Rev. Howard Haywood has another thought-provoking TAB column today that aims straight at those who, in his words, believe “applying the term ‘urban’ to any part of Newton is an unspeakable five-letter word.”
Haywood reminds us that even the Newton Free Library building once faced fierce opposition from those opposed to changing the character of our city. And he wonders why this is the case, given the quality of the individuals who live here…
What is so puzzling is that Newton is home to so many dedicated, civic-minded people who continue to volunteer and work to make the city the community it should be and not hide behind the myth that has been created.
Be sure and read the entire column and then let’s talk about it.
Haywood is right to wonder why a city of so many smart people seems to have a collective narrow vision. At least part of the answer is that far too many of our best and brightest are too busy or preoccupied to become involved.
That leaves us with a NIMBY culture that gets stuck in the weeds of smaller skirmishes and an aldermen practice where too many of our board members perform as if they were ward aldermen instead of at-large.
Greg, parochialism is surely part of the the problem. But in my view, the overriding issue is that our zoning policy has been backward looking and reactionary instead of forward looking and visionary. In other words, with the possible exception of creating a new zoning district for the Austin Street lot, almost every zoning amendment over the past 25 years has been about the last house someone didn’t like.
And Ted, isn’t parochialism also at the root of why its taken decades to get zoning reform? Separate from the maddeningly slow reform process we are undergoing now, it seems that the handful of folks (including some of your esteemed colleagues and former colleagues) who’ve truly understood our rules and regulations have never been in a hurry to let anyone else mess with “their” regulations.
Greg,
I think you’re comment is quite harsh and I think you’re vision of the city of build it anywhere anytime is ridiculous. If the city had any vision and guts we could have growth while not putting as much pressure on the schools. But doing things the way we are (you’re way) with less planning we’ve created a reactionary city.
@Tom: I’m really having a hard time understanding your comment so I can only respond to what I think you mean.
I am not saying my view is right. I’m saying its unfortunate that a lot of Newton’s best and brightest aren’t more actively involved in shaping our vision.
While I disagree with the Newton Village Alliance decision to keep its leadership a secret (and I think that decision undermines their effectiveness) I admire them for advocating for a city-wide perspective.
I wish more of our at-large aldermen took a similar at-large view. Some do. Some don’t.
What’s wrong with people liking Newton for what it is and not wanting to make the city more dense? Why is that narrow? It’s a preference, plain and simple. There are plenty of cities that offer more urban living, with higher density and all of the associated pros and cons- Newton offers something different. Don’t understand why that isn’t sufficient. It works for the people who keep paying more and more for houses to live here.
@Paul and Charlie: I could explain why I support added density in parts of our city (and my answer would be much more nuanced than you probably suspect) but I’m not doing that because it’s not relevant to the points I’m trying to make here.
Please reread my comments. I’m not saying here that I’m right, you’re wrong. I’m talking about a broken system that does not benefit from a lot of our best and brightest (for whatever reason).
If you’re nervous that smart people are more likely to oppose your vision than mine, well I can’t help you there.
More importantly please read Haywood’s column. Let’s discuss that.
But Paul (at the risk of getting bogged down here) what’s wrong with the “status quo” approach is that laws like 40B still exist. By all indications we’re not likely going to be exempt yet from 40B after all. So collectively we can either find a way to meet that threshold or we can keep getting bogged down battle by battle by battle.
@Greg-
I Agree that to have true credibility as a group, membership and leadership must be disclosed. I can also understand why some would not wish to do that. It’s probably because being painted for political purposes as NIMBY, Racist, Classist, or backwards-thinking….when all they really are saying is development and density is not what residents signed up for… is not worth the hassle.
Just because you CAN build something doesn’t mean you SHOULD build something.
It is very telling that a very small group from Waban was able to lobby more successfully than the much larger village turnout of Newtonville. My grandmother use to call it ‘selective hearing’. She heard what she felt like hearing.
The sad part is we now seem to have a city where instead of being responsive to residents, people feel as though they’re fighting against a City Hall with an agenda not connected to the publicly stated wishes of the majority.
Greg,
My point was that I think the best and the brightest for the most part don’t think there is anything to get involved in. They like Newton for what it is, that is why they moved here. Nothing else for them to do but enjoy it. Not sure the system is broken at all. If there was evidence the best/brightest wanted change, but weren’t being part of a process to make that happen, I’d understand your concern. I just don’t think that’s the case. Again, we have greater demand for Newton housing than supply. People like Newton for what it is now.
I found the Haywood column pretty underwhelming. Read it again to make sure I wasn’t missing something. Not much there. He’s mostly assuming a problem that I don’t think many people in Newton agree exists. The point on village centers being stagnant has some truth, but overstated. I’d like less banks and nail salons, and fewer empty storefronts, but increasing density doesn’t need to be the answer. I certainly don’t need or want more activity in the village centers than we’d have from full occupancy.
Woo hoo! So let’s throw a party and drink some campaign! No worries about tear downs, crumbling infrastructure, lack of housing for our seniors and children, 40B projects in neighborhoods that can’t support them, unfinanced retirement obligations, unreliable mass transit, overcrowded schools, traffic, empty store fronts and office buildings, pot holes, sidewalks, park maintenance, etc. etc. Party!
Greg,
I apologize for misreading you’re comment. I reread it and I was wrong. I though you were saying that the best and brightest were on the sidelines while us dummies are out there pushing our agenda.
Paul,
I could’nt agree more ! You are spot on correct on all of your commentary !
But beware you dont get painted as one of those sneaky NVA’ers. Your message would not be given the weight it has!
It’s all about the personality of the speaker you know.
Whoaa, Greg,
You too are sounding like an NVA member. This cabal is perhaps larger than we all think !
I don’t feel that any of our village centers are stagnant. There seems to be plenty of turnover, and when there are empty storefronts it’s because one business owner decided to retire or try something different, and another is moving in.
What exactly would people like to have in the way of businesses that we don’t have, and why do you think adding density in the village center will bring those businesses, and not just more of what we already have?
I think we have a lot of banks because they have the national or regional ownership and deep pockets to pay the most rent. We probably have a lot of nail salons because people in Newton, or maybe just people in general, seem to have an inordinate interest in getting their nails done, and it’s not something you can buy on the Internet. Not sure why nail salons as opposed to hair salons — less regulatory requirements? Personally I find nails a baffling thing to spend money on, because I can do my own. (Or could if I wasn’t perpetually nibbling them down. Can’t remember when I last pulled out a nail file, but if anyone has an old stainless steel tri-cut one they don’t need, I’ll buy it! They don’t make them like they used to, and I hate the emory board kind.)
In each case, I suspect more people living in village centers will only make them more attractive locations for bank and nail salons, who will see even more customers, and continue to outbid for space the businesses people might say they want (bookstores) but whose products they will buy online because it’s cheaper.
Lol, Greg. Learning to laugh a little when you start getting a little snarky.
My posts and this thread have been centered on development, and my comments you excerpted above were in that context. If you want to change to a broader discussion about Newton city issues and whether folks should be more engaged in those– its an interesting topic, but different than this thread’s. My perspective on that is different. My point here has been that people like Newton as is, in terms of housing/density and don’t want to change it because the current “vision” meets their need.
Thanks, Paul,
You’re right on the money. I moved here for what Newton is, or was at the time I moved here, and still basically is. I don’t want to make it into the place that people like Ted want, which is a very different place, and I especially don’t want to do it if he steals my tax money in order to accomplish it.
@Paul – I think you might be oversimplifying things a bit.
When you say “people like Newton as is”, that can mean all sorts of different things to different people. Some folks are fine with say the higher density Riverside development project but not the Austin St project. Others are fine with an increased density Austin St project but don’t want it at the scale that’s currently proposed, others want to keep it as is, as a parking lot.
Some people want to keep Newton “as is” and keep the existing zoning rules just as they are. Others want to keep Newton “as is” so they want to put additional restrictions on tear-downs.
When others push for Newton “as is” they mean strong village centers with local businesses catering to the local neighborhood. Some of those folks think higher density housing in the villages is the way to keep Newton “as is”. Others think better mass transit is the way to preserve what they value about Newton.
“as is” is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
And that slippery “Newton as is” contingent is only one of many constituencies in the city. There’s also plenty of people who push for and advocate for future Newton being different from past Newton in one or more ways that have to do with development and density.
