A editorial in today’s Globe and a column by Newton resident Amy Dain in Commonwealth both argue for making personal sacrifices to address the region’s housing crisis, including in communities like Newton and along I-95.
From the Globe Editorial Board:
Massachusetts is fortunate to have a growing economy, but its ability to house the workers and families who are at the core of maintaining that growth continues to worsen. The demand for housing that ordinary families can actually afford in a tight market is a looming problem for the communities around Greater Boston and elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
That’s why everyone needs to take one for the team when it comes to the housing crisis: it’s a shared responsibility of the private sector and government.
And from Amy Dain in Commonwealth:
The suburbs are over-restricting development, home prices are escalating, and traffic is still stealing family dinners and putting jobs at risk.
What has garnered less attention is Greater Boston’s plan for growth — what the plan is, and what it should be. No place in Greater Boston is aching more for attention — for leadership and a plan — than the Route 128 corridor, the thrumming artery of Greater Boston’s geographic center.
How many on the Globe Editorial Board actually live in Newton?
I canceled my subscription 8 years ago and I have never regretted that decision.
What kinds of personal sacrifices do they suggest? (Like Peter, I don’t subscribe and therefore face a firewall.)
I can’t imagine why policies to encourage affordable housing would require sacrifice. Are the Globe editorial writers suggesting, for example, that the character of neighborhoods will have to change?
Amy’s piece, in contrast, does not seem to suggest sacrifices so much as thoughtful planning. Hard to disagree with that.
(By the way, I do donate to Commonwealth Magazine and would encourage others to do so, too. They have consistently high quality, timely reporting. They publish a wide variety of thoughtful opinion pieces. And, they have no firewall.)
Paul, I don’t know where the words “personal sacrifice” came from because I cannot find them in the editorial. There were no suggestions about changing neighborhoods.
The suggestions involved home rule petitions that would allow municipalities to charge a 2% additional tax on real estate transfers of more than $2 million with the taxes raised going into a fund to build more affordable housing.
Mayor first. Rezone her street to R3
Paul Levy asks: “Are the Globe editorial writers suggesting, for example, that the character of neighborhoods will have to change?”
Answer: Yes
Jim, No.
Well those first four comments are embarrassing. So much for showing a little compassion for the earthlings among us who can’t afford or find decent housing.
Greg, I don’t think long-term planning is going to be made based on compassion, just as good business policy isn’t based on compassion.
Results need to be realistically win-win to be politically popular (or even possibly viable). The benefits need to come quickly enough so that people see benefits relatively quickly.
I didn’t read the Globe piece because I’m not a subscriber, but Commonwealth piece only briefly tips its hat to transit. It talks about building in places “well-served” by transit. The problem is that in the suburbs, arguably no place is “well-served” by transit to such an extent that housing skeptics can see a bright future ten years down the road and take a leap of faith. Without faith that transit will improve over time, fear and doubt overwhelm the public discussion.
Since almost all transit happens at the state level in Massachusetts, the state’s inability to execute at a skeptic-vanquishing level holds hostage any visionary planning at the municipal level.
I believe our existing transportation system and municipal resources can support a higher density that can improve the lives of both new and existing residents. However, it’s much harder to make the case to the general public without the state stepping up. Conversely, I believe a lot of people will buy in to higher density and modern planning if there were a transformative transportation plan. Just look at the Red Line extension for Somerville (but even then with caution, ala Arlington).
@ Greg you have your own personal agenda which sometimes doesn’t align with the thinking of the rest of us.
I just finished reading the January issue of the Oak Hill Newsletter and their editorial is Northland is too big.
I hate to burst your bubble Greg but just about everyone I talk with is voting NO.
@Peter: Your track record as a political prognosticator isn’t very good but that’s besides the point. The point is we as a community, as a society, should be willing to make sacrifices to accommodate more people. Whether voters will see it that way is a separate topic.
@Mike: You’re right, of course, to point out the connection between adding housing and transportation. Among the sacrifices that we should be willing to make as a society is the willingness to pay more to address congestion, in the form of higher gas taxes, congestion pricing, etc. so we can address our current needs and the needs of denser communities. We should also be willing to sacrifice car lanes to buses and bikes, even if we never use the bus or bike, etc.
P.S. Paul and you really should subscribe to the Globe. They are the only ones covering Newton and our region with depth and integrity. Robust journalism is essential to every democracy. Add it to your list of sacrifices.
Which “woke” newton city councilor is going to push for at least doubling the housing density around waban and Newton centre T?
Why aren’t the residents of Waban hanging their heads in shame and demanding it?
