From Sunday’s Boston Globe…
A recent report highlighting the need for more local housing production found that from 2013 to 2017, 15 municipalities issued more than half the building permits in the state. Boston led the way, followed by Cambridge, Plymouth, Watertown, Everett, Weymouth, Somerville, Burlington, Chelsea, Framingham, Hopkinton, Middleborough, Quincy, Arlington, and Canton.
and here’s a key quote:
The recent report “demonstrates the power that local communities have to address housing — for better and worse,” Paul Grogan, president and CEO of the Boston Foundation, said in e-mailed comments. “In a few communities that have made a commitment to creating new housing, it’s happening. But in too many other communities, a vocal minority is enough not just to impede the creation of housing, but shut it down completely. It’s an issue of economic necessity and racial equity that Greater Boston must address.”
Here we go again. Buried in the Boston Foundation’s website is an interesting nugget about something called the “Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance” and the acronym: Y.I.M.B.Y. Is John Henry a member?
What’s your point Pat?
Do you not believe that we have a housing crisis in Eastern Massachusetts?
We do not have a LUXURY housing crisis in Massachusetts, no, sir. And cities and towns could find ways of building REALLY affordable housing without the myth that tons of units have to be built to get the minimum of affordable units. It’s being done.
Economic growth in MA is not balanced. Equal growth ought to be encouraged more equally throughout the state. Boston ought not be the magnet. Spread out all this new growth.
Boston is a small sized city which can not provide all the services needed for rapid housing and commercial development.
State leaders who are pushing rapid growth do not understand
that people who live in the eastern region do not want their historic communities destroyed by greedy developers.
Colleen:
Pining for economic development where the pines grow won’t make it so. Many less-well-paid people want to live closer to where they want to work and that isn’t in Richmond (see: 42.388596N, 73.3856978W).
Wanting to grow, then harvest, one’s retirement account balance and a presumed desire to pass along “a little something” to help progeny all but guaranties the defeat of the sentiment expressed in your post (that is assuming you’ve not already secured your perspective by will donating the property on which you dwell to Newton Conservators with the deed restriction that it never be redeveloped … so “have you?”).
Hometown conceit and nostalgia for the status quo ante that moment when one was attracted into settling in Newton cannot stand as an economic bulkward against the rising value of land close to Boston’s economic vitality.
Contrary to the Globe’s assertion, in Newton, eschewing investments in lower-cost housing isn’t about racism; it is all about (single family) household wealth and what is effectively this community’s consensus that investing in the construction of significant amounts of low income housing won’t maximize the winnings piled-up at anyone’s place at the table of life when the last hand is dealt.
Only some individuals have an altruistic gene; municipal governments don’t. Though you might find that the town government in Richmond (a “have not”) more closely shares your perspective than do your Newton neighbors (“haves”), as I understand that economic forces work more slowly there. I have never met a fellow Newtonian who thought that investing in enough affordable housing so that Wellesley’s municipal employees can live here comfortably and educate their children in NPS was an idea worth getting behind.
Just a few thoughts on the comments above:
First, I’d really love it if we could examine this concept of the greedy developer, especially as all of us who dwell in structures of any kind have benefited from someone at some point taking a financial chance on building that structure. The banks did, the builder did, the municipality did, the eventual owner and resident did. In short, no one is not part of this. Not one can disown the developer without also disowning their own home.
Second, the concept of spreading economic activity across the commonwealth is laudable, particularly in the concept of bringing opportunity to places that have seen industry and jobs dry up. But the concept of trying to force a business – or a resident – to go where it doesn’t make sense for them to go has a few problems. Primarily, this is because people and companies do have free will and will access the best possible set of circumstances they can afford. For businesses, this means being near where the talent, networks of innovative companies, new ideas, transportation resources, etc are. Boston has these things in spades and will therefore attract companies. Companies (with notable exceptions due to business needs) do not typically do not go to the middle of nowhere because they would fail if they tried – no labor, no infrastructure, no resources, etc.
Chris,
As far as the “greedy developers,” I think you are mostly right. However, I look at the Avalon apartment building on Needham St. In rough numbers, the 106 kids that are in that building cost the city roughly $ 2M per year to educate while the building itself provides about $1M in tax revenue. That $1M difference is being sucked out of the city by AvalonBay Communities. The residents of the building don’t get a deal – they pay more per month in rent than I pay on my mortgage for my single family home in Newton Highlands.
