Newton TAB’s front page today reports that “officials may move forward on [the] armory” and repeats Mayor Fuller’s statement that the state “is willing to sell the building to the city for $1 only if it is used for affordable housing in perpetuity,” citing that the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance would require approximately $1 million if used for any other municipal purpose. The article continues, city “officials have [already] applied for state funds to hire an affordable housing development consultant team to assess the building.” Before proceeding to commit funds (state reimbursed or local) for a housing consulting team, perhaps the city should consider other reuse alternatives.
The $1 million price tag for alternative municipal use is still way below the Armory’s current $4.3 million assessment. There are numerous impediments for housing at the Armory, e.g., little parking, very extensive and expensive retrofit, and exterior architectural limitations of narrow limited in number windows. There are other municipal needs and uses vastly less expensive for Armory retrofit, such as an annex to the existing Walnut Street Senior Center (obviating the need for “NewCAL”) or replacement of other city facilities if they are redirected for Senior Center use. Moreover, in addition to the substantial savings in retrofit, it seems a stretch to assume our city’s elected leaders, State Representatives, and State Senator can not negotiate with the state for a significantly less than $1 million price tag, citing needs such as Senior services. There appears to be no legal requirement foreclosing the $1 price tag or other less than $1 million price for non-housing municipal use.
If there are others who agree or disagree with this poster’s assessment of the Mayor “putting the cart before the horse” in proceeding to expend sums for Armory affordable housing without considering alternatives, have at it. And, other suggested reuses of the Armory can be discussed as well.
Excellent points. The persistent focus on the property for housing ignores the unsuitability of it for apartments. Let’s get past that possible use and explore more feasible alternatives.
Completely agree.
This historic armory building is in my neighborhood, and I have a great deal of interest in what happens to it. I have learned that both Natick and Lynn were able to convert their “castle” armories into housing. Lynn created affordable housing for veterans. Both communities found creative ways to comply with historic preservation laws, building codes, and other requirements that created challenges. Indeed, in some ways, they faced even greater challenges. Thus, despite my initial skepticism, I am willing to keep an open mind on the possible reuse of this building for 100% affordable housing, since the Commonwealth is offering it at a price that cannot be beat.
Perhaps, @Ted. I’ll be curious to see how they deal with, for example, the long narrow windows vis-a-vis historic preservation requirements. In the meantime, it’s also prudent for the city to keep an open mind as to other municipal uses, even if we have pay more for the building. Perhaps, as one xample, even that could be netted out by saving a portion of the $16 million now being considered for a new senior center, along the lines Jim suggests. I’d suggest that the two paths be studied simultaneously so we don’t end up with one decision without a true evaluation of the alternatives.
Commenters are assuming that it is not suited for housing, yet non-profit developers of affordable housing do see this as a good opportunity, and they’ve done similar armory projects before as Ted mentioned. (See:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/lynn-armory)
We see a lot of claims thrown around about how much people dislike relying on for-profit developers for affordable housing. Here we have an opportunity to literally get a building for free to build non-profit affordable housing. Why wouldn’t we consider that opportunity?
I agree that we need to fully vet the site and determine if there are better uses and how the financials would work.
But the initial opposition to affordable housing at the site is hard to understand, at least if you believe as I do that we really need more affordable housing in Newton.
We have, in NewCAL, seen what happens when the Administration has tunnel vision about their plans. I am not opposing affordable housing at the site if it is possible. Having talked with experts in the business of non-profit affordable housing who are familiar with the building, I just doubt it will be possible. (That Lynn building, for example, has very, very different fenestration from the West Newton building.) And, even if housing is possible, I’d like to see some discussion at the Council as to how that use matches up against other high priority municipal uses.
@Paul – email me, I would love to put you in touch with someone from Newton who is working on an armory retrofit.
Would love to see them post their thoughts here, for all to see. That’s more important than my opinion. (Unfortunately, my sources who think the site is unsuitable aren’t willing to talk publicly for fear of be branded as anti-public housing in Newton! Such is the state of public debate, where even experts are afraid of offering their judgments on such matters. So, I’m left with relaying hearsay.)
