In Ward 7 Councilor Marc Laredo’s most recent newsletter, he asks for community input regarding the potential elimination of single-family zoning within a certain radius from transit. According to his newsletter:
“the Planning Department has now raised the following question to the City Council: should Newton eliminate single-family zoning within 0.5 miles (it also asked about 0.25 miles) of a Green Line station, Commuter Rail station or an express bus stop (express buses pick up passengers in Newton and take the Massachusetts Turnpike into downtown Boston) and within 0.25 miles of a MBTA bus stop (there are a number of non-express MBTA bus routes that run through Newton)?”
Well, V14 folks, what are your thoughts?
Sorry – I should have added this map from his newsletter too.
Half mile from any of these is all of Newton, no?
If it does pass, there needs to consistent height restrictions across all of Newton. It should not be 6 stories north of the pike and 3 stories in waban.
That map looks less dramatic when you include T and commuter rail.
Perhaps it should be narrowed down to “frequently scheduled mass transit”… that would only include the T stops
This question illuminates the difference between many folks’ personal interests and ‘the common good’. Yes, there’s certainly so-to-speak common good in providing for as many people as possible to live in proximity to public transit. But, personally, we moved to Newton to escape this ‘common good’ transit-proximity of Manhattan, and hoped we wouldn’t have to do it again, especially in our older years. So, you let the developers pad their pockets by building multi-story apartment buildings in Waban, one of the last really nice places to live close to Boston, and we’re outa here. Is that what you want?
Allowing multifamily homes near transit would be great for both increasing sustainability and affordability. The City should make it easier to convert an existing house into a multifamily house or adjust the rules some to make it easier to add an accessory apartment. If a new house is built it could be a two or three family. Or the City could identify places for small residential buildings that could be accessible to seniors and others (like where the UPS is on Rt. 9) All these kinds of options improve sustainability by making more homes available closer to the T or train. Newton grew as a City through the trains and the T. But then it became illegal to have multifamily homes in some areas. It’s time to make more multifamily homes legal again.
I had a very nice conversation with Marc earlier this week. He absolutely said he is for multifamily housing across Newton, with focused density at Village Centers and transit stops.
When people use the phrase ”Abolish single-family housing” or ”Eliminate single-family housing”, it is being used as a scare tactic. The accurate phrase is ”Adding Housing Options”. Nothing is being Abolished nor Eliminated…those terms are false.
I have not read Councilor Laredo’s newsletter yet, but based on our conversation, I find it hard to believe he would use either of those phrases, he is a stickler for accuracy. He also prides himself as someone working to include, rather than exclude people. He says he is working for building community.
Please know this fact, loudly and clearly: No one who has a single-family home in Newton will be at risk of having it changed on them… If they never want to add an in-law apartment, or convert their garage into an ADU for extra income they no one will ever make them them do that. If they never want to turn their single family back into the two family it was built as, they will never have to. But if their neighbor wants to, they ought to be able to.
We have a housing crisis in Newton and in Boston. It’s why Mayor Fuller pledged to build 11,000 affordable units in Newton by 2030 in a compact w other metro area cities and towns. Those are the subsidized one’s… We desperately need the moderately priced ones, and this was the case before Covid. We need more moderate housing options more than ever. Do your kids stand a chance of buying here like you do? Mine neither.
By allowing for more options, more housing types, at more price points across the City we can all start to help solve the housing crisis we and our friends are in. We can invite the teachers who teach our kids to live here, the firefighters who protect our homes to live here, the grocery clerks a place to live.
Some of us live in ”Single-family homes” that we’re never really single-family homes. Servants and many people weren’t counted in the 1800s and our current code does not count them today.
I belong to the group Engine 6, we are following this project and process closely. Many City Councilors are excited about the opportunity that this project represents…it is not a ”sleeper zoning project”, it is very exciting and promising. As was the theme of the terrific concert this weekend and series of speeches @ Hope Is Rising…Hope Is Rising around Zoning Reform. Please get involved, write to your Councilor, see where they are on this important issue. Do not let this opportunity for Justice get dragged down or be compromised and limited to just ”selected” areas of Newton.
Justice all Across Newton.