Also – to Colleen’s point – I keep seeing Boston put up tower after tower with no solutions to our transit problems on the horizon. If we had a decent transportation system and people could live 30-35 miles from the city and get there in a reasonable time, there would be no housing crisis.
@Patrick: Are you suggesting that Newton only educate kids that are profitable?
I’m saying that taxpayers are subsidizing AvalonBay by paying for the benefit (schools) that they are selling to their customers.
So we shouldn’t educate any kid who lives in a household where the city doesn’t realize a net gain? Are those kids are less important than someone’s kids who live in a $5 million home?
Greg, not sure that is a fair summary of what Patrick is saying. Anyone who buys or rents an already existing unit or house gets to access the public education system in Newton. But if developers are asking for zoning changes or other requests from the city, every city ends up doing a cost/benefit analysis regarding whether it makes sense to accomodate those requests.
That’s the key difference. I’m fine with educating any kid who lives in Newton. I don’t care if the city realizes a net gain. For instance, if I have 10 kids in a 3 bedroom house, I’ve got the same right to a public education for those 10 kids as you do if you just have 1, and I’m clearly a net loss for Newton. But Avalon was built on a zoning variance, and we were clearly off regarding how many kids would live there. And for any NEW projects, it certainly is fair to take into account the cost to the schools.
That is not saying that those net costs, even if they are losses should be the sole deciding factor. Initial payments, traffic improvements, affordability, commercial spaces, renewal of older buildings, all of that plays a part too.
Developers have an interest in estimating those costs on the low end, and the city should be able to gather reliable data to counter that information.
@Chris: But the problem is the displacement of workers who need to live where they do – closer in to the City where their jobs are. They are the ones that are being forced out – when “greedy” developers buy the property that they are renting from and turn them into luxury condos (with perhaps a few affordable units on the side). That is a problem that Boston has right now. Chinatown, East Boston, Dorchester – where new immigrant communities were able to get a foothold into the area – are losing what was once “affordable housing” to development. Sure – the development makes the area more trendy – “addition of Starbucks or nice upscale restaurants” but it makes it less affordable for the folks who were/are living there and “gentrifies” the area.
I agree with the comment above that the issue in Newton is “wealth” rather than race.
Greg,
Creating a straw man in an argument is a good indication that you are arguing from the weaker side.
But let me do it to you for fun:
So Greg, you are saying that a city has no right to consider its own fiscal health when granting a special permit?
@Amy – brings us right back to the article that starts the thread. Had regional municipalities (including Newton) been keeping up with affordable housing production we would not be in this situation, or it would not be as dire.
@Amy – I agree with you completely, to the extent that new housing is displacing people, that is a serious problem. It is a huge problem in Boston that needs to be addressed.
Thankfully, to my knowledge, there are few apartments that have been displaced or are proposed to be displaced in Newton. To the extent they are, our inclusionary zoning ordinance gives first access to affordable units to people who have been displaced by the construction, see 5.11.9(C) of our zoning code.
[Where a development results in the displacement of individuals who qualify for a unit in terms of household size and income, first preference shall be given to those displaced applicants, unless such preference would be unallowable under the rules of any source of funding for the project.]
@Patrick Moriarty I haven’t had kids in NPS since 1992. Where’s my payback?
Max – it is in the value of your home.
Elected officials must demand more from developers in exchange for a Special Permit. The city is getting screwed on the Northland project because city “leaders” have not asked for the right things. That project should include 15K square feet of educational space to offset its’ impact on Newton’s schools. The City Council has apparently learned nothing from the Avalon experience.
@Chris and Brian: The article and the Boston Foundation applaud the development in Boston – yet mentions NOTHING about the displacement or the gentrification of the City. So, I find it interesting – that progressives – turn a blind eye to what is happening in Boston – and say – YES, YES, YES to development in Newton. How do either of you propose we deal with that in Newton (again, not racial displacement but economic).
Bryan – I can think of at least 6 two- and three-family houses within a block of my house, each with 2-3 apartments that housed young families or young grad students/professionals, that have been torn down and replaced with $1M+ condos over the last year or two. That’s a dozen or more reasonabley affordable rental units gone, and while they may have been considered “tired” by some, they provided an opportunity to live in Newton to individuals and families who can’t afford $4000/month luxury apartments or $1.2M townhouses. Multiply that across the city, and it adds up. There are no “inclusionary” units involved in these smaller developments.
What Amy and Tricia said. Do we have to have this go-around again? Notched.
@Amy – rephrased question right back to you. Without some plan to produce or allow the development of affordable housing, where will those who need housing – those who do not currently have it – go?
