Lots of folks, including candidates in the recent special election, have identified eliminating or limiting teardowns as a key objective of Newton’s zoning reform. I get the sense, though, that different folks have different objectives for and different expectations from what I’ll call discouraging teardowns. So, open thread. What are your thoughts on teardowns?
Some possible questions to answer:
- Why should we discourage or not discourage teardowns?
- How would we/should we discourage teardowns? To what extent?
- Should we discourage all teardowns? Certain sized homes? Certain types of homes? Not discourage teardowns at all?
- Any particular neighborhoods where teardowns are a concern?
- Should we also discourage significant renovations and additions? To what extent?
- What do you think will happen if we reduce teardowns? Impact on the neighborhood? Impact on affordability? Impact on the environment? Impact on diversity?
- What would be the impact on homeowners’ property values? What should be the impact?
You are free to add any thoughts (or pose additional questions) on the topic (within the bounds of acceptable commenting practices), but I’d be really interested to hear what folks think would happen to a house that would have otherwise been torn down if the rules change to discourage teardowns. Or, what folks think would happen to a neighborhood vulnerable to teardowns if the rules change.
Have at it. Please show your work.
Do my eyes deceive me? Sean Roche started a thread without calling somebody a racist!?!
I have often thought about what people really mean when they want to restrict teardowns and I have not heard a cogent argument about what is the bar to determine when there should be a teardown. One person’s ugly Mcmansion is someone else’s “humble” abode. I wonder what the people who purchase these Mcmansions think about teardowns.
What sometimes concerns me about the discussion of teardowns is that much of the debate seems to be around aesthetics. Too big, Too ugly, etc. I think we all have different definitions. These are valid concerns and should be addressed via zoning and planning policy.
However, how heavy a hand government (or our neighbors) should have to dictate what we want to do with our private property is up for debate. Is it fine for a neighbor to add a huge addition to their house and then turn around and say they don’t think My old, in poor condition property should be torn down. For many older citizens, especially those who have lived in their house for a long time, their house is their biggest semi-liquid single asset. As one of those “older” people, I am sometimes disturbed about what seems to be a desire to ban teardowns since I do believe it could affect my property values. That is not to say I want Walmart strip malls or five houses put into a single family lot. I have my own opinions about what should or should not be built and I think much of the discussion by our leaders seems to be just that, their opinions. I don’t know the answer, but I have yet to see a logical and deliberate approach from the mayor, past and present, or the city council about this issue.
I do not object to tear downs. I live near Cheesecake Brook. Up in this area tear downs are routine as well as a multitude of additions. Here it is the norm and every single one has added positively to the quality of life for homeowners and their neighbors. This is ongoing since the early 1990s. Some homes are very large and some are medium sized, many are 2 family.
My guess is that most teardown candidates do not meet current structural, electrical, and energy efficiency standards. So if you’re trying to increase affordability by reducing quality, preventing teardowns would be a good way to accomplish this.
I see no problem with tear downs. Some homes are so old or poorly built that it makes no sense to renovate. A newly built home will not have legacy problems like lead paint or asbestos, either.
If you want to prevent homes that are too big for the plot of land from being built, set rules around what % of a plot of land must be preserved for a yard. I’m no zoning expert, but I suspect such rules must already exist.
The problem is not teardowns but the monsters that are being built instead. They are completely changing Newton’s “look and feel”, IMO in a negative way. I think there should be a hard limit on the size of a house that can be built in the city, regardless of lot size – it should not be allowed to grow indefinitely. The allowed size can be a little more generous for multi-family housing.
I live in a neighborhood with modest size homes, and if and when each is torn torn, to build a two family multi million dollar town home, my whole neighborhood will turn over to millionaires. I love our small neighborhood. I know all of my neighbors and we used to have block parties. I have seen three modest size homes in our hood be knocked down, and the replacements do look out of place. But if and when my next door neighbor knocks down his 1925 house (1700 square feet), he will replace it with a 4,000 square foot home. I fear no sunlight. My house (1100 square feet) will look like a dwarf.
And of course, I think I am a nice person, but with a 4000 square foot home, you have priced me out of Newton. I have lived here twenty years and both my kids attend the schools. I am just a plain working parent who can’t afford a $2,000,000 home. So, I do believe in small homes.
I don’t know how to NOT knock them down, but my next door neighbor is actively trying to knock down his home to build a 4,000 square foot home. How does that affect the future sale of my home? Will anyone want to live in a shadow of a large home. Will anyone want my doll house sized home?
I don’t know how to fix it, but I am sad that there are so few homes that I could afford, and most of them are sold and knocked down to build multi million dollar homes. My home is 3 small bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no garage and 1,100 square feet. We have raised our family here, and plan to live in our home for a long time.
Good thread. Good questions.
An interesting laboratory in which you can look at or think about restricting teardowns are the existing Historic Districts. The rules there have a different purpose but they effectively make it very difficult to tear down a modest older house and build a “McMansion” in its place. They also add substantial obstacles to knockdowns that will be replaced by similar sized/scaled new houses.
I live in Upper Falls where most of the neighborhood is in one of the city’s Historic Districts. Despite the very restrictive rules there has been A LOT of re-development in recent years. Because of those rules, when houses have been rehabbed or rebuilt, the neighborhood hasn’t seen any of the “McMansioning” that people often object to – i.e. a little house being replaced by a giant house that sticks out like a sore thumb from the surrounding houses.
That said there has still been LOTS of new development, LOTS of escalating prices and rents and not much evidence that making it difficult to tear down does much, in the medium to longer term, to maintaining affordability. In the short term, and maybe in the margins, it might do some to help affordability. Its a lengthy, expensive and potentially difficult environment in which to rehab or rebuild a house. In some cases that may delay or slow down replacing a cheaper old house with a rebuilt newer more expensive house – though that’s just the short term. Over the longer term, the market speaks, and rising house prices make it well worth it to replace the old house. In the context of the Historic District that means replacing the old modest house with a much more expensive replacement or completely rehabbed house – i.e. not the stereotype McMansion … but the price inflation remains the same.
