The Newton City Council will consider an offer Tuesday to settle a dispute over the 334-unit affordable/workforce housing complex at Wells Ave., Jonathan Dame of the Newton TAB reports.
[Cabot, Cabot & Forbe’s] offer includes $1 million to reconstruct the intersection of Wells Avenue and Nahanton Street; $1 million to fund other affordable housing in Newton; $750,000 for other Wells Avenue infrastructure improvements; $223,000 in water-sewer mitigation fees, and $170,226 in tree-removal fees.
The settlement is the same as a deal offered last year, except the developer “no longer has offered to create additional commercial development in the park,” the city’s Law Department wrote in a memo to the council.
Previously: Globe columnist sees what too many aldermen missed in Wells Ave debate
If our city councilors and administration do not think this is the right offer, or have specific concerns about this proposal, I hope they will propose reopening the conversation, rather than once again rejecting this project outright and leaving it up to the courts. Many of the employers and property owners supported the concept of bringing workforce housing this Wells Ave. And this would (legitimately) move us a lot closer to reaching our 40B requirement.
If our city councilors and administration do not think this is the right offer, or have specific concerns about this proposal, I hope they will propose reopening the conversation, rather than once again rejecting this project outright and leaving it up to the courts. Many of the employers and property owners supported the concept of bringing workforce housing this Wells Ave. And this would (legitimately) move us a lot closer to reaching our 40B requirement.
The very nature of “work” is changing around us and we, as a city, need to make moves that accommodate that change. I’ve been reading through the Newtonville materials and haven’t yet seen anything to scare me off, but I would love for that project to also include some level of office space. Right now it’s just retail and residential, but a bit of commercial aimed at small businesses may help keep life in the city 24-7.
This is doing something similar in a different part of the city, thinking through the full day, not just part of it.
The very nature of “work” is changing around us and we, as a city, need to make moves that accommodate that change. I’ve been reading through the Newtonville materials and haven’t yet seen anything to scare me off, but I would love for that project to also include some level of office space. Right now it’s just retail and residential, but a bit of commercial aimed at small businesses may help keep life in the city 24-7.
This is doing something similar in a different part of the city, thinking through the full day, not just part of it.
Time for Newton Centre to step up to the housing debacle plate. A developer should buy up all the businesses on the Union Sttreet block. Then a 10 story building could be built right next to the T. All the urban growth problems eased.
Time for Newton Centre to step up to the housing debacle plate. A developer should buy up all the businesses on the Union Sttreet block. Then a 10 story building could be built right next to the T. All the urban growth problems eased.
Let me understand this… CC and B offered x. The aldermen said NO. So CC and B are now offering x-y. X and y are positive numbers. This is for real? Help me to understand this please.
Let me understand this… CC and B offered x. The aldermen said NO. So CC and B are now offering x-y. X and y are positive numbers. This is for real? Help me to understand this please.
Is the city willing to use eminent domain to open up a second egress to Carlson Ave? It seems like the only way to make Wells ave appropriate for residential.
Is the city willing to use eminent domain to open up a second egress to Carlson Ave? It seems like the only way to make Wells ave appropriate for residential.
I thought the deed restriction at Wells Av was the reason this didn’t go anywhere before. How does a different economic package change that fact?
@Dan: The council has authority to lift the deed restriction as the aldermen did so many times before, including with the parcels presently occupied by Solomon Schechter, William James College, Newton Wellesley Hospital, Excel Gymnastics, the Russian School of Math, Good Shepherd Community Care,etc.
I thought the deed restriction at Wells Av was the reason this didn’t go anywhere before. How does a different economic package change that fact?
@Dan: The council has authority to lift the deed restriction as the aldermen did so many times before, including with the parcels presently occupied by Solomon Schechter, William James College, Newton Wellesley Hospital, Excel Gymnastics, the Russian School of Math, Good Shepherd Community Care,etc.
$$$$$ makes the City go round, too! But…offering less makes no sense.
@Salle: So then the city should make a counter offer. As noted in the settlement offer…
As a city we have an opportunity to revitalize a struggling office park and make significant progress towards our 40B mandate. Meanwhile, the developer has shown a willingness to negotiate.
Refusing to negotiate makes no sense. We should seize this opportunity seriously and not simply reject it outright.
$$$$$ makes the City go round, too! But…offering less makes no sense.
@Salle: So then the city should make a counter offer. As noted in the settlement offer…
As a city we have an opportunity to revitalize a struggling office park and make significant progress towards our 40B mandate. Meanwhile, the developer has shown a willingness to negotiate.
Refusing to negotiate makes no sense. We should seize this opportunity seriously and not simply reject it outright.
@Sallee – the new offer could be seen as a plus or a minus. For those concerned with traffic, “no longer has offering to create additional commercial development in the park” could be seen as forgoing additional profit in order to mitigate traffic concerns.
@Sallee – the new offer could be seen as a plus or a minus. For those concerned with traffic, “no longer has offering to create additional commercial development in the park” could be seen as forgoing additional profit in order to mitigate traffic concerns.
CC&F and the City are currently before the Land Court, a Court that specializes in land and title issues where the character and use of the deed restrictions will be the central issue. The Judge requested that the two parties work out a settlement and asked that CC&F submit a settlement offer, which we did. The offer is identical in all respects to our last submitted offer except that previously $750,000 of Wells Ave improvements were offered to help spur new commercial projects within Wells Ave. The Aldermen have recently provided deed waivers to two new commercial projects (bringing the total of waivers to 20. To date, approximately 62% of the has been governed by deed waivers) without tapping into this offer, so we have broadened its applicability to ANY Wells Ave infrastructure that the City chooses, at least that was our meaning. The City has made no inquiry of us as to clarification or willingness on our part to further negotiate this offer.
We have maintained a willingness to fix the Wells Ave entry ($1 M) and to provide $1 M to the City to use at its discretion for affordable housing. We also propose to initiate and operate a “smart shuttle” to connect Wells ave to the Green Line.