Amy, as you know, gentrification is a challenge to confront: it involves fighting against market forces. But to say that “progressives turn a blind eye to what’s happening in Boston” seems a bit sweeping. Turns out a lot of good work is happening in Boston. In Jamaica Plain, where we used to live, the JPNDC (neighborhood development corporation) has built lots of affordable housing units even in the face of rapid increases in prices. Active since the late 70’s, the JPNDC has almost 500 units of housing in the pipeline for the next three years.
Does Newton offer the same level of commitment?
The data on the winners and losers of gentrification point to a more complicated picture:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/07/gentrification-effects-neighborhood-data-economic-statistics/594064
What this analysis doesn’t address is the next generation and the opportunities that are possible for young people without equity and often saddled with debt.
Tricia, agreed that the loss of the kinds of units you describe is regrettable. However, the fact that Newton zoning permits those kind of apartments and condominiums in a limited number of areas is going to pit one against the other.
Colleen says, “Boston ought not be the magnet. Spread out all this new growth.” This train of thought seems backwards to me. There is no invisible hand directing growth (and you wouldn’t like it if one existed). People and companies want to be near Boston and Cambridge and engines of innovation such as MIT, Harvard, and other awesome institutions (among a bunch of other reasons).
You can’t beat them off with a stick, and there’s no such stick (besides lack of affordability).
Back to Amy. You’ve raised some important questions without simple solutions. I would be interested in what ideas or possible approaches you might have, given your experience and wide interests in the subject.
@Tricia – I agree with you! Teardowns are a completely different issue than multi family development. A lot of teardowns have made Newton less affordable in a problematic way (by the way, these huge homes are also terrible for global climate change).
We should change our zoning to disincentivize them and make it more likely smaller houses and apartments are kept that way.
@Bryan – Agree and would suggest a friendly amendment: We should change our zoning to disincentivize teardowns and make it more likely smaller houses and apartments are kept that way – or that more of these smaller and more affordable homes can be built.
Our current lot size and FAR regulations have made it so that it is illegal today to replicate some of the neighborhood types (small houses close together) that we value in Newton.
@Michael and @Chris: For many, many years, I have suggested that the City adopt a multi-pronged strategy to address our housing needs. I proposed a moratorium (temporary “suspension”) on tear downs in the City so that we could address our city’s zoning. That would have forced quicker action by the Council to at least discourage the construction of the enormous houses we’ve seen over the years. I proposed that the City create a housing production plan – which requires state approval and keeps 40B development at bay – as long as the City holds up to its commitment to create a certain amount of affordable housing each year. I proposed that the City use CPA funds to acquire many of the homes that are snatched up by developers and keep those in our inventory – kind of like the Newton Housing Authority’s take-over of the CAN-DO portfolio but before development occurs. When the apartments were up for sale across from the Riverside Station, I proposed that the City try to partner with a developer to purchase them to keep those at affordable levels.
I think the JPNDC is a most excellent model that we can learn from. Interesting that they grew out of a successful community protest against the Federal Highway coming in for an 8 lane extension of 1-95 that would have divided their City.
I note that their mission is creating 100% affordable housing and it looks as though they approach housing in a similar manner as I have proposed. Using a multi-pronged strategy – they not only help build affordable housing, but they also purchase existing homes in order to preserve long-term affordability (Lorenzo Pitts Estate Acquisition of 201 units of which 155 units were at risk to conversion to market rate). And what is most enlightening to me is to see their Call-Carolina project where they will build 8 affordable units on vacant land – sound familiar? Didn’t we have a similar proposal for the former Parks and Recreation site that took residents and the City years to put together that was summarily rejected by our current City Council?
Amy: I think many people, particularly outside of Boston, might not be familiar with community development corporations (of which the JPNDC is one). Here’s a list of active ones on Massachusetts (as certified by the State):
https://macdc.org/certified-cdcs
The MACDC site has a lot of good information about this model of encouraging affordable development. It might be something to look into, since it offers a parallel process to municipal efforts. Perhaps the Armory project, if it becomes a 100% affordable, would be a place to start a CDC.
Also, the JPNDC works beyond affordable housing. They also purchased and renovated an historic brewery in JP, which is now great community resource and location for a cafe, a restaurant, a community gym, and many small businesses and activity spaces.
When they bought it in the 80’s, it was a place where kids were setting tire fires.
Amy – You should run for Mayor!
