Part of what makes posting on Village 14 fun is how the criticism and responding to the criticism sharpens one’s thinking on a topic.
Some of us, in posts and in the comments, are frustrated by self-proclaimed environmentalists who do not make housing density in the inner-ring suburbs (read Newton) their first or at least a high priority. I won’t rehash the argument here, except to say there is a growing consensus that adding housing density in an inner-ring suburb is the single most effective response that municipalities can make to combating the global climate crisis. Put another way, adding density close to people’s work and other destinations reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled compared to adding more suburban sprawl.
To that argument, commenters have a variety of responses. The conversations in the threads suggest to me that there are three positions you can have on the connection between climate change and density, with multiple policy responses for two of them.
- There is no connection between adding density and having an impact on climate change
- Adding density might help stem climate change
- But the impact of density — added traffic, changes to the neighborhood, impact on schools, impact of infrastructure — are not worth any benefits
- But the benefits won’t or shouldn’t be realized without some pre-conditions — typically transit improvements or affordable housing (see below)
- Adding density will help stem climate change
- The way to add density is to allow more density in certain areas of the city
- The way to add density is to allow more density across the city, including, literally, in my back yard
- We should all be forced to live in multi-family
For the sake of not having too many categories, let’s assume that adding density doesn’t mean unlimited density, but meaningful increases from existing conditions. We’ll save the question about whether or not it should be three, six, or ten stories along Washington St. for a different classification system. If it’s three stories, you’re probably in 1 or 2. We’ll let the six- and ten-story folks live together in 3A or 3B.
There are two overlaid housing access concerns.
- Adding density creates the risk of gentrification and displacement
- Adding density won’t add any or enough truly affordable housing and won’t lower housing costs generally
Both of these are important concerns. If we’re going to add density, we should do it in a way that protects people from being moved out of their neighborhoods. And, we should acknowledge that the simply adding density is likely to have a small impact on housing affordability in Newton. Adding truly low-income housing will require regulation, direct investment, and creating opportunities for non-profits. The impact on housing costs generally is hazy and probably depends on how where you’re measuring the impact — in Newton alone or regionally.
But, these housing access concerns can be separated from folks’ position on the connection between density and climate change. The housing access concerns really bear on the question of which kinds of multi-family dwellings we allow, not whether or where we add density. If you really think that we should only be adding new housing if it measurably solves the affordability issue on some dimension, you’re a 2A, unless there’s some feasible mechanism for adding affordable housing in significant amounts.
So, do you think that these categories cover the issue? If not, what dimension of the analysis is missing?
Where do you stand? I’m definitely a 3B, but I think I could be convinced that 3C is the right answer.
Where do you think your favorite candidate lands. (We’ll ask them.)
How many times can you post the same message repackaged, Sean?
Fair. I’ve got some other posts in the hopper, but wanted to get feedback on this.
Sean,
Did you really mean to write: “… bear on the question of white kinds of multi-family dwellings”? I think in your haste to get this on the blog, you failed to review your own writing as this isn’t the only error, but it is the most glaring one.
Really Lisap, the only comment you make is about typing errors. Get over it. Everyone, I’m sure including you, have made them or has had a problem with autocorrect!
Lisa,
Thanks for the “white” catch. I don’t know what’s worse, your thinking that I didn’t proof my work or the fact that I did proof it and still missed it. 😉 Happy to update to correct any other errors you find/found.
Thanks.
Not sure why we keep reposting the same message in different package.
Interesting categorizing, Sean.
I definitely fall into the 3B category and will never fall into 3C. I don’t believe in forcing anyone to live differently than they choose. Unless single family homes disappear, someone will live in them. It’s not necessary to tie yourself to a tree to support saving our forests.
I fall squarely into a wanting a zoning plan that allows more density anywhere in Newton – not the draft zoning being planned now.
I definitely dislike zoning that tries to keep the “character” (wording from the zoning plan, not mine) of areas in Newton as they are – more density allowed in already dense areas and not in less dense areas – where now there are only single family homes.
I do think zoning should control, with no special permits allowed, the height and mass of density allowed. Newton has many multi unit residences from two and three family houses (unique to areas around Boston) to large rental complexes. I think Newton should keep those as they are and add more of the same – not necessarily in the same places.
I really hate to see these unique multi-family homes destroyed to build more expensive housing. There should be some way to preserve these unique and beautiful multi-family homes – but I don’t know what that “way” is.
I agree with those who support more mixed-use density as long as Newton negotiates meaningful “give-backs” to Newton and the community around it.
One area Newton has screwed up is with the condos on Court Street. No more of that – tearing down two Victorians divided into apartments and wedging new, very expensive condos into an already dense area defeats the purpose of adding density.