Please understand that we shape these proposals entirely in the dark. In two years, the City has never made a counter offer for this proposed workforce/affordable housing project and we have no communication with the City except through the courts. Our experience with this type of workforce/affordable housing is that it acts as a great trigger for enhancing the commercial appeal of an area (see Charles River Landing/Trip Advisor, Needham) and we are prepared to work with the City to create a worthy project, should the City ever wish to do so.
Jay D.
CC&F and the City are currently before the Land Court, a Court that specializes in land and title issues where the character and use of the deed restrictions will be the central issue. The Judge requested that the two parties work out a settlement and asked that CC&F submit a settlement offer, which we did. The offer is identical in all respects to our last submitted offer except that previously $750,000 of Wells Ave improvements were offered to help spur new commercial projects within Wells Ave. The Aldermen have recently provided deed waivers to two new commercial projects (bringing the total of waivers to 20. To date, approximately 62% of the has been governed by deed waivers) without tapping into this offer, so we have broadened its applicability to ANY Wells Ave infrastructure that the City chooses, at least that was our meaning. The City has made no inquiry of us as to clarification or willingness on our part to further negotiate this offer.
We have maintained a willingness to fix the Wells Ave entry ($1 M) and to provide $1 M to the City to use at its discretion for affordable housing. We also propose to initiate and operate a “smart shuttle” to connect Wells ave to the Green Line.
Please understand that we shape these proposals entirely in the dark. In two years, the City has never made a counter offer for this proposed workforce/affordable housing project and we have no communication with the City except through the courts. Our experience with this type of workforce/affordable housing is that it acts as a great trigger for enhancing the commercial appeal of an area (see Charles River Landing/Trip Advisor, Needham) and we are prepared to work with the City to create a worthy project, should the City ever wish to do so.
Jay D.
Greg,
Please be accurate: in the past. the City has PARTIALLY lifted the deed restriction to allow using commercial buildings as SCHOOLS: (Maths school,Excel Gymnastics, for example), not to use commercial buildings as HOUSING. The city needs the revenues of commercial buildings to start getting out of debt.
@Jay: Thanks for your comment.
@Isabelle: You are employing old school thinking. As has happened in other municipalities, the addition of a housing component to an office park can spark economic growth, which translates into more tax revenue.
That’s why the Newton-Needham Chamber supports it as do many of the neighboring building owners and businesses.
Greg,
Please be accurate: in the past. the City has PARTIALLY lifted the deed restriction to allow using commercial buildings as SCHOOLS: (Maths school,Excel Gymnastics, for example), not to use commercial buildings as HOUSING. The city needs the revenues of commercial buildings to start getting out of debt.
@Jay: Thanks for your comment.
@Isabelle: You are employing old school thinking. As has happened in other municipalities, the addition of a housing component to an office park can spark economic growth, which translates into more tax revenue.
That’s why the Newton-Needham Chamber supports it as do many of the neighboring building owners and businesses.
Greg, you continue to say the city can lift the deed restriction for housing because it’s been partially lifted to expand its commercial uses. Do you know this to be legal and factual, if so please link, or is there a possibility that the city’s legal department, city council and the land court know what they are doing? I am not ready to throw the city under the bus unless we know for sure.
Also, since this is being called workforce housing, will it follow the current definition and keep rents low enough for mid income workers to spend no more than 30% of their household income? If so then if there is a way to legally lift the deed restriction, it’s worth the city’s consideration, it seems to me. If it’s mostly market rate, not so much.
@Marti: I’m not going fishing for the deed language, feel free if you so choose.
But I can tell you from attending all/many the meetings that this has always been presented as something the alders/council could do. The board’s authority to do this never been disputed by anyone.
As for your second question, that’s more or less the crux of the legal dispute: Does 40B trump the deed restriction or vice versa?
And as for many restricting the prices of the some or all of the other units, that’s what the negotiations should address.
Greg, you continue to say the city can lift the deed restriction for housing because it’s been partially lifted to expand its commercial uses. Do you know this to be legal and factual, if so please link, or is there a possibility that the city’s legal department, city council and the land court know what they are doing? I am not ready to throw the city under the bus unless we know for sure.
Also, since this is being called workforce housing, will it follow the current definition and keep rents low enough for mid income workers to spend no more than 30% of their household income? If so then if there is a way to legally lift the deed restriction, it’s worth the city’s consideration, it seems to me. If it’s mostly market rate, not so much.
@Marti: I’m not going fishing for the deed language, feel free if you so choose.
But I can tell you from attending all/many the meetings that this has always been presented as something the alders/council could do. The board’s authority to do this never been disputed by anyone.
As for your second question, that’s more or less the crux of the legal dispute: Does 40B trump the deed restriction or vice versa?
And as for many restricting the prices of the some or all of the other units, that’s what the negotiations should address.
@Greg, you say the Wells Ave office park is “struggling.” My understanding is that vacancy rates are in the single digits. How do you define “struggling”?
@Greg, you say the Wells Ave office park is “struggling.” My understanding is that vacancy rates are in the single digits. How do you define “struggling”?
Greg, I never asked you to “fish for the deed language.” I thought since you make statements often saying the city council definitely has the authority to lift the deed restriction for HOUSING, you would have something other than “never hearing their authority questioned at meetings” to back it up. So you have nothing to back up your claim that the “board’s authority to do this has never been questioned by anyone,” which is a strange statement, again with no foundation, because obviously the city council questioned its own authority when they made the decision that they could not in this circumstance, housing, and the land court upheld their decision.
I feel no “need to fish for the deed language” either because it has already been done by people I trust to make these kinds of decisions, the city council, the city legal department and the land court. Besides as you have said before when you asked others to back up their claims, it’s up to the person claiming the facts to back up those facts – not the person asking “how they know.”
As for my second question which was asking you or anyone claiming this is “workforce housing” to substantiate if this project fits the actual use of the term or is market rate housing. That was not answered by your next two statements.