@Amy – Excellent. Have always loved the housing production plan idea and recognize that it will require some real political bravery to do, especially the “where” part of it. But it’s a solid, proactive way to get ahead of the issue.
Also thank you for the notes on JPNDC. Will do some reading and try to learn more.
The Globe just ran a piece about the two-family teardown phenomenon on Sunday:
Forget McMansions. Duplexes are the next teardown target in Greater Boston
Patrick Moriarty writes:
One might also argue that sprawl is the problem behind the transportation crisis, not the solution.
@Alison: Wow – the Globe is just noticing that multi-family properties are a developer’s dream?
Amy:
Actually, it was a well-written article I thought, and if you read the Globe, there have been dozens of articles over the years on sprawl, transportation, zoning, snout houses, 40B, multi-families, etc. The article had an interesting conclusion that I think combines many of the points being made on this thread, including yours:
“As controversial as they are, those teardowns are perhaps an inevitable byproduct of our housing shortage — and a stark symptom of housing inequity. “In general, if you have a limited supply of housing, then the people with the most ability to pay are the ones who will get the housing,’’ Dain said. “They’ll upgrade it to meet their needs, and that’s the situation we’re in.’’
In that sense, two-family teardowns are similar: If the rebuilt structure replaces two moderately priced apartments with a pair of luxury condos, it’s meeting the demands of a subset of consumers but hardly creating new affordable housing stock. “It’s adding to the supply for the region, but it’s frustrating at the local level,’’ Dain said.
Flint recognizes that teardowns are unpopular, but said rebuilding on an existing site is still preferable to building a new home in a far-off field, “especially as these parcels are situated in more urban, amenity-rich, and possibly transit-accessible locations,’’ he said. But cities and towns could stanch the practice of teardowns, he added, by legalizing ADUs, removing regulatory barriers and minimum-parking requirements, and doubling down on greater density in town centers or near transit stations.
“Reform zoning and the approval process, build more multifamily housing, and you will see less of these sort of desperate measures,’’ he said.
Amy, I’m interested in your view on their conclusion, especially the one by Mr. Flint, you has written various books on these issues, including one on urban sprawl. ADUs (accessory units) are a great step forward to more affordability, and I know you supported them. But your positions seem to stop at the edge of “new development”. Let’s look at your multi-prog approach:
1) “I proposed a moratorium (temporary “suspension”) on tear downs in the City so that we could address our city’s zoning. That would have forced quicker action by the Council to at least discourage the construction of the enormous houses we’ve seen over the years.” Besides the “taking” aspect of a suspension for folks trying to sell their older homes, I think this ends up doing more to reduce the aesthetic “McMansions” then much else. Have you seen this strategy work successfully in renewing the older housing stock in other communities? Or does it just reduce home sale values, with homes being bought up and rehabbed without an increase in footprint? From my experience, folks just wait out the suspension. Or do we keep the suspension going forever? The Historic home teardown delay is really not that effective. Developers just build the delay into their timeline.
2) “I proposed that the City create a housing production plan – which requires state approval and keeps 40B development at bay – as long as the City holds up to its commitment to create a certain amount of affordable housing each year.” Great idea, but boy is the devil in the details! You think the state isn’t on to this delay tactic on 40b? Do you think the City actually can hold up to its commitment? It certainly can’t with just current producers of affordable housing. So while this is a good suggestion, unless you produce a workable plan that can be accepted by the state and actually produced, this is mostly talk I think.
3) “I proposed that the City use CPA funds to acquire many of the homes that are snatched up by developers and keep those in our inventory – kind of like the Newton Housing Authority’s take-over of the CAN-DO portfolio but before development occurs. When the apartments were up for sale across from the Riverside Station, I proposed that the City try to partner with a developer to purchase them to keep those at affordable levels.” This one could certainly work, although I note that CPA funds are EXTREMELY limited, and you would basically have enough funds to buy and rehab maybe 5 units or so a year.
4) I mentioned your support for ADUs, and I also agree with those reforms to allow accessory apartments. I’d even allow them without an affordability component to increase overall housing units in the city.
What your proposals don’t include are the recommendations of the article to also ” remove regulatory barriers and minimum-parking requirements, and doubling down on greater density in town centers or near transit stations”.
And here is where we differ in our approach. I love a multi-prong approach, but without zoning reform and greater density near transit hubs, we really aren’t making a long term dent in a regional problem. I think your approach is really not a “housing crisis” approach, it is an approach that addresses some of the housing issues but really is focused on maintain the housing stock and buildings as much as possible “as-is”. Fewer McMansions, fewer teardowns, some small amount of preservation of affordability on the edges using CPA funds, and a holding action against 40B that is unlikely to succeed.
