Why can’t we stop all this development?
That seems to be the main question Aldermen will face Tuesday night as they vote on a proposal to down-load an oddly-shaped piece of Newton Centre and consider the proposal to halt the Austin Street development later on.
Many Newton residents bemoan the tear-down of small houses and the creation of huge replacements, but Newton Centre seems to feel particularly afflicted, although if you read the Planning Department’s analysis, it isn’t borne out. But by restricting multi-family homes that close to a T-stop (1/4 mile), they push the demand for housing into areas further from transit (like Wells Ave. Try to get a bus or train there). The city or the T will then have to create costly new transit opportunities, or accept that everyone will have to drive to every destination–not a sustainable future, even if all cars run on solar electricity tomorrow. One reason the Comprehensive Plan calls for more density in village centers, near transit and shops, is that it allows for economic vitality without the need for acres of car storage, widening streets for more cars, or living with massive traffic jams.
Paul McMorrow recently opined on the need for more taxpayers to support the infrastructure in the Boston area. That holds for Newton, too. But as a pretty built-out area, our opportunities are few. Diminishing them in walkable areas with down-zoning is bad for Newton’s bottom line-both the city budget and the merchants in our village centers, who need the foot traffic to stay viable.
I think the city is much richer by having a mixture of single family and multi-family housing. The best location for multi-family housing is in proximity to both a village center and to mass transit. The Newton Centre neighborhood area is both.
There is a constant friction regarding all development issues in the city. It’s not a simple issue. That particular area of Newton Centre has been zoned multi-family for some time. If we rezone this one piece of an existing multi-family zone due to a petition from some neighbors then we can look forward to many more of these petitions to come. I think the city’s zoning, and particularly any changes to zoning, should be driven by our overall vision for development in the city. If instead, the zoning changes are driven by neighborhood lobbying it will tend to lead to all sorts of problems.
Rather than the higher density housing being located in the areas that make sense (village centers, near the T), higher density housing will be located in the areas with the least vocal, powerful or organized citizenry. That tends to lead to unhealthy cynicism among sizable swatches of the public.
In a “built out” city like Newton, the last thing we should be doing is reducing multi-family zoning. If for some reason we decide to reduce the amount of land zoned multi-family, then let all zoning changes be driven by a set of clearly articulated principles that apply equally in all neighborhoods and villages.
Jerry–exactly. That’s why we need to move forward on zoning reform– it will help create the newton envisioned in the comprehensive plan, which deals with the many variables that resident said they wanted in the city in a thoughtful manner
The request to re-zone 48 properties–is that the item you mean? That’s a significant number of properties. Where exactly is this “oddly shaped” location, do you know? I’m having difficult tracing back the links.
@Amanda. I know it includes Ripley Street and the area north of that over to the old Weeks Playground. Don’t know the exact boundaries of this dispute. Some multi-family homes have already been built on Ripley and that is what has the neighbor’s disturbed.
Most of us moved here to Newton for among other things, the fresh air, green space, gardens, trees and a closer proximity to nature. Many of us left urban environments for just these amenities. It is a grand mistake to encourage urbanization here, faulty ‘Comprehensive Plan or not.
Newton is a mature city. It has been built out. There are no more empty lots. We do not need more housing. We need to preserve and husband what we have and value.
But we do indeed need zoning reform ! We need to radically lower the FAR on new construction, so as to discourage the very lucrative business of the character destroying, diversity shrinking, Mc Mansionization of our Garden Cityscape. In that process we are rapidly loosing affordable residences, and becoming more and more a city of the wealthy.
Blueprintbill is correct that Newton is rapidly becoming a city for the wealthy only. We need to be a city that works for working families (which in Newton means 2 income families with both spouses commuting).
One of the best defenses against over densification of newton is to strictly and uncompromisingly enforce the minimum parking requirements for all new developments. If real estate developers knew that this would be enforced, the city would be entertaining far fewer outlandish development proposals, and there would be less angst from developers who know that their dreams are merely one arbitrary waiver (or payment in lieu of) away from fruition.
No need to rezone from MR to SR in Newton Centre. Ironically, even the condos being built in MR zoned neighborhoods are starting at $1M!
Janet,
Are you serious ? Are you being facetious ?
Indeed there is a very good reason to rezone in Newton Center, and it has to do with the FAR ( that’s the “floor area ratio”, which is what controls the maximum size of structure that can be built ). The FAR for MR is 10 to 20% larger than that for SR construction. This difference, is plenty enough incentive for developers to tear down modest sized older, traditionally built smaller homes Sr or MR and build the Mc Mansion sized condos that maximize his profits, compromise the original neighborhood scale, park more cars, put extra kids in our schools, pave over more of our green ground cover, cut down more mature trees and in general compromise the traditional character of our Garden City. Not only will the community become wealthier, and less diverse, but we will be faced with trying to house the departing original owner in taxpayer subsidized housing.
