in the NHC’s decision to block demolition of Zervas, a school building that our elected officials decided it was time to replace.
@Mike – the most immediate, direct impact of all these teardowns (meaning, specifically, the teardown of a single or two-family home on a single lot that is replaced by a much larger townhouse/attached dwelling development) has been on the schools. When my older kids were at Burr in the early to mid-2000’s, there were about 300 – 330 kids in the school, and they were generally in classes of 18-21 kids. There are now about 425 kids in the school (40% increase in 10 years) and my youngest has never been in a class of less than 24. The building is overcrowded and traffic around the school is a mess. The value of my property, has, of course, gone up during this time – who’s hasn’t? But my neighborhood has become much more dense – less open space, more vehicles, fewer trees – and as I look out the window at a series of smaller homes on relatively larger lots with mature trees and lots of green (under the snow), I have a pretty good idea that 10 years from now, I’ll be looking at the walls and garages and driveways of more attached townhouses strung from the street to the back of the lots. I am in no way advocating for the use of the NHC to prevent this – I agree that their focus should be narrowly on historic preservation. But we shouldn’t be in a position where the only thing that slows down this type of development are NHC demolition delays. Something needs to happen at the zoning or land use level that looks at the cumulative impact that these special permitted projects has on our neighborhoods.
@Tricia. Quick comment – I assume you live in West Newton near Elm and Webster. The projects in your neighborhood are not special permit projects but “by right” based on the MR1 zoning. Hence my earlier comments that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowances are significantly greater than the aught to be. One could also address the situation by getting rid of the old-lot setbacks and having a single set of setback requirements for all lots, but that would make some smaller lots near impossible to re-build on. One thing I’ve never understood with our zoning is how a new build on an old (~pre-1940’s) lot can benefit from retaining old lot setback requirements AND additionally benefit from the new FAR limits which are much more generous than the older ones, and then also gain an extra 0.02 if it is an old lot. This is a case of being able to have one’s cake and eat it too!
@Peter – Special permits were granted for both the 37 Elm St (from 2 units to 4 units) and 13 Elm St (2 units to 5 units) developments.
My apologies Tricia – you are correct. I recall Ted Hess-Mahan mentioning this on a previous posting maybe 6 months ago when someone had asked whether any of these were 40B developments.
@Tricia– Thanks for responding. I acknowledge that new kids moving into any residential neighborhood are going to have an impact on school population. I see that as a process of controlled renewal, and a very positive thing for the city. Conversely, when we allow large apartment buildings to be constructed in non-residential neighborhoods, and those projects overwhelm a school district with an immediate infusion of scores of new students, I see that as a disaster.
Is there a correlation between replacement houses and school population? I’m not so sure. My gut tells me the impact on schools from single family replacement homes is minor, if it exists at all. I think most families buy a home in the school district they prefer, and if a replacement home was not available they would buy whatever was, and modify it to their needs. There is no assurance that modification process would have a different result in regard to your other concerns about traffic, density, trees etc. To me, this brings to mind that old saying, “be careful what you wish for…”
Your concerns certainly have merit though, and I’m not at all opposed to having them addressed by those whose job it is to plan for the future of our city. I’m just glad we agree that the Newton Historical Commission should stick to their mission of preserving Newton’s past, rather than dictating Newton’s future.
@Mike Striar, First let me say that this particular blog has gone in many interesting directions with many well-argued views and ideas – on some , including some of yours, I agree and others not so in varying degrees. Part of what makes it interesting is the underlying conflict between freedom and government controls – a debate that goes far beyond zoning.
But let’s go back to the connection between teardowns and growth in school enrollment that you, Jane, and I were discussing and that Tricia has now contributed to. The basic point I was making is that teardowns replaced by large single family residences are a major contributor to the recent surge in school enrollments (you continue to doubt this in the face of the numbers) and that it has not been due to the large complexes as you suggested. In your reply you point out that some families probably also buy and perhaps expand homes rather than move into homes replaced by teardowns, but you are changing the subject from the impact of teardowns by bring this into the discussion – unless you have some numbers showing that’s a better explanation of the enrollment surge than what’s shown by the analysis I did showing teardowns are the major factor. So let’s agree on what common sense and my analysis tells us about the impact of the teardowns on school enrollment.
