Are teardowns of perfectly sound houses to make way for much bigger houses a sign of a thriving city real estate market, a bane on our city, or both?
Should city zoning rules be changed in any way to discourage teardowns or is that an area outside what zoning regulations should be used for?
discuss …
A sign of a thriving city real estate market?
Yes. Tear downs indicate that land value in Newton is so high that the cost of a lot plus home plus the cost of demolishing the existing home is worth it to have a vacant lot for building a new home. The old house needs to be demolished because someone paying so much money for the lot expects a bigger, newer, nicer home (bigger, nicer, newer than you’d get by renovating or adding).
A bane on our city?
No, if you want well-funded education. If property values go up without adding more kids to the system, the school system benefits. More money to spend on roughly the same number of kids.
No, if you want to maintain a community of predominantly single-family, stand-alone homes.
Yes, if you want a city that wants to maintain economic diversity and an opportunity for young families to move here and seniors to stay here.
Should city zoning rules be changed in any way to discourage teardowns?
No. Again, what’s driving this is not high housing costs, but high land costs. People really want to live in Newton and need land to live here. That market pressure is immense. No zoning is going to hold that back forever, particularly because the impact won’t just be on people outside of Newton who want to come in (and have no political voice). People living here now, who can and do vote, want to be able to get a high return on their real estate investment.
More importantly, zoning rules are unlikely to suddenly turn Newton into an eden where young families can buy a standalone home and seniors can stay in the family home. Even non-teardowns are incredibly expensive.
Better to change zoning rules to allow, you guessed it, more density. More multi-family options makes the land price per unit more affordable. More affordable multi-family units will provide options for young families and seniors.
We shouldn’t try to hold back the market pressure, we should acknowledge the market pressure, declare that a core value is affordable housing for young families and seniors, and provide by-right conversion to multi-family housing.
That does not mean that we want town homes, triple-deckers, and towers popping up all over the place, in every neighborhood (though, personally, I think residentially mixed neighborhoods are great). But, if we want to control the character of our neighborhoods, we have to choose where to relieve the market pressure.
Newton has a demolition delay ordinance that requires historic commission review of proposed tear downs of buildings over 50 years old. If the commission finds that a building is “preferably preserved,” demolition can be delayed 12 months (or 18 months if the particular building is on the National Register of Historic Places). A waiver may be obtained after 4 months if the owner is willing to come back to the commission for design review and approval.
Newton also has four local historic districts (Upper Falls, Chestnut Hill, Auburndale, and Newtonville), each of which has its own commission comprised of members of the historic commission and members from the district. LHD commissions have a great deal more control over changes in design and materials than the historic commission has with demolition delay. The LHD commissions have control over changes to the exteriors of buildings that are visible from a public way. These commissions may, and often do, prohibit tear downs in favor of preservation of historic buildings.
While Zoning and Planning was considering whether to create new local historic districts in West Newton and Newton Highlands, there was a lot of confusion as to whether zoning can have an impact on teardowns. The answer is a qualified “no.”
It is important to remember that the demolition delay ordinance and the local historic districts are not zoning. To my knowledge, there is only one section of the Newton Zoning Code which has any direct impact upon tear downs. Section 7.8.4 regulates alterations of structures when the shape or size of the lot has been changed to make the existing structure nonconforming or more noncomforming. That is, where a pre-existing structure no longer conforms to current zoning regulations for setbacks, height, FAR, etc. These provisions were mainly intended to discourage property owners from reducing existing lots in size or changing the shape, by selling off part of the lot, in a way that makes the existing structure unable to conform to existing zoning standards. In some cases, depending upon a number of factors, a change in the shape or size of the lot may prevent an owner from tearing down the existing structure and building something new.
That is not to say that zoning reform could not provide additional disincentives for demolishing existing structures. Permanently forbidding teardowns without any due process or review would constitute an impermissible “taking” for purposes of the constitution. Provisions like 7.8.4, however, could make it much harder for owners to tear down their houses. Based on our recent experience with LHDs, however, I believe that would be mighty unpopular with most homeowners, and would meet with a great deal of resistance from the public and from city councilors. Zoning reform could also require design standards that could make teardowns far less palatable. Reaching consensus on the nature and extent of such standards, let alone whether to have them at all, would be difficult at best.