@Marti: My apologies for over-explaining. Yes, I’m sure the council has the authority to lift the deed restriction for housing if desired. That’s not what the court dispute is about. Glad to get that distraction out of the way.
@Councilor Norton: Great question! I look forward to responding when I have time, hopefully later today.
Greg, I never asked you to “fish for the deed language.” I thought since you make statements often saying the city council definitely has the authority to lift the deed restriction for HOUSING, you would have something other than “never hearing their authority questioned at meetings” to back it up. So you have nothing to back up your claim that the “board’s authority to do this has never been questioned by anyone,” which is a strange statement, again with no foundation, because obviously the city council questioned its own authority when they made the decision that they could not in this circumstance, housing, and the land court upheld their decision.
I feel no “need to fish for the deed language” either because it has already been done by people I trust to make these kinds of decisions, the city council, the city legal department and the land court. Besides as you have said before when you asked others to back up their claims, it’s up to the person claiming the facts to back up those facts – not the person asking “how they know.”
As for my second question which was asking you or anyone claiming this is “workforce housing” to substantiate if this project fits the actual use of the term or is market rate housing. That was not answered by your next two statements.
@Marti: My apologies for over-explaining. Yes, I’m sure the council has the authority to lift the deed restriction for housing if desired. That’s not what the court dispute is about. Glad to get that distraction out of the way.
@Councilor Norton: Great question! I look forward to responding when I have time, hopefully later today.
Wells Ave rents are lagging considerably behind its competitors in the western suburbs. Wells Ave office rents are about $30/SF (gross) while Needham, Waltham and 275 Grove Street (Newton) are all $43/SF (gross) or more. Ironically, Newton is growing innovative companies that can afford the higher rents. Trip Advisor, Clark’s North America, SharkNinja and Big Belly, have all left Newton for Needham and Waltham leasing space at rents over $43/SF (that’s over 600,000 SF, hosting about 2,000 jobs and paying about $2 M per year in taxes). The best examination of the issues for Wells Ave and its future are contained in the City’s own Market Study of Wells Ave done by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in April, 2015. It reported that the age, poor infrastructure and lack of mixed use amenities made the park “functionally obsolete”, saying “Wells Ave will be at a significant competitive disadvantage as new, amenity rich product comes on line nearby in Needham and the entire 128 corridor”. MAPC recommends that the City “revise the deed restriction for a greater mix of uses” including multifamily and retail amenities. Our proposal was designed to squarely address the Wells Ave deficiencies that MAPC identified such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, the operation of a transit shuttle connection and the addition of public cafes. We hoped to shift the discussion from what the City has authority to approve or deny to a discussion of what provides the best opportunity to revitalize Wells Ave.
Jay Doherty just did a great job answering Councilor Norton’s question. Just a few added thoughts..
Wells Ave is struggling competitively to keep up with other office destinations which have added, or are adding, housing and other amenities that employers and employees want. Being able to retain and lure quality tenants yields rental increases, increasing the fair market buildings’ value. This can all lead to increased tax revenue as properties change hands or undergo renovations and accessed values increase. And don’t forget the added tax revenue from personal property taxes, increased meals and hotel taxes, etc.
Finally, yes Councilor Norton vacancy rates might be in the high single digits at Wells right now (that’s a guess) but, remember, the economy is smoking right now. We need to change the old office park model now so we can be competitive through down cycles too.
Wells Ave rents are lagging considerably behind its competitors in the western suburbs. Wells Ave office rents are about $30/SF (gross) while Needham, Waltham and 275 Grove Street (Newton) are all $43/SF (gross) or more. Ironically, Newton is growing innovative companies that can afford the higher rents. Trip Advisor, Clark’s North America, SharkNinja and Big Belly, have all left Newton for Needham and Waltham leasing space at rents over $43/SF (that’s over 600,000 SF, hosting about 2,000 jobs and paying about $2 M per year in taxes). The best examination of the issues for Wells Ave and its future are contained in the City’s own Market Study of Wells Ave done by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in April, 2015. It reported that the age, poor infrastructure and lack of mixed use amenities made the park “functionally obsolete”, saying “Wells Ave will be at a significant competitive disadvantage as new, amenity rich product comes on line nearby in Needham and the entire 128 corridor”. MAPC recommends that the City “revise the deed restriction for a greater mix of uses” including multifamily and retail amenities. Our proposal was designed to squarely address the Wells Ave deficiencies that MAPC identified such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, the operation of a transit shuttle connection and the addition of public cafes. We hoped to shift the discussion from what the City has authority to approve or deny to a discussion of what provides the best opportunity to revitalize Wells Ave.
Jay Doherty just did a great job answering Councilor Norton’s question. Just a few added thoughts..
Wells Ave is struggling competitively to keep up with other office destinations which have added, or are adding, housing and other amenities that employers and employees want. Being able to retain and lure quality tenants yields rental increases, increasing the fair market buildings’ value. This can all lead to increased tax revenue as properties change hands or undergo renovations and accessed values increase. And don’t forget the added tax revenue from personal property taxes, increased meals and hotel taxes, etc.
Finally, yes Councilor Norton vacancy rates might be in the high single digits at Wells right now (that’s a guess) but, remember, the economy is smoking right now. We need to change the old office park model now so we can be competitive through down cycles too.
Let’s put one notion to bed. There are many reasons why Wells Ave rents may be low, but “affordable housing” on Wells Ave has absolutely, positively nothing to do with it. If we want to build affordable housing because it makes us feel good, fine. Let’s admit it and refrain from the lie that affordable housing is needed to increase commercial property values. Needham is 2,000 feet from Wells Ave. West Roxbury is 3,000 feet from Wells Ave. Both of these cities have more affordable housing than Newton. If affordable housing causes commercial rents to go up, Wells Ave rents would already be sky high.
One more thing. Virtually no one (except me and three other people) lives in Newton and works in Newton. Most people that work in Newton don’t want to live here, and most people that live in Newton don’t want to work here. Accept it. Company towns faded away 100 years ago. They don’t need resurrection.
