While I don’t always agree with him, I admire Andy Levin for not being shy about expressing his views on the TAB’s editorial page, while keeping the news reporting on big issues in the rest of the paper balanced.
One strong example of this is the series that began a few weeks back on Newton’s tear downs. Andy followed up on reporter Jonathan Dame’s reporting with a personal column (clearly labeled “My View”). Andy reached a conclusion I never saw coming and likely elevated lots of folks’ blood pressure in the process. Read the whole thing, but here’s two excepts.
To be honest, my attitude about Newton’s newer homes has evolved since I moved back here six years ago. I live in Ward 8, a section of the city where so many of these houses have sprung up over the past decade or so and where residential construction these days seems to be almost ubiquitous. Initially, I was a bit uncomfortable with them, overwhelmed by the cost of such big houses. I suppose this is a more socially correct way to say I was just a bit jealous — not of others’ money, so much, but of the fact people could live in such vast space while I was crammed into less than 1,300 square feet with three other people (two of them young, rambunctious kids).
…. however, passing by these newer houses every day for several years now — often slowing to examine their finer details — I’ve grown to appreciate them for what they truly are: excellent homes that add beauty and economic value to our community. Many of them are designed in classic styles, evocative of home construction from the early part of the 20th century, similar to homes built in older sections of our city. Indeed, they are not at all like most of the so-called McMansions slapped together as part of planned neighborhoods in small towns outside Greater Boston.
I agree that new construction should be considered on its merits (as well as what was lost) But I think Andy was generous when he wrote:
I’d say some. I find it to be the exception. I hardly consider myself qualified to judge, do find myself in awe of some of the construction and how well some new homes fit in the community. Not so much for the snout house or stucco / ostentatious oversized mahogany door types.
Adam, as of yesterday Newton is done with the “snout house” when the garage door ordinance went into effect. But what’s wrong with stucco? I live in a 1918 stucco house.
Ted, tt’s not the stucco I have a problem with, it’s just one of the prominent features on the houses I’m thinking of. Though it is nice to have variations, and it feels like we’re seeing entire neighborhoods of stucco homes. I’m sure the construction is nothing like your 1918 house. Why is the stucco over foam so common now? Cost? Is it green?
(to clarify) from what I understand, the construction of homes in the 1920’s in Newton was generally extremely high quality.
Folks are a bit too on one side or the other.
I don’t have much issue with Levin says… But it’s also true that tear-downs are making Newton less affordable.
Lipof’s logic from the article is exactly the faulty logic that needs to be addressed. Saying that an $800K house is not affordable, so it’s not a big deal if the property becomes a $3M house is silly. Yes, a $800K house is expensive, and not affordable to most, but many two professional households can afford that home. A $3M home is only affordable to CEOs and finance types. There is a difference there. We ignore that at our own peril.
Paul, what Rick Lipof said is correct: An $800,000 “starter” home is affordable to very few people. That’s why the teardowns and affordable housing issues go hand-in-hand. If Newton is going to reestablish itself as a community where middle-class families can live (and I grew up here with plenty of them) then we need to encourage the development of affordable housing, which means some degree of added density.
The anti-teardowns argument seems a red herring relative to “affordability.” Moreover, property owners have an absolute right to replace an older home with something bigger and better. And they will continue to do so. And the new homes will be worth twice as much. That’s how a free market works.
@Ted – I’m wondering how the latest proposal for Philip St. Neri satisfies the garage door / snout house ordinance. Oink?
Eww. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
No, they don’t satisfy the current ordinance. Nor would they satisfy the amendments that I proposed. Last night after the public hearing, we voted to hold all items, including the proposed deferral of the implementation of the current ordinance through February 2017, and my proposed amendments to the existing ordinance.
@Adam. Most of the houses built here in the 1920’s and 30’s were of extremely high quality. We live in what is known as a Cape Colonial, built in 1933. Among its many structural attributes is steel beam construction in the cellar and throughout the walls and steel instruments that prevent or mitigate settling. A few years back I removed the old wallpaper from most of the rooms and throughout the entire house there was only small area over a second floor door where the plaster had cracked. Everything else looked as new as the day it was constructed.
@Ted, it looks like they applied for a waiver. Must be the first of its kind? I didn’t see anything in the planning memo recommending against it, nor anything in the draft ZBA notice in favor, but I’m not familiar with how these things work and may have missed something.