There are other tools for discouraging teardowns and promoting preservation, such as conservation districts, “opt-in” local historic districts, landmarking, and deed restrictions, among others. IMHO, the city should probably explore these alternatives rather than try to achieve the same outcomes through zoning.
I definitely think there should be disincentives for tearing down and incentives for perhaps converting more single family homes to two family and selling off portions of larger properties to allow the building of a second property. Zoning could play a role, but so could policies intended to create more affordable housing. Teardowns work in cross purpose in increasing the inventory of affordable housing. And it decreases the economic diversity of Newton.
I also think it is just wrong to teardown a perfectly livable house that someone would be willing to pay fair market value.
In general I believe teardowns are a good thing. Sean did a great job explaining the upside. But Jerry alluded to “perfectly sound houses” being torn down, and I’m not really sure the evidence would back that up. Same with Claire’s assumption about tearing down a “perfectly livable house that someone would be willing to pay fair market value.” It’s been my observation that most of the teardowns would have needed lots of work to resell at anything approaching fair market value, and of course “fair market value” is determined by the highest bidder for any home. So if a developer is prepared to pay a premium for a teardown [as is often the case], that “premium” price sets the value. In this particular case, I think government should keep its nose out and let the market move freely.
I live across the street from one of the few single family homes on my block. There are at least 7 families with elementary age children living in condo at least three of whom I know would love to be able to move into a sfh with a yard, but they want to stay in the school district. All three of them might have bid on that house but it never even went on the market. It was just snatch up by a developer who wants to put 4 units in place of that home. Not that any of them could or would outbid the developer since the economics are different when buying a home you intend to live in.
But I’m not a devotee to free market in all cases. The government has a role to play and if the community has a desire to maintain diversity and improve affordability (two stated goals), then they have a public policy role. IMHO
Great I suppose for the density argument, but not the affordability market
Saying “it’s wrong,” as Claire did, for homeowners to sell their homes to a developer or any other person who may tear down the house is making a value judgement – not a free market decision.
Fair market value is whatever someone will pay for something – in this case a home. Home prices all over Newton are high because it’s a desirable place to live. The value is the same whoever buys it.
The benefit of selling a home to people who plan to tear it down is they don’t require a pre-sale inspection which saves the homeowner the time, expense and the work required to pass an inspection. That’s a great benefit. Choosing to go this route is neither wrong or right – it’s a choice that puts more money in their pocket to use for their next home.
@MartiBowen “Saying “it’s wrong,” as Claire did, for homeowners to sell their homes to a developer or any other person who may tear down the house is making a value judgement – not a free market decision.”
Well as I stipulated in my comment “But I’m not a devotee to free market in all cases. The government has a role to play and if the community has a desire to maintain diversity and improve affordability (two stated goals), then they have a public policy role.”
To be clear, I don’t mean “wrong” as a value judgement about a home owner who chooses to sell to a developer who intends to tear it down. Of course the homeowner will do what is in their best interest. I mean “wrong” from the perspective that it just seems wasteful and not in the best interest of the community. The government does have a role in balancing individual best interest and community best interest.
If you are not in favor of limiting the tear down of perfectly good homes and allowing the construction of McMansions or multi-million dollar condos – then don’t complain about income inequality here in the City. But if you truly care about income and housing diversity – you would do both. Preserve existing homes and develop truly affordable housing.
AMEN AMY!!!
This wonderful home steps from Newton Center T station is fenced off now ready for teardown
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3279828,-71.1928931,3a,75y,328.65h,85.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR4xXPSvf90ypr_rsQ5TnbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
One question that emerges for me: if you discourage teardowns in some way, how do you prevent non-historic housing stock in poor condition from decaying further and sitting vacant once the current owners leave?
These houses aren’t very common but I can point to two in my immediate neighborhood right now. They don’t fit a modern family’s needs well. They aren’t energy efficient and they’d be expensive to rehab. And they sit on big lots. Empty homes in poor condition benefit no one.
I claim no say in the matter, but I’d love to see those two houses replaced by four modern “tiny-ish” houses, maybe even modern prefab houses, at middle class prices with shared community space. But that’s my own fantasy world that I’m sure not all my neighbors would appreciate it.