@Jeffery: I believe you’re making a mistake assuming that the type of housing most current residents desire (including you and me) is the same as what potential future residents are looking for.
The concept behind the 135 Wells Project is to provide rental units (both “affordable” and market rate) for those folks who want to live near their place of work, particularly early in their careers. (And note early in career doesn’t necessary mean poorly paid: lots of jobs in technology, life sciences, etc. pay very well right out of the gate).
The target audience here doesn’t want a house with a yard and a garage but would like to be able to sit by the pool, go down to the game room or health club or enjoy other shared amenities. It’s not for everyone, but Cabot Cabot & Forbes and other developers who are building these projects in inner suburban communities are smart folks and wouldn’t be building these types of units if the demand wasn’t there.
One last point, just over 20 percent, or one of out five Newton and Needham residents work in Newton or Needham, so no, it’s not just you, me and Setti Warren. In comparison, 15 percent of Newton-Needham residents work in Boston and two percent work in Cambridge.
Let’s put one notion to bed. There are many reasons why Wells Ave rents may be low, but “affordable housing” on Wells Ave has absolutely, positively nothing to do with it. If we want to build affordable housing because it makes us feel good, fine. Let’s admit it and refrain from the lie that affordable housing is needed to increase commercial property values. Needham is 2,000 feet from Wells Ave. West Roxbury is 3,000 feet from Wells Ave. Both of these cities have more affordable housing than Newton. If affordable housing causes commercial rents to go up, Wells Ave rents would already be sky high.
One more thing. Virtually no one (except me and three other people) lives in Newton and works in Newton. Most people that work in Newton don’t want to live here, and most people that live in Newton don’t want to work here. Accept it. Company towns faded away 100 years ago. They don’t need resurrection.
@Jeffery: I believe you’re making a mistake assuming that the type of housing most current residents desire (including you and me) is the same as what potential future residents are looking for.
The concept behind the 135 Wells Project is to provide rental units (both “affordable” and market rate) for those folks who want to live near their place of work, particularly early in their careers. (And note early in career doesn’t necessary mean poorly paid: lots of jobs in technology, life sciences, etc. pay very well right out of the gate).
The target audience here doesn’t want a house with a yard and a garage but would like to be able to sit by the pool, go down to the game room or health club or enjoy other shared amenities. It’s not for everyone, but Cabot Cabot & Forbes and other developers who are building these projects in inner suburban communities are smart folks and wouldn’t be building these types of units if the demand wasn’t there.
One last point, just over 20 percent, or one of out five Newton and Needham residents work in Newton or Needham, so no, it’s not just you, me and Setti Warren. In comparison, 15 percent of Newton-Needham residents work in Boston and two percent work in Cambridge.
Greg, it is obvious your arrogance knows no bounds. It might be better served if you saved it for those who are actually against this project rather than those of us just trying to understand or you risk turning supporters into opposers. I will ignore your uncalled for patronizing post because I am truly interested in knowing all I can about the prospects of this promising development.
@Marti: Not sure what you want. The city council is allowed to wave the deed restriction for this use. No one (except maybe you?) disputes this. End of story.
Greg, it is obvious your arrogance knows no bounds. It might be better served if you saved it for those who are actually against this project rather than those of us just trying to understand or you risk turning supporters into opposers. I will ignore your uncalled for patronizing post because I am truly interested in knowing all I can about the prospects of this promising development.
@Marti: Not sure what you want. The city council is allowed to wave the deed restriction for this use. No one (except maybe you?) disputes this. End of story.
CC&F/ Jay Doherty is posting on this blog??? That’s rich!!
Makes me think of when Scott Oran was placing his Legos on the Newton map!
@Isabelle: I didn’t realize you were in charge of deciding which Newton residents (Oran) or tax payers (Doherty and Oran) are allowed to participate in our democracy.
CC&F/ Jay Doherty is posting on this blog??? That’s rich!!
Makes me think of when Scott Oran was placing his Legos on the Newton map!
@Isabelle: I didn’t realize you were in charge of deciding which Newton residents (Oran) or tax payers (Doherty and Oran) are allowed to participate in our democracy.
Jay D. – have you thought about sweetening the pot with elementary/middle school financial support? In discussion with many councilors, the burden of added school children, infrastructure requirements, density, etc. are the future encumbrances for the south side. As a north-sider, those concerns are real, and history has it as a persistent precedent. Notwithstanding that your plan attempts to provide for professional worker housing does not preclude that they might co-mingle into a family way. After-all this is America, the land of opportunity.
Jay D. – have you thought about sweetening the pot with elementary/middle school financial support? In discussion with many councilors, the burden of added school children, infrastructure requirements, density, etc. are the future encumbrances for the south side. As a north-sider, those concerns are real, and history has it as a persistent precedent. Notwithstanding that your plan attempts to provide for professional worker housing does not preclude that they might co-mingle into a family way. After-all this is America, the land of opportunity.
Jay Doherty, it is so refreshing to see you go after Newton’s leaders so aggressively. There is no reason to deny your development proposal in Ward 8. The Lipof siblings are the reason you were told no. Both of them support high rise developments north of the pike but not on Wells Ave. So keep after them. I hope you are successful with your project.
Jay Doherty, it is so refreshing to see you go after Newton’s leaders so aggressively. There is no reason to deny your development proposal in Ward 8. The Lipof siblings are the reason you were told no. Both of them support high rise developments north of the pike but not on Wells Ave. So keep after them. I hope you are successful with your project.
What exactly does the term “workforce housing” mean? Does it imply specific limits to cost, whether purchase or rental? Is it jargon for a particular kind of housing (e.g., the micro-apartments cropping up on the waterfront)? Or is it just a way of saying, more generally, we’re not talking McMansions here; details to come?
What exactly does the term “workforce housing” mean? Does it imply specific limits to cost, whether purchase or rental? Is it jargon for a particular kind of housing (e.g., the micro-apartments cropping up on the waterfront)? Or is it just a way of saying, more generally, we’re not talking McMansions here; details to come?
