As the City Council works on overhauling today’s zoning laws, its instructive to look backwards to the start of zoning in Newton. What began as a common sense effort to keep gas stations from opening in residential streets, mutated into the social engineering of single family zoning – a decision that has had far reaching consequences for the next 100 years.This was a hot button issue in Newton and many other towns at the time, In 1921, the Board of Alderman of the day put together a committee to come up with a proposal for zoning of private property. Their proposal entailed five levels of zoning – 1. Single family zoning, 2. General Residence (2 families), 3. Business district (stores and offices). 4. Commercial (Industries and light manufacturing). 5. Industrial (“such buildings ordinarily [considered] obnoxious like those used in the chemical business”). This approach to the new field of zoning was radical in that it attempted to codify single family housing as an ideal rather than as one of many forms of housing, and to enforce that single housing choice across large swaths of the city by law.
Mayor Edwin Childs was a supporter of zoning in general but an opponent of how it was unfolding in Newton. Said Childs ” I believe in a Zoning Ordinance for the City of Newton as do practically all of our people.”. Childs went on to say “Many, however, and some of our most thoughtful citizens have intimated to me, that in their judgment the proposed Ordinance is too drastic and that the distinction drawn between single and two‐family houses having in mind only its relation to public health, public safety, public morals and public welfare, is hard for them to see.”.
Said Mayor Child, “I vetoed the first and second zoning ordinance and I have no apologies to make for the action taken. Both were founded on selfishness. I did what I believed was for the best interests of the city after getting all the light that I could. Residential sections are now set off from business and manufacturing and that is about what most people had in mind when the [state] Zoning Act was accepted by the voters.”
“After all, it isn’t so much the sort of house as the people in it which makes or breaks a city. All of the good people are not found in single dwellings. The important matter is the proper development of the city by the building of homes and what we need in Newton more than anything else is more homes for young married people. I believe that they ought to have the privilege of living in the same city with their parents, if they so desire.”
Mayor Childs bristled at the whole idea of single family zoning. ” No cities, however, which have adopted Zoning have gone as far as they have attempted to go[, though] it has been intimated … “that the people of this City desire to go farther than other cities have gone, that Newton is different, that our people want an Ordinance such as has been passed” …
Mayor Child’s vetoes staved off the move to single family zoning for a while, but a few years later, in 1925 single family zoning was enacted across much of the City of Newton
———–
I live in Upper Falls, a section of the city with (largely) two family zoning. My house previously was owned (two owners back) by a young couple. When they were in their 40’s the husband died. Some number of years later his wife was worried about her mother-in-law. She turned our house into a two family and moved her mother-in-law into her own apartment. She lived there until she died many years later. The next owner re-combined the two apartments back into a single family home. This was exactly what Mayor Childs spoke about in 1921 when he vetoed single family zoning in Newton. As people’s lives and situations change, they’re housing needs to change. By legislating single family housing as the city’s legal ideal, we are unwittingly legislating all sorts of things about our city and how our citizens are expected to live.
If the priority is to allow ppl to use their property as they see fit then a simple clause can be added:
It must be your primay residence as owner for past 3 years to change the house to multifamily and reside in multifamily for at least 1 year after conversion.
This will prevent developers enmass. Mom&pop developers can partake but much more difficult..
@Jerry (& Alice) – thank you for this overview. I’m with you all the way on this.
Thank you, @Jerry. Yes, Newton and metro suburbs throughout the US are engineered to keep certain people out. Single-family-only zoning is the main mechanism. It is racist and classist at its root. We know this. As one Newton high-schooler said through her sign at the Line Up for Black Lives, “There are reasons why we don’t see enough Black families in Newton—learn about redlining.”
Redlining, blockbusting, zoning—these are the tools that segregated the country, metro Boston, and our city. Zoning and continued discrimination in lending and real estate are what keep us segregated. Lots of studies and reporting have established this. MA is only 6.7% Black, but Newton is even whiter: 3.1% Black. From 2000 to 2013, we lost 4,700 households with annual incomes of less than $125,000, and gained 4,200 households earning more than $200,000 (for more facts, visit enginesix.org). Our zoning ordinance explains these facts, and keeps us from doing much about them. It needs to be fundamentally re-engineered, if we are to become the inclusive community we say we want to be.
Loosening up our zoning rules won’t instantly end racial and economic segregation, but it’s the necessary first step. We should be as generous as possible, build in as much capacity as we can—across the city, but especially in areas like Waban (my “village”), Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, and Newton Highlands, along the Green line. This brings up the other major issue Zoning Redesign should address: climate change. We can’t properly address climate change without it. We have to stop hogging our resources, and start sharing them with more people. I could go on and on. See Engine 6’s priorities and recommendations for Zoning Redesign at enginesix.org/zoningredesign.
Kathleen
You fail to mention that Brookline (which has much higher density than Newton) has similar racial demographics for african Americans
3.2%
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/brooklinecdpmassachusetts/RHI225219
Well said. Thank you.