I think the Upper Falls Historic district has done a good job of insuring that the unique attributes of this old mill village have not been quickly lost due to new construction. I don’t think the Historic District has done much to keep the housing more affordable … but that’s not its purpose.
@NewtonMom I feel your pain. Your situation is similar to mine. I imagine if or when you go to sell your house, it will be torn down and replaced by a house similar to what your neighbor is planning to build. On the one hand, the value of your home will appreciate considerably as people build these large homes. On the other hand, whether or not your house gets redeveloped, it is very difficult for the middle to lower income population to afford another house in Newton. This is not about how many houses are torn down. It is about the dramatic shortage of affordable housing stock in Newton as well as in metro Boston.
Look at the Oak hill neighborhood. What used to be a mass of 1200 sq. ft. ranches are now million dollar homes. Twenty years from now the look and feel of your neighborhood will be what is being built now, not what was built fifty years ago. It is unfortunate. Subjectively, I understand, empathize and agree with your unhappiness about having your yard in shade. Who wouldn’t be. Objectively, however, I don’t think severe restrictions or a ban on teardowns are the solution.
When any house under 1M can be converted into literal “winning lottery ticket” by any developer then regular buyers simply cannot compete
You only end up with “build for maximum profit” type homes which are ugly and can only be afforded by uber rich
Agree with @NewtonMom. The reasons for the tear downs are set out above (lead paint, poor construction, not insulated etc.) but also cost. A house can be torn down in a day and therefore it is a cheap way of redeveloping a house. It is also very wasteful. There are plenty of older buildings (ours is a 1500 square foot 1928 house) that are of fine construction but definitely need updating. With the benefit of hindsight (always SO wonderful!) taking it down to the studs, ideally keeping the hardwood floors would have been a better approach. We needed to fix the majority of the infrastructure (water, sewer, gas, heating, insulation) and with a brand new house you get all of this without most of the tough work.
As far as the city goes, the new houses that go up cover most of the lot (in the past there were building sq ft ratio to the lot size) but that certainly does not seem to be the case these days, else it isn’t enforced or builders have found ways around this. Allowing the monster houses does nothing to improve affordability (much touted these days) but is merely lip service, given that the monster houses command monster prices and therefore perform quite the reverse of improving affordability.
The house size to lot size should be properly enforced (no end-runs around them – if a developer frequently abuses the rules they should be forced to tear down one of their newly built properties – otherwise it’s just a ‘cost of doing business’ passed on to the new owner.
I would add that smaller, older properties are a way to affordability – fixing up an old home was the only way we were able to afford a property in Newton 20+ years ago.
Useless thread, vacuous topic. Not a surprise given the poster.
Bruce C has it basically right but is just too hesitant in his conclusions. There is no justification whatsoever to limit “teardowns.”
Any individual or group of individuals can purchase a property that has been put up for sale to do with it as they please. If neighborhood preservation is important then by all means, assemble a gaggle of likeminded souls, purchase that house, and keep your corner of Newton just as it has always been.
Can’t seem to find a team of investors? I guess you can always call the Globe Magazine (or was it Boston Magazine?) and pose as a savior for the downtrodden making Newton accessible to all. It’s been done before.
Elmo,
Would you put any limits on “Any individual or group of individuals can purchase a property that has been put up for sale to do with it as they please.”? Overall size? Height? Number of units?
But by removing all the small homes, then the city is only open to millionaires (self made or family). Newton has been embracing of culture, religion, etc. We are becoming more classist. Did our house need TLC? Yes. And over the years we have brought it up to date slowly. Many of the smaller homes need updating, but someone who wants to put in their own blood, sweat and tears, will have a great small home in a great community. However, soon, we will look around, and see the “middle” class folks have moved out . . . .
We talk the talk about affordable housing but do nothing to retain midlevel smaller homes (1500 – 2000sf) that play a role in maintaining the affordability of the city. When these houses go on the market – if they go on the market at all – they are the ones that are most often torn down.
The problem isn’t aesthetics; the problem is that the house that replaces the smaller tear down is typically in the $2m range. To what extent have $2m replacement homes contributed to making Newton completely unaffordable? When a developer can offer the seller several hundred thousand dollars over any reasonable asking price, tear down the house, build an oversize house, middle-income people are priced out of the city.
A 2300sf ranch in my neighborhood sold for $1.1m and was torn down just yesterday. I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s out of hand right now and should be part of the affordable housing discussion.
Would anyone like to volunteer to sell their home that is a teardown candidate at below market value to a non-developer? Ain’t gonna happen.
The tear downs ARE creating affordable homes- for cars. Most of the new 2 family homes I see have something like 1/5 of the space devoted to an integrated garage.
These new 400 + sq ft garages house nice green *affordable* cars. Like the new 2 family over on the north side of Newtonville with the Tesla parked in the driveway.
I suppose that these new homes need a place for utilities- and it’s probably cheaper ( and less radon) to build a large garage than to dig a basement.
The whole area by Edmands park is getting torn down 1 by 1, and being replaced with not-so-affordable housing. So much for supply and demand.
Going to paint a slightly different picture of Upper Falls than Jerry. While we do not have many McMansions, we have tons of McTownhouses. Historic district or not, new, large, expensive homes are being built!
Our home is a bit of a unicorn in Newton. The prior owner (prior to whom we bought from) is an architect, who lovingly lifted the house to repair the foundation, installed a French drain and sump pumps, rehabbed the electrical, and modernized the interior, yet overall our house remain moderately sized and priced.
But this is NOT most developers, who build for profit (as they are entitled to do). So what’s the answer? While I often disagree with Sean in using racism as the driver for more affordable housing – nice start to the comments, Bruce Wang 🙂 – where I agree is that our zoning should cap the allowable livable space per dwelling.
Some may say, “what?? Is Matt Lai supporting multi-family development??” Never said I was against it, just don’t support putting the cart before the horse… and inequity.
What I am against is the imbalance of cost/benefit for the City of Newton and it’s residents. When we allow developers to build, build, build…without meaningful consideration to addressing the byproducts of density – traffic and congestion on roads and schools – developers are profiting on the backs of taxpayers. (Someone) must INVEST in infrastructure FIRST, build later. Without augmenting the foundation, even the pretties, “net zero” of buildings will crumble.
