This is a house down the street from me. Well-maintained. 2200 s.f. Four bedrooms (one created in the attic). Two baths. Nice, but smallish lot. Near Newton Centre.
One million bucks!! And, they cancelled the second of two open houses this weekend, so presumably there was an offer or two from the marauding hordes that descended from their expensive cars.* Update: it’s now off the market.
Obviously, this development inures to my personal benefit. A million-dollar home a few doors down bodes well for my family. But, oh boy, this is not good for the city.
You can imagine this house saying to itself: I have arrived.This is no longer, as it was when built, a starter home for a young family with a moderate income. At 20% down with no other debt, you need an income over $200K to service the mortgage. Teachers and firefighters need not apply (unless they have significant trust funds.) A further hit to economic (and racial) diversity.
Actually, though, it’s not about the house. The house is not worth seven figures. The land under the house is worth the lion’s share of that million. A 2200 s.f. house for $1,000,000 is pretty close to a teardown. If you’re going to pay that kind of money, you probably want something newer and/or grander.
And, the land is that valuable because our restrictive zoning artificially constrains the market. In a rational world, my block would have a mix of housing. Maybe a small apartment building. And, some two- or three- family homes. And, some single-family homes. You could easily double the number of units in the neighborhood. Curing the artificial scarcity would drive the cost of the land down some (it’s still a very desirable location, near Newton Centre). The land cost, though, would be spread over more housing units, making things more affordable.
The impact might even be more regional. If there are more homes in Newton, folks in Watertown who were priced out can move to Newton, which would drop the prices in Watertown. And, folks priced out of Watertown, … Lather, rinse, repeat.
In the meantime, the Roches (and our neighbors) get wealthier and the city gets poorer.
*Poetic license. They all seemed very well behaved. But, there were a lot of them. And, they did arrive in expensive cars.
A million dollar house in Newton is not news.
If this price offends you, there are only 4 solutions
– communism
– The City of Newton starts to buy land and build THOUSANDS of high density housing. Selling ONLY to low income or restrict ownership (sell at a low price, but the owner is not entitled to any equity). The amount of money the City would loose doing this would be staggering.
– relax zoning in return for every new development to create 15-20% affordable units & apply a high density housing tax to pay for the extra services incurred. Open the floodgates to developers
– pray for a recession to hit the Boston job market in a big way
“A 2200 s.f. house for $1,000,000 is pretty close to a teardown. If you’re going to pay that kind of money, you probably want something newer and/or grander.”. What? I don’t think that’s true at all.
I don’t know what shape the interior of the home is in, but in general Sean is correct: Some buyers would choose to replace that home with something newer and larger if they are going to invest a million dollars. Then there is the other side of the coin. Perhaps the family that sold the home had planned on using the profit to fund a good chunk of their retirement. Good for them! I don’t think that is a bad thing at all.
Of course, Sean’s point about all but the super wealthy being unable to move here is a real concern shared by many. I agree the answer is less-restrictive zoning, where much smaller, attached homes are not as expensive. Perhaps not so densely on Daniel Street, which is just outside the village of Newton Centre, but certainly there is room for overlay districts a bit closer to the “hub.”
Good piece. I enjoyed it. Some good points.
Individuals who suddenly emerge as truly committed to promoting “economic and racial diversity” via housing prices and not just paying lip service to same are always free to discriminate and sell their homes below market to the family that meets his or her racial and economic criteria. If not, perhaps he or she is truly committed to something else regarding the supply of housing.
Newton has become one of the hottest real estate markets in the Country. Probably hotter than Beverly Hills.
@Andy
I find the argument that less restrictive zoning could help here.
Out of curiosity I just decided to see how much the Court St 40b market rate condos were being sold for. I was shocked. $1,149,000 gets you a Condo there plus a couple of parking spaces!
Not bad considering SEB paid less than $2,000,000 for the entire property. And developed 36 units?
So how is it less restrictive zoning makes things more affordable?
Simon,
Newton cannot escape the laws of supply and demand.
Less restrictive zoning will cause supply to meet the demand and stabilize prices as builders can create new units (multi-housing where only one house used to stand)
An over supply will cause prices to decline as sellers chase fewer buyers.