So I think saying property values are going up, therefore people like Newton today, therefore we can conclude nobody wants anything to change in regards to density and development is a bit misleading and/or overly simple.
@Julia –
There hasn’t been much action in the Thompsonville or Oak Hill village centers lately 😉
I think you ought to check with the Mayor as to whether he wants the best and brightest to be involved. He obviously likes it how it is or he’d make a call to action for them. PLUS, the best and brightest would open up the lack of effort he puts into this city. Be careful for what you wish for.
Jerry,
You like twisting my comments to be more extreme than what I wrote. I didn’t say no one wants anything to change. Please stop arguing against an extreme straw man that doesn’t exist.
Many, many people like Newton as it is today, and that high level of demand is what keeps pushing housing prices higher.
@Paul
No I don’t think so, or at least not intentionally. Here’s what I was responding to
My point is that all the people you’re talking about, like me, who like Newton, who moved here because of Newton’s particular attributes are not a monolith and the attributes that they like and value are not all the same. So I guess I’m objecting to the idea you seem to be putting forward that says rising real estate prices indicates the electorate has some specific position on a specific project or a specific position on how Newton should continue to evolve and develop.
Jerry-
Most people like what we offer now. That’s the driver of high demand. Not some theoretical hope of what we could be. You don’t do that for 1 million plus. You buy where you like it on day one, for that amount of money.
I made a similar point to Paul’s at a meeting of the Economic Development Commission this past week. I think when people are willing to spend $1M+ to move to Newton, that is at least some indication they like it the way it is. That does not mean there may not be justified reasons to try to make changes, but to me it indicates that one should not be surprised when opposition arises when very big changes are suggested.
In other words, it’s not like we’re Detroit and we need to drastically change up our model in order to get people to want to move here.
That is one reason I favor reducing barriers to creating more accessory apartments as ONE way – not the only way but one way — to address issues of affordability and an aging population. Allowing people to create (or legalize existing) accessory apartments is not a huge change to a neighborhood’s look or traffic patterns, nor does it bring huge costs to infrastructure and schools. But it IS affordable housing for whoever lives in it, and it is additional income for an aging senior who may be struggling to afford to remain in their home. (And a recent survey of Newton seniors shows that most of them prefer to stay in their homes.)
Emily,
what would be holding accessory apartments up, why can’t that pass the BOA??
Because a majority of aldermen like Newton the way it is and don’t want it to change.
If the argument is that people who pay $1M for a house in Newton like it the way it is, why are so many people tearing down houses in Newton that they paid $1M for? Not all of them are developers, but even if they were, someone is buying those replacement houses for a whole lot more money.
It’s a specious argument. I have no doubt there are some people who come to Newton who want to close the gates behind them and throw away the key. There are others who want to keep it in a snow globe, like a nostalgic Hallmark keepsake ornament. And I bet all those same kinds of people were dead set against Oak Hill Park before it was built.
But a lot of us, whether we grew up here or moved here, also want a city that is diverse in every sense of the word, where teachers, police officers and firefighters can afford to live, where seniors who want to stay in Newton can downsize if they want into a condo or apartment that is close enough to all of the amenities they want that they do not always have to get into a car, and where millennials who are part of the 21st century “innovative workforce” can walk to work or to the T, and don’t have to fight traffic everyday.
Newton is not an island. In Massachusetts, there is a critical, regional need for housing, including affordable housing. Attracting and keeping a well educated/trained workforce is essential to our economic progress and success, but to drive that economic engine we need places for people to live. If Newton and every other community would do its part, we could eliminate homelessness and have housing our adult children can afford, including right here in Newton.
Or, we could keep things just as they are, and end up living in a gated community where money is the key to getting in and staying in. Our choice.
Ted–
The $1M+ home purchasers like the CITY of Newton for what it is, but a number of them want a better HOUSE on their land. Not complicated.
You keep making the same argument that a lot of people in Newton want this. There isn’t data that supports that. Common sense on the high demand for being buying into Newton, as I’ve mentioned, is that they like what they’re buying, not spending that amount of money hoping Newton becomes something different.
If you have data that supports the fact that the majority of Newton shares your vision, then share it.
Ted, your arguments for development are a bit unrealistic. Many Newton residents want a slower route to change. An accelerated scheme to produce a fast paced housing boom in Newton is not a balanced approach to economic development. These changes would never ease the cost of housing. Instead it would ensure an ever increasing cost of living.
I was stunned to see many young teachers at the last S.C. meeting begging for pay raises. I know only too well how costly it is for young professionals to make ends meet. Rapid economic growth is not a solution.
I think if you re-read Ted’s comments you’ll see what I meant. Paul is saying that Newton should be what the people who live in Newton like. If someone improves a lot because there is natural demand and a profit can be made, like a McMansion, so be it.
What Ted wants to do is use Newton as a location in which to accomplish all his social engineering, to be a vehicle for championing his bleeding-heart liberal causes, even if it means moving terrorists from Guantanamo against the best interests of the citizens of Newton. That’s my problem. It’s not natural. It just satisfies his personal feelings of guilt. Newton isn’t the only place in the US, and all his perceived inequities don’t need to be rectified here.
I don’t agree that a majority of aldermen/women wouldn’t support easing restrictions on our accessory apartment rules. Ted & I both serve on an accessory apartment subcommittee that is making progress. Everything moves slower than one might want but it is moving.
Emily,
What are the issues that the two sides of the accessory apartment issue debating over??? Why can’t the BOA work together and move this issue forward?? Whats the hold up??
Emily, this is not my first rodeo on accessory apartments. The opposition to accessory apartments from the public and on the board has always been about added density and parking. We need 16 votes to liberalize the accessory apartment ordinance, and the fact that it ha taken almost two years just to reformat and clarify the existing zoning ordinance is sort of a microcosm for the glacial pace at which actual substantive zoning reform will occur. And just one more thought about the purported “affordability” of accessory apartments. ‘Tain’t necessarily so. I am aware of “undocumented” single occupancy basement accessory apartment units that are not up to code (i.e., inadequate egress, share living space with the furnace and hot water heater, etc.), that go for $1800 a month. That is neither “affordable” nor livable. At least units that have a permanent affordability restriction are both affordable and livable.
Barry, you said you used to live in Oak Hill Park, yes? That was paid for in large part with local, state and federal tax dollars. I find it ironic, although somewhat amusing, that people like you would have kept you out of Newton. C’est la guerre.
Paul, there are a lot of people living in Newton who do not want the people buying $1M houses to tear them down and replace them with something bigger, because they feel strongly that it would adversely affect the character of their neighborhoods. Everyone defines the Newton they want a little differently, just as Jerry Reilly said. Vive la difference.
Colleen, Newton has actually seen very little growth in the total number of units. Family sizes are smaller than in the 1960s when almost 100,000 people called Newton home and there were over 18,000 students in the public schools. I know a lot of Village 14 bloggers are skeptical about “smart growth,” but that is what I am talking about. Even a 1% increase per year, which would only be about 320 units of housing, would have a dramatic impact on the diversity of housing if it is the right kind of housing in the right places. But that would take some intensive long term strategic planning and–dare I say it–vision, which Greg Reibman, Rev. Howard Haywood and I find to be in very short supply here in the Garden City.
Peace out and have a nice weekend, y’all.
Ted,
I already had another discussion, which I assume you saw, about OHP. It’s a different issue. I bought in OHP at a competitive market price at the time. I wasn’t subsidized. And my conclusion was, if you remember, that, had OHP not existed, I would have waited until I could afford what Newton had to offer, and not expected someone to subsidize my entry into Newton.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/02/boston-magazine-not-in-newtons-back-yard/#comment-54329
OK, this is the part that I’m having trouble with. The “smart growth” planned for our village centers is comprised primarily of high-density, upscale or luxury units with a percentage of Affordable units, mostly one and two bedrooms, some threes. The market rate, upscale units would not be affordable for many working families. Would our teachers, police officers and firefighters qualify for the Affordable units? Outside our village centers, the current zoning and special permit process is allowing for the rapid replacement of smaller, older single and two-family homes (many with more affordable rental units) with massive single-families, luxury attached single-families, and high-end condos, pricing out all but the most affluent home buyers. So how do we create or preserve housing that teachers, police officers, firefighters and other similarly compensated professions can afford? The 40B process doesn’t do it, and our current zoning/special permit doesn’t do it.