Your last point is that you are pleased with teardowns because they result in more tax revenues to the City. It’s surely true, though we might try to do an estimate and see if it matters much. I won’t try to guess the answer since it would just be an unsubstantiated opinion. What I will strongly suggest, however, is that we need to consider the cost side as well – it’s not free money. It costs serious money, just for the operating school budget, to accommodate the extra students, and then there’s the huge costs of school rebuilding – Angier, Cabot, and now as you point out Zervas (and maybe even a 16th school) , that we are already partly paying for and that the under the recent override will be paying even more for in the future. My concern, shared by others on this blog, is that the cost impacts on our schools is one more reason to consider some rule changes that will reduce the incentives for the wave of teardowns we are observing. The sellers, developers, and new residents get the benefits in varying proportions and the rest of Newton pays in school crowding, increasing schools costs, worsening traffic, and many other annoyances that come with the increased building and density and affect our quality of life.
@Ron– What “numbers” are you referring to that indicate replacement single family homes have a larger impact on school population than the homes they are replacing? No “assumptions” please, just numbers that validate your point. Alternatively, give me a specific example of a family that moved into a single family replacement home, who would not have bought either the home it replaced or another home in that school district.
Ron, I am not an expert in this area; however I have been tracking it informally in my immediate neighborhood. In the last 10 years there have been 12 McMansions built within a two block radius. The number of kids in those houses basically replace the kids, who had grown up in the teardowns. Many of those earlier kids had aged out of the schools, yet they had been part of the equation at one point.
With the bigger houses, I do not see any significant change in the number of kids per house; just more rooms in the houses. What I do see with the more expensive new houses is that some of the new owners have the financial means to send their kids to private schools.
I know the public school population is growing; I do not know why. What I do not see is the link between public school student population growth correlating to the issue of teardowns and McMansions. I would think the new housing developments like the Avalon Apartments and the increase of affordable housing units, which tend to use the public schools for their educational needs, would have a more significant impact.
Regarding the topic of added real estate taxes for the city, the new houses are valued at 2X to 3X the assessed value of the teardowns so I would say the city is benefiting to a noticeable degree.
I too would welcome you providing the source of your data showing that the teardowns are a major factor to school population growth..
@Mike. First, the hypothetical issue of whether they would have bought another existing home in Newton is irrelevant – the issue is whether the teardowns are providing more “appealing” (to use your adjective) opportunities for families with school age children. Absent that nice new $1.5 to $2.5 million dollar Newton McMansion, many would move to Wellesley or Weston, etc. , not the type of smaller inexpensive house that was torndown. I’ll put a question back to you – do you have any numbers, if necessary based on plausible assumptions, to show that the surge in enrollment is from people moving to Newton and buying smaller homes that are similar to those being torndown?
Sometimes people give opinions with no factual basis. Decision-makers would rather see estimates and if those estimates need to be partly based on assumptions, they want to see the assumptions and expect them to be plausible and on the conservative side. That’s better than having no information at all. The reader and/or decision-maker can decide how much weight to put on the estimate and might even do a little sensitivity analysis in deciding.
Now, about my numbers and assumptions: The numbers and very conservative assumptions are provided. If you see a problem, tell us.
One of my numbers come from the School department report on enrollment (only 30 out of 270 from the four large projects) so please stop claiming that’s the source of the surge. Another is the 3 year average enrollment increase of 188 also comes from the report.
I did not take the time to count the demolition and building permits over the past year, but I do look at the NHC agenda most months and attend some of their sessions. I assumed 5-8 per month. This month there are 8, and as you likely know, not all come before the NHC. So I assumed 10 and that seems right on target, but if you really question it feel free to dig for some better data. Does it seem plausible from what we observe driving around Newton? I think so, but say so if you disagree.
I assume a family size of 4 with 2 school age children in such homes. The latest census data shows Newton with an average household size of 2.6, but that includes all the empty-nesters and singles who, I think we can agree, are not buying McMansions. So 4 is a safe number though the average of families with school age children in my neighborhood is higher.
The only other assumption-number you need to make a plausible estimate is the percent of new McMansions bought by people with school-age children. I said 50% to be conservative. I know of a few and they are 100% including one six houses from me that was bought for about for $2.5 million. That’s the example you asked for. These are not people who would buy the 3 BR houses that are being bought for well under $1 million and torn down. So surely the new builds are having more of an impact than if the older, smaller homes were preserved and bought by empty-nesters, singles, and others with no children.
So those are the numbers and the conclusion is inescapable: Teardowns replaced by McMansions is driving up school enrollment in Newton. Many teardowns are appropriate and are part of the renewal process, but let’s understand that they really have broader impacts to Newton and build that into our understanding of the teardown issue.