You cannot use a single data point (court st), you have to wait for supply to meet demand to see changes.
If you want something grander, you’re not going to get it on a 5,000sf SR3 lot, at least not without some fantasy zoning. $1M is for that (very nice) house, not a teardown.
Oh, and Andy, Daniel Street is in Newton Centre 🙂
@Bugek
I see. Your are basically saying we just need to transform our forbearers vision of a garden city into a concrete jungle for it all to make sense. How sad, and I don’t buy it. Its about time we started taking care of the people who have lived here for generations. They are the ones the city should be taking care of. They are the people who can not afford the increased property taxes, and are being driven out.
Lets be real, how many generations would it take to be in a situation of over supply?
It occurs to me to achieve that goal of being in over supply, we simply need to make our city a far less desirable city to live in. But nobody wants that!
Unchecked ( via taxes, regulation) has winners and losers. If you want less restrictive zoning c’mon over to Newtonville where where zoning on Washington Street is 3 stories but developers bargain down to 5….
There are a bunch of factors here: lack of real wage growth since the 1970s. Home is often couples’ primary source of net worth for retirement ( no pensions ) ; virtuous circle is property tax funding schools causing better schools causing increased prices which increase taxes which funds schools.
Supply and demand are part but not the only issue here.
A million in Newton Center is actually quite a bargain. The new reality is that teardowns go for about this price nowadays. Maybe it’s the case with this house as well.
“Affordable housing”
We live in a starter home in Newton, and we are happy. Four of us living there. 1,100 square feet inside the home. 5,400 square foot lot (tiny) with a small lawn.
This house just hit the market one block from us. https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/ma/newton/8-meredith-avenue/pid_24355437/
It is between Rt 9 and the Elliot Train station. Views of both from the house.
While I love our current home, there is no way I can pay $995K for my house, if I had to buy it again. And I am shocked that a $1M home gets me a view of the Elliot T station when I open the master bedroom shades. 8 Meredith is beautiful inside, but small.
I love living in Newton, but I am so lucky we bought our house 20 years ago, before we had kids. I was 26 when we purchased the house. I went to a state school and had no debt when graduating. Today’s 26 year olds have huge amounts of student debt. They can’t afford to buy in my neighborhood (many starter homes), and we are losing such great people to other towns because of the housing here. I am so lucky. I know it every day.
People move to Newton for single-family homes. We don’t want mixed-use, multi-family, or apt. buildings. There are plenty of lovely towns in the Boston area that feature these if you so desire. What is it that is bothering people like Sean Roche? What problem is he trying to rectify? (A) Is he unhappy with the physical appearance of single-family houses? (B) Is he uncomfortable with Newton demographics? (C) Does he desire more activity on his street? (D) Does he believe that Newton owes this to society?
Sean Roche states: “In a rational world, my block would have a mix of housing. Maybe a small apartment building. And, some two- or three- family homes. And, some single-family homes.”
Newton has always been about low density, restrictive zoning and mostly single family homes. I believe dating back 100 years it had always been considered a affluent town COMPARED to other towns.
If Sean is yearning for more density, he would have better chance of moving to another town insteading of expecting Newton to change.
Higher density will probably happen naturally as more millenials move in and shape its future..
@testcase6 – “People move to Newton for single family homes” – Yes some of them do …. and plenty of people move to Newton’s multi-family homes and yes, some of them move to Newton’s apartment buildings.
@testcase6 – Let me put forth what I suspect will be the first in a long line of replies to your comment. People move to Newton for a wide variety of reasons. Some move here to be close to Boston, Cambridge, and the 128 tech corridor, and the wide variety of career opportunities accessible from here. Some come for the schools. Some choose to be close to our (admittedly very imperfect) public transportation as they do not wish to rely on a car. Some come to be in the middle of a thriving, diverse metropolitan area. Some come because they were relocated here for work or study. Some come because they want to be close to friends or family, or because they want to move back to the place where they grew up.