Btw.. what sacrifices us Boston making? A 50 story zoning in their historic districts could build at least 50k units. Eminent domain of the leafy campuses of harvard and mit could net another 20k…
There’s a huge list of affluent locations in Boston that could sacrifice before Newton should have to help solve the housing crisis they created
Bugek,
There’s a heck of a lot of residential development happening in Boston. universalhub.com is the luminary site for local news reporting, and it covers development more than any other source.
https://www.universalhub.com/development/neighborhoods
That generally doesn’t include the neighborhood development corporations, which develop hundreds of units each. For example:
http://www.fenwaycdc.org/housing/
JPNDC: https://jpndc.org/affordable-housing/
https://jpndc.org/real-estate-portfolio/real-estate-portfolio-in-the-pipeline/
(447 affordable elderly, family and supportive housing, 151 homes for first-time homebuyers, 99 units of new construction and renovation of 400 apartments in the pipeline, 100% affordable)
and so on.
“Eminent domain of the leafy campuses of harvard and mit could net another 20k…”
You do know that Harvard and MIT are in Cambridge, right?
However, see the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingtrust
Which has “created or preserved 3,075 homes using Trust funding”. For market rate housing, there are hundreds of units being built in Kendall Square, including graduate housing space for MIT that will take pressure off the local community. Kendall Square is already one of the densest locations in the area.
And how many housing units has Newton added in the last ten years?
@mike,
There is a crisis when Boston is fully built out and cannot build vertically anymore. We are no where near that point.
The crisis is housing ‘commutable’ distance to Boston, towards the west there is no housing crisis.
Fix the abysmal public transportation or encourage companies to create offices outside downtown and there is no ‘crisis’
BTW, the main cause of the elevated house prices is the artificially low interest rates. This will come to pass …
The absolute worst scenario is building too much housing and hitting a recession. Large number of homes with negative equity creates a downward spiral. This is what happenes when politicians get to decide the number of units…
Greg,
Here would seem to be your perfect solution both to the “housing crisis” and the “affordability crisis” (without the costly tearing down of the existing stock of single family homes throughout Newton) since, as you reiterate, “everyone needs to take one for the team”:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90386799/this-startup-wants-to-put-a-free-tiny-house-in-your-backyard
Would you advocate zoning be revised to permit this? If not, why not?
Jim, where did you get the idea that anyone wants “the costly tearing down of the existing stock of single family homes throughout Newton?”
@Greg “The lady doth protest too much, me thinks”. To quote the latest Oak Hill Newsletter:
“Northland’s plan is not bad; it’s just too big”. “The 140 affordable units at Northland will be offered at a discounted rate but do not confuse that with actual affordability”. “Paying slightly below Newton’s average is not the same thing as moderate or low-income housing”.
I’ll pose the identical questions to Mike Halle, along with Greg’s admonition of those questioning “making personal sacrifices” as not “showing a little compassion for the earthlings among us who can’t afford or find decent housing.”
>So much for showing a little compassion for the earthlings among us who can’t afford or find decent housing.
Here’s how Larry Gottesdiener and Northland treat those less fortunate (they push them out to build luxury units): https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Judge-refuses-to-remove-claims-against-Northland-13164921.php
Newton should NOT be subsidizing billionaire land investors at taxpayers expense! By upzoning Gottesdiener’s land, we are increasing his real estate holdings by millions, all at the cost of taxpayers–completely ludicrous!
@Bugek –
I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder Bugek. It’s also about what your view of our city is.
If you view Newton as strictly a wealthy bedroom community then whatever the rents/prices rise to are immaterial . No matter what they rise to that’s just “the market” and there is no crisis.
If you view Newton as a city with a broad range of incomes and housing to go with it – which is what it has historically always been, then we definitely have a housing crisis, as does the entire greater Boston area.
Here are a few random facts from Zillow today:
Annual Salary at Ma minimum wage = $24K
Top household wage of the bottom 2/5 of incomes $45K
Cheapest 2 bedroom rental listed at the moment – 21K ($1750/month)
Average Newton rental price – 31k ($2563/month)
Cheapest 2 bedroom price – $355K
Average Newton home price – 1.1 M
So if we we’re willing to say that anybody should be willing to pay half of their gross income in rent then that says that the bottom 2/5 of the entire population is absolutely and completely priced out of Newton.
Is that a crisis? Not if you’re willing to accept that as normal and not if you’re OK with Newton turning into that kind of town – once again, that’s something Newton has never been until recently.
To those who talk about preserving the character of the town, I’d remind you that housing a broad range of incomes has always been an extremely important part of Newton’s character and its nearly gone.
@jerry
People not being able to afford to live in an affluent suburb does not meet my personal definition of “crisis”. There are affordable home, but because of the horrible transportation a hour commute is 2 hours.
I think the following are crisis
– student tuition. Prices crazy for everyone!
– the mbta is not reliable and slow. People cannot get to work on time
– the gap between low wage earners and high earners. Need middle class jobs
– hospital and insurance bills are insane
OK, got it Bugek. You’re OK with the new overhauled character of Newton.