Jerry and Alice- thanks for providing this bit of history- since the beginning of zoning laws in the US (new York and San Francisco compete for the honor of being the first municipality to enact zoning codes) zoning laws have been used to keep certain people out and has always favored wealthy property owners. Newton has a real opportunity here. I am not going to miss my shot.
A fascinating history, Jerry and Alice. Thanks so much for posting it.
Thanks for the post! One clarification/question: according to this 1921 zoning map:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/39228
“general residences” included multi-family houses, apartments, and boarding houses, not just two-family homes.
In 2020, it is illegal to discriminate against people based on race in the housing. There is nothing racist about current zoning. Let’s stop throwing the word “racist” to stifle thoughtful discussion.
Let’s not make everything about race. Are there some who make poor decisions based on race? Of course, but I do not believe in 2020, that mortgage brokers or banks are selectivly denying loans to anyone. Money’s money and everyone needs to eat.
The barrier of entry to Newton is financial, not racial. I am happy to report that within the past (5?) years, most of our new, immediate neighbors have been persons/families of color. (This is despite one V14 poster throwing shade recently that [paraphrased], “Asians do not suffer from the same level of racism as African Americans”. Being marginalized in general society pretty much sucks all around; the sting is much worse in your own community… but I digress…)
The simple fact is, Newton is a DESIRABLE community and therefore expensive – whether it be a SF house, condo or apartment. Replacing one expensive home with two or more expensive homes will not lower median income, but increase it.
That said, I SUPPORT the re-zoning that is being presented, as it gives current homeowners more options. Those who priortize profit, have the option of selling to a developers intending to create more housing on a single plot. Buyers who value single family home living will think twice before knocking down the now rarified SF house; as not everyone wants share a yard with someone else living above, below or beside them; like two teenage siblings having to share a bedroom.
But let’s be honest and not pretend re-zoning will generate more affordable housing. For that to happen, some form of governmental or philanthropic intervention (funding) is required. Capitalism will never solve for social needs or problems; different sides of the natural order; and why you’ll never see a coyote and rabbit happily skipping down Centre Street together.
So if you are in support of re-zoning (or not), just make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons.
@Jerry: Thanks for posting! I always find it interesting to learn new tidbits about my Grandfather since he died before I was born.
@Matt Lai –
This story about Greater Boston real estate ran just a few weeks ago. You are correct in that its not about mortgage brokers and banks. It’s about realtors and landlords. Make no mistake though that racial discrimination in housing is still thriving in 2020 in the Greater Boston area.
“Researchers expected ‘outrageously high’ discrimination against Black renters. What they found was worse than imagined”
Matt,
you are correct, I challenge anyone to present the “math” for Newton to suddenly become “afforable”.
Unless you are allowing Korf sized development everywhere in Newton, a developer builds for maximum profit.
In a large development, a % can be required affordable.. but that just makes the remaining units exorbitantly priced (see Trio, Austin market rates). “Help a few and hurt the others”
BTW, if you watch the council meetings, its very apparent that the majority of councilors have already made up their mind… so we are doing this (a variation of 0.25mile, 0.5mile or ALL)
Again, no objection to this proposal but to try to sell it as “social justice” requires you to show the math (number of expected units, average price) and number of decades to get there.
@Bugek – I would agree that this isn’t going to work any miracles in terms of affordability, although it should help in terms of diversifying the city’s housing stock. Right now many (most?) of the tear downs and rebuilds are taking modestly sized houses and converting them into 4500+ sqft units at $1.4m+ each. That maximum size would be significantly reduced (at least in R3) down towards the mid-2k sqft a unit range. I’ve seen a few of those where there wasn’t enough land to go full McMansion priced around $800k.
Now is that more affordable? Technically it’s just as expensive, the difference in price is just due to the reduced size so not really. But on the other hand I’d imagine a smaller house at $800k is going to open up a larger pool of buyers than the $1.4m monstrosities we’re seeing today. It may also discourage tear downs for existing houses in the mid-2k sqft range since developers aren’t going to be able to quadruple the size via FAR.
Patrick,
The math still doesn’t work for your example.
8k to 10k lot would sell for at least 800k. To build 2 units would be at least 500k. 1.3M just to break even
They are not going to sell each unit for 800k just to make 300k in 1 to 2 years given risk, loans, overruns.
The current market price is 1.2 per unit.
So now we talking about 4 plex which I’m not even sure fits in the lot and works definitely “stick out”
@FifthGenerationNewtonite – Was Mayor Childs your grandfather?
The idea that this isn’t racial on any level ignores the history. The suburbs of the 20th century represented some of the greatest accumulations of wealth in American history. People purchased homes that were relatively low priced and then those prices increased, in large part because no other housing could be built. The mortgages used to purchase those homes tended to only be available to white Americans. That land value was used to pay for educations, future homes, healthcare and was passed down from one generation to the next. (On the ZAP meeting we’ve been discussing, a few city councilors admitted to owning their childhood homes).