@Amanda: My understanding is that it is for young intellectual sharecroppers who move around in technology based companies, don’t yet have kids, ride bikes and frequent gyms and bars, working and partying hard. They supposedly don’t want to commute, but to live next door to work. Reminds me of the Old Com0any Store!
@Amanda: My understanding is that it is for young intellectual sharecroppers who move around in technology based companies, don’t yet have kids, ride bikes and frequent gyms and bars, working and partying hard. They supposedly don’t want to commute, but to live next door to work. Reminds me of the Old Com0any Store!
I see. So it’s not a term like, say, “affordable housing,” implying specific promises to which a developer could be held?
I see. So it’s not a term like, say, “affordable housing,” implying specific promises to which a developer could be held?
It’s a term that means “If you want young people to come work for new Newton businesses, you need place for them to live, preferably ones they can rent where they don’t need to drive to work.”
It’s a term that means “If you want young people to come work for new Newton businesses, you need place for them to live, preferably ones they can rent where they don’t need to drive to work.”
It would be interesting to understand population demographics at the residential complex in the office park in Needham. That could provide an interesting potential corollary for what the population at a 135 Wells Ave “workforce housing” residential complex could look like. Perhaps Greg R has access to that information?
The cold, hard truth is that residential properties simply provide significantly less “return” to the city than commercial properties. (First in tax rates, second in the form of services provided to residences vs. commercial.) As a city, we are so focused on residential (population) expansion to the exclusion of our commercial tax base. There are scary unfunded liabilities looming that could place the city in financially dire straits. It is crazy that we continue to ignore this.
If you could truly link the construction of “workforce housing” with a boom in commercial expansion, then maybe this project could objectively be considered a good idea, but without that this is just a dense residential expansion in a weird location.
@ANP: I don’t have any demographic information about Charles River Landing in the Needham Crossing section of the N2 Corridor. Anecdotally, I can tell you I know three different people who live there. One is a young professional couple (no kids), one of whom recently left her job and is attending Mount Ida to study marketing (I don’t know where her husband works.) Another is a recently divorced woman (no kids) who at time she moved there worked on Needham Street; I’m believe she works in Newton Centre these days. And the third is a guy who is a manager (no kids) at the JCC.
It would be interesting to understand population demographics at the residential complex in the office park in Needham. That could provide an interesting potential corollary for what the population at a 135 Wells Ave “workforce housing” residential complex could look like. Perhaps Greg R has access to that information?
The cold, hard truth is that residential properties simply provide significantly less “return” to the city than commercial properties. (First in tax rates, second in the form of services provided to residences vs. commercial.) As a city, we are so focused on residential (population) expansion to the exclusion of our commercial tax base. There are scary unfunded liabilities looming that could place the city in financially dire straits. It is crazy that we continue to ignore this.
If you could truly link the construction of “workforce housing” with a boom in commercial expansion, then maybe this project could objectively be considered a good idea, but without that this is just a dense residential expansion in a weird location.
@ANP: I don’t have any demographic information about Charles River Landing in the Needham Crossing section of the N2 Corridor. Anecdotally, I can tell you I know three different people who live there. One is a young professional couple (no kids), one of whom recently left her job and is attending Mount Ida to study marketing (I don’t know where her husband works.) Another is a recently divorced woman (no kids) who at time she moved there worked on Needham Street; I’m believe she works in Newton Centre these days. And the third is a guy who is a manager (no kids) at the JCC.
As I mentioned in my question above asking if this is truly “workforce housing,” it generally refers to housing that is affordable by middle income earners” who are “rent-burdened” because they are paying more than 30%.
Freddie Mac says “workforce housing is home to people who serve our communities and play a vital role in our lives: teachers, nurses and firefighters. It’s also home to seniors and low-income households that do not qualify for rent subsidies. Broadly speaking, it’s multifamily housing, without rent subsidies, that’s affordable for households with low- to moderate-incomes. Workforce housing needs are everywhere – from the urban core to suburban communities to tertiary towns.”
An article in Shelterforce, on Rooflines, published by the National Housing Institute, talks about the new problem of the term “workforce housing” being used as “shorthand” for housing for people who aren’t really low-income, but are still having trouble affording housing in a hot market. The Urban Land Institute, ULI defines “it now as housing for people making 60 to 120 percent of area median income, but I have heard it most often coming up with respect to projects in the upper end of that range (or that range in an area with a very high AMI). I hope the problem with this is obvious. It could be redeemed if we just decided as a field that actually, it refers to housing that is built to be affordable to someone who can’t afford market rate housing. That could have a bit of a ring to it, even.”
Then there are the meanings used by current industry professionals:
Jamboree Housing Corporation builds workforce housing and “sees it as housing designed primarily for active growing families with school-aged children and working parents, much like any growing family today, but who cannot afford market rate housing close to their employment.”
American Land Ventures says, “One of the most misunderstood terms in housing today is “workforce housing.” Workforce housing is providing housing in wealthy areas where the disparity in wages and the cost of renting a home prevents the workforce from being able to live near their work. As developers, we must attend to the needs of the essential workers in the community and develop ways to provide housing that is affordable to the people that are gainfully employed.”
Southern Affordable Services says, ““The term ‘workforce housing’ typically sparks images of firefighters, teachers, law enforcement professionals, and others who are overqualified for affordable housing yet can’t afford the average market-rate home.”
CIS Management says, “Workforce housing has traditionally meant serving families and individuals who work in the community. From preserving quality of life and reducing traffic congestion to improving emergency response times, it’s important for people to be able to live near where they work. Over the past decade, particularly in high-cost markets, this has become challenging for many.”
Can we just call these apartments what they are – market rate housing?
As I mentioned in my question above asking if this is truly “workforce housing,” it generally refers to housing that is affordable by middle income earners” who are “rent-burdened” because they are paying more than 30%.
