A fascinating new Boston Indicators study, Changing Faces of Greater Boston, released today shows that Newton, along with the rest of Greater Boston is in the midst of a transformation. This graph was written to describe the overall region, but seems to apply to Newton as well.
Over the past few decades, our economy has expanded, and our population has grown. And while our region has long had a reputation for being overwhelmingly white, this perception lags far behind reality. Nearly all of our recent population growth has been driven by immigrants, particularly immigrants of color, who have decided to call our region home. After a decline during the mid-20th century, we’re now several decades into a new global wave of immigration, bringing Boston back to its roots as a city of immigrants.
I’ve only begun to review the report but locally, the study shows that Newton’s population has gone from being 91.3% white in 1990 to 73.8% white in 2017. See the chart here (you’ll have to type in or hover over Newton to see our specific data).
In addition, Newton’s foreign born population has soared from 13% to 22% over the same period, which means more than one out of every five residents were born outside of the United States.
The same study shows that our median home price over that same period soared 250% from $308,000 in 1990 to $1,079,000 in 2017.
While there’s been a lot of debate lately about how Newton would change in the face of several large proposed mixed use developments, the reality is Newton has already changed significantly and will continue to do so. We should embrace who we can be not what we used to be.
The previous message was brought to you by
the pro development, virtue sharing Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce
Gee Paul, I know you didn’t mean it but you flatter me.
I wish our chamber had the resources to do this kind of data mining and analysis. But credit goes to the Boston Foundation and its Boston Indicators initiative.
My question to you is: why would you feel so threatened by how Newton is changing that you feel the desire to discredit it as being somehow biased?
….and the We Are The World chorus
As someone who has kids in one of the more diverse schools in NPS, I’ve seen the shifting demographics since we started there and it’s been so exciting and enriching for the kids to learn about different cultures through their classmates and friends.
“We should embrace who we can be not what we used to be.”
Happy to embrace and welcome the racial diversity. Not so happy about the lack of economic diversity. As we lose the naturally affordable housing stock – you know, those small ranch houses that use to be starter homes, or the smaller single- and two-families – that have now been torn-down and converted to million dollar units – and with the influx of the 40B developments – where only a handful – 20-25% of the projects are “affordable” while the rest (though counted in our affordable housing inventory) are luxury/market rate – Newton has become less and less diverse economically. The ginormous mixed use developments being proposed won’t change that dynamic unless our City Council demands more affordability.
You’re right Amy. We need housing diversity and that includes affordability. That 250% median home price increase makes that crystal clear if it wasn’t already.
In fact, I’d much rather see the council push for more affordability instead of less density and hope you would too.
But my comment was directed at those voices who’ve been consistently opposed to any changes at all.
@Amy is right that affordability is at the heart of who we are and who we are going to be. Affordable housing is a critical component of that, as is workforce (<110% AMI) and middle income housing. We need small homes, condos, and apartments to be part of the options people have in Newton.
The fact is, the status quo is the problem, not the solution. Impugning all new housing while opposing zoning changes won’t make us more affordable, it will ensure that Newton grows further and further out of reach for everyone but the most wealthy.
I’m not at all threatened by how Newton is “changing”Greg. In fact, i welcome that “change”. It is the virtue sharing, sign posting NIMBYS that preach diversity, yet hide their bigotry, hatred and xenophobia behind closed doors at their cocktail parties that you need to worry about. Newton was always a diverse place in the years I grew up here, so we aren’t
reinventing the wheel here, despite what some wash-ashores would have you think. My classmates & friends were African American, Chinese, Indian, South African, Lebanese, russian, Israeli, and a host of other
ethnicities. We are a world class city and in many ways it is the diversity of our residents that has made it that way. I’m glad that you’ve noticed that the city is diverse.
Newsflash: strong jobs market in Boston in the tech/medical sector attracts educated workers from around the globe…
What’s the actual story here? Is this not the same story in every major city with good jobs? Which part of America has turned away ‘vast amounts’ of educated immigrants?
I believe the h1b proposals were designed to prevent visa abuses (which were rampant.. get a large contract, hire the absolute cheapest person to bill hours, rinse repeat)
Bryan
Are you referring to subsidized affordable housing or market based affordable housing… big difference
For subsidized, someone is paying. Either through high property taxes to sustain ongoing costs or higher rents to the landlord to offset the losses… both just create a city of very poor and very rich(only very rich can afford to overpay for the subsidies). The middle class get squeezed out again
If market based then your only hope is to pray for a recession Boston..
@Bugek: Bryan couldn’t have been much clearer when he wrote:
And no, you don’t have to wait for a recession to drop prices. You need to increase supply, housing diversity and density.
@Paul – As Greg posted above, “the study shows that Newton’s population has gone from being 91.3% white in 1990 to 73.8% white in 2017. ” So Newton has gotten MORE diverse and there are actual stats to back that up, as opposed to your anecdotes.