Yeah that was my thinking too. I didn’t want to post the person’s name without their permission.
Or how about, you know, letting the housing consultant do their job and explore the possibility of saving the City and its taxpayers a few million while at the same time putting in some affordable housing?
This doesn’t preclude other uses but is exploring one avenue that the City *absolutely* needs to explore. It would be malfeasance if they didn’t.
Paul, respectfully, the windows (fenestration) in the Lynn Armory are not big enough for the building code, and the Massachusetts Historic Commission will not allow them to be removed. Which is why the Lynn Armory contains a central atrium lined with apartments and windows facing inward. Like West Newton and Natick, the Lynn Armory contains a “drill shed” where the housing units are located. The castle towers and facade are mostly used as office space and community areas. Moreover, the Natick Armory is virtually identical to the West Newton Armory, and Natick managed to make it work. So I don’t think that this is as big an obstacle as I originally thought.
Keep an open mind, man. Like an umbrella, your mind works best when it’s open.
@Ted – not challenging the reasoned aspiration posted, I wonder if you are in a position to educate us all on the 1977 decision the City of Newton made about the former church at 61 Washington Park, Newtonville.
It appears that the City came to own an old specific-use building for a below market price. But that administration believed that City government’s role should be limited to “landlord” and that government would be an inferior operator of an arts center and an inferior redeveloper of that building. So they rented it out.
What new skills has the current administration developed that were unavailable a generation ago?
Short of the executive demonstrating a (budgetary) dedication to maintaining such skills over the lifetime of the role, isn’t it fair for citizens to assume the armory is someone else’s opportunity to realize?
At either price point, $1 or $1 million, does the city of Newton have to keep the building? Can it be bought and torn down ? Don’t know. I would like to see 100% affordable housing in an efficient building. Walkable to west Newton or Newtonville.
@Mary Presumptuous (I like your style): I was not around Newton in 1977. I was a freshman at Tufts University.
But to answer your question, I think that the Crescent Street debacle taught the city a valuable lesson, which is that Newton would not be a good developer of affordable housing. Indeed, thanks to certain City Councilors, the city declined to lease the building to a developer who could have developed an economically feasible project. Instead, we ended up with costs that far exceeded other projects on land the city already owned. In a word, that project was doomed by hubris.
The Armory is on the National Register of Historic Places, and I sincerely doubt that the Commonwealth will sell it to the city for $1 if the plan is to demolish it. As I said, I am open to reusing this historic building as 100% affordable housing if possible, and I think it can be done, although price will be a consideration. But this will all get aired out during the real property reuse process. Stay tuned.
@Ted, I’ll keep an open mind on this, if you can convince the city to keep an open mind on the use of the property for other purposes. If you look at Josh Morse’s letter on the property that was submitted to the City Council, you’ll see that he summarily –based on an inspection–dismisses it as infeasible for NewCAL and other priority uses.
Here’s what he said:
“In closing, the Armory is a beautiful building with great historical features and flexible floor plans. The building will require a significant renovation for any change of use. The purpose of my inspection of this facility was to determine whether this facility and/or site could be used for either a Police Headquarters or a site for the NewCAL project. Both projects require a minimum of 2 acres of land area. Additionally, the building itself is too small to contain either program.” (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/98883)
Since then, people have come to realize that the 2 acres might not be a requirement after all, but at the time this “analysis” led the NewCAL working group to summarily conclude: ““The existing Armory is a historic facility that was designed and constructed to stop artillery and therefore is very challenging to be converted to meet our needs, and it’s too small. On top of this, about a third of the building is underground with no natural light.” https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/download/presentations_newcal/2019-09-16-NewCAL-Parks-and-Recreation-Presentation.pdf
The same thoughts about a structure built to stop artillery and with lots of underground space could obviously be said about using the building for housing, and yet we are proceeding down that path. If the City applied the same creativity to the other potential uses for this site as it is apparently applying for housing, we might then have the basis for a real choice as to what best serves the community.