Freddie Mac says “workforce housing is home to people who serve our communities and play a vital role in our lives: teachers, nurses and firefighters. It’s also home to seniors and low-income households that do not qualify for rent subsidies. Broadly speaking, it’s multifamily housing, without rent subsidies, that’s affordable for households with low- to moderate-incomes. Workforce housing needs are everywhere – from the urban core to suburban communities to tertiary towns.”
An article in Shelterforce, on Rooflines, published by the National Housing Institute, talks about the new problem of the term “workforce housing” being used as “shorthand” for housing for people who aren’t really low-income, but are still having trouble affording housing in a hot market. The Urban Land Institute, ULI defines “it now as housing for people making 60 to 120 percent of area median income, but I have heard it most often coming up with respect to projects in the upper end of that range (or that range in an area with a very high AMI). I hope the problem with this is obvious. It could be redeemed if we just decided as a field that actually, it refers to housing that is built to be affordable to someone who can’t afford market rate housing. That could have a bit of a ring to it, even.”
Then there are the meanings used by current industry professionals:
Jamboree Housing Corporation builds workforce housing and “sees it as housing designed primarily for active growing families with school-aged children and working parents, much like any growing family today, but who cannot afford market rate housing close to their employment.”
American Land Ventures says, “One of the most misunderstood terms in housing today is “workforce housing.” Workforce housing is providing housing in wealthy areas where the disparity in wages and the cost of renting a home prevents the workforce from being able to live near their work. As developers, we must attend to the needs of the essential workers in the community and develop ways to provide housing that is affordable to the people that are gainfully employed.”
Southern Affordable Services says, ““The term ‘workforce housing’ typically sparks images of firefighters, teachers, law enforcement professionals, and others who are overqualified for affordable housing yet can’t afford the average market-rate home.”
CIS Management says, “Workforce housing has traditionally meant serving families and individuals who work in the community. From preserving quality of life and reducing traffic congestion to improving emergency response times, it’s important for people to be able to live near where they work. Over the past decade, particularly in high-cost markets, this has become challenging for many.”
Can we just call these apartments what they are – market rate housing?
@Martibowen – if the term workforce housing already has a technical meaning, then we need a term for housing for people near where they work. Because the younger people I work with don’t have salaries to let them afford to buy houses in the Boston-area market and most of them don’t have cars (a LOT of ZipCar users). For them to take jobs at new companies in Newton, they’d need housing they could rent – and many of them could not afford market-rate apartments. They are the lifeblood of new tech companies, but in their 20s they don’t have the salaries to afford to live without roommates in most of the Boston area.
@Martibowen – if the term workforce housing already has a technical meaning, then we need a term for housing for people near where they work. Because the younger people I work with don’t have salaries to let them afford to buy houses in the Boston-area market and most of them don’t have cars (a LOT of ZipCar users). For them to take jobs at new companies in Newton, they’d need housing they could rent – and many of them could not afford market-rate apartments. They are the lifeblood of new tech companies, but in their 20s they don’t have the salaries to afford to live without roommates in most of the Boston area.
Skepticism for ad-hoc residential zoning in a business park aside, I’ll ask the same question I ask every time this comes up. The proposal to build another access point detailed in the plans goes through conservation land. How does CCF plan to make this happen? Also, the tree mitigation money is required by ordinance, not part of any offer, right? And another shuttle isn’t necessarily so “smart” especially if we want this to become a vibrant community (not just a workplace). Perhaps better to beef up the 52 which runs so close to the site, or start thinking about its replacement?
Skepticism for ad-hoc residential zoning in a business park aside, I’ll ask the same question I ask every time this comes up. The proposal to build another access point detailed in the plans goes through conservation land. How does CCF plan to make this happen? Also, the tree mitigation money is required by ordinance, not part of any offer, right? And another shuttle isn’t necessarily so “smart” especially if we want this to become a vibrant community (not just a workplace). Perhaps better to beef up the 52 which runs so close to the site, or start thinking about its replacement?
Mgwa, I basically agree with you (there needs to be a new buzzword for that type of housing, not an appropriation of a current one) although many workers in their 20’s have had roommates for decades and certainly could not have afforded to purchase homes in Newton. I have no problem at all with developers building housing with rents that young professionals/techies could afford. My only point is the project being discussed doesn’t fit the definition of workforce housing – it will be market rate housing if the developer doesn’t change his mind. I just want it called what it is and not be misleading.
Mgwa, I basically agree with you (there needs to be a new buzzword for that type of housing, not an appropriation of a current one) although many workers in their 20’s have had roommates for decades and certainly could not have afforded to purchase homes in Newton. I have no problem at all with developers building housing with rents that young professionals/techies could afford. My only point is the project being discussed doesn’t fit the definition of workforce housing – it will be market rate housing if the developer doesn’t change his mind. I just want it called what it is and not be misleading.
Martibowen – Young workers who work downtown don’t need to live in Newton. The point was that young workers who want to be carless can’t work in the new Newton businesses that are part of the justification for this Wells Ave. development unless they live within walking distance or else have public transportation (such as the proposed shuttle bus). This is a group who would not have the traditional reasons for wanting to live in Newton, but rather just want to be near their jobs.
Martibowen – Young workers who work downtown don’t need to live in Newton. The point was that young workers who want to be carless can’t work in the new Newton businesses that are part of the justification for this Wells Ave. development unless they live within walking distance or else have public transportation (such as the proposed shuttle bus). This is a group who would not have the traditional reasons for wanting to live in Newton, but rather just want to be near their jobs.
mgwa, I didn’t dispute anything you said so I’m not sure I understand your reply. I agree with you.
After reading through the memos from the Planning and Development Department, the ammendents to the Deed Restriction the proposal requires (basically waiving it entirely, including all conservation restrictions), the letter from Mt Ida College ( in its backyard) and the Board Order, it doesn’t seem to me this project would get its special permit even using Chapter 40B. It also goes against the Comprehensive Plan including the multi-use amendments and the city’s concentration of multi use growth near village centers with walkability. I’m not saying I agree with the city’s plan but it does stand in the way.