I would like to add some information on the house which started this lengthy and excellent discussion: 111 Webster Park. According to what’s been said above and the City of Newton Assessor’s database it’s a 2 family workers cottage on the National Register built in 1890. I question that date though and believe it could be significantly older. I am aware of at least 6 other identical homes in the immediate West Newton neighborhood: 3 more on that street at 103, 87 and 79 Webster Park; and 3 in a row at 102, 110-112 and 120 Webster St. Two of these are no longer original so in my mind have lost their historic significance: 110-112 Webster St has a 3rd unit added to it at the rear; and 103 Webster Park it appears had the 2nd floor fully dormered. I question the actual age of 111 Webster Park because the other 6 according to the assessors database are listed as being built in 1840 (103 Webster Park); 1845 (102 Webster St), 1860 (120 Webster St) and 1880 (the other 3). These homes have identical facades so it’s hard to believe they were built across a 50 yr period. Additionally, these houses appear to be examples of Gothic Revival architecture which according to a book I have on Newton’s 19th Century Architecture date from 1840 – 1870. So the earlier dates seem to fit better. I wonder if the other dates are approximate / unknown because of lack of detailed records in the 19th century. Newton does not have many examples of Gothic Revival so that only adds to the significance of this house and the history of West Newton.
@Ron– You’re suggesting replacement homes are having a larger impact on school population than the homes they replaced. But you really have no numbers to back that up. You’re citing the number of teardowns [which I’m not disputing], and the rest of your argument is based on interpretation and assumption. My assumptions are more in line with what Patrick has suggested. Admittedly though, we are both reaching conclusions based on our own assumptions. That’s why I offered you a second avenue to prove your point, by citing even one example of a family that bought a new home built on a teardown, who otherwise would have moved to a different city. I’m suggesting those people want to live in Newton anyway, and would just buy another house in this city. So the types of restrictions you’re advocating, would have little or no effect on school population, but would have a significant effect on the rights of homeowners and on the local economy.
@Patrick. You make a valid point about the private school option and I’ve seen numbers on that too – it’s not trivial, particularly at the high school level. It’s less of a factor for elementary schools.
Of course you are correct that some buyers might choose that option. That’s why we try to be conservative if we have to make assumptions to get a sense about what’s happening, and my 50% number reflects these types of unknowns.
I also agree that we don’t know all the factors driving the growth in school population. Still, I think it’s easy to believe there’s a correlation with the teardowns since both things are happening at the same time. That’s what started this and why I ran some numbers to see if it was plausibly a sizable effect. My nunber is 120/ year when growth is 188. If my number worked out to be 10 or 20 or if growth was 1000 per year it would be a different story. It’s very difficult to come to a small number unless you buy the argument that everyone who came to Newton would have come anyway. I’ll come back to this question in another post.
On what I’ll call the “Avalon effect” there is no doubt. The school department keeps track of the source of its students by address and has published the data. Very little of the recent growth is coming from those projects (read my prior posts). What about other affordable housing? Unfortunately none or very little has been built so that’s not the answer; rather the absence of such projects is a frequent concern and complaint from people such as Alderman Ted Hess-Mahon. There are some new projects coming though.
Regarding taxes, I already pointed out there is an offsetting cost side and we should be interested in which is larger. We should-could have another whole blog on just that subject. I can believe 2X, but not sure about 3X as an average. Either way it does sort of make the point that these properties appeal to a different market segment though, and that issue I think supports my position. The other point, however, is that we should run a few numbers to see how much of a factor it is in Newton’s revenues. Or maybe somebody already knows.
Ron, it appears you have used a method similar to mine, which is personal observation combined with mixing some of the available data with assumptions. You may be right; I may be right; maybe neither of us is correct. I admit my approach is not scientific and subject to correction. I do not use terms like inescapable conclusions.
It appears Newton’s population has been level for the last 30 years so the school population growth is coming from someplace. Two potential factors yet to be mentioned that do not include the teardown effect are: 1) new families that move into existing houses and increase the student population (after all these houses were big enough for families in prior generations), and 2) the effect over the last 5 years of families moving children from private schools to public schools because of an adverse change in their finances due to the bad economy (maybe some students will return to private schools now that the economy is so much better according to Washington and Beacon Hill).
My point is that until someone takes an organized, holististic approach to understanding the issue of student population growth, we can all assume we are correct.