And yes, a single family home may be appropriate for some of them, but some of the groups above can and will have very different needs. Also a community of only single family homes wastes the assets we have for public transit and also undercuts our desire to have walkable streets and community village downtowns with local and diverse shops.
Clearly you want to and can live in a single family home. However, I urge you to not transpose your values and desire onto what you assume to be the desires of everyone else who lives in Newton.
@testcase6 -” (B) Is he uncomfortable with Newton demographics? ” I won’t speak for Sean but yes I think we all should be a bit concerned about Newton’s radically shifting demographics. As Bugek pointed out Newton has always been considered an affluent town compared to other towns.
A generation ago Newton was an affluent town too but there was a big difference. Within that overall affluent town there was a much greater range of housing prices. Some of its neighborhoods had plenty of housing within possible range of average middle class folks – teachers, city workers, etc.
Today, to buy ANY house in Newton I’d guess you need to be earning a MINIMUM of $175,000 or $200,000 a year. Think about that. That’s an extreme shift in demographics. It means that just about no new people that the city hires for its workforce will ever live in the city. It means that just about no people who wait on you in stores, restaurants, etc in Newton will ever live in the city. As the current crop of home owners move away or die, it means that the ONLY folks you’ll be interacting with on a daily basis going forward will be ONLY the most affluent people in our larger society.
Lots of folks are fine with that in fact lots of folks think that’s just great. Personally though I don’t think that’s a healthy thing for the city.
My neighbor died last week. He worked for the city of Newton. He’ll be the last city worker to every live in that house or any other house around here. Should that worry us? I think so.
Bugek writes: “Higher density will probably happen naturally as more millenials move in and shape its future”
Two thoughts. First, higher density cannot happen naturally. So much of the city is zoned to prevent it. That’s why many of us are arguing for less restrictive zoning, so that we can accommodate the needs of millenials and seniors, among others, and let the housing stock better reflect market and other needs.
Second, you’re basically making my point. If we responded to demographics, the city’s housing stock would change. But, we’re not. And, we should.
Jerry wrote: “My neighbor died last week. He worked for the city of Newton. He’ll be the last city worker to every live in that house or any other house around here. Should that worry us? I think so.”
Beautifully — and sadly — put.
@testcase6 – “People move to Newton for single-family homes. We don’t want mixed-use, multi-family, or apt. buildings.”
“People” who? “We” who? Neither group seems likely to include Newton residents who do not live in single-family homes. (Single-family homes, by the way, make up only about 55% of the housing units in the city currently.) What exactly is it about the rest of us – you know, the real people living in apartments, multi-family, and mixed-use buildings – that you don’t want near you?
@testcase6 – People DO move to Newton for multi-family homes. Look at neighborhoods like Auburndale, Newtonville, West Newton, Nonantum, etc. There are lots of two-family homes, condos, and small apartment complexes throughout those neighborhoods. There are lots of reasons people move into multi-family homes: it’s a way for some families to get into NPS if they can’t afford a single family home, some people prefer to not have the maintenance associated with a single family home (lawn care, snow removal, etc), and some people want to live closer to amenities like a village center and a lot of times these multi-family properties are closer to that.
We personally moved right outside of West Newton Square about 13 years ago because it had the right mix of urban and suburban qualities. If I wanted pure suburbia, we’d be in Natick or Westborough or something.
Which demographics are preferred for Newton, and which are not preferred? Is there a listing somewhere? I would like to know if I am on the list of neighborhood undesirables.
Sean, love the post!
I’m a baby boomer, empty nester and all around lover of downsizing, 3 times now although I think I got it right this time at 1500 sq ft except for needing to add a third bedroom. The first time was difficult but it became liberating as I went smaller every time.
That house would have been a perfect place for me and those like me as well as a great starter home for young families – perfect size and in Newton Centre – if it weren’t in a booming metro center.
Assuming it has the standard floor plan for its time, I would have to move the master bedroom downstairs and locate the laundry room there too. The extra bedrooms would be great for my grandkids and daughter to visit comfortably. But I don’t drive an expensive car.