Court Street, (see above @Marti , and previous environmental stances ), is a great example of environmental degradation. You teardown a pair of two family ( affordable ?), homes, with parking for 4 cars, and replace that with 27 units with parking for 27 cars. ( conservative automobile numbers to be sure ), … how can you argue that the increased density has not befouled the environment?… or buggered the already nasty traffic problem?,… or diminished the tree canopy/ landscape?,… or caused local solar heat gain ( trading green acreage for bricks and mortar ), ????
This contributes to the saving of the environment ???!!!
“Density IS ‘THE’ Problem “, not the solution !
As environmental degradation continues with global warming, agricultural strain, co2 increase, etc etc, population numbers will level off and even diminish, and we will have befouled our nest with all of this overbuilding. Beware or the unintended consequence of added density over the long haul.
This is getting (yawn) boring and admittedly I didn’t not read the entire post.
But STARVATION is not dieting. It’s not a simple as environmentalist vs NIMBY Racist. This is not a black and white issue. Give us more credit than that Sean.
What’s next? “Make America Green Again?”
If you want DENSITY then move to an area that HAS density.
I like Newton the way it is NOW–that’s why I live here.
Sean, which do you consider as a greater threat to Newton, global warming or nuclear war?
Global warming, by far.
These posts are so turgid, they are painful to read. As I pointed out before–more density means more people will move to Newton from Boston. This will increase the length of their commute. Climate change will be WORSE. Repeat after me, more density means more climate change.
Can we stop the silly posts that perpetuate the myth that Wayland residents (with big homes and big lots) who work in Boston, really want high density, and will move to Newton once we become dense enough?
Two comments on this thread have been deleted for violating our posting guidelines.
Passion is great. Direct personal attacks when responding to others … not so much.
Be nice. Carry on
Sean, since China is exponentially a greater accelerator of climate change (or global warming) than the USA (assuming human-made global warming were to be established, IMHO the jury is still out), which you deem a greater threat than thermonuclear war, shouldn’t Newtonites encourage that the USA take military — or some other actual effective — action against China?
Seems that dense housing in Newton would pale in comparison to offset the many new coal fired power plants coming on line in China all the time.
Jim,
It is possible to both do everything you can do to reduce carbon emissions in your own region and hope that our national leaders take effective steps to encourage other countries to reduce carbon emissions.
Arguably, setting an example for other countries is an important strategy for the country at the global level.
As just one soul, I’m going to help elect and support local officials who will do the right thing in Newton: densify. And, I’m going to help elect and support national officials who will make national policy to radically reduce carbon emissions.
Another thread on density, development. Is there anything else going on in the city?
I don’t know Jane, I see a lot of other threads here. We have no control over which threads draw the most comments.
Jane, there is no greater threat to Newton’s quality of life than over-development and over-densification.
@Marti,
Yes, that’s the only comment I have to make on this thread. Over the years I have posted many, many comments both here and at the Newton Tab. While I do read from time to time, I find that there is often a knee-jerk incivility (your reply is exhibit A), and so I seldom to bother joining the conversation. However, given that Sean recently made what I thought was an absurd stretch to connect years of housing racism with the current state of development in the city, I chose not to pass up the opportunity to point out what was perhaps an auto-correct, or maybe a Freudian slip.
Toodles.
Toodles? Like Mickey Mouse Clubhouse?
Great, now I’ve got that song in my head for the rest of the afternoon. I hate you all. Worse than Baby Shark.
Jeffrey,
Coincidentally, I was talking to a colleague today. Just moved to Wayland. Likes his biggish house and lawn, but his commute is nearly an hour each way. He would much preferred to have moved to Newton.
I know, I know. That’s just one anecdote. If there were only a measure by which we could compare demand for housing in Newton v. Wayland.
Sean, but would he have preferred an apartment or condo (more densely packed) in Newton, or preferred Newton only if a house?
The suburbs where I grew up are very different than Newton. They had new housing developments dotting the whole town, cul de sacs, lots of shopping centers, few pedestrians and pretty much no public transit. It was a fine place to grow up, but I always wanted more density and walkability we chose our neighborhood in West Newton because it felt kind of urban to me. I think suburban vs. urban can actually be somewhat subjective and most of the North of Newton, to me, is not particularly suburban.
Sean,
Ahhhh. If he likes his big house and lawn, I guess your friend does not like density. That does not make him a bad person. If our zoning rules required bigger lots maybe he would have picked Newton.
Sean, could you add a category or subcategory for those who maintain that on a cost benefit analysis it would be less expensive and taxing on society to address climate change by constructing/adapting required infrastructure and some building locations to rising sea level rather than endeavoring to eliminate and/or severely restrict the use of fossil fuel world wide? This would mean not seeking to densify Newton to reduce carbon impact entailed in travel.