Picking up on Jerry’s (typically) thoughtful post on the TAB teardown article, what’s the problem we’re trying to solve or avoid? Are we trying to preserve some sort of visual character — set backs, home style, relationship of home size to lot size, home size to other home sizes? Are we trying to preserve or increase affordable housing? Are we trying to maximize homeowner value? For the selling homeowner? For the remaining homeowner?
The demands are in conflict. They are in conflict because of two unchangeable underlying trends.
- The population of the Metro Boston area is growing and the demand for housing is increasing.
- This demand is increasing the value of the land in Newton.
Prices are going up not for the homes in Newton, but for the right to live on a particular lot. Teardowns are the very evidence. People pay for a lot and home and then go to the expense (non-trivial) of having it turned into an empty lot. The home itself is a negative value.
When the size and quality of the home on a lot is out-of-synch with the value of the land, the incentive to tear down is going to go up. If a family pays a fortune for a lot, they will be able to afford — and will be willing to spend — to build a nicer home on the lot. (A developer is just an intermediary. People willing to spend to buy the land in Newton expect a nice home on it.)
Once you separate the value of the land from the house on it, things clarify. Ultimately, what’s making housing unaffordable in Newton is not the kinds of homes we’re building on lots, but the costs of the underlying lots. And, while restrictive zoning won’t make a a lot truly affordable, zoning that restricts the size of a home can diminish the value of a lot. So, it’s a tax on homeowners.
If we’re going to make housing affordable in Newton, it’s not going to be in single-family, detached homes. That ship has sailed. (More on that in a separate post.) And, the market pressure for larger homes on our expensive land is going to be too great to contain with restrictive zoning.
What we can do is zone for the visual character of our neighborhoods and the quality of the experience in public areas. We don’t need to have garage-dominated house fronts. And, we can ensure that our neighborhoods remain (or become) pleasant places to walk.
So back to my questions. What problem are we trying to solve?
@Sean – Welcome back stranger
Hi Sean — Got anything that says Metro Boston is growing?
Well, if you look at the map in the link below showing population changes in Massachusetts towns over the past 3 years, all you see in and around Boston is growth:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/infographics/heat-map-massachusetts-population-changes-2010.html
Metro Boston growth projections from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council:
http://www.mapc.org/data-services/available-data/projections
It projects a strong demand in housing because of population growth and a reduction in household size (more single parents).
Doug C — I believe that data has both a “natural” growth rate and an “aspirational” growth rate (my words in quotes). The natural rate being based on actual trends and aspirational being a desired growth to sustain a healthy Boston economy. The natural growth is virtually unchanged (up 6.% in 30 years, an amount that doesn’t round to one-half per cent a year) on a pure population basis. The aspirational model has more robust (12.6%; about one-half per cent a year). Note that the labor force growth is also very slight going forward. The housing stock numbers, however, are much more robust — up 17 – 23%, almost approaching 1% per year. Maybe there can be some discussion on what’s changing and why. In business models we now deal with reality that the customer base is no longer expanding which is very different than the models from years ago.
One problem we are trying to solve: preservation of neighborhood character.
IMBY:
My pretty street is losing its gracious houses, its trees and its lawns!
As of today, on Windsor rd (Waban), there are:
– two brand new houses being built (170 and 221)
– one 1890 house being added on (203)
– three houses for sale (102, 126 and 214)
– three houses on demolition delay (184 and 189, plus 102) for 18 months.
Depressing!!!!
Should the Historical Commission jurisdiction change so that once a house is declared Preferably Preserved it retains this status indefinitely? The way it is in Cambridge?
Any suggestions?
thank you,
Isabelle Albeck
US Census Records don’t support claims for rapid growth in eastern Mass.
I suspect pressure for growth in Boston and inner suburbs is coming from those living in outer suburbs confronted with long tangled commutes and time away from families that they believe can be recovered living in more convenient locations. I also suspect this would be born out statistically by looking over sales activity in those outer suburbs.