My other beef with recently proposed zoning…EQUITY. Not buying the, “if we build around transit, the service will improve.” BULL! The MBTA has been mismanaged for decades. The poor quality of service is not out of a lack of desire to provide an efficient, enjoyable experience, but an inability to do so. Newton can build thousands of units, and it will not improve mass transit one bit. Instead, our roads will simply get more crowded. And all the while, those in Newton’s low density, high residential square footage neighborhoods are spared the direct impacts of density. Multi-family for all, or none at all.
Lastly, please stop using race as both the inspiration and cause of opposition of affordable housing, particularly. Yes, some groups have had it worse than others, but EVERY group needs affordable housing. It’s not a contest to the bottom. Putting one group on a pedestal – even with the best of intentions – only creates division and marginalization of others, not unity.
If we’re going to make a meaningful dent in housing, we need to do it responsibly, equitably and as a united front.
Bruce,
Nevermind selling, non of these hardcore pro density folks are not even willing to build an accessory unit in their own homes and rent it below market to a deserving family..
Its just the height if hypocrisy. I believe there is even someone on v14 who shames ppl for excessive car usage but yet has 2 cars parked in their own driveway
Kinda funny
No one is talking about selling homes below market value. Some developers can pay as much as $300,000 above market value, thus pricing out people who’d be able to buy at market value.
@Matt Lai – I think we’re pretty much in agreement about Upper Falls:
“LOTS of new development, LOTS of escalating prices and rents” … despite the regulatory obstacles that discourage teardowns.
The problem isn’t teardowns themselves, the problem is that our current zoning is skewed towards larger houses/lots – as was mentioned earlier villages like Nonantum wouldn’t be buildable under our current zoning rules, the lots are too small, frontages too short, setbacks too close, etc… So when you have a zoning policy which encourages larger footprint houses along with grandfathering rules/special permits what you end up with is exactly what we’re seeing in the northern area – 2k sqft houses being replaced with 2x 4k sqft townhouses.
It’s one thing that unfortunately keeps getting lost in the zoning redesign discussion – when the planning department talks about R3/R4 districts and allowing smaller lots what they mean is that they’re legalizing what’s -already- existing and forcing teardowns to be more in line with the surrounding houses in size. More than half the lots on the street I live on would require variances to build if there was no grandfather rule for existing houses because they don’t have the lot size or frontage (and this is in an MR zone). This is also part of the reason why you see so many teardowns – there’s not really a valid path to building smaller houses even in the villages that already have them to large extent.
I think part of the problem with the massing of new structures is the height limit. The FAR allows the max square feet, but with the height limit, you get very bulky, short structures with shallow roofs.
I was admiring a Victorian with a steeply pitched roof – the roof must have been 1.5 stories tall! – in lower falls the other day, but given the peaks of that roof were at least 10’ above all the other houses it could never be built today.
As always, this is a personal statement. (Current and past employment listed on Linked In if anyone wants to go there again 🙂
You might recall that at the City Council meeting all those years ago, in which Amy Sangiolo proposed a one-year moratorium on tear-downs to study the phenomenon’s detrimental effect on the Garden City, the realtors attended en masse. Their ace-in-the-hole: an aging couple whose retirement depended on making a hefty profit on the sale of their home to a developer who would then, presumably, tear it down to build a McMansion. The councilors in opposition pointed to this circumstance to argue that limiting the rights of developers to tear down modest homes and replace them with McMansions meant that this wonderful couple would face a grimmer retirement without a hefty pay-out from the developer.
Other criticisms of McMansions, beyond the demolition of affordable single-unit houses, arose pertaining to the bizarre zoning variances that permitted developers to build mansions with odd shapes and with doors in odd places. Other critics pointed to the “snout house” design that frequently characterizes McMansions: two huge garages featured prominently at the front of the house, close to the street and dominating the architecture. It almost suggested that the primary residents of the McMansion were automobiles. These days some McMansions, not surprisingly, contain three-car garages and sizable paved parking lots on the property as well.
I leave the aesthetic argument to others and want to point out only that the hands-off approach to the issue of tear-downs and their replacement with multi-million dollar McMansions has hastened Newton’s transformation from an economically diverse community to an increasingly affluent city, home of the wealthy and privileged. If residents truly want to encourage those of moderate income to move here, then the discussion of zoning reform should include not only rules for ensuring that multi-unit lots have some affordable units but that affordable single-family homes not be consigned to the dustbin of history.
@Bob. I appreciate your point of view, but I need to take exception with your comment that Newton is being transformed from an economically diverse community, as a result of teardowns, to an unaffordable community. Economic diversity is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, Newton is economically diverse compared to Weston or Wellesley, but that doesn’t make it affordable from my perspective.
As someone who grew up in Stoughton in the late 70s/early 80s, we never thought of Newton as an economically diverse or affordable city. We thought of it as a wealthy city with many advantages. As with all wealthy enclaves, there are pockets where it may actually have been affordable, but those areas are small.
We are not Watertown or Waltham. We have always aligned property values more closely with Weston and Wellesley. It may be more difficult to find a fixer upper or something affordable in Newton than in past, but the issue of relatively affordability comparing past to present affects all metro Boston communities. The lack of new housing stock supply is the issue that keeps any community in this area to be affordable.
Lets take a real example. Hong kong probably has the most relaxed zoning restrictions… high rise condos as far as the eye can see. Tiny 2br of 500 sqft are common
Did this make housing more affordable? Quite the opposite, it has one of the highest price per sq foot in the world.
The point: the economy,jobs and distance to job center drive house prices. Period.
I’m not sure if actively discouraging teardowns will have the desired effect. The house linked below is in my neighborhood. It’s modest, by most standards. I’ve heard from people who have lived there before that there is no way to make it larger and it’s turned over several times since I’ve been here… never to a developer. This is as close to the edge of Newton as you can get, right on the Waltham line, so it’s not like this is Newton Centre. Still, it’s $900k. And has an offer.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/10-Kensington-Ave_Newton_MA_02465_M35936-75420
Meanwhile, spitting distance from my house, two slab ranches have been torn down to be replaced by much larger homes. I know that one of those sold for less than this one, though the final investment will clearly be much larger.
