Today’s Boston Globe Business section includes an interesting piece on the building boom going on today in Boston. According to the data, most of the suburbs are missing out on it. This isn’t because the places are undesirable for housing, but because the cities themselves have put in so much zoning that it’s made land unaffordable and development scarce.
Downtown, most of the housing going up is strictly for the luxury set. Also worth noting, most of it is close to transit.
The story includes this quote from Clark Ziegler, executive director of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership.
“Land costs are a function of zoning,” he said. “If you could build, say, apartments on the Green Line in Newton Center, that would relieve pressure in places like Boston and Cambridge and Somerville.”
The article also references the Austin Street fight as an example of suburbs “pushing back” against development.
How are we missing out? Well, for one, we’re missing out on the businesses that want to recruit the people who would live in this housing. I’m someone who lost employees during a move out to Newton. We’re also missing out by having a far more economically diverse community and the benefits that brings to a community. We’re missing out on the vibrance and retail street life that density brings to a community. We’re missing out on keeping our aging population local and our younger population setting down roots.
Is Newton really “missing out”? I see it more as fighting back, especially against 40B. Increased density near public transportation is a good thing in small doses. But it quickly reaches a tipping point when you drop a 300 unit apartment building into an established neighborhood. Austin Street is a good example of a reasonable development that [thus far] turned out to be a good deal for Newton. Avalon on Needham Street is the flip side of that coin.
Now if you want to talk about commercial development, that’s an entirely different story. Newton has enormous potential for commercial growth, which brings jobs and pays property taxes at a much higher rate than residential. But we’ve lacked the leadership to properly exploit those resources.
I believe Avalon is a better development than Austin. St. It was built on private land with a private developer and close to vibrant Needham St. Large dense developments need adequate land and parking. The small, historic villages do not need high rise apartment buildings. Better to build them on route 9 like the ones built near the Chestnut Hill Mall or better still over in Ward 8 close to the commercial area.
First, I 100 percent agree that we need more commercial development. We lack such space in the city and it also brings foot traffic, life and energy to a location.
However, we still need to house the people who work there. They work in concert and building one without the other is a fool’s errand.
As for Avalon, it’s a good start, but it lacks the transit options necessary to make it something that would attract the audience we need. It’s technically close to the Green Line, but not really. It’s impossible to walk there in any direct way making it necessary for residents to own and use cars.
Cars are an important part of the transit mix, but if it’s the primary element of the transit on which a location is built, then it’s just more of the same.
@Chuck – we definitely need a safe way for pedestrians to get from Winchester/Needham St. to Centre St. going under Rte. 9. It’s crazy that people have to drive to stores 1/2 mile away because it’s not safe to walk.
The Centre/Winchester/Needham St/Rt. 9 connection is horrible for every mode of travel, but absolutely disconnects walking options the most.
The solution is involved, but it isn’t that difficult. There’s plenty of roadway space that can be reclaimed for sidewalks and bike lanes. There’s plenty of opportunity to neck down crossings and straighten out corners and intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and make vehicle movements slower and more predictable. It’s not hard to add lighting under Rt. 9 and along the route so the the two sides of Rt 9 feel connected. Even some sort of signalization could be done, though it would be complicated.
It just takes attention, political commitment, and money.
On a related note, here’s an interesting piece on the relationship between rents/house prices, employment and income levels in San Francisco.
The implications for Newton? We need greater density to keep housing prices down (duh!), and the village centers, where public transit options are best, are the obvious places for this construction to take place.
Great article Robert, thanks
That piece is awesome.