On Monday night, Newton’s Board of Aldermen will begin debate of the proposed mixed use project at Austin Street, a process that began years ago and intensified in June with five months of public hearings before the Land Use Committee.
As was clear from many hours of comments, good people can and do disagree over the merits of this project and if it will be beneficial or harmful to Newtonville and our city.
But can we at least all agree that our city and our region faces a genuine housing crisis?
Based on too many of the Austin Street public hearing comments, letters in the TAB and comments here on Village 14 (such as this one from this morning), we can’t.
Here’s hoping public policy in Newton won’t be made based on the views of  all these self-appointed experts who are positive that they know more about housing demand than actual experts, such as the authors of this new study (you’ll find the executive summary on page 5).
Please note, that I’m not saying we can’t disagree over how to solve the crisis or even over Austin Street.
But in 2015 there should be no room in this debate for housing crisis deniers any more than we should tolerate climate change deniers because the data in both instances is irrefutable.
The study says that Newton house sales are declining. Crisis? True?
People are buying more condos in Dorchester! Gasp!
How on earth is Austin Street luxury condos going to solve this crisis?
The study uses soft data and makes broad conclusions. Boston is expensive and droves of people left 20 years ago. It will happen again and prices will decline naturally.
Fix the T’s and trains! 🙂
There are no luxury apartments proposed for Austin Street.
@ Darcy, Boston population has increased by 50,000 in the past 15 years.
OK. So I’ve put Darcy on the list of self-appointed housing experts who know more than actual experts. Anybody else?
Oh and Darcy, are you one of those people who never donates canned goods to a food pantry because it won’t solve world hunger?
Greg,
People who don’t donate to food pantries?
Climate change deniers?
Self-appointed housing experts?
Irrefutable data? Can you cite data? Or did you just take a leap of faith based upon what you believe? Do you understand the global climate data? And do you really understand housing data and all its nuances?
Don’t you have any limit on what you’ll bring in to a discussion in an attempt to embarrass people who disagree with you?
What’s the difference between market rate apartments and luxury apartments?
There is definitely a housing crisis and it’s driving the market so high it’s forcing metro Boston’s unique character and character’s out. I don’t want to be part of a boring, homogeneous environment. I could have stayed where I was in Connectucut for that.
I do wish that Newton, like so many other towns, would use architectural details from its past, mixed with the new, when creating new, hopefully actual, middle income places to live. I was at Babson College in Wellesley yesterday and loved seeing how they have mixed the preservation of the old with the new.
I’m sure I’m in the minority here, but I think the Andover-Newton campus, right behind the T, would be a great place to start blending the old with the new.
I’m going to be as honest as I possibly can. I’ve worked on the periphery of climate change with EPA since the early 80’s and only in someone’s wildest imagination could those opposed to Austin Street be compared to climate change deniers.
I haven’t commented on Austin Street because quite frankly I don’t know much about it and I confess that I haven’t made an effort to find out much about it. I haven’t attended any of the many community meetings called to discuss it and I haven’t analyzed any of the documents that pertain to it. At 79, I have all I can do to keep track of stuff affecting the Newton Highlands Area Council, the local historic district we are trying to set up here, things around an aging house, various work related items, campaign stuff with Bernie and Brian, etc. etc. My aging brain can absorb only so much information and no more and this gets more difficult with each passing year.
I have only commented when I felt that charges were being unfairly leveled at individuals I know who are involved on one side or another of this debate. This corrodes the process of give and take where we recognize that the guys on the other side just may be right about some of the items at hand. Two guys I respect highly (Adam Peller and Jim Cote) are on opposite sides of this question, but I know that both are acting in good faith as are many others on either side of the divide.
And finally, those who have been involved with Austin Street for many years should not be upset that more residents of Newtonville did not become engaged in the multi year planning process for the parking lot there. I’ve found this is how human nature generally works. You can tell them that unpleasant things are on the horizon, but most don’t react until the bulldozers start rumbling down their street.
@Bob: Please read my post again. I believe “good people can and do disagree” over the merits of Austin Street for different reasons.
I’m only saying that the segment of people who oppose it because they don’t believe our city and region faces a housing crisis are ignoring established data, just as those who don’t believe that our oceans are getting warmer are ignoring established data. (I realize you haven’t been following this closely but take my word for it, there are people who’ve stood in front of Land Use, here and elsewhere who’ve said we have plenty of places for everyone to live.)
I know Alderman Cote believes we have a housing crisis because we’ve had thoughtful discussions about it. I suspect he opposes Austin Street for others reasons, which he is likely to articulate Monday night.
There’s no housing crisis. There’s a trend to build housing that will attract the kind of people that some here don’t want a lot of. It’s just a prejudice, not a crisis. There’s plenty of place to live in eastern Massachusetts. And, if the housing prices are high everywhere there, then it’s just the law of supply and demand taking charge.
I suppose Gregg is a “denier” of the law of supply and demand.