Instead, we seem constantly to follow the path of somebody’s preconceptions. The more money is spent going down one path, the more likely that other possible uses will receive insufficient consideration. See: https://village14.com/2019/09/30/confirmation-bias-strikes-city-hall/#axzz61uenJZNy
Passing the umbrella back to you, man.
@Ted – do you have links to any more detailed info on the Natick or Lynn projects? Bryan’s link doesn’t really say much. TIA
Are we sure the building has to stay? It’s an excellent site for affordable housing or a senior center but the existing building doesn’t work well for either. Seriously who would miss it if it were torn down? Just because the building was built a long time ago why are we stuck with it?
Here is some info on the Natick Armory
https://www.wbjournal.com/article/natick-castle-gets-new-life-as-condos
Looks like the Lynn Armory project has a ways to go but this talks about how they intend to use the space
https://www.itemlive.com/2019/04/08/lynn-armory-planned-to-house-veterans/
@Paul 10:23pm – The structure as-is would make an excellent foundation (literally speaking, that function might be – to expropriate a developer phrase – its highest and best use) for a higher than 7-story multi-use building that included some amount of affordable housing.
If the administration and exploratory committee is to keep an open mind, thinking in +1 dimensions might be helpful. Perhaps the only distinctive ability government could bring to such a project would be its ability to break all the (zoning) rules standing in the way of a 100 year solution worthy of having a vision.
IMHO, The Y does and will forever do a better job with special situational housing – as it already does for an entire floor of supported residents there – than an administration with less staying power/longevity than the public service institutions already successfully supporting Newton.
The idea is that Newton would own the property, but “… we would lease it to an affordable housing development partner who will redevelop and manage the property as 100 percent affordable housing.”
To this viewer’s eyes, construction retrofitting the Armory into housing units exceeds the cost of constructing similar housing units from scratch. And the interior open space seems ideal for Senior Center activities.
If economics were a prime factor, seems a no-brainer to use the Armory as a Senior Center Annex to the existing Walnut Street Senior Center. Unfortunately, seems that NewCAL proponents and Armory-to-housing proponents are more concerned with fulfilling pre-planned agendas than efficiencies to the taxpayers.
Paul, I will keep an open mind to other uses. But the caveat is that the cost of acquisition will not be $1 for other purposes, and the property is assessed at over $4.3 million. In addition, public funding sources that would be available for some uses may not be available for others. So there are a lot of things to take into consideration.
The Natick Armory was sold to a private developer for $1.3 million for conversion to condominiums. The project was financed with a $7.7 million construction loan (which does not include all of the project costs) and fewer than 20% of the units are affordable to low to moderate income households.
The Commonwealth sold the Lynn Armory to the Lynn Housing Authority’s non-profit development organization for “nominal consideration” in January 2019, subject to covenants to use the building solely for veterans services, including housing. The armory will provide “micro housing” for 45 veterans in the former drill shed, which will be converted to two floors of residential units surrounding a central atrium. That project will cost approximately $24 million, through a combination of financing and historic tax credits.
If Newton accepts the Commonwealth’s offer to sell the armory for $1 and build 100% affordable housing, it would lease the building to a developer which would renovate the building. A private developer would be able to take advantage of historic tax credits, Community Preservation Act funds, and other sources of financing. The purpose of hiring an affordable housing consulting team (paid for with state funds) is to determine the feasibility of reuse of the armory for this purpose. If used for any other municipal purpose, it will cost the city around $1M to acquire the armory.
I think that the Mayor and the city are doing their due diligence to see what the possibilities are for this project. The City Council will ultimately weigh in, after the Joint Advisory Planning Group and the Planning Department have done a study of the potential uses for the site.
Stay dry, Paul. It is going to be a wet one today.
@Ted, if I understand the numbers you give on the Lynn armory project, they are spending $24M for 45 “micro-units” for veterans, which equates to $533k for each micro-unit. Wouldn’t the veterans be better off with $533k to purchase a real house? For that money in Lynn, they might even be able to purchase a 2-flat, and give the second unit to another low-income veteran.