As for JPNDC, they are terrific, and their projects are terrific. They aren’t alone either, Urban Edge, Dorchester Bay, Metro West and many other non-profit developers put together terrific projects all over the Commonwealth. Perhaps the question you should be asking though is why won’t those terrific non-profit developers work to develop projects in Newton?
Let Austin Street and Engine 6 be your guide Amy. Our zoning code makes building anything very difficult. The timelines are super long. The amount of free land is limited, meaning anything is bid up to a high level with a super high total development cost. The NIMBY aspect is real (see Engine 6). Smaller projects have much higher than state/federal accepted total development costs, meaning it is harder to bring tax credits or other subsidies to bear on the project. And so on. And the JPNDC model of housing acquisition only works if the initial acquisition price is much lower than your typical Newton “teardown”. You can’t pay $600,000 for a lot, spend $300,000 to rehab the home, and then charge a rent that supports the debt.
I’m not criticizing, I’m very happy you are putting forth good ideas. I just feel you don’t go far enough to solve the housing issues in front of us, because you are really more interested in solving the aesthetic and historic fabric issues instead. And I think your solutions really can’t be scaled up in Newton due to cost.
Just my 2 cents.
Fig, all great points, well expressed.
I wonder if a community development corporation (CDC, like the JPNDC) could adapt to Newton by being a partner with other developers.
The advantage of having a CDC is that it doesn’t have “split allegiance” like the city does: it is legally bound to its founding principles of assisting the economically disadvantaged, has governance that reflects the constituency served, and operates as a non-profit. You know who they work for, what their motivations are, and that they are transparent enough to be audited by the state and federal government.
They are a blend between advocates and developers, making them useful allies and go-betweens for both such groups. A hypothetical Newton CDC could unify and amplify many of the existing affordable housing efforts. That would give them a focal point as a charity, and staying power for fighting Newton’s political fights.
I don’t see how, if the rebuilt structure replaces two moderately priced apartments with a pair of luxury condos, that it’s “…adding to the supply for the region”. It’s a loss of either two moderately priced rental units, or the loss of an owner-occupied two-family, which has traditionally been a more affordable way for families to own a home. The two high-end condos that will replace them are more likely to be owner-occupied, but even if they are rented, they will be much, much more expensive than what was there before. Where is the addition?
Also, all the recent townhouses/condos built in my neighborhood are 3 levels, 4-5 bedrooms, with two-car garages and additional off-street parking. I’m not seeing “aging parents” downsizing to these units, I’m seeing young couples/families moving in. (Although the most recent batch, at $1.4M, have been on the market for a while…)
I agree that, in principle, adding density in village centers/near transit stops should lessen the demand for these types of tear-downs. But in places like Newton where there is so little available land, and which is so desirable to the young couples/families who are willing and able to pay these crazy prices for these units, I don’t see how we build our way to affordability. The high-end demand can’t be met, so nothing will remain naturally affordable unless zoning/other regulations make the teardowns less profitable.
What Tricia said.
Tricia:
But how do you actually make the teardowns less profitable? And why do you think they will stop even if you do this?
We all engage sometimes in magical thinking when it comes to developers and development. Developers tend to know what pencils out economically better than the city council or the mayor. Even if you impose draconian zoning laws (no increase in footprint ever, no increase in units ever, no teardowns ever) the baseline features of Newton aren’t going away. Those homes will just get gut-rehabbed eventually. You are just slowing down the process and controlling the aesthetics.
Naturally occuring affordable housing is certainly the catch term of the day, but what you are really talking about is “market filtering”. Namely, this affordable housing isn’t locked in, it is dependent on the units migrating from “class a” type units to class b or c (or landlord’s wanting to rent to specified tenants). Either way, relying on this type of filtered housing isn’t sustainable, because it is out of the control of the renters, and there is always the danger of it flipping back into market rate housing if the incentives are there for the landlord to do so. And in Newton, the incentives ARE ALWAYS there. If no teardown, then a gut rehab and a rent increase. Certain landlord may not wish to do so at this particular moment, but if market forces remain constant, evenutally that landlord will sell to a more profit motivated market participant.
On a regional basis, the best way to get more of the “naturally affordable housing” is to build more units, even luxury units. The market then filters out units that our less desirable. So that if every unit now has a luxury kitchen, the units that don’t will be worth less for instance. You are correct that it is unclear if Newton alone can impact the market so that new units overall make enough of a difference, as in a luxury unit in framingham may be worth as much as a non-luxury unit in Newton, due to transportation, school system, our plethora of city councilors, etc.