This is why, according to 2015 figures, a white Bostonian has a net worth of roughly $250,000 while for a black Bostonian it is $8.
Buying into Newton today means you come to the table with at least $200,000 cash. That’s just an amazing figure, especially if you have student loans and no family-saved wealth to help. This is where rentals come in. Yes, affordable is important (and ideal), but even market-rate apartments can allow a family to get into the city without having $200,000 under their mattress.
The key here is to broaden the lens and to offer housing OPTIONS. Right now the city is mostly about ownership (condos and single-family houses), that needs to change.
Also worth noting: the Economic Development plan for Newton calls for increasing the number of housing options available.
Chuck,
… and yet thousands of hard working immigrants (with no family wealth) are able to buy single family homes every year in Boston metro area
In fact, I believe Newton probably has a very high double digit immigrant population.
$4000 for a 2br rental at trio Washington place. Yes, let’s encourage families to flysh $48000 a year on rent vs saving $200k to purchase. Great!
Newton’s foreign born population is roughly 20% according to 2015 figures. However, most of those are highly educated people who came here from overseas for the local universities, meaning they had a leg up as they entered the system. This doesn’t detract from their hard work, but it doesn’t remove the systemic racism that keeps our local African American population so low.
@Jerry – Yes
The abysmal state of inner city public schools is the root cause preventing many people from opportunities. No amount of zoning is going to change that.
Please explain why Brookline has similar racial stats. After all, Brookline has the density that you so crave.
http://www.housing.ma/brookline/report
” In Brookline, 24% of units are in single family homes, compared to 76% statewide and 35.01% for Inner Core-type municipalities; 24% of all units are in two- to four-family buildings; and 51.4% are in multi-family buildings with five or more units. The remainder are in non-permanent structures, such as mobile homes.”
Since we’re sharing facts:
Boston: 64.6% rental and 83% multifamily
Newton: 28.7% rental and 35.9% multifamily
Brookline: 49.8% rental and 74.5% multifamily
Watertown: 48.9% rental and 66.8 multifamily
Wellesley: 18% rental and 15.6% multifamily
Waltham: 49.9% rental 46.0% multifamily
https://www.bostonindicators.org/reports/report-website-pages/housing-report-card-interactives
Hey Chuck – since you have access to the stats – can you also put up the racial and economic stats for each of the communities? Thanks!
chuck,
I’m simply pointing out that once you frame rezoning MF to improve racial disparities, you allow it to be challenged. It can be challenged quite easily.
For example, Brookline has double the number of multifamily yet even less AA % (3.04) than Newton. Watertown has 80% more multifamily and even more less AA % (1.73)
If you justify MF zoning because its walking distance to “MASS” transit then this is very hard to be challenged from a common sense perspective. It is VERY VERY hard to argue against this.
This is not the time to virtue signal if you want this to have a decent chance of passing
@Amy I can’t seem to get the formatting right for a comment, so here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1phdT7R_L_okJ1ifcObSx5p61xFhNk0iw/view?usp=sharing
We also have to remember that no single change we make will solve the problem. Getting here took a long time and a lot of different steps, walking it back will likely be even more difficult.
But there are steps we know we need to take. Increasing the multifamily housing in the city is one.
Just change the whole city to what is now R3.
Simple.
Reasons against?
Thank Jerry and Alice for the historical context-very helpful.
@Matt Lai FYI racism and housing still exist in 2020
https://marblehead.wickedlocal.com/news/20200707/study-reveals-high-levels-of-rental-discrimination-in-newton-greater-boston
@Rick Frank – I could see issues with making R3 the default in that it has a frontage maximum of 100ft that larger lots in villages like Waban would run afoul of. Also the setbacks and lot coverage are also more restrictive in R1/R2 compared to R3, I think there would be a legitimate argument that R3 breaks the existing character of the other districts, as much as I’m not a fan of that phrase. You could modify R3 to be closer to R1/R2 in lot requirements but then you’d break the existing R3 districts.
I would keep R1-R4 but make house type A eligible as a two unit residence by right in R1 (currently SP I think) and add the Two-Unit Residence type to R1 and R2. That keeps the general theme of R1/R2 requiring more frontage/further setbacks along with the larger house types and just adds two-unit types as a by-right within those guidelines.
That would add two unit by right in R1/R2 to align with R3 leaving R4 with 3 by right and 4-8 (I think) by SP.
@Patrick Butera I think you are onto something….
Brenda, I hope you and your ward 6 colleagues will let your constituents know what is going on with this new approach to redesigning zoning. I appreciate Councilor Laredo reaching out to his list and I am sure the 3 of you will do the same for ward 6.
@Jess Councilor Noel is 100% onboard with what the Planning Department is proposing and speculated that those who oppose density do so because they oppose poor people and people of color in their neighborhood. I recommend you listen to her comments from the 7/29 Zoom meeting. I am representing what she said quite accurately.