Greg,
So if new 2br condo in newton sells for 400k, a similar one in brookline will be 800k or 500k?
Our prices are relative to brookline and boston. Why would Newton be priced at 50% discount to brookline market? Its literally next door, good schools and safe…
Or is the plan to build so many units of housing in newton that it will actually drag down brookline and boston prices? Thats going to have to tens of thousands of new housing…
@Bugek: We have a housing across Eastern Massachusetts. We will only solve this problem when every community contributes. The good news is these conversations are happening across the region. (One example here.)
Greg,
Thank you for the clarification. The intent is to lower EVERYONEs home price by about 30-40% for the “greater good”
Good for some(those who cant afford and businesses who want access to cheap labor) and very bad for others(those who have scrimped, saved, sacrificed and worked hard to afford a home for their family and future)I suppose…
No Bugek, the intent is to make it possible for people to live and work here while simultaneously curbing the suburban sprawl that is creating one and two hour commutes, clogging our streets and endangering all of us by accelerating climate change.
Greg
In your future vision are you saying that
– existing homeowners will not see more than 10% depreciation
– a family of 4 can rent a 3br market unit for $1600 a month
– a family can buy a new market 3br condo for 450k
– there will be a sizeable number of subsidized units(5000+) for low income folks and property taxes and market rents wont increase substantially to offset the costs
– the mbta will provide frequent and affordable service to Boston and newton in north of the pike. Mbta will pay for this
Just asking how your vision will be funded because there are many conflicting outcomes
@Greg Reibman – How will all these proposed developments accomplish those goals given our current transportation infrastructure?
The Commuter Rail is a valid option for those commuting into Boston, but outside of that use case it’s not a reliable option and it’s not a full replacement for a car. I’m guessing most people that would move into Washington St are still going to have a car even if they’re leveraging the CR or Pike access.
Riverside has more frequent service than the Commuter Rail but it’s also a ~44 minute ride into Boston, although that should be improving after the current rail work is complete. The site itself is on the edge of Newton and while it’s close to Auburndale center it’s not going to be self-sufficient to the point that people would live there without a car.
Newton doesn’t have a core like downtown Boston where you literally have everything within walking distance. The village centers are spread out to the point where you can get to some things via bicycles/transit/walking but I don’t feel there’s a critical mass where you could go completely without a car. A bit less than 2% of households in Newton don’t own a car compared to 23% in Boston*
Looking at the scale of Washington St/Riverside/Northland I see a lot of potential risks around traffic and infrastructure and not a lot of compensating controls or mitigating factors. The argument I keep hearing is that Washington St and Riverside will be transit oriented but I’m not convinced that’s workable without significant investments in the CR and Green Line to enable that. Traffic is already a mess in the northern villages, and if we do end up in a worse case scenario we can’t go back and retroactively chop off 8 stories in Riverside.
There’s also the giant gap of middle incoming housing. What would normally be more affordable starter homes are being torn down for giant luxury rebuilds while the massive proposals only have capital-A affordable housing and then high market prices. Just making smaller units isn’t going to help if they’re all priced as luxury.
This isn’t to say Newton can’t or shouldn’t have a more diverse housing stock or density. There’s room to grow, but we need to have the infrastructure improvements to support it. Right now we’re just seeing density, density, density with no seemingly little thought to how it’s going to impact the already strained areas they are going into.
*https://datausa.io/profile/geo/boston-ma/?compare=newton-ma#housing
@Patrick Butera: Entirely appropriate question. The answer is: They won’t.
We have a housing crisis and we have a transportation crisis and, of course, we have a climate crisis. All three issues need to be addressed simultaneously because all three problems are insolvable alone. The good news is there seems to be a genuine commitment on Beacon Hill this year to raise revenue to address transportation and hopefully housing reform as well.
Newton can’t fix these problems alone either. But we need to do our share and haven’t.
@MMQC –
As I said to Greg, i WELCOME that
diversity, but I don’t have a lawn sign broadcasting it, maybe thats my problem. I’m not sure what anecdotes you are talking about. To further clarify, wash-ashores refers to ex- pat NY’ers , Californians, New Jerseyers, Chicagoans, etc that have moved to Newton in the last 15-20 yrs and are just now starting to get comfortable living in a diverse city and want everyone to know about it. It is their comfort level with diversity on their school committee, on their city council, and as their neighbors that we need to question.
@MMQC-
Rather than my sharing “anecdotes” that don’t promote diversity, i think concrete ideas would help. I have a couple that I think our diversity promoting pols and virtue sharing residents who want actionable options could get behind.
1) Large scale housing projects throughout the city with the most affordable units possible. To be sure Newton hews closely to its diversity edict, ALL of the affordable units should be earmarked for individuals or families from cultures that identify as non white.