Best way to insure affordable housing continues to exist is to create projects that have dedicated affordability restrictions on those units long term. And ideally tie them to larger projects so that those units are maintained.
Mike, I don’t know if your CDC idea would work for Newton. It is tough to maintain a staff on the few projects that could occur in Newton.
For the record, two other points. We all tend to know our immediate environment really well, and we tend to lean towards assuming the rest of the city, the region and the nation matches that. Just because your street has tear downs, doesn’t mean every street does. Street by street this looks very different.
Finally, and more importantly, it isn’t the developers that are changing Newton. What is changing Newton is this: A house just sold in my neighborhood. In 1995 it sold for roughly $500,000. 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, finished basement. In 2005 it would have sold for $750,000. In 2015 it would have sold for $900,000, in 2019 it went for $1,150,000. (roughly). That progression in value is what has changed Newton.
My friends own a townhome in JP. 3 bedroom, 3 bath. Small yard. $1,100,000.
With those types of margins, a developer can gut rehab, make townhomes, do a light rehab and resell, etc. But any older building that comes on the market is going to either get resold for major money, or sold for cheap and turned. And when prices go up this high, your zoning fixes do not really work to keep that “naturally affordable” housing. It gets swept away in the flood. You certainly have kept the houses looking the same, and perhaps that matters to you more than the preservation of those affordable units. I’m all for some changes to the zoning to ban snout houses for instance. But don’t convince yourself that those units stay affordable. They don’t.
Now you can be against increased density, against townhomes, against multifamilies and all that. But absent a better economic argument, you aren’t in the business with these restrictions of actually keeping housing affordable.
And Pat, what happened to your catch-phrase? I’ve come to expect a good quality ” ‘Natch” after most of your posts.
You missed it. A different (but recent) thread. More important is why!
And it’s “notch” or better, “notched”. As in posting a check mark for every time the myth of the ‘need’for high-density luxury housing is debunked. The count continues to grow.
@Figgie: “Let Austin Street and Engine 6 be your guide Amy. Our zoning code makes building anything very difficult.
Um…re: Austin Street….our zoning code made it possible to negotiate with the developer to get the additional 6 units of affordable housing. And for those who say I almost killed the project with my negotiation tactics – there were others in line who responded to the RFP who would have gladly had an opportunity to work with the City Council and the residents to build a project there.
And as for Engine 6 – it never came before the City Council. Mayor Warren killed the idea of having a shelter in Waban before the Councilors had an opportunity to have at the very least, a public hearing on it.
And “You can’t pay $600,000 for a lot, spend $300,000 to rehab the home, and then charge a rent that supports the debt.” Hmm…sounds like the CAN-DO model….
Please, carry on….
For the record, Fig, I am not against increased density or townhouses, and I’m definitely not against multi-family houses – I own/live in one, FFS. And I’m well aware that not every area in Newton has been hit with lots of tear-downs. As the article discussed, areas like mine, which are zoned for multifamily housing (and used to be more affordable because they were less desirable than the single-family zoned areas) are being rapidly transformed. I fully understand we can’t completely stop changes through zoning – and I wouldn’t want to, change is inevitable. But let’s say we had something in the zoning that wouldn’t have allowed the developer across from me to build 2 ginourmous buildings (with only 4 total units) that basically cover the entire lot. What if he’d been required to have bigger setbacks and to leave more green space (and maybe a freaking tree or two)? What if he’d been restricted to 1 or 2 parking spaces per unit, instead of 3+? Maybe we get 6 smaller but less exorbitant units – not Affordable, obviously, but maybe keep at least some economic diversity.
The other approach, which you seem to see as the only viable path to take, is focusing solely on creating capital-A-affordable housing through high density rental developments, and I guess accepting the rapid loss of the few multifamily areas that previously provided some non-super-high-end rentals. So Newton becomes another “W” town, with a lot of super-wealthy people and a few of those who qualify for Affordable housing – a very, very few in between. You may not care about that, but I do. I want to see us do both – allow increased density in village centers that provides significant Affordable units (a la Mike S.) while working to slow the loss of other more affordable rental units and houses.
And you’re probably right that people tend to assume that what they experience in their own areas is more universal. The vast majority of people in Newton living in single-family areas probably don’t know anyone who has lost their apartment due to teardowns and had to leave Newton because they don’t qualify for Affordable housing and couldn’t find anything remotely affordable for them. Do you?