The bigger question is, what makes something a McMansion? I’ve always loved the site “McMansion Hell” which aims to answer that. It really has to do with building a house from the inside out rather than from the outside in, and that is much more of a symptom of who we’ve become as a society. We drive our cars right into our houses and cloister ourselves from the world. The house simply recognizes that reality.
https://mcmansionhell.com/
Bugek, really? You’re using Hong Kong as an example. A different country, different style of government, different needs of the population. How about we use San Francisco as an example of what not building new housing does to affordability.
Bruce,
Then use NYC as an example, countless number of highrises and tiny apartments…
Every city mentioned has excellent high paying job opportunities … thats the common factor here
Chuck – I think that’s a significant part of the issue. When so many smaller homes sell for well over their market value because a developer buys them and tears them down, then these same houses become “comparables”.
If my neighborhood is any indication of a trend, the prevalence of teardowns has escalated in the last three years or so. I fear we’re losing the full range of housing, thereby making the city as a whole less affordable, even in areas that were historically more affordable.
Since the housing moratorium was proposed five years ago, the situation has escalated so I hope teardowns become part of the housing discussion, rather than a separate issue. In my mind, the goal would be to preserve the full range of housing in the city: subsidized, affordable, multiple family, development rentals, townhouses, smaller single family, midrange, to as big as you like.
I too am concerned that these new houses do little to invite social interaction with neighbors.
So I moved to Newton in 2005 and there were a few teardowns in my hood within the first few years of us living here, but they were primarily mid-size and emulated the look of the current houses, shutters, siding etc. I found those much more palatable than the stuff I’m seeing now. Oversized and stuffed into small lots, with a look that doesn’t match the feel of the area, big garages, and they’re expensive. So I think it’s gotten worse.
Here is an idea. I just read in the Newton Tab that the Hebrew College is relocating to share a campus with Temple Reyim. There is nothing in the story that indicates what they plan to do with the campus which contains both building and housing.
This would be a fabulous opportunity to create affordable housing steps from the Newton Centre T Station, but it would take the city to be proactive and reach out and ask if they would be willing to donate it. The college has operated tax free forever. So it is not outlandish to ask. And frankly if they say no, this might be a perfect candidate for eminent domain.
It would be terrible to see that purchased by a developer.
Has anyone heard it any plans are finalized for that campus?
NEVER MIND. Just read article in the Globe that they had already sold it to an “independent school” in 2018. It is unclear why a school would need that much land and per the Globe article, they too are non-profit. So no tax revenue.
Maybe the city should still try to acquire some of it? Why didn’t they acquire it when it was available?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/globelocal/2018/08/21/hebrew-college-sells-newton-campus-for/iUmlWpVABk3COurQxkq1CM/story.html?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link
@Bob Jampol “You might recall that at the City Council meeting all those years ago, in which Amy Sangiolo proposed a one-year moratorium on tear-downs to study the phenomenon’s detrimental effect on the Garden City, the realtors attended en masse. Their ace-in-the-hole: an aging couple whose retirement depended on making a hefty profit on the sale of their home to a developer who would then, presumably, tear it down to build a McMansion” How absurd right Bob.
It isn’t as if the “aging couple” didn’t have anyone but developers who would buy their property. Assuming they had lived in the home for any period of time, they would have still made an excellent profit. And they would only have been delayed one year in selling it.
The market value of a home is based upon the actual purchase price , not the price it is listed. If a developer pays a whopping 300k over the asking price then the value of that home is he market price. The realtor didn’t do a proper job of listing it at the right price.
As for the “greedy” elderly couple that took the developer’s price, every seller can choose who who they would like as a buyer within the bounds of what is legal( i.e., no discrimination). The seller of the house could have chosen not to sell to a developer and taken 300k less. If people want to do that, good luck. I know I am not wealthy enough to give up hat amount of money if I sold my house.
This discussion needs to recognize a few things:
1. The fed is currently printing a lot of money. This is leading to asset price inflation. Chief among these assets are homes.
2. The pandemic has accelerated the move to suburbs. The coming millennial demographic bulge is entering the family formation phase of their lives. Net result – more demand for homes.
3. Supply of homes is lower. Why? Job related relocations are becoming less common. Also, life expectancy is increasing and people are increasingly opting to “age in place”.
4. Boston is host to a number of industries that are on the vanguard of growth. Think biotech, tech, and all their attendant professional and financial services. Net result – lots of wealth being generated.
5. Boston has an ocean to one side of it. This means you can’t live to its East. Supply of land is limited. Supply of land close to the city with good schools is even more limited.
Net result : upward pressure on home prices.
I’m very skeptical that regulations on teardowns will do much to counter these forces.
Bruce, the only person to characterize the elderly couple as “greedy” was you. BTW, don’t put something is quotes unless you are quoting someone.
My point was that a one year delay, which was the proposal on the table, was not unreasonable
Claire, as you get closer to retirement, old age, and other signs of mortality, you might have a different perspective on what waiting a year can mean to a senior citizen trying to work out finances for the rest of his or her life! (My favorite line from some: “I don’t even buy green bananas any more.”)
But that’s not my main point in writing. It’s this: This issue is not unique to our city. There must be other places that have successfully dealt with it. Shouldn’t we explore what has worked and not worked elsewhere rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
Here’s a story, for example, from LA about an approach that didn’t work there: https://la.curbed.com/2020/3/17/21183633/mcmansions-big-houses-rules-los-angeles. “In 2008, the city enacted rules designed to crack down on the size of new residences in areas zoned for single-family housing. After the original ordinance was criticized for being too lenient, it was strengthened in 2017, limiting the square footage of homes to 45 percent of a lot’s size.
But residents in Melrose, which has been a flashpoint in the debate, say McMansion construction hasn’t stopped. They want to know why.”
Here’s a survey piece from the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/nyregion/mcmansions-or-bashandbuilds-some-towns-have-had-enough.html
There mainly seem to be stories about what doesn’t work. Perhaps others can find examples where it did (although the definition of “work” is probably up for debate itself.)
Paul, commenting on your “not my main point” 🙂 I’m staring retirement in my front view window, so I can totally relate
A question I’d like to dig into and get some data on ….
