Neil Swidey personalizes the McMansion-vs.-preservation debate for an article that will be published in this weekend’s Sunday Globe magazine.
The online story includes video.
Globe magazine story examines Newton’s teardown debate
by Greg Reibman | Feb 6, 2015 | Newton | 19 comments
Apparently, similar issues in Los Angeles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/classic-or-ramshackle-old-homes-in-los-angeles-are-being-bulldozed-into-history.html?_r=0
I’d never been very interested in the teardown debate and I’d paid very little attention to it, but the Globe article was a good introduction to the topic and I came away with this basic conclusion:
On a resident-by-resident basis, if someone were to defend his or her economic best interests, the side that would have the most economic gain from a teardown moratorium would be the existing owners of the McMansions and other large houses, who would greatly benefit because the moratorium would limit the stock of houses similar to their own, thereby ensuring that demand outstrip supply and McMansion values remain high.
The side that would lose the most from the moratorium, economically speaking, would be the owners of smaller homes, who would see the potential value of their properties diminish due to the moratorium’s restriction on their future use. (And of course the other losers would be the developers themselves who make their living out of this racket, but I assume there are only a few of them, relatively speaking).
So it seems to me that 95% of people would be for or against any moratorium based solely on their economic stake in the debate, as determined by the size of their house.
From what I’ve heard, the issue has instead been framed in terms of a more idealistic debate over “the character of the city,” or “what sort of town do we want to live in.”
But at the end of the day, I would tend to believe that when you’re dealing with something that represents a minimum of 55% of a family’s net worth, as real estate typically does in the Boston suburban market, the number of people willing to stand up for their ideals over their own self-interest quickly dwindles (but hopefully I’m wrong).
As I say, I haven’t thought much about it so I may be way off base, but I wonder if this characterization would be accurate? Wouldn’t the vast majority of residents make up their mind on this topic based solely on the size of their homes? I haven’t heard the debate framed in these terms, but then again I haven’t been paying attention.
I can’t tell if Mr Swidey fell in love with his subject — given the almost tunnel vision-like focus on one builder and one buyer, or if he is subtly ridiculing people who can spend $1,400 on staircase footlights and $4,000 to have steam in the shower.
Either way, I hope the print article at least has more photos, because no one reading this online would have any sense of the range of perfectly livable houses, as well as historic houses and trees and green space which are being lost.
@Michael – your analysis could very well be correct but I do think it leaves out a big piece of the puzzle. Yes a house is most people’s biggest financial asset. For many people, especially people who are residents for a few years and then move on, the house-as-financial-asset view is likely to drive all their decision making.
The missing piece is the large number of people who are relatively settled here and have chosen to live here because of all sorts of attributes of their neighborhood. The calculus for them might look like this.
* I live in a place That I chose and I love.
* property values are stable and appreciating.
* I have a choice of whether I want to make some additional money on a possible sale some day in the distant future in return for losing some of the attributes of the neighborhood I love today.
A house is a very important financial,asset to most people … but,that’s not all it is.
@Jerry – good to hear that there are more people who are willing to stand up for their convictions, versus their economic self-interest, than I’d thought. It would be encouraging, for example, if most of the moratorium proponents were residents of houses that might one day be teardown candidates.
From my own perspective though, I’m not convinced that teardowns dramatically change the character of suburban neighborhoods that were already saturated with minimum-sized lots in the 1950s.
I grew up in Needham, and my parents still live on the street where I was born, but by now every house except theirs has been torn down and replaced.
And to tell you the truth, the housing stock on the street still looks the same to me. The rows of decaying capes and ranches with their predominant two-car garages were ugly then, and the rows of shoddily-built McMansions with their three-car garages are ugly now. Suburban America, driven by its love of the automobile and SUV, has never been a source of aesthetic or architectural inspiration.
In the streetscape, though, I think you can actually see some improvements: most of the trees are still there and some new ones have been added; people aren’t parking on their berms and turning them into mud anymore; the ubiquitous ChemLawn trucks are thankfully gone; most of the lead paint that coated the capes has been cleaned up; the sidewalks are in better shape; there are a few new bike lanes; and the traffic levels in the residential areas haven’t increased.
So I’m not sure how the McMansions themselves drastically detract from the neighborhood attributes. Given that anything historically or architecturally significant will be preserved, why should we care when an ugly split-entry ranch gets replaced by a gaudy McMansion with a Honduran mahogany door? Six of one, a half-dozen of the other. Barring any change in noise pollution and traffic, if the new housing construction conforms to the historical height and setback requirements, and there’s an effort to preserve or restore greenery, then I personally think that a residential community is more appropriately defined by its surrounding infrastructure, and that’s where resources and attention should be directed.
Does the “community attribute” question instead refer to the people who are living in those houses? Because that, I could understand. I would certainly prefer to live in a neighborhood that was economically and culturally diverse, rather than a homogeneous one that was full of Republican hedge-fund managers.