As Ted says” the opposition to accessory apartments from the public, and on the Board ( and I do agree ), has always been about added density and parking”. We lose trees and ground cover, we gain fire escapes, more asphalt, and increased traffic jambs
“Density IS the Problem ” and Newton, if it is to maintain it’s “Garden City” character, need not facilitate and encourage ” growth”, smart or dumb!
Cancer is a growth, and adding a unit here, a unit there, and 80 units at Austin Street is a slow but certain ‘death by a thousand cuts’, to our valuable town scapes!
In the Comprehensive Plans, 2007 & 2011, and the JAPG report “a key component of the vision for village centers is the creation of village area plans that address economic growth, redevelopment, housing, open space, parking, infrastructure and transportation. Such a plan, once in place, would serve as a focus for coordinating public investments or directing private contributions in a coordinated fashion.” The city needs to develope that plan instead of just throwing up buildings wherever.
I don’t get the point of this commentary. “Now is the time.” In reference to past Mayors’s plans not being supported.
In 1923, Mayor Childs did call the first zoning ordinance sent to him “selfish,” but he vetoed it and he was proud of the one that was subsequently passed as it “will be a great benefit to Newton and the Newton of the future because it will make it possible for character to have an equal chance with money as our city grows.” “what we need in Newton more than anything else is more homes for young married people. I believe that they ought to have the privilege of living in the same city with their parents, if they so desire.” He did not speak of “character” with a negative connotation.
By 1964 Mayor Gibbs had spent his first two years, as well as his years as a Senator, fighting the Transportation Authority and Prudential to keep a toll road from destroying approximately 350 homes and businesses as it went through Newton from 128 to Boston. (In addition to advocating for “defense shelters” to be built in Newton.) After accepting defeat and that the toll road would be built, in 1962, he established the Family Relocation Service to try to help the displaced families. In 1964 the Pike was completed and in his last inaugural address, before he tossed his hat into the ring at the Republican Convention to run for Lt Governor, he was talking about plans to help Newton recover and reinvigorate. Continued by Newton’s future mayors, air rights were negotiated to put a hotel and a supermarket over the pike, the city fought for and received payment for the Fire Station that had been destroyed in Newton Corner and by 1969 had bought back land near Myrtle Baptist Church.
When Mayor Gibbs spoke, in 1962, about the “unique character of each of Newton’s Villages,” and their “charm” and “natural beauty,” and about the “homes people had spent their lives in that were not just wooden structures to provide shelter but represented a significant part of who they were,” he was expressing the communities love of its city that was being threatened by the loss of the train into Boston, the destruction of its neighborhoods being replaced by concrete. Not its inability to move forward. It rebuilt and continued to rebuild.
Excellent post by Tricia.
Hopefully Ted will respond, because it doesn’t make sense to me either.
Newton hasn’t had affordable housing for teachers, police officers, or fire fighters, for at least 2 decades.
So, the “keep it as it is” folks want to keep out people from other areas of the country, like us?
Our last house, about 200 sq ft, 3 bed 2 bath, room to build a bonus room in the attic, great view, 11′ foot ceilings, on a beautiful 1 acre lot with about a third of it behind privacy fencing, in a very nice, very desirable neighborhood, sold for $160,000 when we moved from Middle Tennessee.
My husband and I are those well-educated, professional, tech and related industries people who are looking for a safe, nice, diverse town with great schools, close enough to utilize public transportation to get to Cambridge or Boston to work, with libraries and entertainment and food, and everything else that Newton boasts and attracts. It is already pretty dang crowded here, and is definitely urban already. There are no cows in town, you can get groceries with out a car, no Target. Urban.
But, we may never be able to own a home here, just because the markets are so dang different!
And, we have a lot in common with many folks in Newton. Other than having lived and worked in many parts of the country, we don’t add a lot to the diversity of the community.
I have spent my life until moving here living blue in red states. And I heard the same arguments there: “But, we like it like it is! We paid good money to have it like this. We really don’t want or need anyone who can’t or won’t do the same to come here.”
I am so disappointed. I had higher hopes.
In this discussion, this NIMBYism is couched in the issue of population density. You’re right in one respect- that there are already too many people in the space. That is not changing, though. And, people will want to live here because of schools, proximity to jobs, villages and neighborhoods. This city is not a damn country club, accessible only to people who are invited in and can afford the buy-in. Nor should it be.
I value the diversity that we do find. I love that the people who are here handle the differences in the religions, countries of origin, interests, and ideas between themselves and their neighbors so easily. I love that the issues with the school system aren’t whether or not the make the teachers buy their own guns or have the district pay for them, and how to keep real science from being taught in the classroom.
I still see, however, the same concern that letting in people who don’t have as much money or power will take away from the value of the community to the people who are already there.
This is not a zero-sum game, folks.
And not just teachers and firefighters and police officers (all well-paid jobs here, in comparison to elsewhere in the country), but servers and single-income families and single-parents and others, too, should be able to live here, especially if already do.
Face it, too, that many of the non-historical buildings and areas around town could be made to look and function better. If developments like aAustin Street can bring such improvements to Newtonville, let it. If a few new unity can bee added here or there, throughout town, let it happen. Spread it out. Use incentives, even. Huge apartment communities aren’t the only approach.
But, we are here, and more like us, and not very much like us, are on their way.
//Rant over
i read this blog, and talk to folks, and try to gain insight into my new community. In general, I really like it here, although a few cows would make it better. I have found New Englanders to be far friendlier that reputed to be. I plan on living and working here and raising my daughter here for a good, long time.
And on speaking up.
Well said, Carry. Ever think of running for alderman? 😉
@Carry -Welcome to town, thanks for joining the conversation … and we’ll get to work looking for a few cows to put outside City Hall 😉
Carry-Welcome to Newton! You’re probably not going to find cows here any time soon, but if coyotes or turkeys will do, you’ll be very happy here. Like you, most people are from somewhere else. The native Newtonians have some great stories to tell about the history of the city and one example is the building of the Mass. Pike. At this point it looks like it’s been there forever, but the story behind it is much more complex.
While we’re known as a community where no opinion can be left unspoken, in truth we tend to be civic minded, neighborly, and engaged in many aspects of the community. I hope you’ll be very happy that you chose to settle here.
Welcome Carry!!! I hope you have a great life in Newton.
I think one of the major issues in a problem like this is when people paint this as a universal issue. For instance, one city should grow, therefore, all citiies need to grow. To me, this has always been lazy leadership by not studying the problem individually. This should be a problem that should be taken one at a time. Not all cities are the same.
Hi Carry. Great post. It’s nice to hear another perspective and to welcome another transplant.
I don’t see any drawbacks to accessory apartments. Additional density? They can be for increased income to allow someone to stay in their home, provide a home for multiple generations either for help taking care of the family or to combine incomes or for a place for young people not ready to live on their own. I know 2 young families who have renovated their home so their parents can live with them, but have had to create living space on the first floor for their parents, put the one allowed kitchen 1/2 floor above and their living area up another 1/2 floor.
To repeat myself and others, the city needs to present the necessity for creating affordable housing to provide diversity, economic and in every other way, and its innumerable benefits to our city. Not advertised as a way to provide homes and apartments for middle income earners, public employees, such as teachers, firemen and police officers, seniors, and young adults who want to stay in Newton. With the income and asset restrictions, most will not qualify.
Many will also not want to pay, even if they could, the high prices of the market rate rents and mortgages that comprise most of the new homes being added in Newton.
We need homes for all who want to live in Newton, for whatever reason, but it would take moderate priced units added to the mix to attract those with moderate incomes.
Carry, I cannot promise more cows, but you might be interested to know that a pair of American Bald Eagles has moved into West Newton over by The Fesseden School. They are, to say the least, majestic.
Marti, a better zoning ordinance and policies could promote the creation of a more diverse housing stock that includes housing opportunities for individuals and families at all income levels. But to meet those needs will require the development of additional housing units in the city. In fact, that is the only way it is going to happen, because the existing housing stock cannot. Indeed, the median price for housing far outpaces the median household income in Newton as well as Massachusetts.
I’m off to church to work with some of our young people. Have a happy and safe weekend, all.