Councilor Laredo told me he was for equity, fairness, access to housing…
As he suggested, please join the conversation about Zoning. If you don’t think our Zoning Reform process is not about Social and Racial Justice, we at Engine 6 respectfully disagree, it is and has been for decades.
Now is the opportunity to fix our Zoning Code and do it right. We have a once-in-a-generation-opportunity. Mayor Fuller has said she is for Zoning Reform.
This project will be a headline in Newton’s history books:
What did the City of Newton do when we had the chance to undesign segregation and design a just zoning plan?
Please join us at Engine 6, enginesix.org, have your organization join ours in this important cause.
Tune into the Zoning and Planning meeting tonight 7pm. I hope to see you there!
Alex B.
In response to your comment, respectfully, multifamily housing, like a 2-family home or a small apartment building is not comparable to Manhattan, really. And Waban has a multi-story apartment building in the village center already, I think it was built in the 40s. It’s low key, people often Dont even realize that it’s there. It is part of what makes Waban the quintessential Village Center, along w a grocery store, branch library, hair salon, hardware shop, coffee shop, post office, bank, T stop, churches, school…it’s amazing. It’s text book smart growth base plate.
I look at Marc’s map and see these odd green islands of remaining single family areas … why? That seems seriously exclusive and against what we as a community are trying to achieve. If we are going all in on the transit-oriented theme, let’s not circumscribe the area. People are likely willing to walk/bike/uber to mass transit from their newly-multi family residences in those glowing green areas. Let’s make the entire city multi-family by right.
Then the question comes down to the definition of “multi-family by right” – how many families? I am not a city planner or expert in density. My gut says two family for our suburban feel and for what currently exists seems about right; anything larger could be petitioned to the city and go through an additional zoning process.
Lisa,
It would be nice if you could quantity affordability.
How much would a MARKET rate 2 br 1200sqft condo be 10 years from now in Newton?
Both selling and rental price in your ideal scenario. Its a fair question if your support is driven by affordability.
I’m under no illusions that the zoning change will affect affordability, I simply support it because its make 0 sense for single family only within walking distance of mass transit.
ANP
Limousine liberals will still get to hide behind their historic districts. MASSIVE elitist loophole here
Bugek,
I have no idea what housing costs will be in 10 years… but affordability is calculated based on a percentage of household income and often geographic standards come to bear because housing costs vary so greatly across the country. The standard percentage that is acceptable has crept higher over the decades, it is now more than 30% of household income. There are lots of articles about the topic online.
I hope that historic districts are not excluded. What better way to help preserve these wonderful historic homes and stop them from being torn down and allow for conversion to multi-family dwellings and additions – just have them go through the historic district process.
I agree with Lisa and Kathy: more multifamily housing! I highly doubt this will usher in an age of rampant skyscraper complexes given the NIMBY attitudes that abound in Newton. Let’s do our best to help more people live near public transit & good schools!
I need to correct a statement I made re Mayor Fuller’s commitment in the area coalition for more housing, it is for 11,000 units overall rental, ownership, affordable, market-rate, by 2030, rather than all affordable.
Amy, there is no reason historic homes can not be included in adaptive reuse projects. You would be surprised how many of Newton’s gorgeous building stock includes are already multiple family homes, but you can not tell from looking at the outside.
I totally agree that teardown’s should be discouraged and the code is being revised to work toward that. The zoning code needs to be written to work as well in all areas of the City, those that within the few historic districts and the many others. There are beautiful buildings all over the City worth preserving; small, large, fancy and modest. They all help tell the rich history of Newton’s citizens.
Strategically, extending beyond 0.25miles of T/commuter makes this much harder to pass
Once you affect everyone, it will be impossible to find concensus without a ballot vote.
Focusing on T stops allows 80% of residents/councilors to approve changes which dont directly affect themselves.
@ANP – The green islands are the few areas that aren’t within .5 miles of a transit stop (either rail or bus) which was the original line in the sand around what should be MF by right, although the point has already been raised by several councilors that it’s so small it may be simpler to just make it city wide. I would agree that it’s more practical to just go that route given how little SF zoned areas would remain.