We currently have a process in place if someone wants to demolish a house. If a house is more than 50 years old it goes before the Historic Commission. If they deem it “preferably preserved” then a one year moratorium is put in place before it can be demolished.
I’d love to know how that has played out. What fraction of houses that have had this moratorium imposed are knocked down at the end of the year? Is the moratorium changing what happens to houses i.e. they end up rehabbed rather than demolished … or do most of these houses still get knocked down?
Jerry,
To your question, common sense would suggest tear downs still occur in 99.9% of cases. The only diff is probably a 5% decline in selling price to offset the extra carrying costs for 1 year.
Ie this does nothing but spite the developers (to no avail) and take money away from residents
@Jerry – The one year moratorium does nothing to prevent developers from tearing down a perfectly wonderful home that a family would happily enjoy and use for many years. The developer often rents the house for one year before tearing it down. See below for what has just been built in place of quaint brick colonial that while was not cheap, was 1/3 of the new price it will be listed for. The developer pays cash, there is a quick close, and doesn’t care about the inspection. End user buyers (families) can not compete. BTW- this is the norm in my neighborhood NOT an exception.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/45-Claremont-St-Newton-MA-02458/56303527_zpid/
@Jerry:: I don’t have real statistics for you, but I can tell you that every house in my neighborhood that had the one-year delay imposed on it was eventually torn down. So anecdotally I don’t think it’s working at all in terms of more affordable housing stock. The delay is just factored into the developer’s business plan. I wouldn’t expect otherwise: at the time the application is made the developer already owns the property and is expecting the delay. Would they sell it back to “private” hands because of a year’s delay? Just the overhead of selling is probably not worth it. Rehabbing is a lot less profitable, and profit is the only consideration in those cases. So the question is somewhat ill-formed. What should be asked is how many sales to developers the one-year rule is preventing. It probably does increase the threshold of what makes a property a “teardown property”, but there’s really no way to quantify that.
@bugek – That’s why I ask the question. If in fact no, or very few, houses actually get preserved via the moratorium then it serves no purpose – just introduces delays and costs for no good end.
I’ve heard anecdotal evidence from @Newtoner, @Jessica, and others that most of these houses still are demolished. I’ve also heard your ‘common sense’ estimate of 99.9% being demolished. There has got to be some more reliable hard numbers about it that can be teased out of public records. I’ll have to have a think about that.
Note that this is not to question the .1% accuracy of your common-sense-ometer …. “trust but verify” 😉
@Newtoner – Hmm, I hadn’t thought about that. Unfortunately, as you say, there’s no reliable way to quantify whether the potential for delay has thwarted any sales to developers. In this market I too would guess that effect would be negligible but there’s no way to know for sure. .. or at least none that I can think of other than anecdotes.
@Jerry Reilly – The only scenario I could see the delay actually having an effect if it’s being torn down by someone who is doing the teardown for themselves rather than as a flip, I’m sure developers just factor that into their equation and given how valuable land is in Newton I’d assume that it’s a non factor to have to wait a year with the guaranteed profit they’re going to get.
Patrick,
Another scenario would be when market has stayed to cool down. That extra year could make a big difference in risk (developer left holding the bag incase of market crash)
So data should be correlated to Market conditions also
@ Jerry, in regards to a demo delay due to preferably preserved, the developer can bypass that if they present plans that show that they are preserving the house. After 4 months, they can come back before the historical commission with a plan and if approved the demo delay is waived. But preserves usually means keeping the front and side facades, gutting everything else and then attaching three luxury units in the back. And the historical commission approves these. It seems the only concern is the appearance of preservation.
These then come before the Land Use Committee in the form of a special permit and the developer argues that approving the project is preferable to the tear down. But that isn’t always the case. I think the Land Use Committee does a pretty good job pushing back if the special permit project is larger than what can be done By Right.
A perfect example is a current special permit request on former Councilman Brian Yates house in Upper Falls
@Claire – Yes, sometimes developers don’t get their desired outcomes from the Land Use committee.
Good zoning is like good poetry: non-prescriptive, but with rules or constraints allowing an infinite variety of expression. Think of sonnets or haiku.
My simple rule would be to heavily disincentivize teardown-rebuilds that reduce pervious surface area.
Practically this means building more for people and less for cars, and building up less than out.
I don’t buy the idea that limiting teardowns will preserve moderately priced housing in Newton. Not at all.
There is a little one-story Cape that I pass on my way to my office. From the oustide, the house looks to be in need of a lot of repair work, has suffered from a lack of maintenance, and the lawn and landscaping are overgrown. So, I looked it up on the assessors database to get an idea of what it was worth. I am not going to give away the location because it is privately owned, but here is what the database says about it.
Like a lot of post WWII housing in Newton, it is a 70 year old one-story Cape with 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1-1/2 baths, 1300 square feet, in below average condition, with an unfinished basement, sitting on a little under 17,000 square feet on an odd-shaped lot with the minimum required frontage that gets narrower. The assessed value is about $600,000. That is beyond the reach of most middle and working class families. And it is not in very good condition, so the cost to bring it up to date would bring the total cost much higher. Assessed value is based on sale prices that are at least a year old, and lag behind the current fair market value by quite a bit. So the current fair market value is probably considerably higher than $600,000. In other words, it is a likely candidate for demolition.
This is the kind of house that would be “saved” by a moratorium on demolition: it is not a starter house; it is not moderately priced; at best it is a “fixer-upper”
and at worst it is a “teardown.” For the owner, it is very possibly a nest egg for retirement. I don’t want that owner to not be able to retire comfortably by preventing them from selling it for the most they can get for it, regardless of the buyer. So to say that preventing tear downs will save moderately priced houses is inaccurate. To say that it could hurt owners where it hurts most would be accurate.
I’m not talking about isolated instances of a house that’s beyond repair being torn down. If you walk three blocks from my house in any direction, you would count 20-25 new houses that are a result of teardowns. A number of the original houses were ranches in decent condition.
The demolition delay did work in our neighborhood. The first we heard that the house next door had been sold was when the letter arrived from the city informing us of the demolition hearing. The neighbors attended the historic commission meeting, requesting a demolition delay, which was granted. The developer returned several weeks later with a new plan for a substantial addition that included many details that were in keeping with the style of houses on the street.