Ted, you had better take a breath, because I agree with everything you just said
Carry,
Welcome to Newton.
I don’t appreciate you imputing motive without facts. I’m not interested in increased density, whether that’s affordable housing, luxury housing, or anything in between. Not wanting to deal with more traffic, additional kids in our schools when we have too much overcrowding already and less open space has nothing to do with NIMBYism or any other motive you aspire to put onto opponents of new development.
@Paul: Increased density does not always equal more traffic or more kids in our schools.
Marti, I’m still breathing. I am all about finding common ground. 🙂
@Greg – Can you please elaborate, with specific examples that have worked?
If you build housing close to places of work, mass transit, grocery stores, restaurants, health clubs, etc then you can eliminate the need for many car rides.
Also, as Chestnut Hill Square has proven, traffic remediation works. People, including me, predicted massive traffic headaches there, but it did not happen. In that case, we’re not talking about less cars, but less “traffic”
Waban is one of my favorite villages. The charming and upscale nature of Waban can not be overstated.
I’d be interested to know if the folks who are interested in increasing the density adjacent to the residential areas of other villages feel it’s appropriate to do the same with Waban.
There’s an awesome piece of property across from the library that could work well. Smart growth, right next to transit with an brand new expanded elementary school just a block away. Essentially it’s perfect and ripe for development.
To the posters who say those moving to Newton buying the $1+ million dollar homes and leasing the luxury priced apartment “like Newton the way it is,” I would like to know how you determined that fact. A survey, a poll? Because there is no consensus I’ve heard. For many the reason is the first in purchasing most real estate, location, location location, meaning close to work (128, Boston, even Newton), close to play (Boston, Cambridge, Newton), close to culture WZE3Newton Symphony, Cultural Center, Library, Nomaduc Theater, Cambridge Reporatory Theater with its “last step before Broadway” shows), close to many and varied colleges, close to friends, family, close to outdoor activities, (bike trails, kayacking, sailing, parks, Echo Bridge, Crystal Lake, etc.), close to South Station for trips to New York, Washington, close to Airports (Logan, Providence), close to healthcare (Newton Welsley, Beth Israel Needhan, MGH West Waltham, St E’s, Longwood area) and close access to the T, Commuter Rail (Back Bay, Boston Commns, one stop from Fenway). For others it’s the reputation of the schools. For still others, particularly those of us who have moved here from suburbs in other states, it’s one of the towns closest to Boston that has a suburban/urban feel that eases the transition.
There is no one specific reason people are attracted to Newton; we cannot be lumped together as a group with synced minds anymore than any other group of people can.
Jane says, “Newton hasn’t had affordable housing for teachers, police officers, or fire fighters, for at least 2 decades.” And it won’t if the big new developments continue to be built for only the highest income and lowest income earners. Newton’s moderate housing needs are not being met now or in any plans for the future.
Paul,
“We don’t want that HERE” is the very definition of Not In My Backyard.
My point is that the people who are here first cannot (legally and ethically, at least) decide which people get to come in after them, or if they can.
Even if you do not build it, they will come. If you plan and build it right, it will all be okay.
And I will have to make a point of checking out Waban more thoroughly. Until reading these boards and some TAB and Globe articles in the last couple of weeks, I had no idea that it was all that. Besides, think my dirty, 10 year old full-size SUV going down the streets might make the denizens nervous. That could be fun.
“My point is that the people who are here first cannot (legally and ethically, at least) decide which people get to come in after them, or if they can.”
No one is saying that.
Please stop making things up.
I think at some point, people have to realize that not everyone can afford everything. I can’t afford a house like Tom and Gisele. I can’t afford a second house on the Cape. That’s OK. I wanted to live in Newton for the schools and proximity to Boston, so we scrimped and saved for many years, living in small apartments. But, if we couldn’t save the money, I would have lived somewhere else.
There are still many condos and apartments available in existing 2 family houses which are moderately priced. I know many young families who bought one of these condos as their first property in Newton, and they seem very content. They are a great alternative for those who cannot afford a single family home, or are seeking a smaller living space, such as younger professionals or those who are downsizing. Condos in 2 family houses allow residents to enjoy Newton’s schools, and living in a neighborhood which is often within walking distance of amenities. They are usually much more affordable for more people than units in proposed new construction in Newton. Knowing how that these condos (and apartments) already serve a diverse population, I am not persuaded by the administration’s argument that Newton needs to pursue new construction projects to offer diverse housing options.
Jeff, I would be interested in what you think is “moderately priced.” A family of 4 living on a moderate income (80% of the area median income) can only afford to pay $218,000 for a house/condo. What do you think is the fair market price for a 3BR condo in Newton these days? I can tell you that last month, there were only two 2-family houses in Newton listed for sale with an asking price under $1 million. That tells me it is probably somewhere north of $500,000.
Here is where I don’t trust the administration:
” If you plan and build it right, it will all be okay.”
To me, thats the essence of the problem. Historically we’ve never excelled i this area.
@Carry – I can assure you that your 10yr old SUV will not be unduly out of place in Waban. While not common, we even have a couple of “yard cars” in the village if you know where to look for them.
Among the places you should look, make sure you drive by the St. Philip Neri site at the corner of Beacon and Chestnut (actually fronting on Short St). The site has been sold for a developer and will be the site of some form of denser housing (though we don’t yet know exactly what).
To give an answer to Charley’s question a different way than what he asked: Waban is a village of Newton the same as any other. Any solutions to citywide problems will always be solved at least in part in Waban.
Ted,
Can you address Tricia’s post?
Paul, I agree with Tricia that our current zoning does not address the need for more diverse housing stock. But you are not going to like my answer, which is that we could promote the creation of median priced housing affordable to median income households if we allowed for greater density (e.g., smaller size buildable lots), more multi-family developments (e.g., 3-4 units), and incentives for attached dwellings that include smaller, more affordable units. Is there another way? Probably not, since it would require depressing the housing prices in Newton, and that is not acceptable to me nor to anyone else who owns a home here.
I was particularly interested on your perspective that the teardown phenomenon exacerbates the lack of affordable housing.
Carry, I think you are too eagerly drawing conclusions about Newton being over run by NIMBYism and about Waban in particular. It was a small group of people in Waban who had way too much influence over the Fire Station decision and they certainly don’t represent a cross section of who lives there. Each village has a population with diverse opinions.
Jeff, let me know where those moderately priced condos are because I know a lot of young people ready to grab them. Most 2 bedroom attached or multi family condos are over $500,000 and a “normal” lease is around $2200/month with 2 bedrooms and 1 bath.
What Chris said. I live in Waban and no one stares at me in my 11 year old car. But you might also want to try Newton Highlands, especially after Anna’s Taqueria opens up.
BTW, I never meant to imply that Newton “owed” housing to teachers, police officers, or fire fighters. I was merely stating a fact, that it’s no longer affordable for many groups and there’s no turning back the clock on that one. That doesn’t mean that the city shouldn’t have diverse housing options in the city.
My NIMBYism observations are based on the no-growth, no-change comments above and in related discussions.
And, if you do not think planned growth has been handled well in the past, then it would seem a new way of planning is beeded.
Please don’t take from this that I am a proponent of throwing up high-density, low rent apartments, or jumping right in on major projects.
But we need to stipulate the the fact that growth will happen, that younger generations (high student loans, smaller families, moving farther from home, greener) will have different needs and priorities than most current Newton households now, and that we need to find a way to go make it work.
Ted–
One other question to understand your perspective (but would still like to hear your perspective on teardowns and whether its worsening our diverse housing stock):
When you say this:
” we could promote the creation of median priced housing affordable to median income households if we allowed for greater density (e.g., smaller size buildable lots), more multi-family developments (e.g., 3-4 units), and incentives for attached dwellings that include smaller, more affordable units.”
How many units should Newton be seeking? What do you believe is the appropriate end-state?
I’ve taken a bit of a break from the blog, but I can’t help weighing in here. While I appreciate that there are many diverse opinions in Waban, I was personally shocked by how many of my friends and neighbors who I know to be true champions of social justice (and good and kind folks) were against the Engine 6 project based on pure emotion. Some of that was a poor job of the city in preparing the area for the project. Some of that was the city poorly preparing the non-profit (since the city was very supportive until it did an about face based on political pressure). But a lot of it was pure NIMBYism, and it was really ugly.