@Mike & Patrick,
You are correct to question whether more students are coming from the new build (“McMansions”) than would occur under the counterfactual of the original house having been preserved. It’s not easy to be sure of what would happen under a counterfactual, but your view is that you know and it’s essentially a wash. My view is that I don’t think those residences would be attractive to and be bought by families with school-aged children. I think we (at least Patrick and I) do agree many of the McMansions will be occupied by people with school-aged children.
My position on the counterfactual is that these simply are not the type of properties that will be attractive to most young families moving to Newton. We know they are smaller both in overall space and number of rooms, otherwise they would be too valuable to make tearing down and rebuilding financially viable. I concede that under the counterfactual some preserved homes would be bought by such families, but they would be more attractive given their space-dollar price point to buyers such as empty-nesters looking to downsize, singles and other childless households. To Patrick’s point, what was true about housing expectations a generation ago is not true today – at least that’s what I see with my children and their friends who are now raising their own families.
As to all the other properties in Newton, they are irrelevant. They will be bought and occupied by the same types of families regardless of what happens in the teardown market segment we are discussing. Whatever effect they have on the schools is the same regardless of whether another property is preserved or torn down.
Finally, Mike you mentioned my advocating restrictions. I have not done so – read my posts. I jumped into this discussion on issues of economic growth and the effect on schools in an attempt to check on the validity of the assumptions and information others were using.
I happen to be an economist with a pretty strong free-market, libertarian bent. I also recognize that the interests of the community sometimes need to take precedence over those of individuals. Otherwise we could, using extreme examples, have chemical factories or slaughterhouses next door to us. Mike has expressed similar, more relevant sentiments about preserving “homes of historic significance” and restricting property rights that “clearly infringe on neighbors.” So we just need to figure out what those reasonable restrictions are and whether any changes are warranted given what are our best guesses about the impacts on the community. Zoning and related rules and regulations are really about protecting the property values and quality of life for the whole community, not just the individual, and they need to be considered thoughtfully using the best information we can find. I hope I’ve framed the issue and brought some specific numbers to the discussion in a way that helps the decision process.
A previous related discussion to this one:
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/06/land-rush-in-newton/
Again you make some excellent points and I appreciate the more restrained tone. You were correct to call me out on “inescapable.” In jumping between being analytical and argumentative I got sloppy. I’ll try to do better next time.
Minor point – only because it’s important to get numbers right if you have them: Based on 10 year U.S. Census data Newton’s population peaked in 1960, fell through 1990 and then started growing slowly again. It rose by 1,317 from 2000 to 2010. The school department reports that enrollment increased by 529 or about 53 per year in the same period. As I noted it accelerated to 188 per year over the past 3 years. Make of this as you wish.
I am reminded of a joke:
Needless to say, I am not an economist. But as Yogi Berra said, “you can learn a lot by just watching.” I chaired the Zoning Task Force that originally looked at what to do about the 50% demolition rule. When the city first adopted FAR, which limited gross floor area based on lot size, the BOA also adopted a “safety valve” for owners of existing homes who wanted to build reasonably sized additions onto their homes. Under the 50% demolition rule, a homeowner (or developer) could build up to the lot coverage limits as long as 50% of the existing structure was preserved. The purpose was as a transition from the previous limits to the more restrictive FAR limits. The outcry when the board went against the ZTF’s recommendations and repealed the 50% demolition rule–from homeowners, builders, developers, architects, you name it–was considerable. So the BOA adopted temporary FAR “bonuses” that would allow reasonable expansion and additions while a task force reviewed the FAR ordinance.
The FAR task force looked carefully and thoughtfully at existing conditions, and based recommendations for FAR based on as built conditions. The BOA–in its exercise of discretion–adopted lower limits than were recommended by the task force, but which still allowed reasonable additions based on what was already in existence. In other words, these limits were meant to be consistent with the as built environment. But, of course, neighborhoods are all different. Some have small lots with modest houses (e.g. single story cap and ranch houses), others have larger lots with enormous houses (e.g., Victorians). Currently, there are three single family and three multi family zones that apply citywide. With so few zoning districts, they do not necessarily fit any particular neighborhood. In other words, actual results may vary.
We need a thoughtful approach to residential development citywide that takes into account the character of many different and diverse neighborhoods around the city, as well as the goals of the comprehensive plan, to come up with zoning that allows property owners freedom while maintaining the character of neighborhoods that make Newton a great place to live. It is going to take time and study, but I am confident we can do it if we put our minds to it. Oh, and we need to promote housing affordability for the people who live and work in this city and foster economic vitality in our village centers.