In order to continue to attract innovation economy businesses to the N2 Corridor in general — and Wells Ave in particular — we need to provide attractive housing options to a workforce that appeals and suits the needs of a demographic that does not necessarily want to live in a house with a yard and a garage and don’t necessarily want to own either.
Price is important to many of these workers, of course, and the 135 Wells Ave project is a 40B with a percent of affordable units.
As far as we know, the city has never sat down with the developer to negotiate up that number of units or anything else about this project. So how many affordable units — or even the number of market rate units, size, height, trees, etc. — are sitting on the table.
However, we need market rate apartments in this region too. A lot of these new economy jobs pay well. But, again this workforce, does not necessarily want a house or necessarily want to own at this point in their career. They want an apartment with the amenities (common areas, health club, pool, bike room, a cafe, co working space etc.) that were proposed here.
And what’s the benefit for the rest of us in Newton who don’t want to live here?
Higher commercial tax revenue thanks to a revitalized Wells Ave, good jobs at good pay, jobs for our kids, customers for our local restaurants and merchants AND we move closer to meeting our 40B threshold which would allow us to have a say over other projects in other parts of the city.
mgwa, I didn’t dispute anything you said so I’m not sure I understand your reply. I agree with you.
After reading through the memos from the Planning and Development Department, the ammendents to the Deed Restriction the proposal requires (basically waiving it entirely, including all conservation restrictions), the letter from Mt Ida College ( in its backyard) and the Board Order, it doesn’t seem to me this project would get its special permit even using Chapter 40B. It also goes against the Comprehensive Plan including the multi-use amendments and the city’s concentration of multi use growth near village centers with walkability. I’m not saying I agree with the city’s plan but it does stand in the way.
In order to continue to attract innovation economy businesses to the N2 Corridor in general — and Wells Ave in particular — we need to provide attractive housing options to a workforce that appeals and suits the needs of a demographic that does not necessarily want to live in a house with a yard and a garage and don’t necessarily want to own either.
Price is important to many of these workers, of course, and the 135 Wells Ave project is a 40B with a percent of affordable units.
As far as we know, the city has never sat down with the developer to negotiate up that number of units or anything else about this project. So how many affordable units — or even the number of market rate units, size, height, trees, etc. — are sitting on the table.
However, we need market rate apartments in this region too. A lot of these new economy jobs pay well. But, again this workforce, does not necessarily want a house or necessarily want to own at this point in their career. They want an apartment with the amenities (common areas, health club, pool, bike room, a cafe, co working space etc.) that were proposed here.
And what’s the benefit for the rest of us in Newton who don’t want to live here?
Higher commercial tax revenue thanks to a revitalized Wells Ave, good jobs at good pay, jobs for our kids, customers for our local restaurants and merchants AND we move closer to meeting our 40B threshold which would allow us to have a say over other projects in other parts of the city.
Is not the introductory issue labeling as housing? Have not many workers taken to the muddled middle of residential workplace, essentially in an office park suite-type setting? Might there be a need for another professional type zoning delineation, i.e. home business extension?
Is not the introductory issue labeling as housing? Have not many workers taken to the muddled middle of residential workplace, essentially in an office park suite-type setting? Might there be a need for another professional type zoning delineation, i.e. home business extension?
Just looked at the Charles River Landing website – wow, those apartments are crazy expensive!
Just looked at the Charles River Landing website – wow, those apartments are crazy expensive!
Charles River Landing bills itself as luxury apartments, including a concierge and other services, and is priced accordingly. A 1 BR 1 bath of 792 sf is priced at $2497/ month which requires an income of $99,880 annually or 83% of AMI. A 2 BR 2 bath of 1339 sf is priced at $4016/month requiring an income of $160,640 annually or 130% of AMI. Are there HOA type fees in luxury apartment complexes?
Charles River Landing bills itself as luxury apartments, including a concierge and other services, and is priced accordingly. A 1 BR 1 bath of 792 sf is priced at $2497/ month which requires an income of $99,880 annually or 83% of AMI. A 2 BR 2 bath of 1339 sf is priced at $4016/month requiring an income of $160,640 annually or 130% of AMI. Are there HOA type fees in luxury apartment complexes?
Don’t know what’s there now, but six months or so ago I drove by Charles River Landing to check it out. The most unappealing aspect of the property was the enormous NOW LEASING sign (with phone number) spread across the front of the gigantic building. I wonder what their occupancy rate is and if there is really a need for more complexes like that so close to them. Remember also that there is another very large apartment complex with approximately 400 residential units that will rise about a block away from Charles River Landing at the old General Dynamics property in the Needham Industrial Park. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the “workers” to live there and commute by bicycle to a job in the Wells Ave. Office Park? That way Newton might be able to gain a larger commercial tax from Wells Ave. and not have any residential burden on our City services! @Greg: Why not?
Cabot Cabot & Forbes (which developed Charles River Landing and is now proposing the project at 135 Wells) and Normandy Real Estate Partners (which is building the 400 unit project Sallee referred to) have both been around for many years and, by all accounts, have made themselves and their investors lots of money.
My guess is that before they decided to invest many millions into these projects, that they did some research that was at least modestly more sophisticated than looking to see if there was a “NOW LEASING” sign hanging outside a nearby apartment building.
I also suspect that the banks and investors who are ready to underwrite the loans for these projects probably had someone drive by as well, saw that sign and somehow still decided it was a OK to move forward.
@Sallee Read this. The housing shortage in Eastern Massachusetts is real. The demand is real.