Time has passed, and as usual in these situations it is easy to muddy the waters a bit. But from my PERSONAL interactions on this issue, it was the worst type of misinformation and gut reactions, even from folks on the opposite sides of Waban. Some concerns regarding property values, a lot of straw men regarding the protecting our children from sex offenders, and a fair amount of hypocrisy.
Here is where Waban and the city lost me. It cut off the debate. The project could have been adjusted and at the very least we could have gotten some affordable housing in Waban. Maybe not homeless housing, but affordable. For the record the project could have been filled up just with folks who grew up in Newton or were homeless in Newton (that does happen you know). But I lost a lot of respect for the Mayor with what occurred, and I look at my friends with new eyes. They are still good people, generous to a fault. But for some of them they moved to Newton to get some distance from some of the causes they say they champion. Best for them to address the issues at that safe distance I suppose, but I have trouble with it, again on a personal level.
I bring this up because I obviously live in Newtonville, and most folks know my take on the Austin Project. I have to say that the mistakes the Mayor made on Engine 6 are magnified on Austin Street, but in a different way. The Engine 6 debate I thought the Mayor acted in a cowardly fashion. On Austin Street, I just think the process has been incompetent. Maybe both situations were in the end.
I would welcome an affordable housing project on Austin Street. I would prefer the size to be under 40 units, and there are many different permutations regarding rent levels that could work. I have heard very little of the angst that Engine 6/Waban had regarding affordable housing, perhaps because Newtonville already has far more affordable units than Waban. But the Mayor has “picked” a developer (not a project for some reason) and seems to eager to tout the green nature of the development over the community’s issues with size, architectural failure (that greenstax program produces UGLY buildings), and parking.
I realize the advantage that a large project brings, namely that you get some portion of affordable units without needing additional state and federal subsidy. I’m fine with that, but many of our neighboring communities (BOSTON does this all the time) manage to make these large projects work with attractive, well-designed buildings that fit the neighborhood. The developer is these meetings seems far more focused on selling the project in a vacuum vs. working to fit it into the Village (hence the horrible idea about angled parking on Walnut).
Generally I’ve been a proponent of Austin Street’s redevelopment. The parking lot is a wasted opportunity as is. But I’m very much disheartened about the process thus far, and especially the leadership of our Mayor and his team.
I guess what I’m saying is that I agree with the original letter, lately Newton has lacked courage (Engine 6) and creativity (Austin Street) on these issues. I think a lot of that is due to our Mayor having his eye on future office instead of what is best for the city, and the fact that our aldermen/alderwomen are disorganized and don’t represent the city as a whole (even the at-large ones). We have a zoning and permitting opinion which is disorganized and out of date, which hurts as well. Many of our neighboring communities make these types of projects work as a matter of course. We can do better.
Paul, regarding tear downs, correlation is not the same as causation. If the replacement house is a Xanadu, as opposed to several smaller, more affordable units, then our housing stick skews toward more costly. But it is the housing market in Newton that drives tear downs, i.e., land is far more valuable than the house sitting on it.
As for maximum buildout, this report from MAPC gives a projected range of the likely housing demand. The more closely supply meets demand, the greater diversity of housing we will have. And, please note, one of the key findings in the report is that student enrollment has peaked and is likely to decline in the coming decades.
So as a proponent of a more diverse housing stock, I can assume you support a moratorium on teardowns for larger, more expensive single family homes?
On the projected decline in student enrollment from the MAPC report– it directly contradicts Newton’s projected enrollment between now and 2020, which expects continued growth as per the annual enrollment report. Further, the projected decline from 2010-2020 in the MAPC report is not consistent with the actual experience in Newton since 2010, which has been increased growth every year thus far.
Paul, nope. Go back and reread my post. Correlation is not the same as causation. Stopping tear downs is not going to increase housing diversity. Only adding housing units can do that.
Sorry Ted– the people who can afford $500K-$1M houses need somewhere to live, too. These are the houses that are being bought and turned into $2M+ houses. The teardowns are increasingly creating a less affordable, less diverse housing stock.
Is diversity of housing stock just having units $2M for you? What about houses in the middle? Those are the houses that we’re losing.
Please explain.
The end got messed up there… should say:
For you, is diversity of housing stock just having units that are less than $500K and more than $2M? What about houses in the middle? Those are the houses that we’re losing.
Please explain.
@fignewtonville, well said.
@Paul, I already answered that. I am not going to respond to your questions anymore until you start reading the answers. Yes, I am in favor of increasing housing opportunities for households of all income levels.
Look, the issue is that Newton is simply an expensive place to live. When developers buy a house, tear it down, and put up another house, it tells you what they think the lot is worth. We who are here should all be happy. Do we want to cause the property values to drop (like Detroit), to satisfy some cause?
I wish people would stop defining other people’s motivations in not wanting certain projects or in not wanting subsidized housing (which is the only way to create “affordable” housing in Newton). Saying that people who believe in “social justice”, whatever that is, rejected the fire station project is just an accusation without basis, as if they failed some test and are therefore evil selfish people under their facade of social concern.
We all want different things.
So people who can’t afford a $2m home are relegated to multi-family housing in your vision? Why not preserve the cheaper single family homes? That’s a more diverse housing stock.
PS I read your answers. Don’t assume otherwise.
I will say that the reduction in student population is beginning to make sense to me. Do we really think all the folks spending 2 million on a house are sending their kids to public school? At the very least they have the means to not do so. And in my neighborhood at least, the vast majority of homes have changed hands to folks under the age of 50, and many of those have now gotten their kids through the school systems. So the influx from boomers leaving and being replaced by young families in my neighborhood is pretty much done.
I’m all in favor of keeping the “affordable” housing stock. But some of it makes more sense than others. there are a lot of crappy 1950s housing in Newton in some neighborhoods. Older is not always better. And if it is sitting on a large lot, I can understand why a city would want to allow for a new house, with much larger property tax payments…. It is a balancing act between many factors, including charm, affordability, size of lot, neighborhood, etc.
Fignewtonville,
“there are a lot of crappy 1950s housing in Newton in some neighborhoods.” (Sic )
To someone buying one of those ‘crappy houses’ , after scraping together enough money to move here, this would sound pretty insulting and I doubt you’d have the courage to describe their purchase in those terms to their face.
Those ‘crappy houses’ shelter the people talked about here, the plumbers, police men, and carpenters who you would apparently just as soon see replaced by upscale McMansion owners not straining our school system. Let the elderly age in place in their ‘crappy houses’, and let them sell them to fire men and school teachers . And don’t legislate, as we do, with devious zoning regulations, favoring, even encouraging, real estate speculation resulting in the demolition of ‘crappy houses’, and their replacement with out sized ‘crappy’, tax generating mega mansions.
Ted,
To reply to your question, here are some recently sold moderately priced condos (for Newton) on Realtor.com in 2 or 3 family houses. I think these prices are lower than one would find in new construction for units which are not specified as ‘affordable.’
http://www.realtor.com/soldhomeprices/Newton_MA/pg-2
1268 Boylston St Unit A Newton, MA 02464
2 Bed /1 Full Bath 1,126 Sq Ft
Sold for $299,000 on Sep 23, 2014
1034 Chestnut StNewton, MA 02464
Sold for $352,500 on Oct 31, 2014
2 Bed 1 Full, 1 Half Bath 887 Sq Ft
15 Cottage Ct # 1 Newton, MA 02458
Sold for $360,000 on Sep 30, 2014
Bed /2 Bath/ 979 Sq Ft
1276-1278 Boylston St Unit 1 Newton, MA 02464
Newton, MA 02464
Sold for $365,000 on Feb 27, 2015
3 Bed/1 Full Bath 1,105 Sq Ft
474-476 Abemarle Rd Unit 1Newton, MA 02460
Sold for $369,000 on Dec 1, 2014
2 Bed/1 Full Bath 1,040 Sq Ft
358-360 Nevada St Unit 1
Sold for $388,000 on Nov 24, 2014
2 Bed 1 Full Bath 1,050 Sq Ft
160 Elliot St
Newton, MA 02464
Sold for $403,000 on Sep 26, 2014
2 Bed/2 Bath 1,050 Sq Ft
8 Ellis St Newton, MA 02464
Sold for $430,000 on Jan 23, 2015
3 Bed / Baths 2 Full, 1 Half Bath 1,257 Sq Ft
259 Cherry St Newton, MA 02465
Sold for $435,000 on Oct 30, 2014
2 Bed /1 Bath 1,393 Sq Ft
1900 Washington St Unit 3
Newton, MA 02466
Sold for $435,000 on Dec 16, 2014
3 Bed/1 Full Bath Size1,369 Sq Ft
52 Playstead Rd # 1
Newton, MA 02458
Sold for $437,500 on Sep 24, 2014
2 Bed / 1 Bath 1,175 Sq Ft
1900 Washington St # 1
Auburndale, MA 02466
Sold for $438,000 on Oct 9, 2014
3 Bed /1 full 1 half bath/ 1,270 Sq Ft
what fignewtonville said…thank you for saying it @8:07am.
