In a thread deep within the comments I was essentially told to leave Newton and move to a place that has more housing. In truth, I live in within the municipal borders of Newton, but my life doesn’t stop there. I live in the Greater Boston area. We all do. My neighbors live next door, and they live in Fort Point. They’re young, they’re old, they’re going through school. I think that within our municipal borders, which happen to have great proximity to the job growth of downtown, we have the chance to add more housing. Plus, I believe that more people add more vibrancy to our closer community. But I also offer this:
The idea that Newton, and Newton alone, might get to vote on this development of regional significance is the entire problem of housing development in a nutshell. https://t.co/9VpLVCVlhx
— Sandy Johnston (@sandypsj) January 3, 2020
I am sorry to hear that you or anyone would be told to leave Newton. Regardless of whether you view our housing crisis as a regional or city problem, you have every right to post your comments here. I am ashamed that we have citizens of Newton who have turned housing into a nasty, name-calling fight. Please don’t leave Newton – I value your comments.
Chuck,
While I, too, value your comments, we should also value the positions expressed by others who are opposed to injecting vast dense new housing on the already overwhelmingly congested Needham Street — to house workers supposedly seeking a better commute to Boston — when vast new housing developments have been built and are being planned in better suited, more local welcoming and better downtown Boston accessed sites.
And I believe many would agree with me that decisions over the physicality of our local neighborhoods should not be turned over to farther away bureaucrats and politicians.
And finally, what you term the vibrancy of crowds, others may feel is simply further congestion and deterrents to the physical surroundings and qualities which are treasured in Newton and sought to be preserved by many of its residents.
As I don’t read all that is written on Village 14, I am uncertain what this is all about. I will say, though, that even if I disagree with someone’s opinion on the virtues of the large developments underway in Newton, I acknowledge that well-intentioned and honorable people have the right to disagree. Let’s avoid the tribalism so prevalent in the nation at-large. Admittedly, it’s hard to when our national role model castigates anyone daring to challenge his views and behavior in any way.
I continue to wonder if the city gathers information on the socio-economic and ethnic/racial make-up of the new residents at Austin Street (I’d want the same report from Northland if it goes through). It seems to me that the advocates of the large developments offer three reasons for them: a shortage of housing in greater Boston; the benefits to the environment of high-density housing, as opposed to suburban sprawl; and greater diversity among those living here socio-economically and so forth. These objectives are all laudable. I still fear, however, that these projects are too grand in scale for Newton’s infrastructure to sustain.
I’d also like to see proof that the third goal, diversity, which I enthusiastically support, is actually coming to pass at these projects. Is it worth overcrowding and the resultant strain on the city’s resources if we are importing only more of the same?
Will the city collect such data at Austin Street, the various Washington Street developments, and the proposed Northland? I’ve never gotten a straight answer.
@Jim: “when vast new housing developments have been built and are being planned in better suited, more local welcoming and better downtown Boston accessed sites.”
But we ARE that site. We ARE close to downtown. We ARE near transit. Why aren’t we welcoming? Are we truly those people who say “housing is great, as long as it’s not built here?” I like to think we’re more progressive than that.
The problem is “Greater Boston” doesn’t mean anything outside of a nebulous definition of area around the city itself. You (and Greg, Sean, et al) aren’t necessarily wrong that we have a regional housing crisis, but we don’t have a regional housing authority or any formal group to plan out housing/infrastructure and at a local level what’s in Boston’s best interests doesn’t necessarily align with Newton’s best interests.
Boston (and Cambridge) both have a significant commercial tax base but don’t have the housing to fully support and grow that base. Newton (and Wellesley, Brookline et al.) has density to spare for housing but lack the level of commercial taxes that Boston and Cambridge have. So on one hand it would be -great- for Boston if we were go full on density as that alleviates their housing issues but on the other hand that also means Newton gets saddled with all the additional costs without Boston’s commercial tax base to tap into. So it effectively becomes a Mexican Standoff between “We need to build more housing in Newton to get the MBTA/state to improve infrastructure” and “Screw that, fix the MBTA in Newton first and -then- we talk about density”.