I don’t think they’ve fully fleshed out what MF by-right would entail, but if I were to take an educated guess based off the current draft it would be 2 family in R1/R2/R3 (already allowed in R3) and then 3 by right in R4 with 4-8 by SP (what they showed in presentations). I would also anticipate the dimensional lot requirements like frontage being maintained – so in R1 for example you would need 80ft of frontage on a lot compared to 50ft in R3 for the same two family unit. Waban’s not suddenly going to turn into Newton Corner or Nonantum in terms of density.
Heck, why not just open everything up to unlimited development and rename Waban to Astoria, Newton Center to… Jamaica…Newton Corner to … well, you get the idea. As a native New Yorker, I’ll be right at home! (Yeah, and do everything I can to get the heck out!)
@Amy – that’s a great idea. I wonder if something would have to be added specially for that to make sure “historic” doesn’t give the historic commissions the ability to red tape the conversions out of feasibility.
@Bujek. We have local historic districts in Auburndale, Newtonville, Chestnut Hill and Upper Falls. Chestnut Hill aside, I just don’t associate Newtonville, Auburndale and Upper Falls as being haven to anything like a gaggle of “Limousine Liberals”. My friend Brian Yates was one of Newton’s fiercest advocates for historic districts in his home village of Upper Falls and beyond. Those who knew Brian, the way he lived and the cars he drove will chuckle at any personal association he could have possibly had with a “limousine”.
The argument seems to be that all the enclaves where local historic districts currently exist in Newton would otherwise be teaming with affordable housing or affordable apartment units. Not very likely. You would also suspect that affordable housing construction would be underway in Newton Highlands in that slice of the village that was proposed as a fifth local historic district a few years back. This proposal failed, but it’s hardly been accompanied by a rush to place affordable housing there. Quite the opposite. Several homes there have been remodeled and significantly enlarged. Most of the changes have been tastefully done, but nothing about these changes suggests affordability; Again, quite the opposite.
A lot of aspirational promises are being made about what a push to end single family housing in most of Newton would mean for housing affordability and the development of a 21st century commuter rail system and expanded Green Line service. I hope all of this comes to pass, but I’m skeptical that anyone really knows for certain.
Bryan and Amy, great idea re writing in limitations to make sure historic commissions can not exclude properties.
Bob, while there have been expensive units developed in the Highlands recently, and all over the City, there has been a big uptick in the interest in building detactched and internal ADUs, creating more units via adaptive reuse.
I live in the Highlands in an 1840s home, I am very glad the Historic District was not established in my neighborhood, I don’t think it would have helped homeowners create the gently density we need in 2020.
Bob,
My point was to emphasize that if all of Newton is re-zoned then it must absoluetly be fair. No carve outs.
Without a ballot question, i cannot see this ever (100% Newton multi-family)passing. The leaf blower experience would be a walk in the park compared to this.
Changing a neighborhood’s zoning from single to multifamily reduces the value of the homes in the neighborhood. It is a “taking.” If the City Council wants to make this horrible decision they should do this to the whole city. Focusing on particular neighborhoods is arbitrary and unfair, albeit politically easier.
Before I was married, I lived in a high density area. I wanted density. Upon getting married and considering a family, we moved to what I thought was a low density area. I did not want a continuous row of cars in the street. I wanted neighbors who were owners and invested in the neighborhood for the long haul. I didn’t want my future kids roaming the neighborhood protected by anonymity. Everyone who wants high density should do what I did when I wanted high density–move to a high density area.
Amy,
I encourage you to watch more of the ZAP meetings. The Councilor Laredo at those meetings seems to have his mind pretty well made up.
The last special election showed that Newton wanted density….in Upper Falls.
Let’s see if the “Yes” folks all feel the same way if a multi-family popped up directly next door. Will Northland like like to see more competitive housing options than just what their luxury high rises (by Newton standards) offer? Who is NIMBY now?
Make all of Newton multi-unit “by right”!! Let’s put our (zoning) where our mouth is.
@Matt I wanted increased density in Upper Falls. I’m also in favor of this proposal that happens to include my neighborhood. Frankly, if we allowed multifamily zoning throughout Newton I’d be in favor of that too.
Sean has been saying this for years, but single-family zoning is exclusionary. It keeps people out by its very design. If you like your house, you can keep your house. If you have a big house in a historic district, then when your kids move out divide it up and rent some of it out.