@MikeHalle good question. It isn’t black and white. It has to be done through the application of smart public policy. If a distressed house can be replaced with 2-4 AFFORDABLE homes that provide homes to Newton residents and add value to the neighborhood, vs profits to a developer, then by all means build it!
I suggest a “high density” tax when more than 2 LUXUARY units replace a single family home. Tax only applies to luxury units priced above the Newton average/median
This will try to put a cap on ‘too’ many units while providing tax dollars to offset the increased cost of services.
Will anyone shed any tears for a buyer who can afford a million dollar home? and they have to pay an extra 2000 a year… nope!
Will any politician have the guts to propose it? nope!
@bugek
I don’t believe you will ever see LUXURY defined in the zoning ordinance. I guess you could always take a stab at it.
The over riding effect of capitalism, warrants property owners to get the most $$$ for ones’ property, unless you are the municipality. – When was the last time you heard of a private property owner selling for the lowest price offered – doesn’t happen.
Newton has a history of adapting to housing needs. WWII returning Vets found the subsidized housing available in Oak Hill. Trending are baby boomer seniors such as myself. I am out in the community spending most of my time away the ‘home’. Why do I need a multi-room house on an oversize lot? I just need a place on a small plot of land, a little smaller than Jerry’s homestead.
I asked this question of Barney Heath this past weekend. Inquiring if there were a,y developers who had ever brought forward the idea of a village of tiny houses, he snickered and muddled under his intake breath “interesting”..
I also asked the question of Josh Morse who referred me to Barney; why not?
Affordability, efficiency, modest housing – makes too much sense, but then again this is Newton and I’m destined to live over Jerry’s garage..
@harry sanders – If I had a garage you’d be welcome to it. You’ll have to settle for a tent in the driveway.
Claire, you say “I also think it is just wrong to teardown a perfectly livable house that someone would be willing to pay fair market value.” and “Not that any of them could or would outbid the developer since the economics are different when buying a home you intend to live in.”
Here you imply several things. It’s “wrong” indicates a moral judgement. “A perfectly livable house” implies the house wouldn’t require a lot of work, money, to make it livable.” “That someone would be willing to pay fair market value” implies that this scenario exists.
The second sentence says that developers couldn’t be outbid by someone who intends to live in the home. Why? “the economics are different.” The economics are the same. The fair market value is the same. The difference is the lifting of a burden off of the homeowners saving them both time and money.
How do you intend to regulate that? How do you intend to tell homeowners the house they’ve built up equity in so they can afford to move on or retire isn’t theirs? The city of Newton can’t afford to subsidize the difference.
These houses aren’t affordable to most earners anyway. The term affordable housing doesn’t apply to Newton except in deed restricted housing.
So well said Sean!!!! The first comment on this thread. Perfect.
“@Marti Bowen Here you imply several things. It’s “wrong” indicates a moral judgement.”
I think my clarification in an above post made it quite clear that I wasn’t making a judgement on the homeowner
“To be clear, I don’t mean “wrong” as a value judgement about a home owner who chooses to sell to a developer who intends to tear it down. Of course the homeowner will do what is in their best interest. I mean “wrong” from the perspective that it just seems wasteful and not in the best interest of the community. The government does have a role in balancing individual best interest and community best interest.”
If we did ban teardowns what would the effect be?
Will housing get cheaper? will demand for housing in Newton decrease? No
this is what will happen:
– People want to live in Newton for the location, safety and schools and people will pay top dollar for these things
– Instead of a house being torn down, it will be internally gutted (much more expensive) and a tasteful addition will be added (more $$)
– The only people who can afford such renovations are the same people buying mcMansions.. they will still outbid the ‘normal’ person if they want to live that location
It will not help average joe, unless average joe is so low income that they qualify for the scant number of low income housing available.. thus widening the gap between rich and poor in Newton.
The only way to reduce the price is to increase the supply, either by higher density housing or reducing the lot size restrictions
bugek speaks the truth.
bugek’s comment suggests the solution that I think is being proposed by the administration: don’t directly block private development (including teardowns), but use that development to pay for affordable housing and other arrangements that the city does have control over.
The City still holds land on which it can steer the shape of development. Cash can provide flexibility for that task.
Form-based codes are an interesting approach that might be discussed next this thread. See: http://formbasedcodes.org/definition/