If Riverside and Washington St were being proposed alongside a commitment to transform the Commuter Rail into the Indigo Line then that completely transforms the situation from “We need to fix Boston’s problems and maybe we’ll get something later” to “We help fix Boston’s problems and we’re getting desperately needed transportation improvements in exchange”. But we don’t have that, instead we have the MBTA, Boston, Newton and every other city in a silo doing their own thing.
So in regards to Sandy’s tweet – if this is so regionally significant then will Boston or the state be funneling back some of that commercial tax revenue to help support the city adding housing density for people to commute into Boston? Is there any commitment around improving the D line to not take 40+ minutes to get into the city? Or is the idea that Newton’s rich so we should just be shouldering all of the costs ourselves while Boston gets all the attention for infrastructure? When the MBTA attended one of the Riverside meetings the question was asked whether additional revenue from the Riverside development would be committed to improve service in Newton and they gave a long and diplomatic response that amounted to “Of course not”. So.. we’re going to build a huge residential development at Riverside so.. The MBTA can funnel those increased funds to support Boston’s inner core infrastructure?
If this is a regional crisis then there has to be a regional plan that ties in all of the infrastructure services so that they’re done in parallel. Don’t tell us how we need to add density to solve Boston’s problem, tell us how adding density is going to drive improvements we need in Newton like true rapid transit on the CR in addition to solving Boston’s housing problem. And tie that into the ask so we know we’re not going to be left high and dry after Riverside, Northland and Washington St have been built out.
As it stands now Newton and Newton alone is going be shouldering the consequences of Northland, so yes, Newton alone will be voting on this referendum. Just like we don’t get a vote on what Boston or Weston does. Part of the problem is that if Boston was properly sized it would extend out to the 128 line and the commercial tax base of the inner core could flex to support development along the edge. But we don’t have that and we don’t have a formal regional authority, so what’s the path forward to balance out Newton’s needs vs the region as a whole?
@Bob To understand the full impact of the new developments on diversity you may need to look beyond the demographics of who moves into the new units, but also who look at who moves into the places they moved from much like what happens when expensive housing is built.
https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/06/housing-supply-debate-affordable-home-prices-rent-yimby/591061/
Chuck,
As examples, such developments in Watertown, Allston, Brighton, etc. are welcomed by their neighborhoods, closer to and/or better accessed to Downtown Boston — and avoid the micro problem/congestion of the totally lacking Needham Street.
Insofar as why we’re not so welcoming of such vast new development on Needham Street, as I previously stated — good or bad — many here don’t want the “further congestion and deterrents to the physical surroundings and qualities which are treasured in Newton and sought to be preserved by many of its residents.”
Call that “anti-progressive” or whatever, it is what it is — hence the referendum.
Thanks to Alicia Bowman for the link to an article that holds that when wealthy people vacate their apartments or houses, 65% of the new occupants of their former residences may be of more moderate income.
In that limited sense, these new developments create more affordable housing second-hand, i.e. elsewhere. As the author admits, however, more study of the phenomenon is required. In addition, that report does little to suggest that our developments will create more diversity in Newton, a supposed goal.
The fear remains that instead these projects will sequester even greater wealth in the Garden City. That might be reassuring for those seeking greater tax revenues (reference the article in Village 14 that suggested that inhibiting the tear-down/McMansion phenomenon would damage Newton’s tax base going forward). For those of us who remember, however, when Upper Falls, Thompsonville, and Nonantum were mostly working class neighborhoods, and Oak Hill Park the place for young families to purchase their first suburban home, the increasing affluence is accompanied by a certain sadness.
I guess we’ll find out the answers in the next decade, if not earlier.
@Chuck: “But we ARE that site. We ARE close to downtown. We ARE near transit”
Being near transit doesn’t equate to having RELIABLE Transit to ensure that our roads do not become even more heavily congested.
