The recent statement from this presentation from Right Sized Newton (page 12) that “… seniors overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT to live in luxury high-rise rental apartments” is simply not true.
I say this based on academic background; extended membership/ leadership of the Newton Council on Aging; 25 years as a caregiver; my research/publications on getting older; and the actuality of my own aging. Reflecting on my varied experience and knowledge, I take a multi-layered approach to examining that statement.
Right Sized Newton cites this Newtonville Area Council survey (Q#42) as the source of its conclusion.
“If you are over 60 years of age, what do you eventually hope to do about your housing?”
The main problem with Q42 is that it asks people to respond to something that they don’t know yet. It is difficult to acknowledge and foresee our aging. We know what has already happened to us, but none of us can predict five or 10 years from now. When I was 70, I figured I would stay in my house. Five years later, I didn’t want to deal with ice dams and plumbing problems.
Second, good data are available. The Council on Aging and Department of Senior Services commissioned a survey of Newton seniors (2014) with UMass Boston Gerontology Institute “Living and Aging in Newton: Now and in the Future.”
Recognizing the problem of responding to future-focused scenarios, we asked people to think about life if something should happen to them. The answer to the question “If a change in health required a move from your current residence in the next 5 years where would you want to live?” is on Page 37, Figure 19. The range of responses differ by age: younger elders more frequently want to stay in their homes. Older elders preferred an apartment/condominium.
Third, we know the reality of who is currently living in apartment/condo complexes in the Newton. Residents in my condo building, The Towers of Chestnut Hill, range from babies to centenarians, but the majority is older people. We have 423 units with more than 600 people and most of us are seniors who downsized or moved to be near children. I don’t know the precise percent of older people in rental places like the Avalons, but data on registered voters collected by Allison Sharma roughly indicate that around one-third are over age 60. The truth is that a lot of seniors are already living in multi-unit buildings, and some are staying in their homes because there is no place for them to down-size.
Finally, I have lived through the shifting wishes and needs of my “carees”, friends, and myself. Aging is not one moment in time. It is a process that we can’t predict for ourselves or others, but it is highly likely that a few years from now we won’t be exactly the same as we are now. I have been pretty healthy, but I know intimately how horrific sciatic nerve pain can change my life in an instant. All of the people I cared for experienced decline; some wanted to move, others didn’t. The ones who refused to think about leaving their long-term homes ended up being at serious safety risk and I had to make decisions for them – a terrible situation for both of us. I have friends who five years ago were adamant about staying in their homes, but who ultimately decided to move to a safe, accessible, “age-friendly” place.
Making absolute-sounding statements based on imperfect research contributes to the denial of aging and its related massive problems. Ultimately, flawed research and misinformed statements can nurture faulty decision-making. As caring, reasonable, thoughtful people, I don’t think that is what we want to promote.
Marian Leah Knapp is a 50-year resident of Newton and writes a column for the Newton TAB called “Aging in Places”
I’d be happy to live in a high rise apartment building – I grew up in one. However, I want one that is NOT luxury – I can’t afford that! I’d like a mid-range building – having doormen (for security) and good superintendent/repair people are important to me. I could care less about fancy kitchens, spas, etc.
The woman who we bought our house from moved into high rise luxury housing – downtown. It’s easy to see why: easy access to cultural amenities without a car, a supermarket downstairs and doormen who will help her with groceries, luggage, deliveries. If Newton continues to resist constructing dense housing near retail we will continue to see an exodus of seniors once they can no longer safely drive and don’t want to care for a 3,000 sq. ft + house.
My father did not think he wanted to move out of his house, into an apartment but 2 years later both he and my mother and the rest of our family agree it was a great move. No more snow shoveling and a lot easier to maintain.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have the funds to live in a luxury condo or feel as though they have enough funds, even after they sell their Newton home, to afford mortgage or rental payments, healthcare costs, and food.
Ms.Knapp,
While I certainly appreciate that we could have worded that particular slide better (as you know, it’s tough to boil down a ton of information down into a slide that is readable) — and as I said to Allison in the other thread on this website, as it was devolving into the typical name-calling ad-hominem attacks that these comments seem to always devolve to, I welcome further discussion on the topic, just not here. Because of my deep respect for you and what you do, I am responding here, even though I know it is not likely to lead to anything productive.