There are a number of old guys in my neighborhood who worked for the City – just regular jobs in DPW, etc. That’s pretty much over now. Today those folks today need to live an hour west of here.
There are definitely plenty of folks like Bugek who are OK with that but that’s an extreme shift in the character of the city, for the worse. Some people like gated communities. I’m not one of them.
@bugek – you’re completely ignoring Jerry’s point that historically Newton has not been solely for the affluent. While prices were already getting steeper when I moved here 20 years ago, I’m on a street that has multi-family houses and rentals, and is not high income. I’m sad that I could not possibly afford to move here these days.
One of the things I liked about Newton was that it was much less financially homogeneous than the affluent suburb where I lived when I was married. Many of us want to preserve the character of the Newton we moved to, not the unaffordable place it’s become.
Jerry,
Other than bemoaning the lack of affordable housing in Newton, what specific, concrete and realistically feasible and EFFECTIVE actions do you urge be taken?
I offered a suggestion, above, that being, the construction and placement of “tiny houses” in backyards of single family homes. Before this suggestion is shrugged off, this type of housing is already appealing and attractive to a certain growing segment of the population (including those seeking simplicity in terms of accumulation of encumbering stuff). Just google “tiny houses”.
(I previously queried Greg and Mike Halle on this, as they’re more than strenuous advocates for much needed (“crisis” level) affordable housing throughout Newton, but it appears they may be reluctant, at least thus far, to offer an opinion on this.)
@meredith
Can you name any areas of metro boston that are not crime ridden which havent changed (become more expensive)
I’m sure there are plenty of areas where there are few jobs which have the same affordability characteristics as 30 years ago.
If you want a growing job market, its unrealistic to expect areas to be preserved in terms of similar affordability. As things become more desirable, they become more expensive… its just a fact of life…
In fact, could you name any place on earth which has created increase in wages and excellent job market but has managed to keep the same affordability 3 decades earlier? Perhaps we are asking for the impossible
To add housing to Newton with the expectation that density will force transit improvements is to be putting the cart before the horse.
HistoricallyNewton evolved from a farming community to a suburban escape because there was an existing railroad that allowed Wealthier urban workers to find a respite in living here. They bought their Mc Mansions of the time and they brought their bakers, shoemakers, plumbers etc with them to support daily life here. There was, once upon a time, a much more diverse community than we have today.
Until transit is changed from its third world status to a faster more efficient system, development will not happen,.. at least the Northlands we are being confronted with.
And to expect the reemergence of the plumbers, firemen, grocery workers among our midst is wishful thinking when confronted with rents at $4,800 for a two bedroom apartment. We have Amazon, Whole Foods, Panera Breads etc. We throw away our shoes, we buy fruit from Chile, we drive our SUVs to the supermarket, we don’t have the butcher, baker, candlestick maker of yesteryear. That’s life in the suburbs today.
Appreciate what we have been entrusted with, husband it, and call for a radical hike in the gasoline tax. ( $8-$10 / gallon in Europe). When that happens things will change but for the moment there is little incentive for change.
@ Jm Epstein,
Re “ tiny houses “. Haven’t you heard about mobile homes? Is that what you’d like to see in your neighbors yard? Yup, I’m a NIMBY.
Blueprint,
I intentionally stayed away from traditional mobile homes for the very reasons which is implied in your comment.
These “tiny houses” can be very aesthetic and carefully architecturally designed from within to cleverly maximize space.
In any event, it’s not what I would prefer to see — but I’m offering this suggestion to see what the ardent housing and affordability proponents opine here in view of, as they say, the “crisis’ — maintaining that we all must do our part.
So far “crickets” — so I’d say those like Greg R. and Mike H. appear to be nothing more than talk, especially as they offer no concrete on the ground actual alternatives, including any which can come anywhere close to tackling the affordability and site availability problems which can be met with my suggestion.
If you care about housing in Greater Boston and want to “take one for the team”, it is better to donate to the Pine Street Inn. In a free marketplace, “taking one for the team” doesn’t help the most vulnerable; it subsidizes others who aren’t willing to make the same sacrifice as you.
@Michael Singer – re: “donate to the Pine Street Inn”. Yes, by all means do.
However ‘accept widespread homelessness as the new normal’ doesn’t sound like much of a housing policy.
Jim,
Posting a new pet idea on a blog at 10PM, calling out individuals to reply, and when they haven’t done so by 315AM accusing them of being “just talk” is simply not an example of the kind of respectful dialog this city needs.
We are all neighbors here. We can all do better.
“HistoricallyNewton evolved from a farming community to a suburban escape because there was an existing railroad that allowed Wealthier urban workers to find a respite in living here.”
In some places… sure. Not in others.