In building these new expensive units are we really creating new opportunities for people of lesser means to give us economic diversity or are we just providing housing for more of the same ? Are we moving wealthy down-sizers to these units to have equally wealthy people buy their homes? Especially in a City where many of the smaller Starter type homes have been turned into much bigger homes. The lower end inventory has shrunk.
Are we providing housing for Boston’s workers (making good salaries in order to pay the rents) and not opening opportunities for those seniors with limited economic means to stay in our city ?
This is what I struggle with.
STANDING OVATION for @Patrick Butara’s post. Should be pasted into every post on housing on V14.
1. Who is Sandy Johnson and why should (anyone) care?
2. I live in Newton and not Boston and have non interest in being Boston’s support system for housing while they get all the benefits of commercial tax rates. (Go Patriots, Celtics and Sox!)
3. @Chuck, while we do not agree On many topics, no one should ask you to leave. Stay, brother!
I think it’s my comment that you’re referring to…but you never answered.
The question, if you want to live in a dense urban (or dense suburban) environment, why have you chosen to settle in Newton?
I’m not “telling” you to move to Somerville. I’m asking why you don’t?
I grew up in Newton and settled back in Newton to raise a family. My brother has chosen to raise his family in Somerville. They love the vibrancy of that city. I love the scale and density of Newton. We’re both really happy with our own choice…and don’t fully understand the other’s.
My POV is that Newton is darned close to perfect and I don’t really understand the motivations of those who wish to make sweeping changes.
What Donald Ross said.
Agree with Amy. The public transit is really rough. The green line is slow, the commuter rail is only for people who work inbound during traditional business hours, there is really no public transportation that goes north/south/west, and there is no good way to get to Cambridge.
Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse by building as if we have a reasonable alternative to cars?
Personally, I live in Newton because when we were looking for a house we considered 2 things: our commute and the schools.
We wanted a more urban environment, but were priced out of Brookline.
We put in at least two offers on houses in Arlington and Belmont within a one mile walk of Alewife. At the time the property values were comparable or even lower than Newton, but offset by higher property taxes.
I researched the states school lottery requirements, and we considered renting within the “walk zone” of several (desirable) elementary schools in Boston and Cambridge.
We toured homes in Winchester and Lexington, but there was nothing around them but other homes. We would have been a one car per adult family, ferrying the kid (later to be kids) everywhere.
So why don’t I live somewhere more urban? Because, at the time, comparable property in Brookline cost twice as much, and even a condo of the same SF would have been 150% of what we paid (per month) for a single family house in Newton.
I can still take the train to work. My kid (now in middle school) can meet and hang out with his friends at Tom’s pizza or Starbucks(!), and I’ve texted him from work to walk to the grocery store if we’re missing 1 ingredient for dinner. But we have to get in a car for most dates (we have one restaurant, and Moody Street is too far to walk) , or to drop the sitter off, or get to a bookshop.
I have friends that are trying to revolutionize gifted education in the Somerville schools. (And I have friends that have given up on those same schools and are paying for private school). They wanted to stay in an urban area and are fighting their local government over the schools. I moved to a more suburban government and get into arguments on the internet trying to promote making it more urban.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
TL;DR I don’t live in a more urban community because more urban areas with comparable schools are way more expensive than Newton.
(As always, I speak only for myself and this is my experience and my opinions)
@Anne
Nailed it.
But have we considered whether it is possible to build a community with:
(1) great schools;
(2) vibrant city density;
(3) affordability?
I postulate that it is not possible. Can you imagine what housing prices would be in Somerville if it had Newton (or Brookline) quality schools? Can you maintain the quality of education in Newton if you build up to Brookline density?
I don’t think you can. You need to make choices about what you value and invest against those choices.
Why I live here is actually irrelevant. And we can’t just let our community sit, stuck in whatever year we’re in. That’s not a realistic expectation.
Yes, our schools are good, or at least have a good reputation. And there are a lot of factors that make that happen, a big one is us. Other communities spend as much as we do per child (some spend more). Even Waltham. Other communities have new buildings and great teachers. Other communities have comparable class sizes. But they don’t have the parents that we do here.