Realtors ???
@ Isabelle –
“Should the Historical Commission jurisdiction change so that once a house is declared Preferably Preserved it retains this status indefinitely? The way it is in Cambridge?”
Very interesting comment since the current 12 months, and even 18 mo for homes on the national historic register, is effectively meaningless in so many cases. If something like is done in Cambridge is adopted, I would then advocate for only homes older than say 75 years old or maybe 100 years old to fall under the jurisdiction of the NHC. I personally don’t see much worth in saving post-war homes as long as what replaces them fits in with the existing homes and street-scape. In this sense I like some of the concepts associated with form-based zoning. But it needs to be blended with other zoning like setbacks, FAR et al.
Isabelle,
I think that you concerns highlight a bunch of the issues. I struggle with this. I’m not a big fan of McMansions on both aesthetic and size grounds. Aesthetically, I’m particularly concerned about the prominence of garages and the overuse of stucco. Ultimately, garag-i-ness is something we can (and should regulate), but (hold my nose) every family is entitled to stucco.
Size is a problem on environmental grounds. But, there are better mechanisms than zoning to address the environmental concerns, like energy consumption (in both the building and the operating). Such mechanisms might reduce the incentive to tear down.
Historic designation is a problematic tool. Yours is a reasonably quiet residential street (abutting a golf course). The preservation of historical homes has a very narrow impact (as opposed to more public properties or properties in more public places). Should such a powerful tool be used to benefit so few?
Ultimately, what you would like is to maintain a certain character in your neighborhood, at the expense of others — financially in terms of their home value and less tangibly in terms of the benefit of a larger or newer home, a benefit they are willing to pay for. Consider what it would cost to convince someone to voluntarily accept a size restriction on her home. Would you be willing to pay a neighbor to forgo building a newer and bigger home (or selling to someone who would)? Could you convince your neighbors to pitch in to make such a payment?
Of course not. You’d like the benefit of restrictions, without having to pay the market cost of the restriction. You look to regulation to provide you a subsidy (you get a benefit without paying for it), the cost of which is borne by the restricted neighbors directly and the rest of the city (by the diminution in assessed value of the restricted property).
I’m all for limiting garag-i-ness, but I didn’t know it could be regulated. I, too, would like to have new houses that fit the “character” of Newton’s beautiful old homes but know that is a pie in the sky dream. I agree with blueprintbill about people moving closer to where they work. Studies are showing, some places at least, that people are realizing how little they actually use the amenities (large backyard, bike riding kids) suburban living supply because they spend so much time commuting and are increasingly moving back to the cities to have more of a family life. Change will continue to come to Newton but hopefully it will still be a diverse income population, if only with multiple family homes.
Marti. I believe the term used to describe such homes is snout houses. It’s interesting to me that Newton does not have a zoning ordinance restricting snout houses since it is a fairly common zoning restriction elsewhere. One can certainly see the appeal of such a build from a developer’s standpoint given that most people desire a 2 car garage and we have many small narrow lots in Newton. But they are awful to look at, completely out of character with most every other home in Newton, and not at all neighborly.
Peter,
I have a new snout house next door to me that is 18 feet from the front property line. ( Neighboring house averaging ).
Cars park on this driveway and block the sidewalk because they dont want to hit the garage door and to be anle to walk in front of the car to the house fromt door. The law says the minimum distance is supposed to be 24 feet ( front yard setbacks not withstanding), but because there is a garage that can park 2 cars inside 18 feet is ok. ??? And we don’t need zoning reform ! ???
Snout houses. What an apt name. Thanks Peter. I can see that would be a problem, blueprintbill, in addition to their aesthetic defitientcy, (they’re ugly) they can create a safety issue.
Bill:
Parking on the sidewalk is technically a ticketable offense in Newton. If you call 311, the police will at least have a look at it.