I live on a street that first shows up on maps in the mid 19th century, but didn’t really get built until the 1910s when it was divided up. Half the street went up between then and the 1930s or so, the other came after WWII in the postwar boom. These weren’t big McMansions, but smaller houses for working people. My house was built on a remainder piece of land by a family from Waltham who were not wealthy and not escaping Boston on the train. They paid $2500 in 1911 to Sears for plans and lumber that were then turned into a home. Historically, Sears homes were built near railroads because it was the easiest way to get the lumber delivered from the warehouse in Chicago.
In my 1800 sq. ft. Craftsman Cape, at least 7 people lived according to the 1940 census (possibly 9). I have 5 and it’s cramped. I can’t imagine 7.
In the 1950s my mother’s family moved from Roxbury to Newton (read Death of an American Jewish Community for the basic history on this). They weren’t wealthy, quite far from it. Part of her family bought a two-family together and lived with 5 kids and 4 adults. My grandparents bought a two-family in Newton Centre before the trolly kicked off and rented the other half.
Nonantum was built, effectively, as a factory town, with the housing supporting the factories, which is exactly what you see in Waltham around the mills there. Upper Falls is the same.
No, Newton wasn’t always a wealthy community. When I moved into my home my street was filled with people who had blue collar jobs or were on a fixed income. Most are gone, some remain, but we can’t pretend that Newton has always been wealthy throughout. Yes, there have always been wealthy enclaves (W. Newton Hill, Waban, Chestnut Hill, etc.) but that’s not the whole city.
If newton were really serious about keeping prices down, the council should ban any form of high end housing.
The building must be built to code but interior finishes, appliances and amenities must be bare bones below a specified cost.
This will prevent the developer from tacking on 100k-200k to the sales prices and extra $800 to rents..
I also suggest newton zoning allow lot splitting ANY lot… a private homeowner can decide if they want to “take one for the team” and sell their home in waban so a developer can build 2 or 3 homes in its place.
@Bugek: Have you ever taken a look around Newton? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that 100% of the jobs in Greater Boston are in Boston proper. They aren’t. There are many, many thousands of jobs here in Newton, from our smallest restaurants and shops and doctors and dentists to tech and life sciences jobs to health and financial services. And don’t forget the thousands of jobs at our hotels, colleges, Newton-Wellesley, other non-profits and the city. Newton is more than a bedroom community. The folks who work in these places need a place to live. You seem to want them to live in Boston only. That’s both unrealistic and selfish.
@Jim, Everything Mike Hall said. Also, I had no idea you were asking me a question because I stopped reading your comments because you are either painfully redundant or always taking conversations off topic.
But of course we should look at accessory units as part of the solution to our housing needs but it’s not going to be enough to meet the demand, we’ll still need multi-family housing too. Whether they’re constructed onsite or offsite should be left to the property owner.
Where’s the line between “sacrifice” and “sucker”?
These are massive number of market rate (e.g. luxury) apartments with about 17% what I’ll call “inflated affordable” based on Newton’s median area income.
Boston is making hand over fist with a large commercial tax base. Are they send money back to acquire Webster Woods, build NewCal or supplement funding for Newton’s schools?
@Matt please read the economic development study that the city paid for. In it, it clearly states that part of our solution to bringing in additional business is to vary our housing stock. Yes, we want affordability as part of that, but we need different types of housing other than just a single family homes. We are over saturated in that area.
It also says that we need to look for opportunities to increase our class A commercial property, especially along the desirable places like I-95/128. I think you know my opinions on this part. There are other places where we can make incremental changes, but we need to take the opportunities where they arise.
Yes, we need to encourage accessory apartments. Yes we need affordable housing. Yes we need the housing offered at Northland and Riverside and Dunstan and on California Street. Yes we need more rentals.
But… in order to have any impact on our commercial tax base we will need to build the equivalent of TWO Wells Avenues. We need to make this a goal, long term, and accept the steps it will take to get there. Making each step an expensive war fought at the ballot box will just make it so we can never get ahead. It’s already chasing away developers (per the report), leaving us with few options.
@Chuck T,
I just moved from a 2 bedroom home that originally ( 1912- 1957), housed a mother and 4 adult children. 2 postal clerks, a landscaper and a clerk at NewtonNorth. It worked for them, supporting a wealthier community, but very few are willing, or must , live like that today.
They were here because there existed an opportunity to make a living supporting the demands of a wealthier community.
My argument today is that the automobile took over from the train, promoting the growth away from the station, in filling the rest of the city with the development of the 1930’s forward.
Amazon, Fed Ex, Big business etc has taken the place of the local worker that catered to the wealthy ,living here today.
Until a radical change of energy supply ( ie gasoline taxation- no doubt coming our way ), life will continue to slowly evolve. In the meantime the Big Business of Real Estate development will languish as populations continue not growing.