And yes, BY RIGHT. The special permit must be used judiciously so it doesn’t become a block that prevents change. If we require nearly every project to go through the 24-member city council, nothing will ever get built.
When it comes to density our city has space, so “Let’s make room.”
So that this entire exercise doesn’t become an opportunity for the teardown specialists to create even more expensive units in the guise of “high-density” and “affordability,” let’s put provisions in place that ensure that the newly created condos and rentals are truly affordable. If subdividing a large house results in creating two units each as expensive as the original house (that happens quite a bit), what’s the point of that? Why make Newton more densely crowded with wealthy and privileged people?
In other words, prove it to skeptics like me that minority families, lower income families, and seniors will be moving into these newly created high-density districts. Otherwise, no one benefits but the realtors and contractors. (Hello to Rose Taylor, another treasured former student!)
My thoughts: being rezoned as multi family is absolutely not a “taking” – if I go to sell my (single family) house on its conforming lot my potential pool of buyers has increased from people who want it “as-is”/weekend home reno warriors and contractors looking to tear it down for a McMansion to a larger pool of contractors who will tear it down and put up multi-family (or maybe carve it up into multi-family).
We’re about 700 conditioned SF short of our FAR (with a 1,250 SF unconditioned basement), so whatever happens it can’t be bigger … but now we’ve got more potential buyers driving up demand.
I can see the argument that being just over the line – still single family when the other side of the street is multi family – is a taking … you get the externalities of density (i.e. more people) but no increase in value to your property.
/not commenting on the areas proposed here because of my job
//and everything I said is me and not my job.
@Matt – I’ve heard you say things like this several times – where’s the beef?
I have never heard an engine 6 or Northland supporter say they want the density elsewhere. I’m sure they exist, but to paint us all with that broad brush is unfair and in my opinion tarnishes the good work and beliefs of folks who are trying to support the greater good.
@Alex I think it’s time you start looking at Wellesley or Weston. The trend in Newton is towards higher density. No disrespect; just that you’re about 20- 30 years late for the Newton you’re imagining.
@Bryan, my comment was not intended to disparage the work of Engine 6 and the like, but rather encourage them to speak up in support of broad multi-family re-zoning regardless of distance to public transportation. Amy’s post is barely a day old, so there’s plenty of time for those folks to chime in with their support – especially those that live in the green zones of the map above.
@Bob Jampol – I think the candid answer would be short of a complete economic collapse of the Boston area there’s no way to get back to the levels of affordability we had one or two generations ago. Between the school system and transit options Newton is too desirable. The city can push for a greater % of units to fall under one of the Affordable buckets but in turn that’s going to push up prices of the remaining units.
One thing that proposed zoning would be help with is curtailing the McMansion sized tear downs we’re seeing currently. It’s been a bit understated compared to some of the more controversial changes but under the new zoning FAR is completely gone and replaced with maximum house sizes regardless of the lot size. The size of the house is now determined by the zone it’s in. So no more buying a large lot with a tiny cape and replacing it with two 4500+ sqft units like we’re seeing today. I don’t have the exact sizes but from what I recall in R3 a two family house would be limited to a footprint of 1400sqft and 2.5 stores (for a total of 3500 sqft). Most of the tear downs I see in Auburndale have more square footage for one of the units than would be allowed for the whole structure under the proposed zoning.
@Rick, You’re right. I moved from NYC to Newton in 1969. What Newton was then is what I wanted then, and still is. I was born and raised in Queens, NYC, Queens is pretty much the same now as then and, from all this, it seems Newton will become just like it.
@BobJampol, you raise a good point and the biggest challenge of ANY form of development. Let’s say someone lives in a small, single family home/lot valued at $900k. How much on top of the $900k would someone have to spend to make 2 condos, then how much would they have to be sold at to be profitable? Would current owner be willing to sell for less so the developer can provide affordable housing?
The fact is, relying on the private sector to provide affordable housing is great in concept, until your personal wallet/pocketbook is at stake. To even out the equation, the balance of funding need to come from a civic minded third party, i.e. the government (city, state or federal).
