Newtonville resident Amy Dain wondered whatever happened to an old factory in her neighborhood.
The abandoned factory of my childhood memories was not like nineteenth century riverfront factories, brick splendor punctuated by regular windows. It was also no concrete box of the modern era. It was all murky glass, pre-modern, ghostly. I recall no signs on the building, no indication of what was fabricated within. It was so out of place that I questioned if I had made it up. Google proved useless to answer.
What Dain discovered as she tried to find out what happened unearthed a public debate — and zoning decisions — that sound familiar today.
Newton needed to decide what could replace the factory, on the park, next to an excellent elementary school, and a short walk to CVS and the commuter rail. One suggestion was townhouses. From a regional perspective, this is the perfect location for multifamily housing.
From a local perspective, though, the housing would bring new kids to the school system, perhaps more than the system was ready to accommodate. And while some new residents would likely commute by train, others would drive, potentially to exacerbate rush hour headaches. So, the city permitted….
Find out what happened a column Dain wrote for Commonwealth Magazine.
I believe that Amy is referring to Norwood Ave in Newtonville and from my jogging days in the 80’s I recall that there were concrete foundations excavated and constructed for townhouses on the north side of the street, lying there incomplete for quite some time until they were replaced with the grass and parking in conjunction with the large Cabot Park Village independent senior living facility. So I’m thinking there were economic reasons why the townhouses were abandoned by the developer and replaced with the senior facility, not an attempt to exclude townhouses.
But having said this, that senior living facility is both dense development and serves an important segment of our community –yet Amy seems to lament that “decisions like this, repeated in location after location, limit housing options for people not seeking senior-oriented or single family housing.” Certainly there is need, actually growing need, for these senior facilities, especially for senior Newtonites who prefer to remain in Newton. And that situation is likely replicated throughout the metro area. Perhaps the real problem is not senior facilities sited in order to exclude other multi family housing, but divvying up the metro area into arbitrary boundaries, where some cities/towns have more dense housing opportunities and some cities/towns have less. I don’t see why every city/town needs or needs be mandated a complete array of housing types.
If residents in, say, Wayland or Newton prefer larger single family lots, and prefer that it stay that way, and the zoning reflects this, that seems their freedom if the majority so prefers; because other adjacent or nearby cities or towns do afford that more dense and multi housing development — to accommodate that preference and need as well.
“If residents in, say, Wayland or Newton prefer larger single family lots, and prefer that it stay that way, and the zoning reflects this, that seems their freedom if the majority so prefers”
Amy addresses the danger in that logic when she says “Zoning has reinforced social segregation. Zoning often works to shut the disenfranchised out from enjoying public goods shared by the privileged.”
If those with means put up walls around their community (even if those walls are paper) then you are moving into an area of exclusion as opposed to inclusion. Larger single-family lots have been used to keep people out of communities, especially here in the Boston area. We can’t deny that legacy and just think that it’s a decision without consequence. Just because the communities have the right to exclude others doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
Chuck, I guess I’m disenfranchised too, because I can’t afford to buy a home on, say, Nantucket, or Palm Beach.
At least, at the end of your comment, you seem to acknowledge “the right” to enact zoning. And BTW, any zoning on the basis of race is illegal, unconstitutional, and would immediately be thrown out by any federal court.
I grew up in a suburban New York community in which villages were created* to enact zoning as a way to keep Orthodox Jewish families from building housing. Many communities got away with it, despite the fact that everyone in town knew why these villages were being created. One village wasn’t as careful and the people creating it openly discussed the rationale behind their plans. It resulted in a court battle that the Orthodox Jewish communities eventually won.
People can be very good at creating barriers for others without showing their full intentions.
* In New York, a village is a specific municipal designation that exists within a town which is within a county. It’s a Russian Nesting Doll of elections and regulations.
And the problem you identify on Nantucket isn’t small. For year rounders (with a median income of $87,000) the problem of housing is huge. Nantucket needs to find a way to house service workers:
https://www.capeandislands.org/post/many-year-round-nantucket-renters-housing-getting-harder-and-harder-find#stream/0
So yes, people ARE being disenfranchised there as well.
Chuck,
Nantucket is unique in being an island, with no ready access to adjacent less costly areas. But even there, individuals unable to afford the island (such as me) would have to select somewhere else to live — so I guess I’m “disenfranchised” too as I said above. Insofar as Island service workers, if current Nantucket residents are in need, THEY can elect at their option, to enact or arrange for adjustments to serve THEIR needs. The point, not everyone can afford otherwise to live on Nantucket. Should the island be COMPELLED to zone to accommodate all income levels?
And Chuck, I’m curious how the New York suburban community you cite zoned specifically to keep out Orthodox Jewish housing? Did they zone to prohibit exterior doors with mezuzahs?
It’s been a while so I can’t recall all the specifics, but part of it was limiting density. A lot of the Ultra Orthodox neighborhoods were more dense to make walking to synagogue easier. By requiring larger lot sizes it kept much of the development favored by that particular community out.
And as I said above, having the ability to do something legally doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Nantucket is an island, the people there have few choices. Newton is NOT an island. We can do something to help the Greater Boston housing crisis. And yes, it’s a crisis. Boston is doing most of the work while communities like Newton, Brookline, Weston and other wealthy neighborhoods freeload. We benefit greatly by our proximity to Boston, we need to help with the housing issues as well.
Chuck,
So Newton, Brookline and Weston are “freeloading” from Boston unless they endeavor to become more like Chelsea, Lawrence or Lynn?
Boston is over-developing its downtown area in flood prone and future flood prone areas with offices and high priced condominiums.
In return, the mayors of surrounding towns agreed to build housing to help the “crisis” of supplying housing for the workers at these new buildings. And Boston gets the higher commercial tax revenues.
And in 20 years, we will all get to bail out ( pun intended) the flooded downtown areas with taxpayer money. Privatized profits, socialized costs.