Re @Greg, “Well those first four comments are embarrassing.” Thanks a lot–for nothing. I actually just asked a question, not knowing what the Globe actually said. You then go on to characterize that as “having little compassion for the earthlings among us who can’t afford or find decent housing.” Do some research: Among other things, I serve on the board of an organization devoted to providing housing for low income seniors, including here in Newton.
As for this: “P.S. Paul and you really should subscribe to the Globe. They are the only ones covering Newton and our region with depth and integrity. Robust journalism is essential to every democracy. Add it to your list of sacrifices.” No they are not the only ones: Commonwealth and WBUR actually do the work much better. Your lecturing about how I should spend my money is elitist, tiresome and unpersuasive. The snarky remark about what kind of “sacrifices” we should make likewise is made without knowledge of the other ways I choose to contribute to the community and beyond.
Stick to policy and avoid the personal advice and insults, please.
Greg, It’s hard to have an informed conversation about a topic without knowing what was said in the linked article. Yes, to support news journalists, a paper needs subscriptions to at least their digital counterparts, but that paper also depends more on funds from advertising. Of course, then it enters into a chicken and egg problem.
In my opinion, whoever is posting a thread linking an article hidden behind a paywall as a main jumping off point for the conversation, needs either to include a summary or more than a paragraph from the linked article in order to have at least the beginning of the discussion start out on track.
The part of the Globe article included, leaves out the main point of the editorial. Which is that government and the private sector will have to work together toward a solution. Government needs to set up the rules for development encouraging both market rate and subsidized affordable housing. Then there needs to be a way for the private sector to contribute.
Marty Walsh proposed a home rule petition that allows the city of Boston to collect an additional 2% fee on the transfer of real estate valued at more than $2 million. If legislation would allow other municipalities to do the same, just think about the funds that could have been raised if Newton had instituted a 2% tax on Mark Development’s purchase of land in and around Washington Street.
To me, the below is the best quote from the editorial.
@Paul: You are correct. I owe you an apology. It was entirely inappropriate and unwarranted to direct that comment towards you. I hope to do better and learn from my mistake.
The Globe article, as Marti describes, does talk about specific actions that Marty Walsh has proposed as well as a real estate transfer tax. But I viewed call for “sacrifice” in a broader prism and should have just explained that, rather than been snarky.
For example, if greater density in Newton means we need to upgrade/add schools, we should be willing to support a debt exclusion override, even if we don’t have school age children. If greater density means we’re going to need to pay more at the pump or tolls to meet our transportation needs, we should be willing to make that sacrifice. If it means giving up a lane on roads for buses or bikes, we should be willing to make that sacrifice, even if we never use a bus or a bike. If greater density means no longer being able drive down Needham Street going 40 miles an hour (which honestly is the case most days except for rush hours, I know because my office window looks out on Needham Street), then we should be open to that sacrifice. If it means sharing our parks, our library, the seats at Starbucks with more fellow residents, we should be willing. If it means making it easier to build accessory apartments in our neighborhoods, we should be open to that. If it means it might be harder to find parking at Riverside to go see the Red Sox, we should be willing to accept that.
Sometimes it seems folks on this site aren’t open to making even the smallest changes in their lives to make it possible for more people to live and afford to live here. That’s what I was thinking. That’s taking one for the team. The way I responded didn’t reflect that. Again, my apologies.
Sure. Let’s build it up. However, let’s:
– Take advantage of the green line. Let’s pop the bubble that is Waban and build units around there.
– Increase public transit up and down Washington Street. Better commuter rail hours, a bus-only lane, more express buses, and something to connect West Newton and Newtonville to the green line.
– Have an express bus to somewhere in Cambridge. The commute to Cambridge is rough.
– Keep an eye on the schools and have a plan B in place in case the demographer is wrong.
– Ditch the overnight parking ban. Even if people are able to reduce their car usage, some people’s jobs (i.e. up and down 95 or westbound, nontraditional business hours) may require a car. Most of the new construction allots for one car. Additionally, sometimes people may have overnight guests. I know we can’t have overnight guests from December until April because they’ll get a ticket.
– Affordability. The rent prices at Austin Street are ridic. Let’s court people at different price points.
All in all, I’m pro-dev and excited about some of our more “blah” areas of Newton getting a refresh. (i.e. Washington Street) But I’m worried that we are jumping the gun and also being unfair to certain neighborhoods.
I know I’m late to the conversation, but I cannot think about development in Boston and the surrounding environs without questioning how much thought and attention is being paid to rising sea levels. So much of Boston is built upon reclaimed tidal flats and land fill, and while Beacon Hill has some impressive height, much of the city is basically at sea level. According to a study by a senior economist at the World Bank, Boston ranks #8 in cities most at risk from rising sea levels. See, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/08/19/coastal-cities-at-highest-risk-floods
For a really good overview of the threat to Boston, including infrastructure, transportation, etc., this article is quite comprehensive. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/boston-adapting-rising-sea-level-coastal-flooding
So, while Boston sinks, perhaps we should be re-evaluating where “the team” should be, particularly since most major roads and public transportation all seem to lead us to “the Hub”.