Don’t know what’s there now, but six months or so ago I drove by Charles River Landing to check it out. The most unappealing aspect of the property was the enormous NOW LEASING sign (with phone number) spread across the front of the gigantic building. I wonder what their occupancy rate is and if there is really a need for more complexes like that so close to them. Remember also that there is another very large apartment complex with approximately 400 residential units that will rise about a block away from Charles River Landing at the old General Dynamics property in the Needham Industrial Park. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the “workers” to live there and commute by bicycle to a job in the Wells Ave. Office Park? That way Newton might be able to gain a larger commercial tax from Wells Ave. and not have any residential burden on our City services! @Greg: Why not?
Cabot Cabot & Forbes (which developed Charles River Landing and is now proposing the project at 135 Wells) and Normandy Real Estate Partners (which is building the 400 unit project Sallee referred to) have both been around for many years and, by all accounts, have made themselves and their investors lots of money.
My guess is that before they decided to invest many millions into these projects, that they did some research that was at least modestly more sophisticated than looking to see if there was a “NOW LEASING” sign hanging outside a nearby apartment building.
I also suspect that the banks and investors who are ready to underwrite the loans for these projects probably had someone drive by as well, saw that sign and somehow still decided it was a OK to move forward.
@Sallee Read this. The housing shortage in Eastern Massachusetts is real. The demand is real.
What they may be finding is that the demand for exorbitantly priced luxury apartments in the suburbs isn’t as high as they thought. Many people would decide that if they’re going to pay that kind of money to live out here, they might as well rent a house or buy. However, I’d expect they could make quite a reasonable profit on rental apartments that are in the tier below that, ones where 1BRs would be affordable by singles making $60K-70K or 2BRs by families making $120K. Because I can’t see why someone who can afford $4K/month would spend it on a 2BR rental apartment in the burbs.
@mgwa: I’m not aware of anyone (except Sallee) suggesting that anyone is having substantive trouble renting luxury apartments in Newton or Needham.
@Folks: You can disagree with the project. You may not want to live there yourself. You may not personally know any one who wants to live there. But suggesting that you understand the housing market better than these developers do, is well, silly.
What they may be finding is that the demand for exorbitantly priced luxury apartments in the suburbs isn’t as high as they thought. Many people would decide that if they’re going to pay that kind of money to live out here, they might as well rent a house or buy. However, I’d expect they could make quite a reasonable profit on rental apartments that are in the tier below that, ones where 1BRs would be affordable by singles making $60K-70K or 2BRs by families making $120K. Because I can’t see why someone who can afford $4K/month would spend it on a 2BR rental apartment in the burbs.
@mgwa: I’m not aware of anyone (except Sallee) suggesting that anyone is having substantive trouble renting luxury apartments in Newton or Needham.
@Folks: You can disagree with the project. You may not want to live there yourself. You may not personally know any one who wants to live there. But suggesting that you understand the housing market better than these developers do, is well, silly.
@Greg – just to clarify, I’m not against the Wells Ave. project. I just think it would be nice if it were in what I consider a more reasonable price range. While we need affordable housing, we also have a dearth of rentals in the gap between “affordable” and “luxury”, and I’d like to see that part of the market addressed – especially if the declared reason for support of this housing is to have places for young employees to live.
My BS- and MS-level co-workers in their mid-to-late 20s (an age-group needed for new businesses) would not be able to afford this housing, which means it wouldn’t support the goal of getting them to work in that area.
@Greg – just to clarify, I’m not against the Wells Ave. project. I just think it would be nice if it were in what I consider a more reasonable price range. While we need affordable housing, we also have a dearth of rentals in the gap between “affordable” and “luxury”, and I’d like to see that part of the market addressed – especially if the declared reason for support of this housing is to have places for young employees to live.
My BS- and MS-level co-workers in their mid-to-late 20s (an age-group needed for new businesses) would not be able to afford this housing, which means it wouldn’t support the goal of getting them to work in that area.
Developers take risks. They bet that their product will be more appealing than their competitors product and the drive for profit can easily result in over-building. It is a delicate approach. While I understand that Northland and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes are (so far) successful builders, they are assuming the risk of being wrong in their predictions. Builders and developers go bankrupt all the time! The very large and pathetic sign screaming NOW LEASING reads desperation to me. I am not being silly. Their crystal ball is no more legitimate than mine. Research can help to predict, that is all. It cannot remove all risk. That is why profits from successful ventures are high. My question about Charles River Landing’s occupancy rate is not flawed. It is prudent. Your answer is uninformed. A better answer from you would have been “I don’t know…but I will try to find out.” My question was neither silly, prejudiced, nor anti-development.
Developers take risks. They bet that their product will be more appealing than their competitors product and the drive for profit can easily result in over-building. It is a delicate approach. While I understand that Northland and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes are (so far) successful builders, they are assuming the risk of being wrong in their predictions. Builders and developers go bankrupt all the time! The very large and pathetic sign screaming NOW LEASING reads desperation to me. I am not being silly. Their crystal ball is no more legitimate than mine. Research can help to predict, that is all. It cannot remove all risk. That is why profits from successful ventures are high. My question about Charles River Landing’s occupancy rate is not flawed. It is prudent. Your answer is uninformed. A better answer from you would have been “I don’t know…but I will try to find out.” My question was neither silly, prejudiced, nor anti-development.
I live close to the project, when I first heard about the project I was nervous about traffic, parking and the schools. Since then, I have started to feel comfortable with this project. The money going into the traffic probably won’t fix the entire issue, but there always is and always was traffic in that area….despite what some say. With the opening of add a lane it might be a bit worse, but not much. I could really get behind this project if the developers did what Harry suggested and gave some money for the schools to mitigate some of the damage they will cause with the extra kids. If they proposed to give some money to ward 8’s schools it would go along way.
I live close to the project, when I first heard about the project I was nervous about traffic, parking and the schools. Since then, I have started to feel comfortable with this project. The money going into the traffic probably won’t fix the entire issue, but there always is and always was traffic in that area….despite what some say. With the opening of add a lane it might be a bit worse, but not much. I could really get behind this project if the developers did what Harry suggested and gave some money for the schools to mitigate some of the damage they will cause with the extra kids. If they proposed to give some money to ward 8’s schools it would go along way.