The overall point of the slide remains, and appears backed up by your anecdotal evidence of people you have taken care of, that the majority of seniors do not want to leave their homes to go live in luxury high rises, although some of them end up having to do so due to health or other reasons. We should find ways to support all our seniors, not just ones that can no longer safely stay in their homes. If we build massive projects that will cause us to need tax overrides, we will price people out of their homes. If we build massive projects that cause massive traffic, we will cause more isolation as people become afraid of driving on streets that feel like a competition.
You take (legitimate) issue with the question as it was asked by the NAC, but the question you asked, “if a change in health required a move from your current residence in the next 5 years where would you want to live?” presupposes that there is a condition that requires you to move from your current home, which, of course is not a great question, either.
There is another issue that we raised on that same slide that is not addressed by the above: most seniors cannot afford the market rent at these luxury complexes that are being contemplated, but due to the sale of their homes, will not qualify for the affordable units.
To be clear: it is undeniable that some seniors (and non-seniors) choose to live in apartment buildings instead of single-family homes.
The fact that the Newton Council on Aging chooses to support the massive Northland proposed development, without considering the effect of the negative aspects of such a large development on the very people they want to help, all because the developer has offered one single “age-friendly” building is, in my opinion, unfortunate. When a developer needs the city’s approval to change zoning in order to maximize the return on their investment, we can and should do better.
I guess I always assumed that the concerns for seniors seeking housing in Newton were more economic based than you are indicating. That the cost of maintaining their homes and Newton’s high taxes led more to downsize as my own Mother experieced in another Boston suburb. It seems based on the Living and Aging in Newton many would prefer to remain in their villages though I’m not sure that means in a luxury unit. I would be interested in hearing from other V14Seniors on what they and their friends are looking for. To me those with more economic means have more options and the challenges would be more for those with less means trying to stay in Newton but maybe my anecdotal experiences don’t expose me to the true senior population.
I don’t understand why everyone’s framing the choices as house vs. “luxury high rise”. There’s no reason a nice apartment building has to be a luxury residence. Medium-range apartment buildings with elevators (for accessibility) could be a nice alternative for those who need one-level living and can’t take care of grounds any more but can’t afford luxury.
I respect Dr. Knapp’s advocacy and tireless service for seniors of Newton.
The question here is however around “luxury rentals”. So lets just do some simple math – a 2 bedroom rental at Avalon Needham St is $4,000 + utilities. Lets say you need $1,000 for utilities + incidentals every month with Social Security helping pay other expenses such as food + healthcare. This equates to $60,000 per year + Social Security Payments.
Financial advisors advice retirees to withdraw around 4% of their savings every year so they dont run out of money. For a retiree, this $60K annual expense would translate to $1.5M in assets. BTW – this does not include having funds for the trips to go visit places or meet family or other such “luxuries”.
Question: Is that what this fight is for – for seniors with AT LEAST $1.5M ?
Meredith, to be fair, I think very little is being built on the moderate scale/build-out. The expensive part is the elevators/doorman. The finishes add some cost, but not as much as you’d think. Size of unit is also a big differential.
I think my experience is that there has been a huge range. I have 3 elderly neighbor families. Two are living at home at advanced age. One aged out of their home, moved to a nursing home, no intermediate step.
Several couples have moved to the city in their 50s and 60s. Only one expressed any interest in staying in a Newton hi-rise, but not that many currently exist that fit the bill.
A few responses to the above:
Amy, so what is your solution to that issue? I’m not seeing how that is a helpful point. Some of the units will be affordable. Some will not. We won’t have any affordable units and fewer choices overall if we don’t build the new buildings.
Leon, I’m curious as to where you want to discuss issues like this. Ideally we’d have a better newspaper of course, but absent that, this is one of the few forums where folks can debate back and forth. If you want to convince folks to your point of view, complaining about the “cesspool” doesn’t do much except cause your own supporters to nod in unison. And only the true believers on either side go to the city council meetings, the rest of us just email our views and live our lives…
To be fair, I don’t think your response to Marian addressed her points, namely that she has a great deal of experience in this area, that she came armed with her own information from what seems to be an actual survey connected to an independent source, and that she has both evidence in her own life living in a high rise with many elderly residents. Your response seems more like scare tactics to me. “Massive projects” that will necessitate tax overrides that drive the elderly out of their homes. “Massive projects” that lead to “Massive traffic” that cause the elderly to fear driving, etc, etc.