As @Ted notes, if the property is assessed at $4.3 million and the city acquires it for a use other than housing, the practice of the state is to sell it for 1/3 of the assessed value, or $1.4 million. That’s still potentially a good deal if the city has plans to build something new on another site. And who knows, maybe an even lower price could be negotiated with the state if the private market might not be favorably inclined to make a better offer.
Laurie, exactly — which is why if economics were a primary factor, rather than agendas, the Armory as Senior Center Annex is a no-brainer over $500,000+ each micro housing units.
Jim/Laurie/Paul:
A few thoughts.
First, I’m not wed to any particular use for the property. But I also think it needs a full review by folks who know more than me about the construction for various uses and how they relate to the available subsidies. In my experience that is the key set of factors:
1) What building do you have, what shape is it in, what can it be transformed into, what environmental issues exist, and what community impact will that use have?
Combined with:
2) What subsidies can you bring to the table to bring to fruition the ultimate result you are trying to achieve.
This is where you need experts to make the right decision. A historic preservation consultant to look at the possibility of getting state and federal historic tax credits. A low income housing consultant to look at what available subsidies are available for affordable housing. A construction consultant to tell you the state of the building.
Could be one team of people or multiple people. But absent that initial info, I don’t think anyone on the forum or in the city knows the highest and best use of that building.
But for those questioning affordable housing, the overall costs per unit are potentially high, but are much much lower when the overall subsidies are included, especially the federal subsidies. And those units are affordable for 60 years or longer, often 99 plus. The homeownership opportunities have fewer subsidies overall, a shorter affordability component if any, and other issues, including long term maintenance issues (the affordable rental type project is usually cared for in part by a management company).
I could certainly see a NewCal use for the property, but again, I’d think you’d need folks smarter than me to tell me the possibilities. I realize folks are always worried about the “agenda” of folks who hire the experts, and I know that it matters (she who sets the agenda gets the results she wants as they say) but without the experts in the conversation we are all just spitballing.
Ideally there would be a committee of folks set up who would evaluate the best use of the property. I nominate Ted, Paul, Emily, Bryan and Jim. (also I want to watch the meetings with some popcorn, but that’s because I’m immature and I like the popcorn memes)
Fig, in light of your comment, perhaps I should expand “economics” to include not only economics for Newton (taxpayers), but economics for state and federal as well. So when you include government subsidies and tax credits to tilt the table, those are costs as well.
I agree with Jim and Paul that the city should evaluate a number of different options for the Armory instead of thinking it’s only purpose can be housing.
The Natick Armory was gutted and the roof taken off to convert that into condos. The Lynn project appears to also be making major changes to the interior. So it appears that only restrictions on reusing the property are to maintain the brick exterior which would be appropriate.
Thus, there appear to be many options for the property. Unfortunately, the city has a lot of priorities. If NewCal is a higher priority than housing, than it seems there should be no reason why the Armory property would not work for that.
Isn’t Korff’s “Dunstan Street East” project next door to the Armory? Maybe he would contribute to an Armory project that became “NewCal West” instead of housing?
@Laurie, the veteran housing at the Lynn Armory will remain affordable in perpetuity. So each unit will provide housing for veterans for many years to come. In addition, the per unit cost is comparable to what it costs to build affordable housing in Newton, which likewise must remain permanently affordable.
@Arthur, the Joint Advisory Planning Group (JAPG) and Planning Department will look at potential uses for the site. Depending on the results of the study, the JAPG may or may not recommend 100% affordable housing. But obviously, the offer from the Commonwealth is the reason a JAPG is being put together to study the reuse options, so it will look at that. And while I wouldn’t want to rule anything out, the city’s commissioner of public buildings has already inspected the building and, after consulting with other departments, concluded it would not be suitable for certain uses, including NewCAL and NPD HQ.