@Barry: Did you read Friday’s Globe story or the actual report (or even the executive summary on page 5)?
All the article tells me is that prices are going up. That’s the law of supply and demand. If there weren’t buyers or renters who could and are willing to pay these prices, then they would go down. The only reason a developer can buy a small house in Newton, tear it down, and build a bigger house is that land prices are astronomical. Try buying land in Tokyo or Manhattan or Tel Aviv. On the other hand, go buy land in upstate Maine or Indiana. But, no-one is rushing to live there. If you interfere with the law of supply and demand, eventually you create a bigger problem. Look at rent control in New York.
Greg does not embarress me!
Who cares if he thinks that people who disagree that Austin Street is going to solve the CRISIS don’t believe in climate change? It’s a silly comparison. He seems to do that a lot on this blog. Whateva!
So…
Too much density causes aggression in all forms of life. Cutting down trees to build housing reduces oxygen. Driving to work increases pollution. Cities with poor transit experience greater levels of air pollution. Suburbs with access to transit significantly reduce car usage. Heat islands caused by dense, urban development cause….
What is your definition of luxury, Mr. Haywood? I guess you must be more wealthy than I!
Fix the T! 🙂 save the earth!
These are excerpts from Bob Kavanaugh’s article in the Tab. This is a part of the housing crisis that breaks my heart and isn’t solved by places like Austin Street. What is the solution for them?
“We are told this project will allow downsizing seniors to stay in Newton, city employees to afford Newton. Out of the 68 units, 51 will be market rate – i.e., monthly rents of $2,370-$2,820 for a one-bedroom and $2,950-$3,450 for a two-bedroom, not including utilities…. My wife and I have lived on Court Street – a five-minute walk from Austin Street – for 35+ years. We could no more afford those apartments than we could fly to the moon. And neither could our children, and neither could most people who work for the City.
Well what about the affordable units?
According to a July 2015 Planning Department memo, the maximum allowable rents in 2015 for an affordable unit are $1,307 for a one-bedroom, and $1,568 for a two-bedroom.
These few so-called affordable units, which will be available only by lottery, are MORE EXPENSIVE than much of the housing that already exists within a stone’s throw of the lot.
We have a one-bedroom unit in our home we rent out for $1,000, water included. My Court Street neighbor rents a 3-bedroom for $1,200. Next door, a 2-bedroom is renting for $1,400. On Central Avenue there are one-bedrooms for $750 and $1,100. On Prescott Street, a family of four is renting a three-bedroom for $2,100. On Linwood Avenue, a single mom is renting a three-bedroom for $1,900. On Washington Street another single mom is renting a three-bedroom for $1,900. A family is renting a three-bedroom on Cabot Street for $1,700. These units are not high end, they are not luxury, but they are providing decent housing for low- and moderate-income Newton families today.
In June 2014, due to the planned construction of a 36-unit, high-end condo development, we lost 4 affordable units at 75 Court Street, including a 2-bedroom unit that housed a handicapped senior couple for $800/month. 9 of the 36 condos are officially affordable, the bare minimum required by MGL 40B. All the rest will sell for over $650,000. The developer told us we should be happy because this will increase our property values. But all that does is raise our property taxes, which means rents will have to be raised to cover the costs. All the Austin Street development will do is ramp up this gentrification process.”
I think this is a thoughtful, well-written article that describes the housing crisis from another viewpoint.
Greg, may I please suggest that you show a little more respect to other people’s opinions on this blog? The pervading tone has been rather aggressive recently. I always thought of Village 14 as a great community resource, but the way things have been going recently, I’m afraid it will soon be you and the 10-20 regulars debating each other to death.
@Newtoner: I’ve published your comment because I did not want you to not express this opinion, even though it appears that you are in violation of our commenting rules since you are using two pseudonyms. Please choose one and stick to it.
I will be the first to admit that I can get, to use Fignewtonville’s word, “snarky” at times. I sincerely don’t think that’s the case here. I’d urge you to reread my post. No where am I denying anyone the right to oppose the Austin Street project. But I am firmly saying I’m disagreeing with anyone who opposes it (or any other project) solely on the argument that Newton and our region “don’t have a housing crisis.”
Just as the time has past as to dispute whether or not the temperature of the earth’s climate has increased, the time has past as to whether we can debate if we have enough and/or the right kind of housing.
We don’t.
Folks are free to say, “Austin Street isn’t the solution” or “Here’s some other reasons why we should’t approve it” or “I don’t care, I want Newton to stay as is” etc.
But let’s end this foolishness of saying Newton and our region don’t have a housing crisis.
Because we do.
Excellent post, Marti. As Bob’s Tab article articulates so well, not only is Austin Street a lost opportunity to provide housing for those who need it most, but in some cases, our elected officials are also taking proactive steps to reduce the limited supply of affordable housing that currently exists in Newton. When I see recently elected officials such as Bryan Barash state that Newton is no longer a community because many of us do not support the Austin Street proposal on the table, I am deeply concerned that some of us in Newton are being poorly represented.