I certainly think the traffic issue is a big one, and I think Needham street is a mess. For that alone I’m not sure I support Northland as contemplated by the developer. But the elderly are more capable I think than you give them credit for, especially on figuring out how to get around in today’s modern age. And I’m still not seeing the tax override discussion being caused by these larger projects, instead I see the tax override being probably necessary to pay for our unfunded liabilities and our poor roads and streets, as well as new contracts for our police/fire/teachers eventually. I’d actually think a mixed use project would look pretty good on the tax override front, especially with significant office/commercial components.
Cheers,
Figgy
Neil P:
I’d imagine that at least 20% would be affordable, but it is a good point. Although the same would likely be true at those prices for a family with your children, as in, the price point limits some of those as well.
Ms. Knapp: I am a native who has worked with elders for many years. I have yet to meet one who would choose (could they afford to) live in a building which was not dedicated specifically to their population. You and I both know what this means. The continuum of care is missing (“aging in place” with only “independent”?). Would an elder, having left the nest and settlling in a Northland apartment, want to have to pick up and move again when the need for the availability of services arises? Have you seen the plans for the building? Would you be willing to share a parking space (apparently that’s a real possibility based on what we heard the other night).
I would be very interested in seeing the plans for the building.
I also want to hear V14 elders weigh in.
Respectfully,
Pat Irwin
Chestnut Hill Towers is a lovely place with 423 units, a guard at the entry, a concierge in the lobby, a pool and fitness center, and it is not in the middle of the gridlock of Needham Street. I have visited many friends and parents of friends who live there, and drive there by Hammond Pond Parkway, enter the Chestnut Hill mall parking lot, and have never had more than one car, if that, in front of me to drive into the residence. Northland is not going to be condos, which Chestnut Hill Towers is. There is a proposal on the table for 800 units, not 423. Northland can’t be looked at in a vacuum. Riverside has a proposal of 625 units, and there is still an unknown number of units on the table for Hello Washington Street. If my husband and I sold our home in 15 years, when we will be in our mid to late 70’s and might bump up to the “need to move for health reasons” or “just plain want to stop shoveling and doing yard work and pouring money into a 115 year old house” the proceeds will go to our retirement and to our children and grandchildren and hopefully to some nice travel. Our money would run out fast renting at market rate of a Northland or Riverside. Would love to see development at the Northland parcel and the Riverside parcel and Hello Washington Street – why does it have to be 800 and 625 and the unknown # on Washington Street? The seniors who are fortunate to sell big homes for a lot of money and have saved large amounts in retirement funds are welcome to buy condos or rent at market rate. There are lots of families like mine and my neighbors who won’t be selling our homes for large sums, and still have mortgages to pay off, which will take a chunk of the sale price, and just can’t afford to buy a condo or rent at market rate in Newton. I wish we could stop bickering on Village 14 and respect that everyone is coming from a different perspective. There is no one right answer. Between Northland and Riverside and Hello Washington Street, and The Kendrick just over the line in Needham, and the high probabililty that Northland will build housing across the street where the former TJ Maxx was located, there will be plenty of units for everyone. Newton is an affluent city, but don’t assume that everyone in their late 50’s and 60’s who are going to be thinking about selling or downsizing is the same amount of affluent as their neighbor.
@Pat –
Not every older commenter is going to start by saying “I’m an elder”. I am in my 60s with physical limitations and I would be happy to live in a building that isn’t dedicated to seniors, just like my 85 y.o. mother does (sadly, not in the Boston area). I’d prefer that, as I like mixed age communities. It’s something I’ve thought about a lot, since I’m finding it increasingly difficult to navigate stairs.
And once I’m not longer commuting to work, I’d be happy to use Uber/Lyft and delivery services – that would still be cheaper than owning a car and paying for its upkeep and insurance.
Meredith
Jo louis
… except you wont be retiring because “they” want to build so many new units to drive down real estate prices(your nest egg)… because “fairness”… but hey, the developers made alot of $$
Whatever equity you had in your home will ve greatly reduce for “social justice”
I wish i was kidding…
@fignewtonville — I use my own name when I post here, which makes it fairly easy to reach out to me to discuss things via the contact us page rightsizenewton.org. Also, for what it’s worth, I used the word “cesspool” once, to describe certain commenters labeling those they did not agree with as racist. If you don’t think that’s the right word, I encourage you to find a better one.