@Jim, an “annex” to the Senior Center would mean dividing programs as well as staff. Having been involved with accreditation of the Senior Center in the past, I don’t think that would work. I have some recent experience with applying for historic tax credits. The tax credits cover up to 20% of the project cost, and are usually sold (at a discount that depends on whether they are state or federal tax credits) to private developers, who use them to reduce their tax liability. So the government is not “out of pocket,” although obviously it loses some tax revenue in exchange for preservation of historic buildings.
@Kyle, Jack et al., the Massachusetts Historic Commission would have to approve any modifications as well as demolition of the armory. In addition, the Commonwealth would most likely insist on a historic preservation restriction in the deed. So I think that demolition is probably a non-starter.
@Fig, as usual, your observations are spot on. The Mayor and the City Council will select members of the JAPG to study the potential reuses for the Armory. My understanding is that they are looking for people with diverse backgrounds and expertise in various relevant areas. Oh, and please bring enough popcorn for everyone.
Ted, any citation to accreditation being denied a senior center with two locations vs. a senior center as a smaller part of a much larger athletic complex and community center (NewCAL) geared to all, not just seniors?
Why would not two senior center locations work — one essentially down the street from another? For instance, each earmarked for certain type of activities. Any citation on that?
And, Govt. subsidies and tax credits are, indeed, either out-of pocket (subsidies) or loss of revenue (essentially equivalent to out-of pocket loss).
I have already addressed this issue above: “The city’s commissioner of public buildings has already inspected the building and, after consulting with other departments, concluded it would not be suitable for certain uses, including NewCAL and NPD HQ.”
But it deserves further comment. It has become apparent, after conversations with so many City Hall insiders, that the administration’s plan for NewCAL from early on–well before the “siting matrix” used this summer–was to put it at Albemarle and combine the program with rebuilding Gath Pool. The “process” used, including “inspections” by the Commissioner, were then designed in such a way as to reinforce and justify that direction and make other options appear infeasible. Putting aside the suitability of the Armory, when will someone say that the emperor has no clothes? City councilors say it privately among themselves, with constituents, and in conversations with the Administration, but most have been reluctant to say it out loud. NewCAL needs a restart, bottom to top, to design a program and find a site or sites that will unify the City around the worthy purpose of having excellent senior programs.
I personally believe that a broad vision of the senior center could be combined with the clear need for capital to rehabilitate many parks to generate a city-wide groundswell for a debt exclusion override that could create the funds necessary to meet these priorities (and thereby not financially constrain, for example, contract negotiations with the teachers and other unions.)
@Paul, you need some harder evidence than heresay for folks to evaluate the truth of your statements. If we’re gonna play public building commissioner, we’re going to need a lot more info.
@Nelson, when City Councilors quote Administration officials and say directly, “Don’t attribute this to me publicly,” I have no choice but to pass it along as hearsay. I’m not an investigative reporter.
The Commissioner did not provide more backup for his conclusion than that summary conclusion included in the package to the Council. Read it and decide for yourself if it is rigorous and persuasive. He’s the one who should provide “a lot more info.”
Jim:
Honestly I don’t believe using federal and state subsidies should be a negative on the local level. If we don’t use them, some other community will, for the same purpose.
Now each of them come with requirements that we may not like, or we judge those requirements as making the gain not worth the pain.
As a local matter, if the cost to Newton is lowered, the cost to Newton is lowered. Building affordable housing is hard enough with binding our hands behind our backs and jumping in the river for the sake of saving state/federal tax dollars (which will just be used by another community).
I do think that some of the subsidies will not work on this building. For instance, you’d need a very long time horizon for some of them, and I doubt the city has the patience for a affordable housing developer spending 3 years to get everything lined up. But I’d leave that to smarter heads than mine.
Figgy
@ Ted, that $533k/unit should be able to build or purchase an existing affordable apartment that would be much bigger and better than a micro-housing unit, and could be kept affordable in perpetuity as well. We should look at the cost per unit and compare it with other alternatives before jumping on it just because the building can be had for $1. That $1 may be the most expensive money we ever spent.
@Laurie – purchasing existing affordable apartments doesn’t help increase the supply of affordable housing.