Mike & Greg,
I apologize for the time late at night for my comment and inquiry. You two are justified in calling me out for that.
Greg,
Since you appear to approve of, presumably including zoning for, city wide accessory apartments, sometimes referred to as “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs)) on single home lots, I’ll clarify that with Tiny Houses I’m talking about something generally smaller, much easier and quicker to locate, much less costly, and more flexible, on which I’m seeking your opine (and those of others for that matter).
Something along the lines as what the City Council of Los Angeles just passed on December 11, 2019, an ordinance to legalize movable tiny homes as ADUs – accessory dwelling units. http://latchcollective.com/tinyhousesasadus
…and per Lisap’s comment, the movable tiny house can be relocated to accommodate the rising sea levels in an around Boston, especially since permanent vast new and dense housing constructed in Newton as an obligation by “the team” for “the Hub” should not be encouraged or as an encouragement or assistance to new business development in a globally warmed sinking below sea level Boston
Advocates like Greg would seem to be conflicted here, that is, vast new dense Newton housing vs. global climate change impact on Boston.
@Jim: Zero conflict here. I support any responsible effort that makes Newton more affordable and welcoming and helps address our well documented (and interconnected) housing crisis, transportation crisis and climate crisis.
I appreciate that good people will disagree with what’s “responsible” or not. But that doesn’t mean I’m “conflicted.” Just means we disagree.
Architecturally Designed Jewel Boxes otherwise euphemistically known on Village 14 as “Tiny Houses”are simply fancy, more expensive, Mobile Homes.
When the market shows up to sell the tiny house What results is the mobile home; a factory built, production line product that more than competes with the “Tiny House”. If that’s what’s to become of the fabric of the Garden City it’s time to sell up and get out.
@Jim Epstein = This is called “trolling”. You’ve already made that clear above.
You’re putting forward an idea, that’s not on anyone’s agenda, that you’ve already said you don’t really support, to elicit a reaction from people you don’t agree with. That’s not helpful, that’s trolling.
Marti,
Tearing down single family homes to make room for multi-dwelling apartments. Not sufficient space otherwise for the amount of new housing advocated by “the team”.
Jerry,
I don’t favor vast new housing in and densification of Newton. But if there is a current crisis both as to availability and affordability, this would seem to be a solution. And if the crisis abates or the economy changes, this provides an easy exit.
(Sort of like accommodating the temporary oil shale boom in North Dakota.)
How many times do we need to ask Greg to keep the conversation civil? No more name calling and insults directed to those that disagree with you.
Greg,
I’m not talking about conflicted with me, I’m talking about conflicted with yourself.
You strenuously advocate flooding Newton with new housing for more people accessibly to work in Boston’s new commercial development such as the Seaport District which, in turn, will be flooded by global warming.
No Jim. I’ll try one last time. We need to move people across Newton, out of Newton and to Newton. These are not mutually exclusive. We need to address climate change and flooding. We need to address housing here and elsewhere. We must not be myopic. Over and out.
@Greg, thanks very much for the gracious apology. All is good!
Jim, I’m actually a tiny house fan. A bunch of houses up here on the north side would be close enough to “tiny” by today’s definition. Other parts of the city have converted carriage houses that are pretty tiny. So the tiny part isn’t unheard of.
I also think that given the opportunity, a bunch of people might choose modest sized, energy efficient homes with a modern layout (though not necessarily strictly “tiny”).
I am, however, a realist. I don’t see a big positive impact of adding tiny houses to back yards as you propose because I don’t see a lot of property owners choosing that route. I do see other people opposing it. I don’t see high land prices being conducive to constructing multiple tiny houses on a single piece of property if that were legal.
From an efficiency point of view, multiple tiny houses expose more surface area for heat loss than conventional multi-unit buildings, and thus don’t buy you much there. The Boston area, including parts of Newton, has a rich tradition of multi-unit residential buildings, much more so than tiny house developments.
The hold “pick up your tiny house and move it” quality isn’t really all that useful in the local area. Again, land prices are high. There’s no consistent building or zoning code in the area regarding tiny houses, so you’d be hard pressed to find a new spot to plop your house down and connect.
There are just too many hurdles to overcome for this idea to be some sort of slam dunk. Since I believe tiny houses aren’t allowed by Newton zoning, you can’t even start out small without convincing skeptics.
Mike,
Curious, how much do you think a tiny house could sell for in newton
If lots could be split down to 3000 sqft. I would estimate a 1000 sqft home would sell for 500k which is not too far from the median MA home of 422k
Much cheaper than a 2br condo
The zoning is being rehauled, its not too late for councilors to propose it.