Patrick, I will offer a small contribution to this conversation, regarding the variable economy and its impact on private school enrollment. In short, the percentage of school aged students in Newton attending private schools has ranged between 18 and 19% since 2002. It was climbing in 2007 and continued for the next few years following the economic troubles of 2008. Not what I expected, but it suggests that growing NPS enrollment is not about private school students returning to public schools in Newton.
It’s quite simple to calculate the increase in school enrollment from large complexes and without question, they have added students to the NPS. However, the increase in enrollment in the last 5-7 years isn’t just from large apartment complexes – the numbers are well beyond what the Avalons can produce. Tricia points out a significant and important trend on the north side of the city.
But I really believe the tear down situation needs to be studied. Yes, Mike, one family replaces another in single family homes. But if the culture and character of the city is changing so that significant numbers of empty nesters move out of the city soon after their children graduate, rather than age in place, then that affects enrollment as well. If you have families move in with 3 or4 year olds and move out when their kids are 20 or so, then the property taxes from the McMansions don’t make up for the per pupil cost of educating 2-4 kids in the NPS.
As I mentioned earlier, realtors and developers are actively encouraging empty nesters to leave the city. They are knocking on doors and making phone calls to us “suggesting” that it’s a good time to leave so they can make a fast buck. When I moved to Newton in 1981, I lived on a street with 12 houses, 7 of which were owned by senior citizens. We’re much less likely to see such a situation today. Many of my friends have moved to Boston, Cambridge, Davis Square, etc. Very frankly, they’re more welcoming communities to a multi-generational population. It’s one thing when people say they move here “for the schools”. It’s another when people move here just for the schools and then leave.
You’re also right that there’s no data about the turnover rate of single family homes, but it might be interesting to compare the ages of people who move in/move out in ’14 to that of the 80’s.
I am very discouraged. It seems like this has been a concern to a lot of people for a long time, but nothing has really slowed down the transformation in the neighborhoods where it is underway. What is the timetable for this thoughtful approach and how long will it take? I fear that by the time it is over, it will be too late. The more properties that are re-(I say over-)developed, the more people will say, what difference does it make now, and why shouldn’t the rest of the owners be allowed to do what their former neighbors have already done? I’ve heard that sentiment expressed about Oak Hill Park, and it probably could be said about places like Oak/Webster/Elm/Cherry as well.
Is there any way to have some kind of moratorium while we have this thoughtful discussion?
Julia, let mee ask you: put yourself in the shoes of homebuyers who want to be able to add on to the homes they just bought or homeowners who are getting ready to retire and depend on the proceeds from the sale of their homes to finance their retirement. What you can do with the home you just bought or the price you can get for your home depends on zoning. How would you feel about a moratorium then?
In reverse order:
Steve, thank you for that info; it seems to eliminate one possible variable.
Ted, thank you. I do not completely understand and/or agree with all of your comments; however I have confidence that you will push for a meaningful conversation at the right level within our city government so as to at least look at the issue with current factors. Good luck.
Ron, I think we are moving closer to agreement. I still do not consider the preserved houses irrelevant. An individual example: a house (3 bedrooms) on my street was just sold to a family with two children (wth the potential for more). The prior owner, a widower, only sold the house so as to be closer to her grandchildren, who live beyond driving distance. If her grandchhldren had lived closer, she would have kept the house and the two added children may not have been part of the student population growth issue (they arrived from out of state so Newton was not their only option). I am not an economist so I do not know the proper way to account for such uncontrollable variables that may or may not impact the numbers (a true variable).
As for our population numbers, I have found too many sources with varying information to try to make a legitimate argument. My immediate neighborhood may be representative of the city or it may not be. I agree with Ted that neighborhoods vary throughout the city.
Jane, I do not follow your example. If a family sells their house when the kids age out of the schools and they are replaced by a family with school age children, how does that affect the student population from the perspective of that house. If it stays a single family house, the number of children it annually places in the system stays the same given average family sizes are not increasing. If a single family house is replaced by a multi-family building, then that is a different issue.
And if the new family now has a McMansion with taxes 2x – 3x higher than the perserved house, then the city has more tax revenue to apply to the children’s education than if they had kept the former house.
The percentage of empty nesters vacating their houses for smaller alternatives is an important trend to study.