She starts her comments at 2:13:26
https://newtv.org/recent-video/107-committee-meetings-and-public-hearings/6278-zoning-and-planning-committee-june-29-2020
Claire,
What % of Newton watch these 3 hour zoom meetings regularly?
Its easier to announce your position on your website and twitter feed. It should be something you are proud to announce to residents.
Its really a shame Newton lacks local reporters to help spread the word.
@Patrick
” I think there would be a legitimate argument that R3 breaks the existing character of the other districts, as much as I’m not a fan of that phrase.”
Hmmm.
You can’t have it both ways.
Fair is fair, and as someone who has lived in r3 for 30 years, ( I live 4 house in from Washington Street) it’s past time everyone who is so riled up about housing to stop being hypocritical.
Character of the neighborhood eh? I thought that was verboten.
“speculated that those who oppose density do so because they oppose poor people and people of color in their neighborhood.”
That’s just a lie.
Those of us who live along Washington Street are tired of all the density being dumped on us. Along with the pike noise. Give me a break. I have low income units ( the units across from ho Mann) and two families and apartments all around me, as well as single family. I’m just tired of our neighborhood being the one that is getting all the wonderful new apartments for 3000 a month. Can’t the rest of the city share the love?
Claire, thank you for the link. As a resident of ward 6 I hope that she and the other ward 6 councilors will reach out to their constituents. Many of us sat through many hours of ward by ward discussions about rezoning and things have changed now. It is helpful to have councilors reach out, present proposed changes and then allow discussion. That’s all!
Reframing my comment slightly… while racism may still exists in renting, banks are more than happy to take anyone’s business. Isn’t it sad when corporations are better people than people?
That said, the debate here is not about multi-family zoning vs remaining single-family. Most seem to agree moving to multi-family is a good thing. But let’s not continue to use the argument that it’s a panacea for racial discrimination. The multi-family homes being built are condos not rentals.
If someone wants to run sting operations on Newton’s landlords and report those who practice discriminatory rental practices, I support you 100%. But you’ve lost me when racism is used to line the pockets of Northland, Korff and other big developers.
I live 8 houses away from a D line stop. I live in a small cape. Recently a small cape went on the market in my neighborhood (walking distance of the D line stop) for $800K (the Cape needed lots of updating). A developer purchased it, and is building two town houses, that are on the market for $1.5M each.
https://barrettsothebysrealty.com/listing/72649290/16-cragmore-road-newton-ma-02464/
Not sure how I see that multifamily homes are more affordable near the train, if this is what happens on the open market.
@Rick Frank – I’m looking at it pragmatically, whatever ultimately comes out of this redesign is going to have to survive public scrutiny. Converting R1 to R3 would allow for lot frontage to be ~40% smaller, with much closer setbacks and much more coverage in addition to adding in two-family housing. Each one of those is a significant change on it’s own. Keeping R1/R2 with multi-family added would theoretically allow for double the number of units and also quiet the village character crowd since the lots would still need to be fairy large.
And for the record I’m also in R3 about a mile from Riverside and with plenty of multi-family houses and apartment buildings nearby. I have no personal stake in the fate of R1/R2 and actually agree with you that the existing R3 and R4 districts shouldn’t be shouldering all the multi-family housing in the city.
@MariaSGreenberg…
1. The article you posted was from Marblehead.wickedlocal.com. If racial discrimination in renting is so prevalent in Newton, why was the article not posted on newton.wickedlocal.com?
2. The study listed in the article is for the Greater Boston area, not necessarily Newton
3. Most of the interactions studied were between rental applicants (testers) and what appears to be rental agents, many of which operate in the Allston/Brighton area, who’s practice primarily servers a younger demographic than those who families. It does not appear to test landlords trying to rent out their two family unit or in-law apartment.
4. The properties themselves were not listed. Of these rental offices tested, how do we know that does not include Austin Street and it’s contemporaries? The same complexes that were built based on providing more affordable and fair housing for all?
https://www.tbf.org/-/media/tbf/reports-and-covers/2020/housing-voucher-report-20200701.pdf?
@Matt “But let’s not continue to use the argument that it’s a panacea for racial discrimination. The multi-family homes being built are condos not rentals.”
It’s not a panacea, it’s a necessary step (see my comment above). Also, it feels like you’re changing your tune. I could be wrong here, but wasn’t one of the complaints about Northland (and I believe it’s one that you repeated, but I could be wrong) that it was all rentals and no condos? Now you’re pointing out how we’re building condos and not rentals?
There are other levers we can use to encourage more rental units and Councilor Danberg pointed to a couple of these, such as allowing for a larger envelope if the owners develop smaller units. The discussion should focus on how we go from here to there.
@chuck, not changing my tune. Not saying we should be build more rentals, just that we should stop using race as means to line developers pockets by allowing them to overdevelop luxury apartments.
Short of a financial collapse (i.e. 2008) real estate prices generally tend to trend up. As Tony Soprano once famously said, “because God isn’t making any more land”.