You are quick to label my response “scare tactics,” but did you actually look at the data that Ms. Knapp provided? Even with the flawed question that asks people ” to select the types of housing units they would prefer to live in if in the next five years they experienced a change in their health that required them to move from their current residence,” which of course forecloses the option of saying “I’d like to stay in my house,” 43% of baby boomers, 24% of people aged 60-79, and 10% of people aged 80+ chose “single family home” as their choice. Furthermore, choosing between “single family house,” “apartment building,” “condominium,” “senior independent living,” and “assisted living facility” only 14% of boomers, 18% of people aged 60-79 and 10% of people aged 80+ chose “apartment building.”
As a reminder, Nothland is proposing to build 800 apartments, not condos, and it is proposing that 1 building be “age-friendly,” which is neither senior independent living nor an assisted living facility. 85% of these “age-friendly” units will be rented at market rate.
So, it appears that the Living and Aging in Newton study, which was commissioned by the Senior Citizens Fund of Newton, Inc. does not dispute the fact that seniors, even those who are forced to move from their homes due to a change in health, overwhelmingly do not want to live in high-rise (or any other) apartment buildings, in fact it supports this conclusion (86% of baby boomers do not, 82% of people aged 60-79 do not, and 90% of people over 80 do not).
Again, no one is saying that an “age friendly” building is a bad thing! The point is that supporting this current proposal, with all its flaws, just because of that one “age friendly” building and the desire to help senior citizens is, in my opinion, not the best we can do for our senior citizens.
@Figgy: My point is that luxury units are not the answer for all seniors and perhaps many of those that responded to the NAC survey are in that group.
I don’t have a solution dear Figgy but neither do you.
I have my own experience with seniors downsizing to a luxury condo in a city where there was adequate transportation and walking distance to shops and restaurants. The cost of the mortgage and maintenance fees in addition to medical, transportation, caregiving, and general living expenses were astronomical. It didn’t work out very well for them.
Fortunately, not everyone is that unlucky and I am not against luxury condos. I just don’t believe that building lots of them helps meet the needs in our community or help make our community diverse.
You seem to presume that I’m against development at the site. I’m not. I share the concerns expressed about the size and scope of this project. This is not 140 units or 230 units or 423 units. Its 800 units concentrated on the corner of Needham Street where there is no nearby. I think it’s important to get this right.
If Northland said all 800 units would be both affordable and for older folks, I wouldn’t be holding sign, but like tattooing “Northland rules” on my lower back.
As we our society moves from the importance of home OWNERSHIP for the middle class to one of very few landlords owning massive amounts of rentals….don’t let them use social correctness to hide their true motives….PROFIT.
I hope to one day be a Senior that can drop $50-60k/year on RENT. Prob not likely.
I’ll be posting on V14 from Arkansas.
@Meredith–you are young; it’s not surprising you would gravitate towards that environment. And your 85-year-old mother sounds young at heart; (fit also?) power to her. But what about affordability? (I’m referencing the Northland units now). Did you see the number crunches above? What about the need for services as you/she continue to age? Marian slightly touched on this.
These are all rhetorical questions. I’m not looking for answers. But these are issues elders I’ve known have had to face.
(If the term ‘elder’ is off-putting, perhaps an identification via generation? You, a Boomer; your mother -?)
Leon: Regarding the term cesspool, let’s be clear: It’s an open forum. I’ve posted on it for years, as I think it is the best open forum for Newton issues. Lots of folks seem to go overboard in one direction or the other, but the forum is open to all posters, and both conservative and progressive folks set the topics. And lots of lurker readers for sure, as I’ve heard it referenced by folks around Newton more than once in random conversation. Absent a strong newspaper with a robust letter to the editor section and opinion section that folks actually read (hint: that’s not the Tab anymore), I think this is your best bet to convince folks regarding your positions. How many folks who don’t agree with you have reached out to you personally to discuss your views? 1? 5? You’d reach 20 times those numbers posting here easily…
And for the record, the complaint in my view is silly. I’ve been insulted so many times on the forum, there was an attempted doxxing of my person info a few years back, etc, etc. But as online commentary goes, this place is great. Have you seen twitter? Facebook? For the most part most folks recognize we are all neighbors and tolerate each other. It isn’t ever going to be perfect, because no open forum is.