One of the things I was able to get passed before I retired from the City Council was an amendment to the demolition delay ordinance that dramatically reduced the number of applications to the Historic Commission. Previously, brokers urged homeowners to apply for a demolition permit when they were putting their houses on the market whether it was a “teardown” or not so that the clock would start running on the delay before the house was sold and the new owner (whether or not a developer) would step in after the sale and wait out the delay. The amendment prevented the clock from running by requiring that the actual owner of the house had to be the same person applying for the permit and receiving it. Not surprisingly, the Historic Commission was overwhelmed with applications that never got acted on and the staff and members of the commission wasted a lot of time reviewing the applications.
This modest change gave the Historic Commission more time to thoughtfully review applications and implement the original purpose of the demolition delay ordinance, which is to encourage (not mandate) preservation of older homes that are historic in some way. Not every house or building is “preferably preserved” but owners who buy intended to live in the house or renovate it to bring it up to date are more likely to work with the neighbors instead of putting up the biggest box they can fit on the lot.
All buildings have a life cycle, and many of the post WWII houses were built quickly, many on slabs without basements with the plumbing in the attic (what could possibly go wrong?), and the demand was so great that the lumber may not have fully dried prior to construction. When owners go to renovate, they discover rotten sills and other parts of the structure that make demolition the more sensible and less expensive alternative. Tastes also change. New construction reflects what’s in style, and I actually prefer some of the modern designs to a line of identical older homes that were part of a subdivision. Some people do not like change (who does?), particularly change they cannot control. Thing is, neighbors shouldn’t get veto control over every change a homeowner wants to make unless the owner bought into a historic district, which is a whole other animal.
All that being said, I have spent the last five years very involved in the preservation of the historic Nathaniel House in West Newton. So I have a real appreciation for historic preservation as well as a pretty good idea how expensive it can get when you start opening up structure and discover what it will really cost versus what you budgeted for. Eight million dollars later, we now have a first class home for arts and culture in Newton, for performances, studios, rehearsals, education, recording, lectures, readings, visual arts, you name it. It would not have been possible without public funding sources including over $2 million in Community Preservation funds from the city and over $2 million worth of state and federal historic tax credits which we sold to developers (which is how these tax credits work). We are still working on a capital campaign to pay for it all, and we hope some Newton developers will contribute (bigly) to our cause.
the historic *Nathaniel Allen House*
This is the deal. Until the housing advocates can figure out a way to include a larger swath of the community, it will continue to fight an uphill battle when another aspect of the housing problem exists that’s being ignored. As i see it, it’s all one problem
All anyone is asking for is help with another aspect of the housing problem. So far, it’s been crickets from some, and active resistance, from other housing advocates. Yet I’m asked to go to hearings to support your housing issues and frankly, I’m getting tired of it when all anyone really wants is my voice at a city council meeting, all the while refusing to listen to my/other people’s concerns.
Jane, what else would you have the city do to discourage teardowns? It already has a demolition delay ordinance which delays demolitions by 12 to 18 months unless alterations are reviewed and approved. I pushed an amendment that stopped the clock ticking when a property is transferred during the delay period. I also pushed through a change to the “50% demolition rule,” which used to permit additions that were exempt from floor-area ratio limits as long as fifty percent of the existing home was preserved. Contractors drove a truck through that exception by building out to the setback lines on all sides, and in some of the more egregious cases literally enveloping existing houses inside a larger shell to get around the 50% preservation rule. The city also has several historic districts, which can be pretty restrictive depending on the district.
The city cannot just adopt a one-year moratorium without working on a solution. Most communities that adopt moratoriums use the time to pass demolition delay ordinances like Newton has. There is also a constitutional limit on extending the delay, beyond what Newton already has, under the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. At some point, denying an owner the right to replace their existing home with a by-right alternative constitutes a “regulatory taking” that requires “just compensation” from the government, just like a complete taking of a property for a municipal use by eminent domain, such as for the Zervas school. The city also cannot discriminate against homeowners who otherwise comply with zoning requirements when they demolish their homes by imposing stricter requirements, as opposed to developing a vacant lot (few of which exist in Newton).
In the end, the city has to strike a balance between an owner’s property rights and the neighbors’ legitimate concerns. Zoning does that for the most part. Taking away the right to demolish an existing building entirely tips the balance too far in favor of neighbors’ concerns and against an owner’s property rights, without due process and, in some cases, just compensation.
Jerry, information about the impact of the demolition delay ordinance is available by contacting the preservation planner and the Inspection Services Department. As I recall, the last time I looked at it, the annual rate for demolitions rose and fell with the economy and the housing market. Without researching it, I would not be surprised if that were still the case.
BTW, Jerry, I still have scars from the last time historic districts were proposed while I was the chair of Zoning and Planning. My job was to give the proponents the due process they were entitled to, which is what I did. The proposals pitted neighbors against neighbors, friends against friends, and the public hearings got pretty boisterous and vicious at times. As part of the process, we surveyed residents in the proposed districts, who overwhelmingly opposed them. But the angry emails and phone calls and grocery store conversation I was subject to was like touching the third rail.
I’m not for a moratorium, as I don’t see that it would do any good. The city council would break down into its two housing camps and argue for a year, to no good end. Meanwhile, 95% of the city would go about its business without realizing a moratorium is even in place.
All I read from your comment is ten ways of saying “it can’t be done”. Fine, then expect Newton to continue to become less affordable to people at all levels. Rather than inclusive, the new $2m homes make the city more exclusive and that’s the reality. Hitting the 10% mark will make us feel good, but we’ll continue to be a city that’s out of reach of anyone but the wealthiest. If I were a person looking for an affordable community that I’d feel was a comfortable fit, Newton wouldn’t be on the list.
@Jane, what I was trying to say, and I’m sorry if it didn’t come across this way, is that we’ve tried everything we can to delay and discourage teardowns, and we have just about exhausted the possibilities.
My hope lies with zoning reform that will make it possible to build moderately priced homes by right again, to put living in Newton within the reach of people who are not wealthy. But the City has been working on it for almost ten years now, and the finish line just isn’t getting any closer.