To me, it would be nuts to pay a $1 million for such a purpose unless it was pocket change for the buyer. At this point it’s a good investment but if this area doesn’t start attracting more young workers and families who will encourage businesses to continue to come here to support Newton’s economy, that investment may falter.
The zoning of the past served its purpose – mostly to protect the wealthy from the riff raf and as a way to continue segregation. It’s proved to be a failed experiment in the long run. White flight caused urban sprawl, isolated communities and created long commutes. Their next generation hated the isolation and the commutes so they started to reclaim the metro areas taking over the very places they had left to the “undesirables” leaving them searching for other places to live and work as the prices soared. Segregation continued with the help of bulging prisons.
The zoning of the future needs to serve another purpose – bringing people and their interests together for mutual satisfaction -more like symbiosis. The unknown promotes fear. Living together as a community reduces that fear. When all types of people live in the same communities the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Different perspectives bring new ideas and more creative decision making. Density, building more units in a newly rezoned area nesr restaurants, stores and other amenities, is the only way to bring those young workers, families and businesses here and keep the seniors.
Our survival as an economic hub depends on keeping Boston area college graduates in the area and not losing them to less expensive warmer climates in addition to keeping and increasing our low and middle income residents.
Testcase, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, it’s best to speak for yourself. Generalizations are rarely correct.
“Which demographics are preferred for Newton?” All of them.
After your litany of preferred demographics, you then say all are “preferred.” Very funny!
We also should take into consideration the seniors when discussing single family homes vs multi. One great frustration of our seniors is the fact that when they no longer need / want / can afford / can safely remain in the single family home where they raised their kids, they have to move out of the city that they know and love, and are familiar with, due to the fact that there are few multifamily alternatives. Demographics change, needs change: so must our City. And, sadly for some, our Village centers are the right place for multifamily structures due to amenities such as markets, banks, etc., and transportation.
Testcase, how does my “litany of preferred demographics” not include all of them?
NativeNewtonian,
I took the starter-home angle, which does not focus on the needs of seniors. You are absolutely right, though, that seniors are a critical demographic poorly served by our exclusionary zoning and suffering from the housing options and prices that result (from exclusionary zoning).
Less restrictive zoning ??
Current zoning in the form of the extremely generous floor area ratios and side yard setbacks is what is responsible for the rash of tear downs of modest homes in the city.
If we were to restrict the size of new construction we would discourage the teardown and maintain the existing fabric of our housing stock.
Remember AMY Sangiolo’s demolition moratorium and the rationale for same???
Sean,
Curious, in your ideal world.. what should be the market price for this home?
If not this home, then how about a 3br condo?
I suspect only a severe job recession in Boston will meet your numbers because rich folks will just buy multiple homes if they are cheap enough
Marti,
So if one does not support relaxed zoning, they are racist? Mmmmmm
Beware the architect, the builder, the developer, the contractor and the real estate attorney who tell you we don’t have enough housing, alas, not even poor people are organizing protests about the cost of housing in Newton.
Does anybody remember RKG report titled Housing Needs Analysis and Strategic
Recommendations
City of Newton, Massachusetts
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76450.
In particular
“If the City is to grow as it is projected to through 2030, development patterns will
need to change to accommodate anyone other than the wealthiest consumers.
Given the limited amount of available vacant land, a mix of moderate density
(multi-unit) development will need to be considered to accommodate additional
households and allow for greater housing choice. That said, the City will not ‘build
its way to affordability.’ The imbalance of demand and supply is so great that the
City could not physically accommodate the development needed to affect pricing
in a substantial manner. To this point, a combination of preservation and new
construction will be necessary to ensure some level of price diversity within Newton.”
Our family bought a nice, but outdated, 2000 sf ranch 4 years ago for nearly a million dollars; the block we live on has a mix of new construction (formerly modest homes like ours torn down to make way for 4,000+ sf homes) and older homes. We were amused when we moved in and folks thanked us for not knocking it down. We were less amused when the cute Cape next door (which unbeknownst to us had been sold for 900k a few months before) was torn down to make way for one of those larger homes.
In many, many other communities quite close to ours, an investment like the one we made would have gotten us one of those larger homes (which I actually have nothing against). We wanted to be here to be close to grandparents and work, so gave up on a bigger/nicer home to do so.