The NVA folks tried to start their own and it died a slow death, mostly because no one who disagreed with them really posted there. I personally find the back and forth very valuable, and I care about my city where I will likely spend the rest of my life, and sometimes the posts give me ideas on things to advocate for and oppose, and frankly the posting is a good stress relief when I’m having a tough week.
As for your use of the term cesspool, I believe it was first used by a city councilor in a moment of frustration, but it has now been picked up as a way to dismiss many of us who post in good faith on this blog. So I personally find it insulting and unfair.
I recognize it was insulting to you to be lumped into some of the unfortunate rhetoric in prior anti-development movements. I do think some of those opposing prior projects had some very negative viewpoints. But it was a small number, who unfortunately occasionally were very vocal. It is certainly possible to be against large development without such negative viewpoints at the addition of new folks to Newton, and it is also difficult to ignore that those viewpoints did get vocally expressed previously.
As for the statistics, I think we are talking past each other (although I appreciate you are now quoting a scientific survey). Close to 20% would like an apartment. This isn’t a case where majority wins. We need to fill all the boxes. More senior housing. More elderly assisted living housing. Maybe even more condos.
As for supporting the existing project because of this one aspect, I don’t. I just think it is a good aspect that shouldn’t be discounted.
@Leon – Fig has already hit on most of my feedback on your comment, but there are a few specific misstatements I want to correct as well:
Agreed 100% that we should find ways to support all our seniors. The important correction here is that it’s certainly not mutually exclusive to support seniors who safely stay in their homes as well as those who would like to downsize to an apartment or condo.
I called you out on this one on a previous thread, and I’ll do it again here. This is a blatant scare tactic. Of course the city needs to work to make this and any development net revenue positive.
Isolation is already the top issue facing Newton’s seniors. Providing housing opportunities that are in community with others, walkable to shops and other activities is one way to combat that.
This isn’t true. Many of the affordable units in Newton, including most recently those at Washington Place, have no asset limit (though the income earned on the assets is counted toward the income limits.)
Amy: Fair enough. 800 has always seemed very large to me. But it is always a trade-off, amenities for units. More affordability for more size. None of these projects are perfect, but it is a complicated equation.
At some point, despite the cries of developer profit, Northland won’t develop the site, or will develop it using 40B.
I’m no expert on this particular site. 800 is very large for sure. But I’m not sure what getting it right as you say looks like.
Experiencing a change in health that may require someone to move from their current residence doesn’t necessarily mean that the change is catastrophic. It can mean that shoveling snow or caring for property is too strenuous an activity, that climbing stairs is painful for one’s knees or hips. From my experience with my parents and in-laws is to wait until a health issue forces you to make a hasty decision that hasn’t been well thought out.
As for me (a senior), I have no interest whatsoever in owning another home or a condo. If I have the good fortune to move, I’ll be looking for an apartment. I’m not interested in the hassles of a condo association. I don’t really care if it’s in a large or small building or a multi-family home. I’m not looking for luxury, but I’m attentive to the quality of construction.
@Jane–that rules out anything newer than 50 years, unless you know the builder :/
@fignewtonville: I am not concerned about what people call me on the internet, for I am all too familiar with the concept of a troll. However, if this moderated blog wants to be the place for civil community discussion, then it needs to do a better job of moderating comments that contribute nothing to the discussion.
I will skip over the off-topic part of your post, if you don’t mind, except maybe to point out the irony of you telling me not to be easily offended when people I respect very much are called racists, followed immediately by you being personally offended by the term “cesspool” which was not directed at you. 🙂
As for the substance:
It’s not that we are talking past each other, it’s that I don’t think you are hearing what I am saying. People seemed unhappy that a slide deck I used in a presentation contained the line “… seniors overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT to live in luxury high-rise rental apartments,” but wouldn’t you call 82-90% of respondents to what you are calling a scientific survey an “overwhelming” number?
Again, yes, the Council on Aging should be applauded for their efforts to get Northland to agree to even make one building “age-friendly,” without them it wouldn’t have happened — no one is discounting the effort or the results. But is it also not fair to ask whether that’s the best we can do in exchange for 800 apartments, and all the downsides of a development that size?