Back in 2014 when I proposed the temporary moratorium on teardowns – the intent was not to stop teardowns – but to address the rebuilds. There were specific docket items that had been sitting on the Zoning and Planning agenda for a long time that had not been addressed because the Council at the time believed we had to address each – not individually – but under Zoning Reform. Fast forward to 2021? And we’re still talking about zoning reform. The only piece that sort of got addressed (and only recently) was the garage ordinance – which – Ted had led on and got passed, but implementation was delayed because there was a lot of opposition with the ordinance that had been created. Rebuilds from teardowns continue to be massive and Newton continues to create more and more luxury housing – which in turn increases the need for more affordable units.
@THM — “The assessed value is about $600,000. That is beyond the reach of most middle and working class families.”
I know you have a good handle on the stats, but googling a bit yields that “at today’s interest rates (3.25%) To afford a house that costs $600,000 with a down payment of $120,000, a family needs to earn $89,528 per year before tax. The monthly mortgage payment would be $2,089.”
That is a two-earner family earning $45K each or $21.60/hr. Yahoo Finance says the 4-person family middle-class income range: $83,974.45 to $250,670 in MA. So $90K is on the low end of that. And interest rates are actually as low as 2.75% today.
The house you describe is a good example. Today’s zoning likely allows it to be torn down and replaced with a larger $2-4M high-end house depending on where it is in the city. And if 2-family is allowed by right, two $1.5-$2M townhouses.
Now if it really is in bad shape, perhaps a teardown makes sense environmentally and economically. But I think the concern of city residents is that there is a lot of high-quality housing stock (e.g. old Victorians) on smaller lots for which the speculator numbers just don’t work today, given the zoning and FAR constraints, so they remain attainable, albeit perhaps requiring some TLC.
But if suddenly zoning changes, the speculator calculations will suddenly change, and the attainable Victorians get torn down, expanded, or renovated into a set of high-end townhouses much less attainable than the original home.
The original owner doesn’t get that much of the larger pie, as the speculator just has to outbid the regular buyer. The winners are the developers, and city hall, as granite countertop development-driven property tax increases fall entirely outside prop 2.5 tax growth constraints.
I think it’s helpful to distinguish “good” teardowns from “bad” teardowns. Some houses near the end of their useful life and need to be replaced, and COULD be replaced with something that adds to the diversity of our current housing stock rather than detracts from it. That, to me, would be a “good” teardown. Some houses are modest but still have could be home to families for another 20 or even 50 years. Tearing them down only makes sense if you’re replacing it with something that makes you way more money, like a McMansion. Those are what I would call “bad” teardowns.
So to me, the question is, how do you design a policy that minimizes the number of good homes that get torn down, allows for houses that are past their useful life to be torn down, and ensures that when teardowns happen, there are options that add to the diversity of our housing stock, rather than just the McMansions and Mega-Townhouses.
(Mega-Townhouses is my term for the enormous $1.5+ Mil townhouses that are not affordable and give multifamily housing a bad name.)
@JP – I agree that a $480k mortgage should be a cinch for most dual-income middle-class families to swing in this interest rate environment, but the rub for a lot of them (assuming they still have dual incomes) would be the $120k downpayment. Median household savings is $12k and even in the relatively well-off fourth quintile, median savings was only $77k as of 2018 (probably less now) – https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/heres-how-much-money-americans-have-in-savings-at-every-income-level.html
Anyway, I have a question regarding the legality of a tear-down moratorium –
Over here in Needham the town government is trying to get the Muzi Ford/Channel 5 parcel up-zoned.
I for one believe that absolutely anything would be better than the eyesore parking lot that’s there now, but the Planning Board and Select Board over here have completely bungled the effort and now just about everyone in the Heights is alleging (justifiably, in my opinion) that Needham town government is simply trying to enrich the heirs of Fred Muzi to the tune of several million dollars by quickly rezoning the parcel before the heirs sell it.
The Planning Board and Select Board are now using a scare tactic that if the town doesn’t up-zone the parcel, then Amazon is going to come along and build a distribution center. This of course has all the Needhamites up in arms – heaven forbid we bear some of the societal and environmental costs associated with our insatiable demand for same-day delivery of Amazon sweatshop products…instead, let’s leave the Dedhamites to deal with the mess.
In order to eliminate the possibility of an Amazon distribution center, which could currently be constructed on the Muzi parcel by right, townspeople here in Needham have proposed that the zoning floor be raised to exclude warehouse uses while we wait to see what other, more charming projects might come along.
In response, some in town government have claimed that the town cannot make zoning changes that would diminish the resale value of the property, in this case by preventing Fred Muzi’s heirs from selling to Amazon if they wanted to.
If that’s true, tt seems to me that a tear-down moratorium would have a similar effect on property owners’ ability to maximize their resale values.
Does anyone know whether municipalities can impose zoning changes on existing property owners in such a way that the potential resale value of their property is diminished?
I think the planning department was going down the right path with zoning redesign by linking house size to the district rather than a percentage of the lot size – so you can still do a teardown but wouldn’t be able to throw the gigantic townhouses we are seeing in the multi-family districts (R3/R4) because they wouldn’t fall under the allowed housing types. Unfortunately zoning redesign itself seems to get derailed every six months or so whenever major changes get thrown about (most recently the discussion around allowing multi-family by right) so who knows if/when it will actually see a vote.
@Amy, don’t get me started about the abortive garage ordinance. That was more or less the last straw for me.
At one point Wellesley had a zoning requirement that the new house had to be within some percentage of the median size of neighboring houses. Obviously, the details would have to be worked out, but I wonder if the city has ever thought of some version of this approach.
Ted – You’d probably have the answer to this.
We have a property in Maine and about 15 years ago, smaller cottages were coming down at a steady clip. The city put some restrictions in place that stopped it but I don’t know what exactly they did.
@Jane: Yes. In fact, during our very limited discussion about the types of ordinances we could pass in Newton within the moratorium discussion, was large house review – I believe we were looking at either Wellesley’s ordinance or Needham’s.