We may see (a collapse in prices) in the upcoming years if WFH becomes permanent and the Boston office space market goes into free fall, but it it won’t be because Northland is throwing up nearly 700 luxury apartments and offering a drive in movie screen in the interim.
@NewtonMom. That exact scenario is happening all over the north side of the city, in Newtonville, West Newton and Auburndale. .
@Matt Lai – the Newton Tab is part of the Wicked Local chain of Gannet owned newspapers. That story about rental discrimination did indeed run in the Newton Tab as well in other towns’ newspapers. The article did explicitly say that four of the tested rental sites were in Newton.
Still waiting for someone to explain why brookline and watertown have twice the number of multi family units but much worst race demographics than Newton
If fact, it seems like it might have to opposite affect!
If you use race to justify increasing MF units, you have to be able to support the case. The stats on Brookline and watertown totally contradictory to the claim
@bugek it’s a step, it’s not the full answer. Keep in mind that a lot of the issues about where people live go back generations. Brookline has more multifamily units, but remains much less dense than its surrounding communities. That puts a cap on what happens there. A few months ago there was a photograph of a property owned by a single developer that extended from Brookline into Boston. On the Boston side they built a series of apartments, but on the Brookline side they could only get a couple of condos approved. IT WAS THE SAME PROPERTY.
I can’t speak to Watertown’s demographics. I know that anecdotally, many people who were raised in Watertown tended to close to family, with multiple generations building on the same plot of land. Watertown only recently started developing more multifamily units, so we’ll have to see how that develops.
But again IT IS A STEP NOT THE WHOLE THING. If everyone is going to keep blocking every single step that we could take because it alone won’t solve the problem, then we will forever stand still.
Chuck,
Its important to understand in case the zoning has the complete opposite affect (gentrification of all lower middle class over next decades)
If the intention is to change the shape of racial demographics then you are looking for social engineering (city to dicate the supply and prices and restrictions)
The market(developers) will simply build for maximum profit.
Enforcing affordable units only make financial sense over 4 units (fewer the units, the more expensive the others will be and creates a wider rich poor gap).
Ie middle class get shafted again.
@Chuck
“There are other levers we can use to encourage more rental units and Councilor Danberg pointed to a couple of these, such as allowing for a larger envelope if the owners develop smaller units.”
From their website:
“TRIO Newton Apartments – High-End Luxury Rentals”
Studio 1 Bath 596-639 Sq Ft
Starting at 2670 / month
1 Bed 1 Bath 709/837 Sq Ft
Starting at 2990 / month
1 Bed + Den + 1 Bath 829 Sq Ft
Starting at 3540 / month.
Those are already pretty small and pretty expensive.
Yikes. I see nothing about this whole thing (all the development in Newton) that will increase affordable housing. However, I AM in favor of
eliminating Single Family zoning, if for no reason other than to flush out the hypocrisy in Newton and to enjoy a little schadenfreude…
Rick frank,
Nah, I’m sure there will be a “village character” clause (i.e the Waban carve out at 2-3 story height restriction) if this ever goes through.
This will allow them to dump more korf sized buildings on the “poorer” (relatively speaking) areas of Newton
“Yikes. I see nothing about this whole thing (all the development in Newton) that will increase affordable housing. However, I AM in favor of
eliminating Single Family zoning, if for no reason other than to flush out the hypocrisy in Newton and to enjoy a little schadenfreude…”
Thank you @RickFrank. #LikeButton
Jerry, I like best your concluding lines:
“Eliminating single family zoning DOES NOT MEAN eliminating single family homes. It means allowing home owners to use their homes as they see fit and means recognizing that their is no moral superiority in a single family home over a multi-family home. If single family zoning were eliminated tomorrow not much would change the next day. In the middle to longer term, as people’s needs change, some housing would become multi-family because that’s the housing that the homeowner needed or wanted. Dictating by zoning law that forever after, all single family homes must forever remain single family homes is a bad idea.”
To me, that rationale provides sufficient basis for the change (and not just within a certain distance of mass transit.) Like others here, I do not believe this will do much to create affordable housing given the land values and construction costs in this area. I don’t believe it will do anything to change the racial or socio-economic mix of the city. I don’t even believe it will do much to encourage the use of mass transit. That being said, it is unlikely to do anything to hurt those laudable public policy goals.
The most cogent argument I have heard against the change is that it could somehow change the feeling of some neighborhoods. But if there is sufficient enforcement of frontage rules, adjacency to neighboring yard rules, and FARs, that shouldn’t happen. As you walk around our neighborhood in Newton Center, the lots with two family houses are just as esthetically pleasing parts of the streetscape as single family houses.
‘Eliminating single family zoning DOES NOT MEAN eliminating single family homes. It means allowing home owners to use their homes as they see fit and means recognizing that their is no moral superiority in a single family home over a multi-family home.”
Not entirely true.