Now, on to “scare tactics” — suggesting that the only alternative to this development is nothing or a 40B is… at best premature, I think, don’t you agree?
@Allison: You say “Of course the city needs to work to make this and any development net revenue positive.” That’s precisely the point — the development, as currently proposed, is net-revenue positive only if you rely on estimates provided by the developer that are not always accurate, not always consistent, and underestimate the financial impact and costs. The penalty for getting this wrong is… tax overrides. It’s not a scare tactic, it’s a concern, and it’s data-driven.
As far as affordable units having no asset cap — I didn’t know that, would you happen to have a link to where I could read up more on that? That sounds both promising (for seniors), but also potentially ripe for fraud.
And since we are all stating our positions on the development — I have never, not once, said that I was against redeveloping this site. Northland’s ownership of this site (which for a large portion of it dates back to 1978) has resulted in a concrete wasteland that is ripe for a mixed-use project that will revitalize it and turn it into something better than what it is today. What I oppose is the size of the current proposal. It’s too big by a huge margin, that’s all.
Fine with me. I like old places.
Leon:
Since you keep posting here my friend, perhaps you didn’t skip over that section after all. 😉
As for the irony, I didn’t tell you not to be offended, you can be offended by whatever you choose. I sympathized, and tried to explain the backstory. Up to you if you want to walk away from a forum. Frankly, Bob B. is perfectly capable of defending himself and did a great job doing so. It is always easier to discuss your views in your own bubble though. Your choice. Stay and discuss is a better decision for your cause, assuming you can suffer the slings and arrows of blog life.
As for the moderation, they do an ok job of it. This isn’t a professional website. I’ve fired off a few angry emails to Greg and Jerry over the years. There are certainly a few trolls, and some folks are trolls on some subjects but great posters on other subjects. I view them as half-trolls. Shreks perhaps. Trolls with a heart of gold?
40B isn’t a scare tactic, it is just reality in MA. It was back up for a vote a few years back and won handily. I’ve actually read the law and the court cases surrounding it. I believe Mike S. was involved in one a few years back, and others know enough to speak about the possibility. There are great resources online and lots of news articles about its use. I tend to doubt it would be used in most of the cases here in Newton, since in my view we are coming to the end of cheap money and 40B’s take time. But Northland certainly has had a very long buy and hold strategy, so perhaps they feel differently. It is somewhat like a game of chicken, no?
As for the senior discussion, my point is that we need various options. Your point is that 80% of seniors would prefer a different one. Got it. My point is that 20% want this one and it isn’t a zero sum game. Hey, what do you know, more than one thing can be true…
I’d focus more on the size and the traffic. Still think those are your best arguments.
Ok, I’m off for the night. Pleasure conversing with y’all.
@Leon – I spent an hour and a half in the planning dept in city hall recently, asking lots of questions about our inclusionary zoning ordinance so that I could understand how seniors might benefit from the affordable units being created with new development. The asset question had been a big one on my mind, and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that assets don’t preclude seniors from qualifying for affordable units. I don’t have any links to share with you – I was shown hard-copies of the packets defining affordable unit eligibility requirements for various development projects.
There’s clearly lots of work to be done to educate our community on the ins and outs of affordable housing in Newton, what the income limits and rents are, who might qualify, etc. It’s a complex topic, but worth taking the time to get the facts straight.
As I have pointed out before, we should be very careful about using the internet survey the Area Council did as a representative sample of resident feelings. It is not a scientific poll and underrepresents vulnerable populations.
Here is another example of the assumptions being incorrect.
@Allison,
In a meeting not too long ago I seem to recall the planning department saying the opposite.
It appalled me to think that people living in affordable units could get booted out for getting a payrise!
But I do seem to recall assetts were take into account, which seemed to make sense. If assets were not considered then presumably one could keep a house, rent it out and in the mean while move into an affordable unit. Or maybe sell up altogether and put the money into shares.
Meanwhile, in the recent programs and services committee meeting the professional demographer the city hired to look at school enrollment was pretty adamant apartment complexes with over 55’s and young families do not work.
@Simon – yes, there are definitely some units (I believe most or all of the units for very low income levels) that take assets into account. But there are others that do not.