Yes to Fignewtonville’s description of the mayor’s handling of the Firestation as cowardly although I wouldn’t call his handling of the Austin Street Proposal as incompetent, maybe secretive or dishonest, because he is getting just what he wanted. And the strategy by ASP’s supporters of labeling anyone who questions even a few points about the plan as supporting NIMBYism is a compelling one as is the constant comparison to the Firestation. The only similarity between the two proposals is the mayor’s refusal to negotiate any changes to them by “cutting off” any further discussion of the Firestation, just before a scheduled public hearing and because ASP is proposing just what he wants. But as Fignewtonville also says actually “I have heard very little of the angst that Engine 6/Waban had regarding affordable housing, perhaps because Newtonville already has far more affordable units than Waban. I would welcome an affordable housing project on Austin Street. I would prefer the size to be under 40 units, and there are many different permutations regarding rent levels that could work, but the Mayor seems to eager to tout the green nature of the development over the community’s issues with size, architectural failure (that greenstax program produces UGLY buildings), and parking.
Many of our neighboring communities (BOSTON does this all the time) manage to make these large projects work with attractive, well-designed buildings that fit the neighborhood. The developer is these meetings seems far more focused on selling the project in a vacuum vs. working to fit it into the Village (hence the horrible idea about angled parking on Walnut).” well said.
There have been many residents of those “crappy” houses posting on other threads who completely disagree that they should be torn down. That was completely disrespectful.
The “motives” ascribed to the group who opposed the conversion of the Firestation in Waban were well articulated. There is no need to try to “describe their motivations” for them or make ” accusations.” Also Newton is not Detroit, even remotely, and it is a myth that the things you mention drive down property values.
As Jeff posted to Ted,… I would add at least 2 more NEW units ( 1529.53 sf and 1535.82 sf , to quote the permit drawings ), about to come on the market across the street from me, that, if others in my neighborhood are any indication, should go for $ 1 million plus. One could have purchased the 2 family that existed there for $650,000, and yes it would have taken some sweat equity and a few bucks, in fixing it up, but developer profits would not be a part of the equation, and the units would have been much more ” affordable”.
Blueprintbill and Marti:
Perhaps I was a bit flip in my description. Consider it bred from familiarity. I think you need to take a really hard look at the housing stock in Newton. I have. I looked for years before I moved here, and I certainly don’t live in a McMansion. I must have seen 200 or more 1950s ranch/splitlevel/fake colonial (most with bad insulation, rotten sills, substandard wiring, water damage, badly built basements, and load issues, but hey, with some sweat equity and a complete rebuild from the guts out, you’ve got yourself a nice house… 😉 ) After a while, you get a rather jaundiced view of such things. I certainly didn’t mean to offend, but let’s look at those houses a bit more:
First, let’s be honest about that housing stock and the useful life of buildings. Ask any architect or construction specialist. A large portion of post-war housing was thrown up haphazardly, and the construction and the materials don’t have a 100 year life in a lot of cases. And again, let’s be honest, some of those older folks haven’t taken care of them over the past decade or two. I really do believe in historic rehabilitation and preserving neighborhood charm and sense of place, but I have a hard time believing that I offended anyone in my description of “crappy 1950s housing”. And if I did, perhaps they should take a deep breath and get an ice cream or something and get offended about something a little more meaty. I’m right there with them in owning a current or former crap box. My house was a crap box when I bought it, and in some ways it STILL needs a lot of work. But I think (I hope) that the bones are solid (knocking furiously on wood). I don’t think that can be said for a good portion of the 1950s housing stock in Newton.
And Blueprintbill, how about reading my comments within the context of my other posts? I’m a huge proponent of affordable housing, and I’d love to encourage keeping smaller homes small. But a good potion of the housing stock you are claiming as police/teacher/firemen/plumbers/carpenter housing is NOT what you claim it to be. there is a reason why on a lot of older 1950s homes the ONLY bidders are developers, often below asking. Sweat equity only goes so far, you’ve got to have the bones of a good house to make the rehab worth it, whether or not you are living in it yourself or selling it. The homes I’m talking about, it would cost too much to do the rehab you so quickly throw out there as a solutions, even with sweat equity. A lot of the time it is hard to see that unless you have the knowledge, and I have a lot of friends who have bought the homes I’m talking about and now refer to their sweat equity project as the sequel to the Money Pit. When you have that and you buy in Newton, it can really do a number on your life. And I say that also from personal experience.
I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying that there was a lot of this crappy housing in Newton (and Boston, and Brookline, and most towns in eastern MA with post-war buildings), but you took it a step further and implied that I was saying that ALL such 1950s housing was crappy. I take my homes as I find them, and with the benefit of hard experience. Take offense if you want, and again, perhaps I was too flip in using the term crappy. How about run-down? Past their prime? Long in the tooth? Restoring these homes to their former glory doesn’t really seem to interest too many folks.
But all my being a wiseacre, for the love of your sanity or your friends sanity (or those carpenters/plumbers/firemen/teachers you claim are so eager to buy up these properties and rehab them with sweat equity), make sure they get a home inspection, and price out the cost of major repairs before bidding on a house. I know from work and personal experience, you’ll be surprised.
Modern homes have a lifespan, just like people do. Not every home should be preserved forever. That doesn’t mean you have to build huge in its place….
So for the record, if someone tears down these lovely 1950s odes to quick and dirty construction, I’d far prefer them to rebuild with a 2000 square foot house, with hefty setbacks. Those 1950s builders did get that right. Houses should have some space to breath, new or old.
Now I’m off to go repair a whole crapload of ice-dam damage, since my own person crapbox was built with poor insulation and has a too warm attic. Yes, I need to replace the roof and put in a membrane beneath the shingles. But when you own a crap box, repairs are parceled out per year, not all at once.
Cheers to all.
Fig – It’s a blog and it’s not that big a deal, but sometimes when you step in it, it’s best to walk it back. Call your house what you’d like but let others do the same.
I used to hear old time carpenters grumble about the quality of post war housing construction when I was a kid and I think there was some truth in what they said. Our house was built in 1933 with steel beam construction, intricate wainscoting, and thick and solid walls and floors. It’s a gem of a place and I get a lot of nice comments from people passing by when I’m doing yard work in front of the house. We’ve done little but replace shingles and screens on our porch. 70 years after the house was built, I took off all the old wall paper so we could paint the walls with light beige and white colors. I found only one small crack in the entire house, on a small portion of wall space over one of the doors. The original copper water pipes seem as good as the day they were put in, but we had to completely rewire the electrical system a few years back. We probably waited too long to do that.
Jane, got to disagree on this one. Ask folks in construction, there is a remarkable difference in construction in different time periods. Post war construction is often not worth rehabbing, even with sweat equity. Sometimes it is better to start with a new house (i.e. the land is worth more than the house). That isn’t to say every 1950’s house is that way, especially if the rehab was conducted over decades and improved the house over time. But I’ve seen so many post-war construction homes where that hasn’t happened, and after pricing it out, the $450K for the house was equaled by the $450K to repair it (and slightly expand it).
And like many of my other views on this blog, I try and find the reasonable position. If we revise the zoning code to restrict these types of homes from being torn down in the name of middle class housing, I think there are many homes where we are preserving something that is best taken down. And in reality, what we are doing is punishing the homeowners that live in those homes right now with lower pricing on their sale, since as I mentioned early, many times it is only the developers bidding on these homes.