As far as your insinuation that I somehow care more about the “look” of the houses – about the aesthetics – than I do about retaining affordable housing… I almost don’t know what to say. If I cared more about aesthetics, I’d be doing back-flips about all this new construction that almost always looks way better than the older, tired houses they replaced. The kinds of zoning changes I talk about above are directly AGAINST my self interest, so you are welcome to step right off .
I’m curious Amy, how many units has CAN-DO developed in its entire history? A few per year? Using up almost all of the available subsidies for such housing available to Newton. …
Amy, I certainly think CAN-DO and that type of small unit number project is a great thing. But there are reasons why it doesn’t get replicated. Small projects still need to be managed to meet the affordability requirements, and small projects that cost a lot of money are not scalable. There are limited pots of public funds. I get the multiprong approach, but the CAN-DO model seems like a small piece that you are waving like it is a much larger solution. But the numbers and facts just don’t bear that out, absent a much larger investment by the city. I’d be ok with an override for such purposes, but I think I’m in the minority.
As for Austin Street, you are putting words in my mouth. I never criticized you for being a tough negotiator with that project, I’ve actually complimented you on that multiple times. But to claim our zoning code worked on that one is a bit hilarious. It look 7 years to get a developer chosen. It was a horrible process. It made Newton into the butt of jokes. I get that Mayor Warren largely owned those decisions, but my point was that the overall zoning and permitting process is Newton makes it very difficult to build anything here of size. It should take 7 years to get a building developer chosen. We’ve been discussing Newtonville improvements for almost as long. And while I don’t want to relitigate Engine 6, the city council was far from a profile in courage, and the city’s planning department literary reversed itself once the NIMBY outrage started.
How many large scale affordable projects were proposed in the city during the past 20 years? How many medium scale ones? If all you can point to is 3 to 5 unit projects for a city of Newton’s size, and Newton’s overall percentage of affordable housing hasn’t crossed the 10% threshold, perhaps, just perhaps, there is something to my point in our city wide process that isn’t exactly laying out the welcome mat to those excellent affordable developers we’ve mentioned earlier. It is hard to get anything done in Newton. Perhaps with zoning and permitting reform it will get easier.
Also, just for the record you didn’t address any of the other points I made regarding your proposals…and just focused on one aspect you could attack… but then ended your email on a snappy rejoinder. Made me chuckle.
I’m too tired to think of another snappy thing to say back though. I’m just going to carry on…to sleep. ;)
Oh and Tricia, I wasn’t trying to personally offend you since I don’t know you at all. I was just writing about the overall affordability crisis. My apologies if I angered you. Happy to continue the conversation tomorrow. Good night!
@Figgie: Good morning! I didn’t scroll back far enough to see all of your posts. So here goes:
First, I didn’t criticize the content of the Boston Globe article – just surprised that interest in the multi-family houses by developers – is a new story. As for your criticism of my proposals:
1)The moratorium on tear downs was to “light the fire” – to move forward and advance specific zoning reform measures because waiting for zoning reform takes years. At least the most basic issue – eliminating the old lot exemption when a house is torn down – could have been enacted. The objective was not to stop teardowns but to ensure the rebuild would be much smaller in scale than the “mcmansions” that have and continue to be built. But hey – the proposal was made in 2014 and zoning reform was just around the corner…..and it’s what – 2019.
2)Housing Production Plans- From the mass.gov website – it appears that approximately 152 cities/towns have adopted housing production plans. They have to be approved by the State – so yes the devil is in the details – but it is a guide and commitment made by a community to increase it’s housing supply. What’s the current plan now? Let the developers do it for us?
3)Using CPA funds to acquire many of the homes that are snatched up by developers and keep those in our inventory. Yes – CPA funds are limited – but they are available and $1.5 million is being requested for the Housing Authority takeover of the CAN-DO portfolio.
4) Accessory Apartments – thank you for acknowledging my support for these. I also support allowing rooming houses in the City to provide housing for single-occupants. We know these already exist in the City – legalize them and regulate them so they are made safe and up to code.
As for increased density in village centers and transit oriented areas – I have supported these – Turtle Lane and Riverside zoning are just a few examples.