Ted, I guess I don’t feel, for reasons elaborated by others above, that it’s the city’s obligation to ensure that everyone can extract the maximum amount of money from their real estate investment, because no one is operating in a vacuum. Everyone’s development choices impact their neighbors and incrementally and cumulatively, the city as a whole. Otherwise why do we have FAR at all? And I don’t worry about anyone who’s owned property in Newton a long time not making a lot of money regardless of FAR rules. I think the primary factors contributing to Newton real estate values are not even the schools — lots of towns have good schools– but accessibility to Boston, major highways, commuter rail, and the Green Lines, and our village centers, while still having the suburban feeling of lawns and trees.
As I said, I’m pessimistic and doubt that anyone could come to any agreement on even a temporary reduction in FAR, so expecting any change that would affect by-right development I suppose is unrealistic. But what if Special Permits were actually special (as I believe someone asked at that recent meeting) instead of routine as they often seem?
I’d still like to know the timetable for the thoughtful discussion. Are we talking months, years or decades?
Patrick (& Ron & Jane & Mike), I’m impressed by all of your attempts to quantify the effect on school populations. It’s a very interesting question. Patrick, you’re right that if a family whose kids all graduate sells to a new family, there’s no net change. But the point Jane is making is the amount of time that passes before the empty-nesters sell. If it’s a constant turnover of families with kids being replaced by families with kids, and that’s multiplied over a thousand houses, that’s a way different financial impact on the city than if the empty-nesters hang around for awhile. For example, my younger sister (and only sibling) graduated from Newton North in 1974, but my parents were in the house, a three-bedroom colonial, until they both died, my mother in 1992. So that’s 18 years, plus a couple of years before I started kindergarden, with no kids in school, vs 13 years with school-age kids. (That’s not even counting that we went to Catholic school for five years. They moved to Newton partly for the schools I think, but sent us to St. Bernard’s. Go figure.) And my parents married late, and died in their 70s. My high school friends whose parents were more typical ages, owned their houses into the 2000s; one house will just be going on the market soon, so that’s three decades with no kids in it.
I think the “McMansion” effect may be not so much on how many kids are in it when kids are in it, but on the amount of time the empty-nesters will stay in it, and who is likely to buy it when they sell. It seems like now everyone needs to have a bathroom for every bedroom, unlike back in the old days when parents and kids shared bathrooms. So the McMansion with 3-1/2 baths or whatever, is worth it to the family with kids, but not so much when the kids move out. Whereas my parents’ rather modest colonial did not feel too big, so they stayed.
Julia, Home owners are becoming more and more likely to rely on the value of land reinforced by current developer offerings when anticipating the sale of their homes.This interest is incentive for sellers both short and longer term, to neglect or short change maintenance on their properties. After all if owners come to understand that their home will be torn down, what incentive does he have to paint, landscape or otherwise improve his property? This impacts the image of the city and ultimately the economics of the real estate market.
One and All,
Take the poll at Village 14.
” Do current zoning rules encourage too much or too little development? “
Patrick – Julia explained my point very clearly. My 80 year old neighbors from the 1980’s did not have kids in the school system for decades. Even if the property tax on an average priced tear down/McMansion triples, it doesn’t make up for the cost of educating 3 kids, especially if a possible alternative is encouraging empty nesters to remain in their homes. Obviously, people will move when they want to move, but there appears to be a trend among empty nesters to move at a younger age. A few question for which we don’t have answers: What is the current age at which long time owners sell their homes? Has the age changed in the last 25 years?
NHC – That’s exactly what happened with several homes in our neighborhood.
As I have mentioned at the ‘Development – No Development’ Poll site, elsewhere on this Village 14 blog, of the 6 tear downs immediately surrounding my own home which previously had but one child in them , there is the potential now, at 2 kids per household, for 11 new additions to the school system. The numbers are not all in because 5 of 6 of them are,still as of the moment, unoccupied. Lets call it ‘Mission Developer Creep’.
Correction – “Developer Mission Creep” !
Jane: Re the average age of sellers. A quick,very unscientific guesstimation of the ages of the former principal heads of households of the 6 surrounding properties under development around me, yields an average age of 61.66 years.
Great thread! Interesting perspectives. I’ve really enjoyed the dialogue.
I’d like to offer a distinction, along with a suggestion… I’m a strong supporter of homeowner’s rights. Beyond zoning that protects the rights of neighbors, I don’t like the government telling homeowners what they can and can’t do with their home. Obviously I’m also a supporter of other private property rights, but don’t necessarily feel as strongly about those broader rights as I do about the rights of homeowners. So that’s my distinction, general property rights vs. homeowner’s rights.