What makes this balancing act here in Newton even more difficult, is that its proximity to Boston and current density levels that are much lower than Brookline’s, Jamaica Plain’s, West Roxbury’s or Boston Proper’s leads to a high cost of entry to begin with.
Then again, with the way Covid is going, and the workplace turning towards homes (WFH), we may very well see business and people abandoning cities, in favor of communities a bit further out, where families prefer larger spaces and single family lots functioning as both living and working spaces.
10 years from now, we may see that Northland, Korff and other developers who have been gobbling up Newton of late, must resort to renting their tiny, luxury apartments at much lower rates due to a collapsed demand because of Covid. Then we’ll have plenty of affordable housing.
Bob,
You raise some important points. I personally think that there are benefits simply from more homes in Newton. There are more benefits if new homes in Newton are more affordable (than the current moment). And, there are additional benefits if a significant portion of additional homes in Newton are truly affordable.
I think that added density with controls on the size of units in multi-family homes will add what folks refer to as “middle” housing, which is different from truly affordable.
As I have written probably scores of times, the key issue is land value. High housing prices are not due to big homes in Newton. People build big houses because the land is so expensive. When land is expensive, you have to charge a lot for a home in Newton. To get a lot for a home in Newton, you have to provide a big house. Somebody paying Newton prices doesn’t want a small Cape.
To make housing more affordable, we need to spread the land cost for a lot across multiple units. And, make sure that the multiple units aren’t too big or expensive. A three-family home on a single-family lot spreads the cost of the land across the three units, which makes it commercially feasible to sell or rent a reasonably sized unit.
But, zoning is not going to create truly affordable housing on a lot-by-lot basis with small projects. Land in Newton is simply too expensive. Truly affordable housing is going to require other mechanisms, like inclusive unit requirements on larger projects.
Bugek,
“My point was to emphasize that if all of Newton is re-zoned then it must absolutely be fair. No carve outs.”
Please send an email to Councilor Laredo (and the rest of his colleagues). I think he would be interested to hear your position.
@Bugek – I completely agree with you. If we are to go about this massive change in zoning, then we must be absolutely fair across the entire city. No green blobs. NO CARVE OUTS. Yes, @Sean Roche, I will also be sending a note to Laredo and others with my position.
However, we also must have the forethought to fully examine the economic effect that these changes will have on the city budget and institute the right zoning parameters (2/3/4 family / square footage, etc) that will drive property tax revenue to uphold the tax revenue collection to support the new families moving in and the infrastructure demand that they create. I am not a city planner. I am not sure how you go about doing this exactly — whether it is done by plot individually or somehow can be done in the aggregate. But we as a city, I believe, want to be assured that our municipal functions will continue to be fully supported or even improved with this zoning change. Let’s make it a win/win/win. (This will probably take quite a bit of selling by the mayor and city council, but it feels like there’s no better time than today to undertake this worthwhile effort.)
I understand that for many, talk of increased density it viewed as a negative. Many who moved to Newton did so because of its more “suburban feel”. I’m not one of those. When I relocated to this area, I really wanted to live in the city…Back Bay or Cambridge. Maybe Brookline which while not a city has a decidedly more urban vibe. But I couldn’t afford to buy in any of those and still check off a few important boxes such as some outdoor living space. So I bought in Newton. Ironically that the more affordable area for me was the less dense area.
I moved from a small Southern city where I also would have preferred to live in the center of the city in a historic, hip section. Historic townhomes, restaurants and bars on many corners. High density. But I couldn’t afford to live there. So I bought a single family home on a 1/3 of an acre, still in the city, but much more suburban feeling than I wanted. Again, the less dense are was more affordable.
My point is that I am not convinced that, all things being equal, affordability naturally follows with density. That hasn’t been my experience. And when I look at Brookline vs Newton, the data also calls that into question. Brookline has 24541 households within 6.8 Square Miles and 6.75 Land Area in Square Miles compared to 30, 849 households 18.2 square miles and 17.8 Square Miles. And yes the median value of homes is relatively comparable with Newton at $886,100 to Brookline at $829,300. Median monthly rent in Newton is $1829 compared to $2195 in Brookline even though half of Brookline households are occupied by renters vs 28.5 of Newton households. Law of supply and demand would suggest that since Brookline has more rental properties (12270 vs 8791), rents should be lower in Brookline. But they aren’t.