In my area, R3, once a home is converted to multi family IT CANNOT REVERT to single family. So, overtime it’s more likely to eliminate single family homes. If you allow the reversion to single family, THEN you have no moral superiority.
If everyone here is agreed that we can allow multifamily on every residential lot in the city, then let’s just move in that direction and work out the details. I’d be all for that.
Are we in agreement?
An little discussed unintended consequence might be transitioning the inventory of Newton housing into an instrument for making less-wealthy households more financially precarious than where they are now. To the extent possible, any Council action should include measures designed to and effective at precluding that outcome.
In a word, “Evictions”.
One of the economic benefits of single family housing is the central role is plays in building household wealth. I am aware of no parallel benefit accruing from occupying a multi-family dwelling (unless one is the owner of the property).
@Bugek on July 17, 2020 at 12:02 pm started this conversation with a not dissimilar observation which IMHO is more important to fathom than the credit afford it by subsequent staking-out of positions.
Net net, “Care must be taken so to not impose a structural economic disadvantage onto a household that today cannot afford to live in Newton, merely to say that they can live in Newton.” Our pride of place isn’t worth all that much to them.
@mary
In another word “serfdom”?
As I understand it, lack of home ownership ( or property ownership) was and is one of the long term barriers to wealth accumulation within a family.. Even for the “greatest generation” ( my parents generation ) , owning a home was a single investment that allowed many of them, even with a pension, to have some semblance of wealth to afford long term care if they needed it. Or pass that wealth into their children.
So, Mary, you make a good point, it’s never simple.
I would submit that the problem of affordable housing is far to complex to solve by zoning; that may be one piece, but without all the other parameters working together- income inequality, and probably the biggest problem – stagnant wages for most people – the consequences are not easy to predict with just market forces at play; Trio is the perfect example. I’m not sure they will get that kind of money post Covid ( a number of my daughter’s friends in Manhattan are getting out of the city and looking to buy in the burbs because of Covid- my daughter and her husband had a baby while both testing positive, all are doing well) but that’s the price point they’re working with.
It does kind of boggle my mind what they’re selling at trio. The pictures of all the common spaces are kinda crazy. And, all I can think of is a tragedy of the commons in the making. Who is going to clean and repair all that common space? It like a dorm. It’s going to get wrecked over time. Who’s going to provide the pool cues once they’re broken? Someone has a party and a guest breaks some furniture or something? Is their a full time cleaning service? I can’t see it panning out in the long run.
Rick,
In defense of Trio, i have friends living in buildings managed by the same company. Its spotless, they have fulltime cleaning staff. The only issue is dogs peeing in elevator..
But yes, your average renter is not going to save much for down payment while living at these high priced rentals. Providing more ownership opportunities is a better goal
For those who wonder why all these rental developments? Its called “yield”. Interest rates are so low, you have to take on stock market risk to get return on money. Rental apartments are less risky to investors over the long term
Rentals are being driven by investors … not the goodness of their heart. They have a right to, but for the city council to go along blindly is a shame
@Mary it’s a very important point, but I would be curious to hear from experts about the opportunity that remains for people to build wealth through home ownership. What I’ve seen written recently is around the idea that the 20th century suburban growth was one of the largest wealth creators we’ve ever seen. Can we continue that growth? Is that opportunity gone? How can we help those that didn’t have that opportunity at the time?
Relative to income, a home in Newton today is much more expensive than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Those of us who were lucky enough to purchase then have benefited, but how does another person get in? Saving up the downpayment is a huge problem, but that’s also true no matter where you are in the Boston region.
I agree with @Newton Mom. I see developers buying up the smaller, more affordable houses, putting in multiple units and charging upwards of 1.5M for these condos. Which in the end means that Newton has fewer affordable houses. This is an expensive place to live. I’m not sure I get the connection to how this legislation is making our housing and commuity more diversified. You have to add the diversity to the neighborhoods that do not currently have diversity. Renting in Newton in these luxury apartments is not going to bring individuals closer to owning their own home. Luxury rentals is what I see on the northside with a percentage of affordable housing units which are frankly still quite expensive.
Introducing more multi family housing into Newton will make the populace more transient. It will make Newton more like Brookline, which according to reports from friends there, do not have the same sense of community with their schools. If you listen to Toucher+Rich on 98.5, you might be familiar with their regular bit “Everybody is Angry in Brookline”. Both Toucher and Rich lived in Brookline when they first moved to this market and they both hated it. My theory is that since the population is more transient, it’s easier to be a jerk when you don’t plan on putting roots. By lining the pockets of their developer pals/donors, the city council will change the culture of Newton and not for the better.
@Chuck Tanowitz: Then let’s accept, without needing to agree, that neither you nor I are the “experts” to whom you refer.