I’ve always felt that the “Tiny House” is really about increasing density on existing properties, not necessarily creating new lots that are 100% tiny house-driven. That may mean putting a tiny house in the yard of a larger home to allow for a detached rental unit. That rental unit may also not be for someone living there full time. It could be transitional (grad student, someone who lives far away but wants to reside closer to work during the week, someone older who is stepping back from their home ownership and spending winters in the south, etc.), it could be just affordable for someone to live in as-is. It really depends.
Mike,
I’d say that there would be greater opposition to zoning for multi unit apartment buildings throughout Newton as replacement for single or two family home zoning, then zoning to allow a “tiny house” in the backyard. Newton is essentially built out with single homes and land is, as you say, expensive. This requires no new land and no tear down of existing homes, and can be constructed/installed at no cost to the home owner by companies willing to perform that for free in return for a share of the homeowners’ rent received for the “tiny house”.
Either there’s a crisis or not, and if the housing and affordability advocates don’t at least consider this as the easiest alternative, then they should, as Marti would say, shoo shoo away with their repetition on this.
Greg,
What you say does not address my point. You want to flood Newton with new housing, in large part, to accommodate those working in Boston in areas to be flooded, which you claim is surely coming due to global climate change.
Over and out.
I’ve never said any of those things Jim.
“Taking one for the team” will likely fuel the pro-referendum, charge. So for that, thank you.
Available housing is not the primary driver of our economy, but Boston and its colleges are. Tech, Biotech and other companies have flooded here in the past 20 years because of what is produced by Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Northeastern, etc., and the international students that are now residents who have taken up these jobs upon graduation. This will inherently RAISE housing prices for those working in retail, hospitality, city services looking for affordable homes.
You want affordable homes? Hope for a recession. When we moved to Newton right after the recession of ’08, we could not give away our condo in JP. We had fewer people attend weeks of our Open House than the number of commenters on this post. Ended up renting it out for a few years to stay afloat then sold to break even a couple of years later. (In hindsight, we should have held on to it longer).
To try to create affordable housing via “any housing” or supply/demand will not work. I don’t care what some Northland funded study says. So long as large companies continue to set up shop in Boston, the more people will come, and market rates will continue to rise and we’ll just be another New York, San Franciso, Hong Kong or Tokyo. Newton will never be the same. Villages? Forget about it.
Affordble housing needs to created by the public sector with a specific goal and clear intentions. Funnel some Boston and Cambridge’s overflowing commercial tax revenue to the surrouding communities to create subsidies for affordable housing. Otherwise, there will be no one working at Lululeon or the Couch Store in the Chestnut Hill Mall. Restaurants will be self service like McDonald’s. And good luck getting teachers to teach our kids or fire fighters to put out our smoldering homes as the climate melts our roofs.
And if you getting the Council to listen to the broader public is tough now? Wait until large corporations like Northland and Korff are fully embedded in the Newton. How heavily will their needs weigh against us humble single family homeowners then? Then we will all really be “taking one for the team” – Team Northland/Korff!!
And on that note… HAPPY TUESDAY!!!!
@Greg
“The point is we as a community, as a society, should be willing to make sacrifices to accommodate more people. ”
First of all, I question the premise on its face. I would say why? Says who? For whom does that benefit? Employers (and landlords) in Boston who are building too large office buildings on future (climate change) flood land?
Because it’s unquestionably the right thing to do? I indeed question it.
Beyond that however, the problem is, “we” are not. Only those in zones R3 are taking the hit. And those zones are already fairly dense.
Thus the divisiveness of these threads.
The mayor and the city council is largely responsible for the divisiveness. Full Stop.
Their plan still pits the already dense areas against those that remain single family. This exacerbates the feeling that the only people taking one for the team are those that already have taken one. Like I said, Mayor Fuller, take one for the team and rezone your street to R3. Councilor Albright, take one for the team and rezone Comm Ave by city hall to R3. The carriage lane is valuable wasted space that could have more housing.
Also, the current financial system has reached a peak in income inequality, which is also a factor in the affordability of housing.
If the builders of Austin Street think that they can rent those pre-fab boxes at the rate they are asking, and if they are right, -someone- can afford them. But only those with high paid jobs in Boston – with a token of “affordable” housing thrown in.
Take one for the team? The north side of town has already taken plenty. Time for the rest of Newton to put their money (land) where their mouth is.
We investigated construction of a small accessory apartment separate building in our backyard, thinking it would be both a good investment and a way to offer an affordable option to someone. Bottom line was that a rough estimate of a 20×30 building came in at over $300,000.