I am not opposed to increased density if it meant more vibrant village centers. I would like that. But I am skeptical that it would be a big leaver on producing more affordable housing. If the city wants to see more affordable housing built, they need a public/private partnership that makes that happen. Left to their own devises, developers will continue to build luxury units squeezing them into small lots. Bam! Density but not affordability.
I looked at the valuation impact a few years ago. Taking all of the data on all of the dwellings in Newton, and controlling for everything imaginable–area, bedrooms, swimming pools, etc–single family homes that are in proximity to multi-family homes are worth less than homes that are not in proximity to multi-family homes. The same goes for multi-family homes. Multi-family homes that are in proximity to other multi-family homes are worth less. As I have already pointed out, there are good reasons why this is case.
Of course, instead of me running the numbers it would be great if the Council would have someone do an analysis and make decisions based on facts rather than affordable housing fanaticism.
Neither:
a) the City’s planners, nor
b) advocates-for-a-significant-social-justice-change, nor
c) those admonishing Newton to do its fair share in absorbing the population increases deemed desirable for the regional (SMSA) economy’s expansion
have submitted a quantified model projecting the impact of the proposal being discussed ny the Council.
How many single family properties will turn over in the next 50 years, how many will be torn down, how many bodies are to live in the newly built square footage, .. and perhaps most importantly:
1. Is that “enough”, and
2. Are ther better alternatives for reaching the same or quantitatively larger outcomes that can be achieved faster, at lower cost, and/or at a greater extent of sustainability (in the broadest understanding of that term)
To my eye, the proposal under consideration is an alternative with the most disruption, the least promise for increase in population loading this City’ footprint, and financial implications that all well-intending advocates will learn are “unintended consequences”.
What is no better than “doable” is often “inadvisable”. If Councilors are to do something, let’s be able to understand how much “good” they expect to come from it. Maybe someone else has better ideas ..
The proverbial “we” ain’t there yet.
A point of clarification: When I decided to do an exterior renovation on my home earlier this year, I learned to my great surprise that I live in a historic district. Not the districts mentioned above, but the Commonwealth Avenue Historic District which is on the US National Register of Historic Places. I believe it starts close to BC and it runs to Walnut Street. When I researched this, I learned that the City of Newton made the submission to the national register in 1990.
I don’t know what, if any, impact this would or would not have on the proposed zoning change and express no opinion on that. But it was a surprise to me as I was only aware of local historical districts. The realtor never mentioned it to us so I suspect it’s not a great selling point!
Is the Mayor’s house going to get rezoned? Really tired of her elitist liberalism.
Ram,
Even after a few decades I believe the impact will be minimal in the more affluent areas of Newton. Why?
The rich rarely needs to “cash out”, most will allow their children to inherit the home so turnover ‘relative to poorer areas’ will be much much less.
The poorer (relatively speaking) areas will see more multi family built than expensive areas.
This eventually will be evened out over several generations so in way its “fair”
Sean is correct about land value being the driver. The Mount Auburn club in Watertown just shut its doors for good. They sold the land for 33 million dollars. That’s probably more than the club ever made in profit.
It will be torn down to make an office / lab.
This is way bigger than our needs within the city. Something called AFFH was passed during the Obama era. The first step-in implementing it is getting towns to switch away from single family zoning, its happening in thousands of towns across the country as we speak. It will ultimately give regional, state and fed control over what we now have as local government issues/ decision-making/$$$$ allocation. Please look up and study this proposal. No one on the national scene is talking about it, especially the media. For a general understanding of AFFH, see https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-and-dems-are-set-to-abolish-the-suburbs/. Please try to ignore the political party pro/con and focus on the issues. Don’t let Newton turn this into an issue of elitism/racism versus the “common good” because that’s not what it is.
Jon,
Hopefully residents will pay attention to this issue due to
– pandemic. Residents will start to realize how much they enjoy single family homes with backyards and low density neighborhoods
‐ they see the trend of friends and family WANTING to move from apartments into single family homes due to being locked in a box for several months. People now realize the needs for suburbs and they are not racists or environmentalists deniers.