One coach on the robotics team recently joked that you could be a science teacher discussing a particular scientific concept and a student could be child of the scientist who discovered it.
The parents here clog the halls at parent information nights and make it so you need to act fast to get a parent/ teacher conference. We’re involved, in part, because we have the time to be involved. Part of this is the types of jobs we have (salaried, ability to be remote, not shift work), and some is our proximity to jobs (being able to make it home for a 6pm parent meeting). This doesn’t happen in every community.
When MassChallenge was in Newton they asked how to access the business community of the city. The answer was pretty simple: start coaching kids sports. VCs are on the soccer field, top executives are watching their kids play baseball, softball, lacrosse and hockey. If you want to reach the best and brightest of Newton then focus on the kids.
We can increase our density and have the schools because of the culture we provide as its residents.
Also, as far as transportation goes, these homes are going to get built, but they’re going to get built further out. The people living there, because they don’t have transportation, are going to drive, and they’re going to drive right through Newton. We don’t solve our traffic problem by not building, we just make it worse.
Then, as the MBTA looks to invest, they’ll find the places that have the most impact. We need to be that place. And finally, if you really are committed to making transportation better in this state, then please LOBBY TO RAISE THE GAS TAX. It’s too low, it encourages driving and starves the broader transportation system of what it needs to grow.
@Matt: click on the Twitter link in the post and you’ll see exactly who Sandy is. My question to her would be why she thinks anyone other than the residents of Newton should be voting on matters that affect the residents of Newton. After reading through some of her twitter feed, I think I know the answer to that…I just disagree. She lives in JP, so why should she have any say on what is built in Newton? I don’t live in JP, so I have no expectation that I should have a say in what residents of JP need to build in JP. I have heard this “regional authority to decide on zoning” idea thrown out there by a couple of commenters who think Newton isn’t progressive enough. On that idea too I disagree with the proponents. Just because everyone in Newton isn’t as progressive as some would like doesn’t make them bad people. They are just people with different ideas on how the changes to the city should happen.
IndependentMan
Once you give ‘regional control’ of zoning.. i guess eminent domain would be a very effective tool for them
.. this is how newton was split in half for ghe mass pike.
Razing single family homes by eminent domain so that a large apartment complex can be put in place. Once you have developers bankrolling politicians, could this really happen?
@Chuck
I wholeheartedly agree that understanding why you, specifically, live here is not relevant. I am interested in understanding why, generally, people who choose Newton as the place to settle then feel compelled to make it feel like another community.
Anne provided a very rational explanation that (I’ll paraphrase) she didn’t want to settle in Newton, but it was the best she could afford and she’s hoping that it will evolve to look more like the kind of place that she was originally looking for. My perspective is that this is unfair to those of us who chose to settle in Newton because we love it the way that it is, but c’est la vie in a democratic and capitalist system.
Where you and I are in total agreement is in the inadequate farce that is the Massachusetts state gasoline tax. The tax raises a total of something like $800M a year, which does not *begin* to effectively offset the public costs (pollution, highway construction and maintenance, plowing, parking, traffic) created by a car-centric culture. This is probably the third biggest policy mistake of the Postwar era (after healthcare and education funding). I’d like to see the gas tax raised 20x to ~$5.00/gallon with the proceeds supporting a dramatically subsidized public transit system…but this is really a topic for another thread.
“My POV is that Newton is darned close to perfect and I don’t really understand the motivations of those who wish to make sweeping changes.”
Is it really “perfect” that a starter home in Newton is $1.1 MILLION dollars? That’s, frankly, obscene.
Nobody can afford that except 0.0001%ers, with huge inherited wealth. Though maybe that’s really the objection – letting middle class people into Newton instead of the obscenely rich.
@tall: no inherited wealth here. Grew up in one of the poorest cities in the state, lived 30 miles outside of Boston for years until we saved enough to move to Newton and bought our “starter house” with our hard earned money. Don’t stereotype everyone in Newton, we are a diverse group.