Developers who buy homes and tear them down to build new homes, should not be [in my mind at least] entitled to the same rights as a true “homeowner.” Where a homeowner’s primary intent is to live in their house, a developers intent is admittedly exploitive. [I don’t use that term in a negative way, just as a point of fact]. I would guess that the City’s zoning regs already make some distinction[s] between homeowners and developers, but perhaps our policies should draw that line even sharper.
I’m a bit reluctant to suggest this, because I haven’t had much time to really think through all the implications. But perhaps we should be removing some of the incentive for developer speculation. For example, a $50K fee for a non homeowner seeking a permit for a teardown.
Jane, I questioned your example because you included the family moving when the child was 20 y/o. That would only leave 1 or 2 years for the house not having children in the NPS. That is different from the empty nesters who stay much longer. I am one of those empty nesters, who has contributed half of my real estate taxes each year for the last 10 years to the schools system that my family does not use.
I also question your range of 2 – 4 children per McMansion being in the NPS system. If you eliminate the McMansions with no children (there are some) and consider the size of modern families and remove the children who have aged out of the system, are pre-school age, and/or attend private school, I would guess that number is much closer to 1 than 4 children in the NPS per McMansion. If the average McMansion adds $1,000,000 to the assessed value, that will generate an additional $6,000 annually to apply against the school budget. There is still a gap as you indicate; however I think it is smaller than you believe it to be.
Tha alternative to the McMansion could have been a similar size family moving into the perserved house and placing children in the system without the added $6,000 of annual tax revenue for the NPS’s use.
BTW, I am not a big supporter of McMansions. Yet, I am more a supporter of individual rights than having a government that mandates my every move. I agree that it would be helpful to know the trends of empty nester behavior. NHC Member says his small sample shows 62 y/o now in his neighborhood. But what is the overall city trend as you ask?
Patrick ,
That 62 year old average age of heads of households is not current but former pre development principals. Now departed.
You might want to look at the statistics in this report
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/26594
It shows the NPS enrollment from 1969 to 2012. In 1969 it was about 18,000. It dropped to about 1/2 of that by 1987. In my opinion this was because of empty nesters left over from the post war baby boom, who began to sell their houses to young families. By 2012 we were back up to about 12,000 as this process continues, especially as people begin families later now but eventually have a similar number of kids.
Arguing about the effects of teardowns is a waste of time. These days, large houses replacing smaller ones house about the same size family. There are other demographic factors contributing to Newton’s changing school enrollment, and the major one is more people aging and/or dying and young families moving in to Newton, which is a good thing.
And what would or will Newton do if the school population were at the 18,000 it was 45 years ago, since it seems like a reasonable number if most of the families were to young with school-age kids?
NHC Member, thank you. I understood your prior comment. My use of the word “now” was intended to convey a current piece of information for recent departed and not the current owners’ average age. Jane and I are interested in the trending information, not just a single datapoint.
Agreed, Barry. We haven’t had school aged kids at home for over 20 years. Same with many of our neighbors. When, as and if we do sell, I suspect the buyer will have school-aged children.
How many schools closed and were sold off as the school-aged census dropped? Memorial Elementary School, Murray Road Elementary School, Emerson, Hyde, Davis, Carr, Warren, Weeks. I’m sure I’m missing a few. That said, most, if kept, would now be as decrepit as an Angier or a Cabot.
Max, you can add Claflin to the list.
I agree with Barry that arguing about the effects of teardowns is a waste of time relative to school enrollment. However, it is not a waste of time when discussing how we want our neighborhoods to evolve (or not evolve). It appears there are multiple expectations being expressed.
Max, right on!
I couldnt agree more that those schools sold off would indeed be as decrepit as Angier,Cabot , Zervas etc etc.
But isn’t it interesting how those buildings are still standing and in seeminly great shape?
What’s the difference? It seems to me to be truly delinquent mismanagement of school house maintenance and attendant funding on the part of our past political officials and School committees .
Why isn’t Cabot being torn down?
My mistake,…not Cabot, that will be coming down.
But why aren’t Hyde, Warren, Claflin etc. being torn down?