I am almost 60. When I no longer want to live in my colonial in Newton, I want to live in a luxury high rise in Boston with all of the amenities, and either walk, use Uber or the T if it’s convenient to where I want to go. We are season ticket holders for the Red Sox, Bruins and Celtics and Broadway in Boston. We are also members of the MFA and MOS. Right now we drive into Boston but as I age, I’d like to not worry about driving.
@Allison — I think it would be great if you could provide clarification for just when assets do and do not count when it comes to qualifying for affordable units — and I am not trying to call you out, just genuinely interested; it seems as if we would all benefit from having that information.
@Bryan — do you also have a problem with the study that Ms. Knapp provided? Because on this question of where seniors prefer to live, the results showed that even if health required them to move from their current residences, among all the options presented, “apartment building” was the least-chosen (percentages in my earlier post, above), matching what the NAC found in the study that you do not like.
Again, and I feel like a broken record with this — no one is suggesting that no seniors live in apartments or that no seniors want to live in apartments. Just that it is fairly clear that the majority of them do not wish to do so, which seems relevant when discussing a development that consists of 800 apartments.
Is there an invisible wall in Newton where seniors cannot travel the extra 1 or 2 mile to Waltham or watertown… they are building a very large supply of apartments there…
Unless you live 5 mins walk from family, the extra drive 2 miles to the other town is not going to make a difference
Is there a reason it must be in newton given our very close proximity to walthan Watertown Brighton and boston?
That’s your answer to people who raised families here, paid taxes for decades here to educate other peoples’ kids, contributed to civic life here, supported our bushiness here: Go move to Walham or Watertown?
@Leon – I don’t not like the survey.
I am a policy maker in my professional life and I expect scientific sampling and verification in order to view a survey as statistically significant.
Since 1999, my industry, insurance and mutual funds, have helped to fund the MIT aging laboratory. I suggest that you all go to their web site and download their publications. They have looked at housing, transportation, where the aged want to live, how they want to live. Looked and Studied, not what people say they want to do, but what they end up doing. And the majority of retirees and the ‘aged’ want to live in a village center, with goods and services within walking distance, but a village center near where they use to live. Some, will travel to be near adult children and grandchildren. They do not rate luxury buildings high on the list of needs, nor do they want to live Downtown. In essence, they would live in an elevator-ed apartment bulding, or condo, in Newtonville, or West Newton, or Newton Centre, or Waban, Newton Highlands, Newton Upper Falls, Newton Lower Falls, maybe even Auburndale. So, it would be great if we re zoned our village centers in such a way that affordable, middle class units could be built that don’t take 8 years from start to finish.
Guys….of the 800 units proposed by Northland, only 123 (or 125, I forget) will be affordable – intended for the aged, as well as City/public workers, other lower income families, etc.
123 will get snatched up REAL QUICK. Which means the majority of the aged that spends their savings and annuities to live here will be dropping some serious bank or live here – like a ‘78 Trans-Am and gasoline.
We can debate about housing stock, surveys and where the aging want to live all we want…but for Northland, it’s about ONE THING….MONEY. Why else would hey hold on this glorified concrete driveway for as long as they have?
#dontfallforthespin
We appear to have people in our council interested in social engineering. I’ve heard arguments made that it’s not good for environment to build in 495 and have people commute via car into Boston. Surely it makes sense to ship the senior lot out there – they don’t need to commute into Boston on a daily business, and it would free up space in our beloved Newton.
@Jack Leader: Yes, you got it right. We just downsized from a Newton single-family last year. I’m 65 and working as hard as ever, as is my wife. We found a nearly-ideal condo to move to. It’s a townhouse, so we have plenty of space. And it’s in a village center, so I can walk everywhere, or take the train or bus. I’ll probably be walking after I can no longer drive, though sometimes I drive for work or shopping.
The building’s interesting, though — it is a mix of 3-level townhouses and 3 stacked one-story condos. So it has different sizes and styles of unit, plus really nice landscaping and snow removal. And very solid soundproof construction. I didn’t want to have to deal with snow any more.
One slight catch is that it’s not in Newton, it’s across the river in Needham. I don’t think Newton has any such buildings. It doesn’t have many town houses, except some super-luxury ones.
This complex is not age-restricted. But we are among the youngest. It attracts empty nesters from nearby towns who want low-rise ownership. I suspect such units would be snapped up in Newton, but at about 15 units/acre, it’s less dense than the 6-story VASSLS that Korff et al want to build, and more dense than SR zoning would allow.