Figgy,
From your comment, it’s worth noting that for the purposes of federal and state expenditures, subsidies, and economics, you advocate think locally and grab it for Newton (or else some other locality will get it); but for the purposes of global climate change where Newton efforts to densify massive new housing has been presented as symbolism (or setting example), there is advocacy to think nationally and globally rather than local benefit.
Jim:
I get your point. I think another similar point is that you could build units with a lower total development costs in other parts of the Commonwealth. In other words, you get more bang for your affordable housing dollar if you build in Dot or Lynn or Lawrence.
In part that is true, and it is important to acknowledge that land costs especially add to the difficulty in developing such units in Newton vs those area. But here the land costs are low. That type of point also doesn’t take into account fair housing laws, as well as the idea that spreading affordable housing around all communities has been shown to have a positive outcome on the children who live in such housing.
But in terms of your point on thinking globally on the environment, why can’t we do both? In other words, is it wrong to recognize our wider place in the nation/state/world but also advocate for our local community?
I get the sense of disconnect, but I think we can advocate for our local concerns/dollars and still be sensitive to the wider community.
For instance, I would be a strong advocate for more transportation dollars for our commuter rail. Does that benefit Newton, a wealthy community? Yes. Does it take cars off the road to Boston? Yes. Does that benefit the wider community? Yes.
@Laurie, the Mayor is proposing to lease the property to a private developer, who would obtain financing for the project through a combination of private and public financing, including among other things historic tax credits as well as Community Preservation Act funds. As long as I have been involved in creating or promoting affordable housing in Newton, people have come up to me and said “why don’t we just buy an existing unit” at the average per unit cost to develop affordable housing in Newton. First problem is finding willing sellers. There just isn’t enough supply. The second problem is that even 1 bedroom condos in Newton are going for more than $500K. Another problem is there are additional costs after acquisition, such as making the unit accessible, for maintenance, HOA fees, etc. It sounds like a great idea, but it just isn’t practical.
@Ted Hess-Mahon, as we are discussing affordable housing in this thread, and spreading housing around Newton, how many new apartments have been built under the accessory apartment ordinance? I tried, but the land mines that were put in limiting first floor square footage, special permit process, and height limitations make this onerous. I already own the land, and I thought, mistakenly, that it would be easy to build a one or two bedroom unit at $300 a square foot.
@Jack, I can try to find out for you. I have heard from a number of people that obstacles to creating accessory apartments were thrown in their way after the ordinance was amended. But in the long term I think we will see many more.
@Jack – 33 new accessory apartments since 2016.
A great opportunity for those 33 families, but far more restrictive than necessary and barely a drop in the bucket to solving our housing supply problems.
This is a great discussion! I am new to this forum and the topic of developing new housing in Newton so we can increase our population. I am interested to learn what studies have been done recently on how in the future we will “get around” Newton as our population increases.
Most discussions I’ve read focus on getting into Boston via Bus/Train/Trolly. However, many of us parents are spending time every day to drive our children from one end of Newton to another. I don’t know of any alternatives and even with carpools, there is a lot of driving. To/from sports or friend’s houses or after school events. This summer for example, many athletes had to go to NSHS three different times in one day for meetings and practices.
Walking to the grocery store is great, but we still have many other needs within our city limits that require us to “get our kids from here to there”.
The traffic patterns on key roads in Newton appear to be changing (not for the better). Traffic on Beacon St now backs up from four corners to Zervas. Route 9 is bumper to bumper East bound every morning and evening. Comm ave has major back-ups. The list goes on.
I would LOVE to have my kids bike more but most roads in Newton do not have safe bike lanes. The “lime bike solution” does not appear to address much if any of this challenge.
Thank you and hopefully I can get some ideas to use for my own family from this discussion.
@Bryan, thank you for the 411 on accessory apartments. Prior to the amendment of the ordinance, accessory apartments were limited to less than 10% of the residences and required large buildings and large lots. The major accomplishment of our new ordinance is that residents citywide are now able to convert their homes to accessory apartments either administratively or through a special permit. It only took me 14 years, but we finally did it.