Does anyone know what happened on the Newton Centre rezoning item at the full Board? For anyone who isn’t really familiar with the area, neither was I, so I went over to take a look during the snowstorm. Here’s a 45 second look at Ripley Street: http://www.tout.com/m/hs28ds and here’s a bit of Chase Street and Herrick Road: http://www.tout.com/m/6awlxu (If you right click or Cmd-click it will open in a separate tab and you can stay on V14 thread.)
I briefly read some of the report in the Friday packet. The city seems to be arguing that development is not happening very fast there, so why do anything now. That seemed more accurate about Chase than Ripley. And I think the residents must be concerned that waiting until the grand zoning review or whatever its official name is, is completed, it may be too late, the horse will be out of the barn.
The item was postponed to the next full Board meeting.
If Andreae had spoken to any of the neighbors or the alderman who is involved in this request she would have learned the real issues at play here. Nobody is saying let’s stop all development—point of fact, the people who are trying to be heard in relation to Austin Street aren’t saying that either. Once again—very nuanced arguments are being brought down to a simplistic argument—that just gets repeated and repeated.
The question at hand has to do with FAR and what can be built by right. If houses are zoned as an SR3 rather than an MR1 – you don’t stop development, you simply limit how big a building can be built on the lot. There is NOTHING in what they are requesting that limits the rebuilding of a multi-family home—especially since many of the homes on this petition are two family, but what you can’t do is rebuild a giant monster home. I don’t think the comprehensive plan is calling for Newton to be filled with monster homes—either one or two family, but that is exactly what is occurring. The neighborhood correctly looks at Warren Street where an old 2 family was purchased for $800,000, torn down, and in its place two very large attached homes were built selling for $1.425 million each. This is neither preserving the neighborhood, nor providing the type of housing the comprehensive plan claims to want. In fact, the original Warren Street home, would have been perfect for the starter “couple”, or a retired couple looking to down-size, or the myriad of singles that people like Andrea and other pro-development people talk about wanting to live in Newton. What was built in its place will be a home that only a family would want – and one with many kids at that. So, that is one down for the walking, young professional, who wants to live in Newton and 2 for the big family with several cars that wants to live in Newton. Your argument, Andreae, is faulty.
Thanks, Brian. What was the reason for postponement?
@Lisa Gordon – You state that the Warren St property sold for $800,000 and was torn down to make way for the monsters. I have no idea of the condition of that property and it’s attractiveness to “the starter “couple”, or a retired couple looking to down-size, or the myriad of singles…” Would the property still have sold for $800,000 with the kind of FAR limitations proposed? Hard to tell, but it seems to me that this sort of restriction might depress the values of the homes in the area, potentially penalizing current owners. The argument can be made both ways.
Max, here’s my question about that argument: we already have restrictions that, in effect, “depress” the value of property. For example, since a small house on a large lot in a single-family zone cannot be torn down and replaced with an apartment building, the property’s value is limited to how much someone is willing to pay to own (or put up a new) single-family house. As I understand it, some towns limit replacements to footprint without a special permit, which certainly serves to limit profit on teardowns. Newton allows replacements to exceed the footprint, but uses the FAR to create limits without a special permit. I think it’s fair to say that the owner of that old two-family made a profit, as do the vast majority of homeowners in Newton. The question for me is how much of a profit are sellers “entitled” to, beyond the increased value of their house “as is”?
Tricia, I agree with you insofar as all properties are “restricted” by the zoning limits in place. My question is whether changing those limits, however noble in intent, harms, limits, or otherwise interferes with owners free enjoyment of their property, including the right to profit upon sale.
@Max Goldsmith – Actually, I have no idea who would or would not have wanted to purchase that property, I was echoing the comprehensive plan peeps who are always stating that retired Newtonians want to stay in village centers and don’t want cars, as well as young couples who don’t have kids–or cars–but are dying to live in Newton. I think it is an absurd argument. I think most Newtonians have a car–even if they choose to bike or walk. However, in terms of RE in Newton, that house on Warren would have sold for at least $800k if not more regardless of MR-1 or SR-3 (don’t think it is “hard to tell” at all–based on comps in the area), and now given the size and number of bedrooms, along with the price, I’d be very surprised if any singles or retired couples are interested in that property at all. Therefore–you are not getting the types of people that the comp. plan and Andreae claim are needed (people without cars). I don’t agree that “the argument can be made both ways.”
Here’s another example of living large: Karen Road. You may not have heard of it, but it’s only a half mile walk to Waban Square. I think the whole street may be eventually go the way of the recent teardowns. http://www.tout.com/m/947fin