WRT “affordable” units. Don’t count on getting one. They’re distributed by lottery, and your odds of winning are probably around 1%. And yes you lose it if you get a raise. I hardly see lotteries as a solution to housing problems, but it seems to help the 1%ers who run Newton assuage their liberal guilt.
Quote of the day:
I hardly see lotteries as a solution to housing problems, but it seems to help the 1%ers who run Newton assuage their liberal guilt.
Well said, Mr. Goldstein….well said.
@fred Goldstein. The reason that you are in Needham is that Needham understood the issue and the town meeting zoned their village centers for the type of density appropriate to the area. The problem with Newton, most apartments that exist in Newtonville, or Newton Corner, or Newton Centre were built before 1957, most before WWII. The exception being smaller buildings , like those on the corner of Lowell and Washington Street. Or the apartments on the north side of Newton on North Street. Newton proceeded to change its zoning in favor of single family homes, just about everywhere. When the planning department releases its report on the housing stock in Newton, you will find that the majority of housing in Newton is non conforming. So, if decisions made in the 60’s and 70’s concerning zoning allowed for low density clusters of housing, we would have incrementally rebuilt newton. But here we are.
I’m sorry that you had to move to Needham. Along with Trip Advisor.
Greg,
“That’s your answer to people who raised families here, paid taxes for decades here to educate other peoples’ kids, contributed to civic life here, supported our bushiness here: Go move to Walham or Watertown?”….
Ah, so now your are magically concerned about the senior people who had chosen to live in Newton because they loved the small feel community? I thought your main concern were for:
– people living OUTSIDE of Newton who cannot afford to live here
– you wanted to drive up property taxes for the seniors due to the massive increase of services needed. In affect forcing them out
– I thought you wanted to replace the small village feel with a high density mixed commercial and rentals. The seniors lived all their life here and enjoy this small town feel yet be close to Boston.
– you want to massively increase the number of renters in Newton, the seniors have lived here all their life and enjoyed growing up amongst long term friends because of the low rental/ownership rates. Now you want to influx people who are more short term 3-5 years on average for renters
And finally if you were REALLY concerned, you would vigorously push for SENIOR ONLY AFFORDABLE housing!!
@Leon – I will try to get some additional information on the asset question, because as you said, we would all benefit from having that information.
I hope you can appreciate my frustration, though, that dozens of other comments here are making sweeping generalizations about senior and affordable housing and yet have not been asked to substantiate those.
@Jack. Needham zoned the Highland Ave. corridor for higher density, though most of the town’s land is zoned single family. They met their 40B obligation via a couple of new buildings along 128 and in the industrial park, not overshadowing the village centers. They’re no better than the ones planned for Newton but they’re out of the way, have parking, and are aimed more at highway commuters than at financial district train commuters.
Newton’s biggest sin was the 1953 snob zoning, which shifted SR lot sizes up a notch (SR3 got SR2’s old size, SR2 got SR1’s). I actually did produce my own GIS map of nonconforming properties, which indeed is the preponderance; you can see a few standout spots in Oak Hill developed post-1953. The nice old 2-families and smaller 1-families of the north side are virtually all nonconforming.
And there’s really no good provision for small low-rise cluster developments in the village centers. Nor does Hello WS plan them; Hello is all about more Watertown-style VASSLS, along with induced traffic jams and parking shortages that are intended to assuage the south side 1%ers liberal guilt about their own big luxury truck SUVs (pretending that they can force others to ride bikes instead).
I hope that all the people on this thread who are advocating for increasing housing options are speaking with their city councilors and letting them know. Your voice is crucial to tell your elected representatives know how you feel. The zoning redesign has been postponed, but will be happening soon. Zoning is the mechanism by which Newton controls what gets built where. If you, like me, want to see more vibrant and active village centers, with less traffic, let your city councilors know. The way to reduce traffic and enhance the walkability of village centers is to create more housing within walking distance of villages. That means zoning to allow multi-family properties within half a mile of transit stops. This does not mean that Newton will turn into a city full of high rises, as some fear. There will still be plenty of areas zoned for single family.
We tell them how we feel. And they turn around and do what they want. Not sure who they are listening to, but it’s not us :/