2) We all know there are thriving,
financially successful people from non white cultures that want to move into Newton, so let’s earmark 50 percent, no let’s make that 75 percent of
the “non-affordable” units in these developments for families or individuals from cultures that identify as non-white.
The Northland Development will be very close to my home, so i say YES IN MY BACKYARD, both to affordable housing and to increased diversity in our “welcoming” city.
Sounds doable.
Who else is in?
@Greg Reibman – Agreed that it’s a multi-part issue between housing and transportation, the concern is we’re only seeing a focus on housing when it really needs to be in conjunction with a transportation plan.
For example – the MBTA is in the middle of a visioning process for the commuter rail* with several potential alternatives being reviewed. Three of the seven options would create an urban rail along the existing CR with Riverside as one of the key stations while the other four keep the existing lines. If Washington St and Riverside were being proposed in conjunction with narrowing down the CR options to the three with an urban rail I think you would see significantly more support as at least the transportation impacts would be mitigated and existing residents would see a huge benefit with the rapid transit capability that comes with the urban rail.
Unfortunately we don’t have that – with the rush to approve Washington St and Riverside (particularly Riverside on the rush part) we could easily end up in a situation where both the developments are approved at full scale and then the MBTA decides to go with one of the alternatives that does not have the urban rail. Now we’re stuck with a huge influx of cars between those two developments without any rapid transit improvements. We’re taking all the risk while Mark Development gets the benefit, particularly Auburndale/Lower Falls/West Newton which would bear the brunt of the increased traffic.
If transportation is really a critical component we shouldn’t be making a decision on either Riverside or Washington St until the rail vision is finalized and we know what the MBTA’s plan is for the CR. Or alternately we should be looking at increased density along all the green line stops instead of clustering everything in the northern villages. We can’t go back and retroactively deny these permits if the urban rail doesn’t materialize, and I wonder if that’s at least partially why there’s such a rush to get Riverside approved this year when the new plan just came to light over the past few months.
*https://www.mbta.com/projects/rail-vision
Patrick: Another great comment and points. But it’s not fair to say there hasn’t been a focus on transportation. Gov. Baker commissioned an eye-opening, future looking report on transportation that’s now being used as a blueprint in conversations on Beacon Hill, within the business community, by environmental groups and others to press for new revenue to address not just the MBTA but transportation and infrastructure statewide.
We need these efforts and we need housing to address congestion and climate change. Not making significant progress in both areas is unacceptable.
@Greg Reibman – Looked through the executive summary and skimmed part 1 of the full report, I think it’s on point around the challenges and major themes but I’d also consider it more of a conceptual level. We know there’s a transportation, housing and climate crisis and while there’s a stated commitment at the state level to address transportation we don’t know what that’s going to look like and more specifically what the impact will be for Newton. The MBTA has deficiencies everywhere and there are a number of projects all competing for priority along with the modernization costs. It’s possible that the CR becomes a true urban rail but it’s also just as possible that the vision goes in another direction. The Globe just ran a story calling out that while everyone is acknowledging there’s a transportation crisis there’s also no detailed plan on how to tackle it.
I’m in agreement that we need to address all components, the crux is how do we prioritize and order. When I look at all the development proposals the perception is we’re jumping head first into density without a full picture of what the other two components are going to look like. Potentially that Gridlock scenario from the report where there’s concentrated density but lack of tech adoption. That’s what I see happening if we build out Rivierside/Washington St as proposed with the current GL/CR design and infrastructure. Granted the GL will hopefully be getting some performance improvements once all the track work is done.
Between the three major developments going ahead of zoning redesign in turn going ahead of the MBTA vision plan the concern is that we’re doing this piecemeal and haphazardly rather than as part of strategic vision. I think that’s what has so many people on edge, especially those of us in the northern villages who are already dealing with congestion and transportation impacts. I’m not opposed to the increased density as long as there’s a -realistic- plan to mitigate the infrastructure impacts, that’s what I feel is the missing piece in these development proposals.
It would be interesting if someone with a good historical knowledge of Newton could explain the following:
Its interesting that Newton has most density in the North when historically, good public transportation has always been along the T. You would think over time, the zoning would have allowed the density to grow along the T.
But due to snob zoning or something else, the density grew in the ‘blue collar’ areas of Newton over the last 100 years.
How on earth can anyone say that the new zoning proposal is NOT doing the exact same thing. It is NOT growing density along the T where it makes the most sense but relegated to the ‘blue collar’ parts of Newton…. again. This is history repeating itself and we’re allowing it to happen again…
I have yet to see any city councilor bang the table and demand density along the T where frequent public transportation exists on day 1.
BTW, I would gladly vote for more density if they guaranteed a indigo line in Newtonville CR. I’m not stupid enough to vote to get nothing in return….