I have the solution. We collectively agree to shun anybody who buys a McMansion. If potential buyers of these monstrosities are made to feel unwelcome, they won’t come. Choke off demand and supply will dry up. Problem solved. You’re welcome. /p-i
Here’s another idea that will kill two birds with one stone. Frog walk anybody who hires leaf blower services to the Newton jail. McMansionites are the biggest perps on this front. /p-i
That’s a horrible idea. But I have another partial solution: if the city refuses to put some restrictions in place on teardowns, develop a set of guidelines developers must follow to mitigate the impact on a neighborhood.
When we heard the house next was sold, we heard the news when we received the demolition request from the historic commission. The neighbors went to the meeting and advocated for a preferably preserved designation which was approved. The developer was gracious in the meeting, but let loose in the hallway outside the room – expressing open anger towards us. This began a year and a half nightmare of a renovation process with a developer for whom this project was, in fact, his first rodeo. Inspectional Services and HHS were involved five times over flagrant violations (deciding that you’re going to tear the house down anyway is an example of a flagrant violation).
Once the project was over, the developer and I had a conversation about specifics as to where the project had gone awry and actually left on good terms. Just last year, he asked me to write to the city council in support of another of his projects which I did. As it turns out, he had really listened and learned – he’d met with all the neighbors, explained the project, made changes, etc.
Some of what’s happening in neighborhoods is simply a developer’s lack of awareness (sometimes outright obtuseness) that s/he is entering into other people’s neighborhoods and causing upset. An requirement to communicate and work with people could solve at least some of the issues. Don’t talk to me about how they don’t have time; residential developers are doing very well in Newton, but very few have any involvement/investment in the community, and that’s a problem.
So many people in Newton so comfortable with imposing their aesthetics on their neighbors. No wonder therapists are in such demand. Correlation may not always be causality, but in this case, …
As for the commenters on this thread
1. Shunned by the likes of Mr. Wang? I am not seeing the downside. Bring on the large abodes! Bring on the blowers of leaves?
2. I am rather happy I did not vote for Mr. Barash. The thought that town (or really any government) could meaningfully define, much less implement a coherent policy concerning, “good” vs “bad” teardowns is absurd on its face.
Ban Snout houses. “A snout house is a house with a protruding garage that takes up most of the street frontage.”
These were all over CA and destroy communities. Residents drive in and enter their homes through their garages. We have friends who lived in them and never met their neighbors. We lived on a small house old street and new everyone, in spite of Steve Wozniak barrelling up and down the road in his Hummer. (It was a super long street down a mountain).
I don’t know the answers to what would happen if teardowns were eliminated – except that doing so would be illegal – or if teardowns had no restrictions. I do think that Newtonites have too much control over what their neighbors do with their property. There seems to be a lot of “mob rule.”
I lived in Newtonville for 12 years and watched the city change immensely during that time – sometimes for the better but mostly for the worst. The special permit rules were rarely followed as city councilors talked to their constituents and approached the permit with their minds already made up as to how they would vote. It even became ok for residents to ask and expect an answer from candidates as to how they “might” vote. (Jake will be missed as someone who made up his own mind after the fact.) Now it seems even candidates run on what type of special permits they would or wouldn’t support. Those things are not ok as Ted would try to explain every time it came up.
Special permits are overused and are required for too many minor changes. On the other hand too many waivers are granted.
I watched the north side of Newton become a haven for teardowns – rightly or not – and for what was built instead to be sold for at least twice as much – especially when 2 attached houses were built on the property. Now the 1000’s of rental units being built hope to be rented for astronomical rates but Trio still has a 2 months free bonus to convince renters to live there. Public transportation stinks and won’t improve because more units are built. There is no cause and effect between them. Cars will continue to be the major means to get around Newton for the foreseeable future even though parking is being restricted all over Newton.
The modest 2 family I lived in recently sold for $800,000. I purchased instead a 2500 sq ft lovely 2 story plus finished basement bungalow (a 1940 Sears Kit house) in Lowell for a little over $500,000. It has great bones and a well maintained outside including a nice backyard – having it renovated on the inside. It’s near the university with a large number of walking and biking trails right down the street along the river and over the canals. Lowell is a city with a population close to that of Newton but with one city center instead of 13 Villages that all want to retain their character.
I found that buyers who would forgo an inspection almost always got the house – so my search went on for a while. With the 2.7% interest rate, the folks moving out of the city because of the pandemic and the lack of inventory meant prices were going up everywhere. So until those things change, I think Newton will continue to be a very expensive place to live. Teardowns or not.
While Newton is engaged in a zoning redesign process, developers are seeking to capitalize on gaps in our zoning code by purchasing property to build huge expensive homes. These large homes may not be seen as a problem in the West Newton Hill, Oak Hill and Chestnut Hill neighborhoods but they are an issue in our older neighborhoods with more modest homes such as in Newton Highlands, Nonantum and Auburndale. Replacing more modest homes that cost less than $1 million with new luxury housing costing $3 million or more only exacerbates our affordable housing crisis and limits the diversity that is so important to our community. Newton needs a zoning regulation that allows teardowns, but requires new construction to be compatible with the size constraints of the neighborhoods in which they are built.
The town of Wellesley has found a solution that meets these requirements. It is called the Large House Review (Section XVID in the Town of Wellesley Zoning Bylaw). As a guideline they calculate Total Living Area Plus Garage (TLAG). Using the TLAG as a threshold the Planning Board reviews all new construction above the threshold. The meetings are open to all residents.
Instituting a Large House Review in Newton should be an urgent priority. The longer we delay in implementing restrictions on what developers can build in our neighborhoods the greater the chance that we will have irreparably damaged neighborhoods by the time our zoning redesign process is finished.
@Barry: Yes! That’s what we tried to get passed in 2014! Large house review!
Hi I don’t live in your city but in my city we have a terrible problem with teardowns. The main issue here in Nashville TN is that teardowns and infill have destroyed our affordable housing. Here developers tear down an old ranch or duplex and under our zoning laws they can replace that home with 4 or 5 McMansions that cost triple. Often they are sold to speculators who rent them out as STRPs (AirBnBs), so they are taken off the market for housing.
So that is one way to fight these things, if you want to maintain your neighborhood character.