And about those non-profit developers not coming to Newton? The ones you mention are actually local to their communities. Dorchester Bay was founded with the “explicit intent of addressing the shortage of quality affordable housing in Upham’s Corner and the surrounding neighborhoods.” Urban Edge is “committed to developing and sustaining stable, healhy, and diverse communities in Jamaica Plain, Roxbury and surrounding communities in Massachusetts”. I do recall that the City partnered with CASCAP to create 34 affordable housing units in Nonantum. I don’t recall huge snags in the process because of our arduous zoning regulations. We do have a great opportunity with the Armory – and maybe we’ll have a chance to partner with a non-profit developer to create a wonderful project there.
And here is where you are clearly wrong: “you are really more interested in solving the aesthetic and historic fabric issues instead.” What I am interested in is community centered growth.
Hi Amy:
We are in agreement more than we are not. Let’s try and focus on that for a bit and maybe lower the overall heat of this thread.
Here is where we agree:
1) Accessory Apartments
2) Increased density in village centers (although I imagine we disagree on scope and size)
3) rules to limit large rebuilds. I actually am fine with some limits on this, but my concern is that those limits be flexible enough to provide folks like me the right to add on additions. For instance, my lot (like most in Newton) is non-conforming. If I want to add on space, I should be treated differently than a teardown and rebuild to the lot edges.
For the record, you are correct that JPNDC/Urban Edge/Dorchester Bay have local connections to their communities. But I think you missed my point. There are plenty of nonprofit developers who aren’t tied to a community. MetroWest I mentioned. B’nai Brith Housing. Community Builders. There are many more. And the ones trying to come to Newton over the years have generally been frustrated with the Newton process. Newton has a well-deserved reputation of being one of the most difficult to develop project in throughout the state. Some of that is high total development costs. Some of that is Newton’s city council and the mayor. Some of that is the city’s planning department not speaking with one voice with the city council and the mayor. Some of that is the willingness by neighbors to fund delay tactics. Witness the frivolous lawsuits filed to delay Austin Street as an example. I’m pretty sure Engine 6 was a lesson many of those non-profits took to heart…
I do agree that the Armory can be a great project. We’ll see. The fact that it has to be affordable puts us on the right path.
On the points we disagree:
1) I would call your proposal on tear downs prohibition “lighting a fire”. It was more a proposal to take hostages in my view. The hostages being those poor souls who had the misfortune to sell at the wrong time. But frankly since it didn’t pass, not sure this is worth discussing.
2) housing production plan: You keep glossing over the most important bit. Lots of cities have them, but you actually have to produce the affordable housing! And we can’t seem to do that in a significant way. And they aren’t a path out of 40B unless you actually show results. I’m not opposed, I’m just questioning the utility of the move when we can’t even keep up with the units coming out of compliance!
3) CPA funds: 1.5 million is a drop in the bucket. CAN-DO has done 34 units in its entire existence. That’s amazing! That’s to be admired. That is just not nearly enough. And 1.5 million probably gets you 2 to 3 units in Newton. My point was not to question that CPA exists or that CAN-DO is great, but to point out that the volume isn’t there.
Again, I’m thrilled with the CPA and CAN-DO, and the other methods you chose to highlight that increase affordable housing. But you can’t have a multiprog approach that is real unless it actually increases the overall amount of affordable housing. And these don’t even keep up! You need more, and that means either larger scale development in city centers, or 40Bs.
Just my 2 cents, and I always enjoy the opportunity to bat this around with you Amy.
@Figgie: I enjoy batting this around with you too!
Fig – I wasn’t offended, or angry. I think a better description would be aggravated. The common thread in discussions these days, both nationally and locally, is the tendency (on all sides) to make assumptions about and call into question the beliefs and motivations of the other side. Support a high-density development? You’re clearly in bed with the greedy developers. Oppose a high-density development? You’re definitely a NIMBY, and probably a racist. Support zoning that would slow the pace of tear downs? You obviously care more about the “look” of housing than preserving affordability. All this without even knowing who we’re talking too.
Maybe if we all could just listen to each other, without impugning each other’s motivations, we could get somewhere.
Tricia – I think we should just end the thread with your post.
Perfectly said, we need to actually start talking to each other instead of questioning each other’s motives.
I’m in favor of development and increasing density for many reasons, but are these apartments REALLY going to help lower and middle income people move to or remain in Newton? Will building all of these apartments REALLY lower the prices of housing here? I know my family wouldn’t be able to afford a place in these new constructions. We’ve been living here for over 14 years and bought our little ancient outdated house back when there was still some diversity in the housing stock in Newton, but I’m skeptical that all of these apartments are really going to help the affordability issue that Newton (and all of Greater Boston) is dealing with.