Gregg, since you insist on being off-topic, the topic you chose
“Just as the time has past as to dispute whether or not the temperature of the earth’s climate has increased…”
You need to understand that this is not the issue. The earth’s temperature has cycled to very low values, known as ice ages, to times when the temperatures have been higher, without the assistance of fossil fuels. The questions are (1) did we really cause it, i.e., most of it, or do we just contribute in a minor way, (2) what are the options for dealing with it, if we even want to, (3) what happens if we do nothing, (4) what various means are there for affecting it and how do they each contribute to doing something, (5) will all contributing entities, like countries, individual people, etc, participate in counteracting it, (6) what happens if only some participate, (7) should those who participate in it punish those who don’t, (8) if so, what effect will it have on world stability, and on and on and on. It’s easy to just whine about a temperature graph and sing kumbaya together with those who agree with you, but it’s a lot more difficult to think intelligently about the entire issue. Watching Al Gore and Bill Nye the Science Guy scare us about what will happen gets the adrenalin going but it contributes nothing to an intelligent assessment of the entire issue.
Same for housing. Everyone wants to whine, indict those who don’t agree that there’s a problem, come up with non-solutions, and demonize those who don’t agree with those non-solutions.
Al Gore and Bill Nye don’t scare me. Hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons and tsunamis scare me.
@Greg. You are right. it isn’t going to be pretty and as an Irishman I’ll be honest and say I know I was pulling the lion’s tail a bit in my last post to you.
Tom, I posted an excerpt of Bob’s article as an example of another viewpoint of the housing problem in Newton. Most crises have more than one solution.
I don’t know how elected officials are “taking proactive steps to reduce the limited supply of affordable housing.” Link? I’d also really like to have a link to what you claim Bryan said.
Greg Riebman can argue all he likes about a housing crisis here in Massachusetts but what ever his motives ( he is a big player in the Chamber of Commerce ), he is completely full of BS. Massachusetts in the last 4 years has had an increase in population of .75% annually. With such a small increase , how is it that there is such a dire necessity to be building all this housing ? These numbers translate for a city like Newton with a population of 85,000 to an annual population increase of 637 people. In the past year we have seen housing proposals for upwards of 800 new units of housing ( 1600 – 1800 people ? ) not to mention all the new townhouses, linguini houses etc built. Why must we permit / encourage this assault on our community??
Waltham Watertown Somerville etc etc apparently are building with great abandon absorbing a great deal of this housing crisis. Good for them .We needn’t compete .
It’s true that there is limited affordable housing in Boston. But it’s there and not everyone will have access. It is also true that there are not enough affordable single homes inside the 95 belt. However, there are plenty of beautiful lower priced houses outside the belt. We don’t need to kill every darn tree for the sake of developers getting rich in the name of pseudo-affordable housing to solve the CRISIS. Pay attention to the details, people.
Improve infrastructure for getting to work. Extend the T, create bike lanes, etc to allow people better access to Boston and Cambridge.
Creating apartments that cost more than my mortgage/tax/interest payment on my 4 bedroom house in Newton to solve the CRISIS is ludicrous -though it will make ASP rich! 🙂 good for them!
I think I fed into a different mindset than I intended when I posted the excerpts above. I was just bringing up one of the many facets of the housing crisis – the current and continuing loss of many lower cost apartments in single and multi-family homes. Austin Street won’t solve that problem.
But, I do think elected officials can find a better way than the comment below to deal with the various misunderstandings that Austin Street be the solution to all of Newton’s housing problems.
“The people on Court st. could do everyone a favor by calling the city on Monday and letting them know that they have our problem solved, as apparently they have space over there for the 1000 families looking for a place to live. 617-796-1000 ask for housing in the planning department.”
Questioning both climate change and this specific housing project does not equate to anyone not being socially responsible.
In the 2008-2009 timetable we had significant breakdown in banking and specifically mortgage lending. As a result, this affected housing starts, nationally.
This being said, I still don’t believe Newton (or any community) must provide publicly-owned land for private developers.
Couldn’t one make an analogy of how the public trust bailed out banks and is now using social consciousness/responsibility as reasoning for providing private developers with land (below market value)? Will this make up for the failure of government oversight in banking which led us to its housing shortage?
Why is there a housing crisis in Newton? Is it because some areas of Newton have large homes on large lots and lack multi-family residences? Or is it because other parts of Newton have smaller homes on smaller lots and many multi-family units? Certain sections of Newton, Waban, West Newton Hill and Chestnut Hill among them, are lacking in multi-family structures. And yet when large scale projects are proposed, where do they go? Not in those areas. This is one of the major reasons Newton has a housing crisis. Certain areas bear the brunt of large scale development while others have residents who talk about affordable housing but do little if anything to build multi-family units on their blocks. BTW, the Waban zip code has the least affordable units of any zip code in all of Newton. Why?