Good zoning codes in my opinion deal with the look and feel of the new house, but give enough leeway to allow for the reconstitution of the housing stock. Folks need to face the reality that some homes really are craptastic. In my experience the post-war quick construction is a big part of that, but I’ll also gladly besmirth the 1970 “modern” and the 1980 post-modern in terms of asthetics. But the construction finishes on those homes generally are better due to more regulations and better materials.
I’ll also note that even if you preserve these 1950s homes and redo them with sweat equity, once redone they tend to go for far above what someone at 100% of AMI can afford. I can list out the 20 or so places in Newton for under $500K. Go look at them. I did a few years back, and then recently again for a friend. That are certainly some nicer small condos for that price, but folks trying to preserve these homes also need to realize that the market is so tight that once they are brought back (often times at great expense), they are not being resold at reduced value. Now that may change if the market tanks (if there are any real estate agents on here, maybe they can chime in on the hot market providing beer goggles for certain homes), and these homes go back to being affordable and housing our carpenters/teachers/police/firemen/plumbers. But it is a strange policy to try and restrict personal property rights to get that result, and it is ultimately self-defeating.
Or…we could do what most other communities do, and realize that affordable housing is an imperfect market, that economic diversity has value to a community, and subsidize the building or affordable housing units or the rent of those who rent in certain apartments. But trying to save affordability by zoning is like using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel.
Ok, enough babble from me. If I offending anyone by disparaging 1950s homes or construction, my apologies. Send a reply back to this post and I’ll gladly meet you for a beer and we can swap construction horror stories.
@Jeff, these home prices are still out of reach for households earning the area median income, and represent a very small portion of the 1500+ homes per year that are sold on average in Newton. In 2013, 2.4% of single family homes sold for under $400,000, $16.6% sold for under $600,000, 41.5% sold for over $1 million. The median assessed value as of January 1, 2015, based on sales in 2013, is $734,600. Zillow provides a snapshot of what the housing market is like in Newton right now: home prices rose 2% in 2014, the median home value is $821,300, the median listing price is $1,225,000, and the median price of homes that sold is $711,000.
@fignewtonville, although you use (slightly) more colorful language, your assessment is consistent with what I hear from contractors who work on post-WWII housing. It is important to keep in mind that the “housing boom” reflected the “baby boom” in the post war years, and that meeting the urgent need for sufficient, inexpensive single family homes meant cutting some corners on construction quality. It is not a reflection on the people living in those homes.
Ted,
Newton isn’t the only place to live in Massachusetts. What are housing costs in Brockton or Billerica or any town west of 495?
You seem to think that this one city has to provide for anyone. Why don’t you go after Weston or Carlisle or Dover, places that really have uniformly high housing costs and a lot of land, unlike Newton that does have diversity in housing.
I’m starting to agree with Barry’s point of view. I don’t get why we have to provide for everyone who can’t buy a house here. It’s not as if there are not other communities in which to live. If proximity to Boston is an issue, there are other communities closer to Boston which are less expensive. We wanted to live in Newton due to proximity to family, and we saved and did without to buy a home. I’d love to live in Dover with more land, but we can’t afford it and I don’t expect the community of Dover to change their landscape for me. Not every profession pays the same, just a fact of life.
I don’t think the issue is Newton versus Dover or Brookline or Waltham or Wellesley ….. I think the issue is MA is very short of housing and all communities should help out. Housing near mass transportation benefits the environment by reducing the need to drive and therefore reducing air pollution. Housing in developed areas versus open space (farm lands, woods, etc.) also benefits the environment by maintaining open space. All part of the global warming discussion.
Lucia,
An issue is that, if you are going to use tax money to subsidize housing, because of the value of land, it’s going to eat up a lot more tax money to buy or build such housing in Newton. Not that I’m in favor of that, but, if a law exists that this must be done, there’s more bang for the buck in a less expensive community.
In addition, kids from families in subsidized homes in Newton are likely to more deprived in other respects financially than they would be in a less expensive community when they go to the schools.
Last, let’s keep global warming out of the discussion. It’s irrelevant.
After reading the thread of messages above I am convinced in 50 years people will ask what happened to the City of Newton? The answer will be that the leaders and the residents refused to engage in productive dialogue regarding the vision and future of the city. Based on studies and projections that were frequently discussed the city did not plan or provide for its senior citizens or its young growing families. When legitimate development opportunities were presented they were rejected always laying the blame at the feet of the developers. When forward thinking Mayors introduced visionary ideas to improve the quality of lives for all of our citizens they were rebuffed. City employees who we hire to teach our children, protect and keep us safe will have not been able to live in Newton for years. Newton will be an enclave of naysayers that will witness this once vibrant and welcoming community deteriorate into an exclusive self serving city with no sense of community.
It’s always nice to have a self appointed relevance moniter to let posters know what to keep out of the discussion. Or not.
It’s also not productive to make a 50 year destructive prediction of Newton’s demise to once again make a pejorative characterization of even the smallest opposition by residents to a project as NIMBYism. In this thread alone there are numerous different problems enumerated, some more valid than others. Including comments in other threads the distinct problems multiply. A few are “selfish” but most are not.
Where are the visionary plans for Newton’s village centers that address economic growth, redevelopment, housing, open space, parking, infrastructure and transportation that once in place, would serve as a focus for coordinating public investments or directing private contributions in a coordinated fashion promised in the Comprehensive Plans and the JAPG report? What visionary ideas, that improve everybody’s lives, have been presented as legitimate plans by our “forward thinking” mayor? How are residents refusing to engage in productive dialogue with the leaders? No solutions again, only dire predictions
As for the “future thinking” mayors from the original commentary, “what happened to Mayor Gibbs ambitious and thoughtful plan to revitalize the village centers, through a renewal proposal that would ensure economic stability for the city?” in 1964. There is no need to speculate. Mayor Gibbs announced his candidacy for Lt Gov at the Republican Convention, but his successor helped negotiate payment for the Firestation that was leveled in Newton Corner, the city by 1969 bought back some of the land near Myrtle Baptist Church and with the aforementioned renewal plan, helped find and build homes for those displaced by the turnpike. Newton certainly didn’t just deteriorate for 50 years. As for Mayor Childs in 1923, he vetoed the zoning ordinance he found to be selfish so it did not prevail and the citizens and elected officials did not reject change and decide the status quo was best for Newton. With compromise and negotiation, progress was made not let deteriorate because of a “do-nothing attitude.” In the 1950’s Oak Hill Park was built under a model program for returning war veterans.
I am not a self or otherwise appointed anything other than a life long resident of Newton and over the years I have experienced both the best and the worse of Newton. I grew up in West Newton in a small neighborhood that we referred to as the “village”. My and others lived and grew up there enjoyed the best of Newton but in our little enclave we were all aware of name that others outside of the village called it, the worse of Newton. We were fortunate to attend the great Newton Schools, participate in extracurricular activities and develop life long friendships, the best of Newton. Even in those positive experiences we encountered the worse of Newton by being encouraged not to take college preparatory courses and often told to simply behave and we would be fine. Thank God for the support of our parents, community and a few courageous teachers who knew our academic potential.
As was stated above in 1964 our village was destroyed by the construction of the Mass Turnpike a project that at the time we found devastating but in hind sight it was a tremendous benefit to the state in general and particularly the city of Boston. In trying to overcome the trauma of having our homes taken we again faced the worse of Newton when we attempted to purchase homes. The city did nothing in helping us acquire homes, Real Estate agents refused to show us homes and when they did they were not fit to live in. But again the best of Newton appeared through the private homeowners who submitted their names as willing to sell to us. This was the initiation of the Newton Fair Housing Committee.
Now in my 75th year as a Newton resident, yes, l am a little cynical but not hopeless I still believe that the best of Newton will prevail if we are willing to be open and honest in our discourse about the future of Newton. If we don’t let catch phrases like “character of the neighborhood” or “those people” go unchecked then we will be giving into the worse of Newton. Newton is a great City but it is not free from the “isms” that cripple us as a nation but we can be a model because when Newton lets its best prevail there is not a better place to live in this country.
Rev. Haywood did a beautiful job of explaining the hurt and the hope that has been a thread through Newton’s history.
Howard Haywood,
What you don’t see is that you consider to be Newton’s best which will prevail may not be everyone’s best. You see, most people that I know who refer to themselves as liberal in today’s politics, but who are not really liberal, have convinced themselves in a dogmatic, pretty much religious sans God way, that they have the answer to what the world ought to be and they disparage anyone who would think otherwise. Your speech is very touching, but not necessarily correct.