Michael,
you’re kidding, right? That’s not given at all. Go look at the Wetherell House in Upper Falls. Oh wait, you can’t. It was torn down. You can, however, go look at the Gothic Revival cottage two-family at 111 Webster Park — for about six more months, anyway.
“You can always tell my houses by the doors. Grand doors made of Honduras mahogany.”
Hopefully this is from plantation grown wood, because it’s an endangered species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Appendix II list.
Nathan, is there a way to tell for sure if you’re buying sustainably harvested wood? I was wondering for myself, since I may want to have mahogany or similarly rot-resistant wood for treads when I have a porch rebuilt.
Nathan, you beat me to it. I was going to suggest we add “rainforest killer” to the Teardown Queen’s nickname.
Michael, “if the new housing construction conforms to the historical height and setback requirements and there is a effort to preserve or restore greenery …”
Other than the economics you point out, It is precisely because none of the above requirements, height, setback, or greenery preservation, are conformed to that there is so much controversy. Most developers raze the small lots to the ground and below, receive special permits to waive setback, height and FAR requirements, and replace the previous homes with tall, skinny houses or attached dwellings that just barely fit on the lot while infringing on their neighbors in a multitude of ways.
Julia, there is FSC certification for lumber vendors, but some woods are obviously more sustainable than others, and I was told that mahogany is towards the bottom of that list. The certification might just mean it’s not old growth or illegal harvesting.
From http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/woodguide.asp:
“…associated with forced labor and human rights violations in Latin America”
If you want to live in the ‘Garden City’ and you have enough money to build/ buy a new house you need not be bothered with the responsibility for the husbandry of an existing property.
While Niel Swideys’s article clearly sets out the demolition process we are currently being faced with, his single example of the existing ranch on failing foundations is not typical. The vast majority of tear down properties are structurally sound,.. sometimes neglected ( why invest in maintenance when the house will be coming down), but imminently salvageable.
This story is really about what kind of city we want to live in, and whether or not we might want to exert control over our environment.
PS,
We worry about the use of tropical hardwoods, mahogany, and the economic and environmental costs of what kind of products we use etc. etc. but do we consider the environmental and human energy costs involved in the demolition of an existing house? What about the loss of all the concrete, brick, old growth lumber, brick, copper, petroleum products etc that have been invested in that existing property?
“if the new housing construction conforms to the historical height and setback requirements and there is a effort to preserve or restore greenery …”
Michael,
How can you preserve or restore greenery? By definition, McMansions are oversized luxury houses built on small lots. I’m no architect but it’s not difficult to see that these massive out-of-scale structures have greatly diminished and REPLACED previously open space. This is not “a six of one, half a dozen of the other” issue.
As Marti alluded, special permits are granted at an alarming rate so developers can circumvent the “rules.” Out of town developers, themselves, typically live in picturesque, serene neighborhoods with spacious green yards.
Conversely, Newton’s new towering McMansions cast long shadows on neighboring properties, block valuable sunlight to homes and gardens and obstruct views of nature. Planting tall, narrow evergreens does NOT come close to compensating for the large, sunny areas of open green grass which, regrettably, are being REPLACED with concrete and lumber.
Due to this selfish & self-serving practice, I now scrutinize the stance/vote taken by our Mayor & Aldermen by reading minutes of meetings & cast my vote accordingly on election day (or leave it BLANK if there’s no opponent).
Some interesting reads:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/doc/290739393.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+21%2C+1995&author=Campbell%2C+Robert&pub=Boston+Globe+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=FORGOTTEN+UTOPIAS
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/doc/405270153.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+17%2C+1999&author=Cole%2C+Caroline+Louise&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=Oak+Hill+neighbors+eye+control+of+development+New+houses+overshadow+post-war+homes&pf=1
Teardowns and McMansions have been going on in LA County for over 20 years. In California the property taxes are based on the value of the home when the home was last sold, so that is a major difference from here.
THANK-YOU Alderman Sangiolo, you’re one of the FEW elected officials in Newton willing to address this issue and voters ARE paying attention.
The mayor and many aldermen give their constituents lip-service about this problem while they privately gloat about the increased property taxes the city collects and are afraid to take on the developers. The worn-out refrain is “I have no control, it’s the building department’s call.”
Developers are hiring expensive lawyers who are friends with Aldermen, members of the Newton Historical Commission & Planning Dept in order to get their demolition petitions approved. Thanks to the selfishness of a few, garish-looking houses are being built on postage-sized lots throughout the city. These eyesores infringe upon the rights of abutters to views, greenery, light, privacy & greatly diminish the property value of neighboring homes.
One sentence in the article pretty much sums up the mindset of many developers:
“…one day, the developer’s 9-year-old daughter came home from school to discover that her developer/mother razed their family home (to build a McMansion)…. the little girl was crushed to see the blue & yellow shards of plastic, the remnants of her backyard playhouse, in the pit of rubble.” Nice.
Robert S.
Thank You for joining the Chorus. Your sensibilities are spot on correct !