Just letting that sit there for a while …
The collective hand-wringing about the inability of next generations to afford a down payment for a Newton property needs to be understood in the context of the “Financial Crisis of 2007-8”. That in no small part was precipitated by the likes of Barney Frank (D:MA) and Chris Dodd (D:CT) simultaneously making it easier for lenders to leverage-up and for Congress to pursue a public policy of an unprecedented expansion in home ownership. Once in the throws of that problem, the rational choice was to force interest rates down aggressively … to the point that, as noted in comments above, retail interest rates are effective 0%. (Let’s pause for a moment to acknowledge that at no time in our lifetime have we experienced a deflationary economy, though they have existed elsewhere and at other times.)
The consequence was an inflation of asset values. Real estate, being “an asset”, responded in kind, and prices went and continue going up at rates unknown in any generation. If money wasn’t “free”, the problems you see in Newton housing prices would not remain.
Your willingness to solve a national-scale monetary problem (i.e., artificially low longer term interest rates) by ensuring that at least Newton’s current home owners will be able to sell to someone who will put the land to a “higher and better use” is admirably capitalistic. However, moreso than merely not advancing the economic well-being of less advantaged households, doing that almost guarantees that those households will not achieve the comforts of this generation within the geographic footprint called “the City of Newton”.
“Rick Frank” above mentioned “serfdom” … which I understood as highlighting the economic divide between owners and renters. You own; the future being described has a higher proportion of renters in Newton. It is likely difficult for anyone but your “experts” to understand.
Full stop.
It’s funny how much thinly veiled racism, classism, and elitism apparently exists among many of the “woke” residents of Newton, who nauseatingly purport to promote a “welcoming” community for whom “hate has no home here.” As long as it’s not near their home, I guess.
@Mary yes, that’s my full name. I’m not afraid to use it…. Even when you grossly misunderstand what I’m saying.
Ted,
To be fair, Waban did try to open a homeless shelter in their village…
The result of which destroyed the career of the Mayor at the time.
Lets see if this zoning(without carve outs and city wide height restrictions) can pass now that they can’t just dump density onto the North side of Newton.
“Rentals is not the path to building wealth.”
“Zoning will not create more affordable housing”
“This is an expensive place to live. I’m not sure I get the connection to how this legislation is making our housing and commuity more diversified.“
“ Luxury rentals is what I see on the northside with a percentage of affordable housing units which are frankly still quite expensive.“
Nice comments today but where were you all when Right Size was making these same arguments whilst being called NIMBY last year?
Somewhere Larry Gottesdiener is laughing his arse off as his bulldozers make their way to Needham Street.
@matt we had one of their signs on our lawn ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=02460
This report emphasizes wage stagnation as the major component, And the high cost of construction, while also mentioning restrictive zoning.
53.00 an hour to afford a one bedroom market rate apartment.
I’m not sure there’s a local solution – just build more housing – that can mend this gap; some places are putting back in rent control.
I benefited from rent control when I was a student and lived in Brookline. It’s no longer rent controlled and is now a condo.
My aunt lived in her garden apartment on Long Island , rent controlled, for 60 years ( she passed away at 95 ).
@Rick Frank,
Rent control went out the door in 1994 by state wide referendum. There are a couple of bills currently pending on the topic but Gov. Baker opposes both. Maybe something for the future but not probable that we will see the law change during this administration.
Lord help us. This is now a national election issue…
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/21/893471887/seeking-suburban-votes-trump-targets-rule-to-combat-racial-bias-in-housing
I fully expect all Newton residents to immediately approve the zoning changes to confirm their opposition to the president :)
I believe our more achievable density-oriented goal in Newton should be to strengthen our villages to promote local shopping, shorter trips, more opportunities for walking and biking in a “car-lite” lifestyle, more community, and greater safety for people of all ages. Livable streets and vibrant villages.
That means greater density should not be designed around transit alone, since transit for much of Newton doesn’t serve the majority of many people’s travel needs.
Density should be designed around the village model. At the same time, village centers should be restored to the the social and commercial hubs they used to be. This helps out businesses and residents. As a side effect, many villages have transit nodes.
Bring the benefits of density to people, not just the negative impacts, and do it in a way that is uniquely Newton.
If the goal is to make not just housing, but life more affordable, reduce the need for a car, or especially a second car. Due to COVID, remote work has been proven viable for a chunk of the working population. That may change where people live and how they run life’s errands. Let’s be prepared to take advantage of those opportunities by providing local resources for people who work at or close to home.
Start with the kind of City we want to have. Then build from those goals towards policies that make them happen.
@Mike Halle, couldn’t agree more. Which is why the city should be pursuing a public/private partnership to create affordable housing IN the village centers…think above retail, above parking lots and not setting the table for developers to “go to town” building luxury units replacing existing homes with two car spaces per unit
Or two family properties with four to six units and 8 to 12 cars
In a perfect world, multifamily means more affordable. Developers will take a house worth about $700,00 and knock it down to make a 3-unit “multifamily” where the units cost $1.5 million a piece. How does that improve affordability? I see it everywhere in Newton.