I wouldn’t have predicted $500/square foot. But this was not a prefab “tiny house,” but rather something that would be consistent with the architectural design of our 1895 house and fit in with the overall feel of the neighborhood. The problem, too, with this kind of project is that you have amortize the cost of the mechanical systems, kitchen, ad so on over a small number of square feet. And, while building in energy efficiency at the beginning means lower operating costs, doing so results in higher initial costs.
Bottom line: Idea has been permanently shelved.
I would argue the north side already took the hit when the mass pike divided it…
I guess since then its become a punching bag for the rich…
Paul,
You’re a perfect case for a Tiny House where the provider would build or bring it, at no cost to you, for a share of the rent. The link is above or do your own online search. Or if you decide to have built offsite or procure, would cost much much less. Go for it! Be a test case for Newton in terms of approvals. It can be done in matching architectural style to your home.
@Jim, “But construction is still pricey. Node’s smallest unit, at 400 square feet, is $150,000,” unassembled. https://www.fastcompany.com/90381454/these-flatpack-homes-can-be-fully-assembled-in-less-than-three-months. Not clear if that includes a foundation. Plus, they don’t seem to have Northeast capacity heating systems. And then there are utility hookups. I don’t see any designs that are compatible with an 1895 four square Victorian.
Will wait for offers to come in from those reading this . . .
Paul,
Check out Tiny House Northeast out of Wakefield. NH.
They cover Massachusetts and have design and cost options which are much more compatible to what you are seeking.
If you do follow up and speak with them, hopefully you would keep us posted.
@Paul L
You’ve got it right re costs, ($300,000), and architectural feasibility . Every house 4 bedrooms, or “Tiny” requires sewer, water, electrical service, foundation , a driveway (?), Etc.
It’s going to be hard to beat the cost of a mobile home but is that going to be good for Newton ?
@Jim,
We nerd the city to provide water, sewer and electric (unless solar is requirement) hookup for free + fast track permit for building foundation..
This is the only financially feasible option for the majority. I think the key change would be allowing the tiny home to be sold as being a landlord can be a big headache…
Let each of the 80k residents of Newton decide if they want to help to increase density.
Blueprint,
Clearly the City of Newton would need to revise its ordinance to eliminate many of these requirements — and the expenses associated therewith — for the new category of (sometimes mobile) “Tiny House” (as distinguished from ADU’s). This was accomplished, for example, by the City of Los Angeles just last month.
Isn’t that a better alternative to rezoning vast swaths, if not all, of Newton to accommodate dense multi-dwelling housing units to accommodate the ‘housing crisis’?
@ Bugek,
You have no idea how much money is involved in providing utilities to a housing unit, Tiny or not.
How is the city to recover the “free” costs with the taxes those units would generate? Not possible !
There are only 10,000 tiny homes in the entire US; there’s no reason to think they could make a significant dent in any regional housing need. Their small size (< 400 ft) make them niche housing, suitable for only the tiniest sliver of the population.
In addition, Newton accessory apartment ordinance doesn't allow anything less than 400 sq ft. Most of MA (and the US) has ordinances designed to prevent mobile homes, which tiny homes may count as. That suggests they are unlikely to be as well received as the proposing commentators here have suggested.
Blueprintbill spells out all the infrastructure things that are required for each tiny house. Their costs to the individual and the city will be high, therefore they don't scale well at all.
Bugek says "Let each of the 80k residents of Newton decide if they want to help to increase density." First, there aren't 80K residential parcels, let alone tiny home opportunities. Second, if you're changing zoning, land owners can also "decide if they want to increase density" by converting or replacing their homes with multi-family homes (or to sell and allow developers to do so). I'm not sure where you'd be willing to draw that line.
I can promise you that any proposal to allow backyard tiny homes will be met with a robust "not in your back yard" response.
Don't let me skepticism stop you. I think the next step, for anyone who believes this to be a practical solution to adding housing to Newton, is to show even a single example of of a willing property owner, suitable land, workable finances, and neighbor buy-in. Asking someone else to do your homework doesn't count 🙂 The second step would be to show the concept scales to any degree.
If you let Jerry know when you've got some answers, I'm sure he'll start a guest thread. In the mean time, I'd suggest closing this one.
Quick correction, according to:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/accessory_apartments.asp
it looks like accessory apartments can be down to 250 ft with special permit, possibly even less.
How many official accessory apartments are there in Newton?
@Mike
Whats your target number of new units for Newton to build in next 10, 20, 30 years
Its a fair question
I agree with those who are saying it is not actually a sacrifice if we plan carefully. More housing, done right, is good for Newton and good for the region.
And can we please stop referring to housing as though it costs the city more than it brings in in taxes. All information we have so far is to the contrary.
Bryan
More housing will likely not cost more tax revenue if overcrowded classrooms are allowed. Ie one teacher/student ratio increases and cramming more kids into the same classroom
@Bugek: Can you back any of that up with any actual studies or data? Because Brian’s right, “all information we have so far is to the contrary.”