I think you had something to do with organizing that anti-police thing in Newton and, honestly, that was one of the worst that so-called liberals have to offer.
Your stories of prejudice decades ago are I know true and hopefully we have come a long way since then. I don’t want to think that with all the progress that’s been made those who have benefited from the progress are still angry enough to burn the stores of innocent shopkeepers, jump to judicial conclusions without information, act upon those conclusions in a violent way, and consider anyone who disagrees with their ideas racist or worse.
in my first paragraph about a “relevance monitor,” I was referring to Lucia’s comment “let’s keep global warming out of the discussion. It’s irrelevant.” Certainly not yours, Rev Haywood.
I have seen first hand the terrible things you reference, Rev Haywood and agree that the discussion needs to continue because the fight is not over. My point is that in the instance of the ASP development, anyone who questions any part of it is being lumped together as one entity all supporting NIMBYism and that’s just not the truth.
There are some problems with the project that no one wants to address and continuing to stigmatize people with valid points that could be improved upon stifles the dialogue.
Howard,
What Mayor(s), in your opinion, would you consider forward thinking??? Just curious.
Wow. How did I miss all of this? Frankly, the only way to address the housing issue is to pursue this:
#238-14 ALD. SANGIOLO requesting the Executive Department and Planning
Department work with the Board of Aldermen to develop a Housing Production
Plan in accordance with 760 CMR 56.03(4) and guidelines adopted by the
Department of Housing and Community Development as soon as possible.
[06/09/14 @ 11:55AM]
Our “current” strategy has failed. If we truly want to ensure “diversity” of housing – there cannot be one single approach. 40B’s are not the answer. The current teardown-replacement with McMansion trend is not helping either. The combination only makes the economic divide even greater – leaving no room for those of us in the “middle”. I cannot stress enough that we need a multi-pronged approach to housing.
I appreciate Reverend Haywood’s perspective – but they, the Newton Housing Authority, too, could be a little more aggressive, like they were in the past, to acquire our smaller,more modest, single- and two-family housing stock instead of watching developers coming in, buying up, and tearing down modestly affordable units and constructing these million dollar units. Let’s keep what we can affordable. Let’s increase density – where it makes sense. Let’s work together.
Marti, I agree with you and hope the continued deliberations on Austin Street can be productive and in an environment where everyone opinion can be heard and respected.
Tom, I think our current Mayor is forward looking because he has taken on the challenging task addressing pension funding and other long term debt issues ensuring the fiscal stability of the city of Newton. These are not popular ribbon cutting achievements but ones that will benefit the city for years to come.Barry, if you think the “isms” have disappeared in Newton you are just plain wrong. In Newton the long and tired code that the Southside of Newton is given better services than the Northside (Jews vs. Christians) is alive and well I hear it constantly. And yes I was leader of the march that was not against the police but against a flawed criminal justice system, we are fortunate to have a great police department which worked closely with us to make sure the march safe for all who participated. Finally I have never came close to saying the current businesses in Newtonville should be burned and destroyed. I live in Newtonville and support many of them but I believe that the Austin Street Development will bring a needed vibrancy that will increase the probability of success for the current businesses and the ones to come. I have never and never will support violent actions and resent your implication that I condone such actions.
Gee thanks, Reverend,
Not only has Obama, and his sympathizers like, yourself created hatred and conflict between blacks and whites, rich and poor, police and citizens, takers of tax benefits and suppliers of tax revenues, etc., but now you want to create hatred and conflict between the Jews (the south side) and the Christians (the north side). What other group in this awful society called America is abusing another group, so that maybe you can go out and lead a march?
By the way, I’m a Jew who lives in the north side, and I’m quite satisfied, thank you.
I thought that Newton Upper Falls was the poorest/least desirable part of the city back then? I am surprised to hear the Reverend say that where he lived was the “worse” part.
I said where I lived was the best of Newton.
Barry, you are completely satisfied? You would never know it all you ever post are complaints about the city, the people who make sacrifices to serve it. I have never read anything you have posted that is positive about Newton.
“My and others lived and grew up there enjoyed the best of Newton but in our little enclave we were all aware of name that others outside of the village called it, the worse of Newton”
@Howard Haywood-This your comment that I was referring to. I always thought that Newton Upper Falls was considered the poorest and least desirable part of Newton back in the day so I was wondering why you said that outsiders were saying where you lived was the worst part? Didn’t you live in West Newton? My friend’s family had their house taken for the building of the Mass Pike and they also had a terrible time finding a new house to buy in Newton with the money that they were given. They ended up finding a house in Newton Upper Falls that was inferior to the house that they were forced to leave and my friend’s Mother was very upset at the time to have to be moving to that undesirable part of the city. Even as late as the 1980’s I had friends who lived in Newton Upper Falls and they were very stigmatized by their zip code. There was even a nickname for kids from the Falls.
Alison, what I meant was that other names that the village was called was the worse of Newton. Hope this clarifies my statement.
Reverand,
First, I’m satisfied in the sense that I was responding to your baiting the Jews and Christians about who was taking advantage of whom in getting more from the city. And I do overall like Newton. I’ve been here for a long time and owned two houses here.
I just don’t like chronic rabble-rousers like yourself, whose innocent claims of “I don’t encourage violence” coupled with a march of anger (“hands up…..don’t shoot”) that stoke violence in other people, who want to adjust Newton to be what you and others like you prefer it to be. Ted wants to bring in terrorists, criminals, vagrants, and others just to satisfy his never-ending bleeding heart liberal guilt. And you want to live in the pre-civil rights ’50’s just like your compatriot Obama’s preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright and continue feeding the flames of racism, as if nothing has changed. Forget the fact that for a while we had a black president, a black governor and a black mayor.
Glad you’re not interested in race-baiting, Barry.
Gee, Adam, that’s an intelligent response.
@Barry Cohen –
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Rev Howard organized a 100% completely peaceful march that did not stoke up even the smallest bit of violence in anyone. I think you must be mixing him and his march with some other event.
Barry, I yield to your madness!
I agree with Amy: we need a Housing Production Plan. We need affordable housing that makes sense and we need to save the medium-priced houses.
Last week, a new construction permit was issued for a house that sold for $505K and has been demolished since.
A teardown permit was also issued for a two-family house previously sold for $1,2 Million, which means each new unit will be at least $1 Mil, instead of $600K.
Jerry,
The march here was part of a national response to a perceived persecution of black people by police. It created an environment of tension against all police. Even in peaceful demonstrations like the one in Newton, it added to the anger towards police which may have resulted in the murders of the two police officers in Brooklyn and the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, and other police shootings that have occurred recently. It magnified what may have been a particular problem in Ferguson or a particular problem in some communities to the level of national rage.
Not surprisingly, even the race-baiter Eric Holder couldn’t come up with grounds to prosecute Officer Wilson, as much as he would have liked to, so he indicted the whole Ferguson police department.
Reverend, if you think what I say is “madness”, you need to look in a mirror. The racial tension in the US has risen due to Obama, starting with his erroneous indictment of the Cambridge police officer who was simply trying to protect the home of Henry Gates. Where is his anger when Islamist terrorists behead peaceful American journalists and relief workers?
And if you think that this is all one-sided and that some people in some of these communities don’t contribute to the environment of violence, then perhaps you should put on a uniform and walk a beat in some of the high crime neighborhoods that are most problematic. I dare you.
Barry, please don’t forget all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons I want to welcome to Newton.
Gee, Ted, are we on to a new topic?
LMAO! Barry, you’re too hilarious to be real. I propose that you’re just Greg Reibman using a nom de plume to stir up controversy. Did I nail it?
Protect the home of Henry Gates from Henry Gates who couldn’t possibly live at that address
I can’t believe you guys still live in this fantasy that the cop in Cambridge was not doing his job in trying to find out why someone was trying to break into that house. But, that’s why you went out and marched.
Reverend you know Henry Gates, who is provocative, refused to answer the cop’s questions and exacerbated the situation, just as you exacerbated a situation with your march.
Suffice to say, I could not disagree more with Barry on his interpretation of the #BlackLivesMatter march in Newton (or elsewhere).
Emily,
Suffice it to say, no surprise.
The madness has prevailed. Comments closed.