Christine,
In a far-from-perfect, but perfectly achievable world, multi-family would also include dimensional controls (limits on the size of each unit) that make it economically feasible for a developer to teardown a $700,000 house and build 3 $700,000 homes and not possible to build 3 $1.5 million homes.
Also, keep in mind, if you simply eliminate multi-family housing, then the developer is going to knock down the house and build a single $2 million home. So, it’s not like preventing multi-family homes is going to save the somewhat affordable $700,000 home.
Sean
The prices in newton are relative to brookline and boston.
A brand new 3br condo less than 10 miles to downtown with VERY low crime and top rated schools will sell way way over 700k.
The developer can list for 700k but it will be bid up at least 800k on the first day its listed.
For your plann to work, EVERY town needs to dramatically increase supply… or a deep recession.
Lets face it, a majority of residents are not going to vote against their own interests(driving down the price of their most value asset/retirement nestegg)
Thank you, Jerry, for this brief history on zoning in Newton and everyone else for the comments in response to Jerry’s post.
Zoning reform to allow for more multifamily housing in Newton is desperately needed to provide more diverse housing options and address the housing shortage crisis we are experiencing in Greater Boston. In of itself it will not address the inherent racism in housing (by landlords, realtors, and banks who have, for example, been documented to charge higher interest rates for people of color). To achieve greater diversity, we need to enforce fair housing laws that we had on the books for more than 50 years. And we need zoning reform to be also coupled with the production of affordable housing, especially units at the 50% and 80% AMI levels to move the needle toward more economic diversity. The statistics Kathleen shared on the replacement of middle-income households with affluent households in Newton are real and troublesome, and it will take more than zoning reform to combat it. Yet, zoning reform is the foundation for changing our course.
HISTORICAL Q’s ABOUT NEWTON’S RESIDENTIAL ZONING
Sorry for this very late response to Mike Halle’s July 18 question about the “general residence” zone on Newton’s 1921 zoning map, which allowed “multi-family houses, apartments, and boarding houses, not just two-family homes.” That 1921 map is the original proposal from the Planning Board’s consultants.
Unfortunately, I haven’t yet found a map of the zoning Newton actually adopted either in December 1922 or in 1925. But verbally rather than visually, for residential uses:
— The 1922 zoning as adopted included a “private residence zone,” which allowed both 1- and 2-family houses, and a “general residence zone,” which allowed both of those types plus the other options Mike quotes from the 1921 proposal.
— The 1925 zoning added a new “single-residence zone,” which allowed only 1-family houses, but it kept some areas in the “private residence zone” and others in the “general residence zone,” both as defined in 1922.
I’m working to extend my history up through the 1950s, but the definitions and boundaries of the residential zones were further redefined and revised over the following decades:
— At almost every meeting over many years after 1922, the Board of Aldermen granted multiple requests to move individual properties from one zone to another (often from general or private residence to single-residence; sometimes from a nonresidential to a residential zone, or vice versa).
— In 1940, Newton subdivided the residential zones and introduced minimum lot sizes for each subzone. In 1953, we made those minimum lot sizes larger.
In 1940 and 1953, the new lot size rules only applied to lots created after each change took effect. That’s why Newton still has different zoning rules for “old lots” and “new lots” — although many “new lots” are now several decades old!
how much consideration should be taken for the current trend of ppl wanting more space + outdoor space? I.e suburbs with lower density and quiet than crowded cities
Are the thousands of ppl now moving to suburbs from cities just simply selfish?
Ted@July 21, 2020 at 2:52 pm:
The same point made about “comprehensive” approaches in 2013 (at timecode 4:50) still applies. The progressive values Newton pursues are not merely “thing goals”, such as exploiting a derelict firehouse house or changing zoning so to get more affordable housing. Newton pursues “people goals”, such as attending to veterans, seniors, and other identifiable communities in need of help.
Whether we choose a future with a greater number of people living per square meter and whether the particular formula for accomplishing that is high-rise apartments or SR1/SR2/SR3-style multi-family dwellings doesn’t change the point made to you in 2013. If we are to solve a problem rather than just make a change, the approach needs to be more comprehensive than merely dismissing others as “limousine liberals”/
So, is your problem du jour “the homeless”? (You might support the residents at the Suburban YMCA).
Is it a more intermixed racial population? (You might focus your address on achieving home ownership
Is it aging in place …
Is it …
…
We have every reason to believe that citizens of Newton can and would support well exercised proposals that speak to one or more identifiable needs. We have every reason to believe that initiatives that fall short, on any of the many facets that go into making something “comprehensive”, will be rejected by those with whom you’ve chosen to live among.
Leaving details important to constituents to be worked out in “later stages” is not confidence building.
My issue is: How does building many more luxury apartments help our city to diversify and be more inclusive? A single house divided into 2 units at 1 million each is not helping anybody, is it??
Race has nothing to do with it, it’s the money!! If only we had kept more modest homes instead of demolishing them. What we need now is plenty of low income places, not just a very small percentage of what is being built!