Right now, all the options are at the very highest end of the market. And since demand remains high, there are incentives for developers to snap up properties like ours to fill that demand, driving up prices further (I know we bid against a developer for this property). More choices (more supply) creates an environment where properties like mine remain available for actual buyers, not just developers.
The city of Boston is a great example of this: the overall dramatic increase in supply under Mayor Walsh has had a moderating effect on skyrocketing prices/rental rates in the existing housing stock.
There is no one perfect solution. Newton has been an expensive place to live for many years now and even the largest developments are unlikely to change that. But there are ways to create more opportunity for home ownership.
The issue faced by Newton is a reflection of the nationwide problem of eroding middle class. The solution is not to subsidize housing for middle class, but to create a live and vibrant middle class. Lets start by using excess funds to NOT outsource janitors as we did with cafeteria workers. OR lets pass ordinance for every construction worker who does any job in Newton to have benefits – employer provided healthcare and possibly retirement as well.
These policies will preserve middle class who can afford decent housing in Newton. A tenured school teacher for eg. makes a median salary of $90K + benefits + pension for 9 months. This equates to $120K annual income. For a dual income family we can assume a $200K income ($120K + second member makers $80K). That income (given you also dont have to worry about pension) now puts you in the $1M house range.
Finally, we are having this discussion when the stock markets are historically high and employment is historically low. Any reversion to mean, needs to be factored in before we scream for policy change.
“White flight caused urban sprawl, isolated communities and created long commutes. Their next generation hated the isolation and the commutes so they started to reclaim the metro areas taking over the very places they had left to the “undesirables” leaving them searching for other places to live and work as the prices soared.”
Yes – that’s gentrification. So those “undesirables” now have nowhere to go – forced out of their urban homes only to move where? Out of the urban area where the jobs are and where public transit just doesn’t cut it.
@Simon
I won’t defend Court Street: too big, over-priced.
@Adam
Right, Daniel Street is in Newton Centre. But isn’t it sort of just outside the “hub” itself, back toward Crystal Lake toward the Highlands? I wholeheartedly support the idea of overlay districts, but was thinking that neighborhood might be just outside such an ideal area. Perhaps I’m wrong in my mind’s eyed about exactly where it is.
@Andy,
In regards to Daniel St., I would say it is just outside the “hub” of Newton Centre village. It is off Parker St., between Rt. 9 and Newton Centre. It’s considered Thompsonville and is a short walk to the Bowen School.
Amy, I’ve struggled to find your your point here. You quote the problems that were a result of restrictive zoning without adding any additional insight into solutions.
The mindset that was the catalyst for the creation of restrictive zoning has been present for generations. That mindset led to labeling groups as “undesirables” for a multitude of reasons – out of a belief of superiority (class, religion), out of fear and paranoia (unknowns), out of a steady diet of propaganda (communities, education), out of cultural identities (immigration) – just to name a few.
The huge fallacy is there are no groups of “undesirables” only different members of humanity trying to survive. Generalizations about groups only breed fear and discontent. People have the same goals regardless of their wealth or lack thereof, regardless of their living in single family homes or apartments, regardless of their driving expensive cars or taking public transportation.
Newtonites, as well as those in other wealthy metro areas, are accustomed to having things one way – these ways were foist upon them by past generations. They are comfortable and familiar. They feel good. The thing is those feelings won’t change when we find ways to bring back those young families and others who keep this city running and those who haven’t left yet. They will only get stronger.
Blue, Daniel Street is not in Thompsonville. The building permit on my house from the 1920’s clearly says Newton Centre. I’ve never seen any historical document that suggests otherwise. Not all villages were created equal, and some are better defined than others. Thompsonville is just a few blocks around the end of Langley Road. It is much smaller than most other villages. This is one of the myths of Newton’s “13 villages” as promoted by the last administration.
Andy, our street is probably the last area you’d think of for an overlay district, but I’m not sure Sean makes any such distinctions in his post. His plea for mixed housing on Daniel Street seems more emotional than rational.