@Mike Striar, I was just leaving for work when I read your last comment yesterday. I can’t help laughing a little at your desire to somehow treat “developers” differently from “homeowners”. Good luck with that, and if you figure out a way, please let us know. You might have missed this post of December 4: http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/12/tree-preservation-on-the-agenda-at-programs-services-tonight/#axzz2r9d3XAEZ
This is precisely what was attempted when the Tree Preservation Ordinance was originally written. While some developers do play by the intent of the rules, thankfully, those that don’t want to, are getting the sellers to cut down trees for them as a condition of sale. And not just trees; I was recently told by someone in Oak Hill Park that in some cases developers are getting the sellers to do the demolitions, too. Nice. The developer doesn’t have to own the property while they wait out a demolition delay, and maybe they think the homeowner will be a more sympathetic applicant coming before the Historical Commission seeking to waive the delay.
I think it is difficult to define a class of people who can do something, and a class of people who can’t, because the people who can’t can get the people who can to do it for them. And does it really matter who does it (from my perspective, and the neighbors’ at least, if not from your perspective), if the end result — whether cut trees or McMansions — is the same?
@Julia– First of all, teardowns don’t bother me. I generally view them as a positive thing for the city, with the provisos I’ve stated in my comments above. And I completely reject the notion that we should craft any sort of zoning regulations intended to keep school age kids out of our single-family housing stock. In my opinion that’s not only unfair, but a disastrous recipe for lowering both home values and property tax revenue. So, the suggestion I made was done to offer a possible compromise, by drawing a distinction between homeowners and speculative developers. I’m confident that distinction could be memorialized in such a way, as to be significantly more enforceable than the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Homeowners and developers play fewer games with the rules, when there’s $50K at stake
Mike,
Currently at $14,000 a year to educate one child in a Newton school it does not make economic sense to encourage small older / single/ empty nesting homeowners to sell and have demolished their houses only to be replaced with 4 -6 bedroom monster homes to house 2 or 3 kids. To date the monster house will generate $20,000 – $30,000 in taxes and the bases aren’t covered. But we could always raise the tax rate.
NHC Member, as I wrote to Jane earlier in this thread, if the perserved house is sold without changes, probably a different young family will move into the hosue with 2 or 3 kids because they want the “value” of the NPS that accompanies the house. After all, many of these older houses were big enough to provide shelter for prior families. So then Newton will have these added kids without the added tax revenue (about $6,000 for the NPS annually per McMansion) from the more modern house. At least there is some added revenue to apply against the costs of the new kids.
If I was the head of a young family in today’s economy, I would move into any house I could afford in Newton because it represents a better investment than in other communities where I could get more house without the more favorable ROI . BTW, that was part of my decision making process 35 years ago. I stayed and plan to use my ROI during retirement. Others, as Jane pointed out, sell after the kids leave the NPS, and use their ROI for a bigger, better house someplace else. Those two diverse decisions represent American capitalism in action.
@NHC Member– I agree with Patrick’s assessment, and disagree with yours, as I’ve yet to be given a single example of one of these so-called “monster homes” or “McMansions” that’s added more kids to the school system than would otherwise have been added by the home it replaced. Meanwhile, every one of these new homes has in fact added jobs to the local economy, and more revenue to the City.
Additionally, as I mentioned before, I do not believe the City of Newton should set policies or create zoning regulations, with the objective of keeping school age children out of our single family housing stock. I find suggestions of that type to be both anti-family and anti-neighborhood. [At least my perception of what truly constitutes a “neighborhood”].
Frankly, if you blogged under your own name or a different pseudonym, I wouldn’t pay much mind to your postings on this topic after the first two or three, because I disagree with your opinions almost entirely. But the fact that you’re blogging specifically as an NHC member and espousing an agenda that far exceeds most people’s interpretation of “historic preservation,” really does concern me.
It’s clear from the recent actions by the NHC concerning the Zervas school building that the Commission has lost site of its mission. Now I see the Commission blindly stumbling into a new area of preserving residential structures that have no historic or architectural significance, in an effort that also goes well beyond your mandate. I can only hope your opinions do not reflect those of the Mayor who appointed you, or find their way into his policies.
When we are surrounded by 7 figure types in their crummy lego McMansions, we will not only have no ability to afford living here but will have nothing in common with our new 1%’er neighbors. Developers with their slick attorneys or Alderman who can’t produce a zoning document to hold them back are BOTH to blame. It took a consultant 1 year to even sort through the document! Are you kidding? Scrap it and borrow Wellesley’s or Concord’s. Do it fast because the developers are racing on overtime now!