In addition to winning a Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism, the Boston Globe was a finalist for its editorial writing about local zoning and restrictive housing laws. Of the five editorials cited, three centered on Newton, including this one on removing barriers to multi-family house and this endorsement of the Northland project in Upper Falls.
You can read all of the editorials here. Congratulations to the Boston Globe!
Congrats to Robert Greene of the LA Times on winning the Pulitizer for Editorial and his content of substance.. and not a once sided view on housing that disproportionately helps large scales deveopers more than the affordable housing it was supposed to create.
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/robert-greene-los-angeles-times
Austin Street and Trio is online, marketing $4k+, 2br apartments; making nary a dent affordable and workforce housing populations they were supposed to help increase.
And yet, to correct a false impression, all the units of affordable housing at 28 Austin street are rented. And all the units of affordable housing at Trio are rented. Now, let’s discuss who will want to move into Newtonville at market rents.
@Jack, Just curious–what are the occupany rates of the market rate units at 28 Austin and Trio?
Jack – Do you have any insights or information on the market rate units?
Also, wonder about the extra carbon footprint now that 200+ units in a 2 block radius now need a car due to commuter rail horrible schedule
Completely non-facetious question here, maybe someone very familiar with the zoning debate can link to some resources or give a response. We moved to Newton about 10 years ago, for the same reasons as many: nice community, close to Boston, good schools, and more diverse people than many surrounding suburbs. All in all it’s been a good experience. Driving around Newton you see lots of different kinds of housing stock, big and small, old and new. Above posts have referenced several new developments that add to low income housing stock. (disclaimer: I voted in favor of Northland, which is close to our house).
Putting aside any larger societal obligation to provide “fair” housing (a subjective term), or the perception of current Newton residents needing to make up for historical wrongs – this comment doesn’t take a side on those issues – why is it in the interests of today’s Newton residents to overhaul the zoning code? It seems like there’s been a slow, steady increase in affordable housing under existing regs, and state law already mandates a minimum number of affordable units. People have mentioned how housing prices have inflated to very high levels – putting aside whether that’s a good or bad thing – however that’s probably more caused by national monetary and economic policies (under politicians of all stripes for many years) than by anything Newton can do to change that. Would appreciate any thoughts from the perspective of what’s in the interests of Newton voters, thanks.
Adam B
The original goal of rezoning was to standardized setbacks, lot conformity … very u controversial
Somewhere along the lines, it was high jacked to try to eliminate single family zoning in all or select locations. Supposedly this line of thinking has been tabled… but could be targeted again (after council elections?)
I dont know what its current goal is anymore
Thanks Bugek. Another dumb question is if standardized setbacks and similar lot conformity are the issue (was there a great setback scandal of 2012?) can’t Newton tweak the building code to update these items without overhauling citywide zoning? It’s nice now to have quiet single family streets within walking distance of denser village centers, and convenient full-blown retail in places like Needham St and Rte 9. Variety is the spice of life. Don’t mean to sound like I’m writing the city brochure!
You make a good point it seems like many people aren’t sure what the goal is…at least people like me that haven’t been attending city council meetings regularly for the past decade. What do Newton residents not have now that re-zoning will gain for them? To reiterate, it’s an honest question!
Adam b
I meant it was initially un-controverisial. Special permits are currently subjective, standard allows for very clear decisions for additions and house builds
I also dont understand how it got hijacked and became controversial
It’s all part of solving Boston’s housing shortage.
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
You know, helping Boston attract big employers like Amazon, etc. Biotech, have workforce housing for their employees.
Thanks Rick.
From the MAPC article:
Newton
Newton is categorized by MAPC as a Streetcar Suburb. These communities are characterized by village-oriented residential neighborhoods dominated by multifamily homes and smaller apartment buildings. New growth occurs through limited redevelopment and infill and expansion of existing structures. They have moderately diverse populations, stable or losing population due to decreasing household size.”
I think some people feel like Newton is a good town but it is too expensive and a change in Zoning might help their kids and friends stay in the area as opposed to move to Fitchburg or Nashua.
From the MAPC guiding principles
“HOUSING PRESERVATION
We support the preservation of existing affordable housing choices. This includes protecting affordable apartments at risk of expiring subsidies or deed restrictions; preserving “naturally occurring” affordable housing; repairing older homes in need of maintenance and minimizing tear-downs; and preserving smaller homes.”
Is that really what’s happening?
I submit to you that it’s not. Tear downs are everywhere bc that’s where the money is.
Money talks and everything else is secondary or collateral damage.
Rick – The teardown situation is one of the major reasons why we need a zoning overhaul. Right now nothing stands in the way of a developer who wants to tear down a perfectly fine 2000 sf house and replace it with a 4000 sf house that sells for $2m. That can only be addressed with zoning redesign.
The sooner the better, in my mind. Five teardowns in the last four months within blocks of my house.
Thanks all for the comments, and especially the link. Sounds like I’m not alone and nobody knows what the goal is*. The MAPC 10 principles do a good job diagnosing an issue: regional population growth may exceed housing stock, but its solutions are very vague and sometimes contradictory. For example making evictions harder disincentivizes the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing. Sounds like there’s disagreement on the basic facts as well: the Globe editorial that started this thread calls Newton a “golf-and-garden” community but that doesn’t match the MAPC description Lisa posted above. If housing size and setbacks is a problem – i’m not saying it is or isn’t – then is the local residential building code rather than zoning the right place to fix that?
I’m all for economic growth but isn’t Newton already expanding it’s housing supply with Northland and Riverside, and future similar developments, maybe ones more single-house oriented like a Levittown near Wells Ave or something like that? I suppose phrasing the initial question a different way: what are the risks to leaving the Newton zoning code as-is?
*if you’re out there please speak up!
Jane,
The “controversial ” still remains:
Do the council want to make it ok to build that 4000sqft building if it was multi-family?
Its still unclear if they intend to ram that through after current council term as they simply “tabled” the matter
That’s an issue that zoning redesign could address, and one more reason why it needs to be a comprehensive redesign, rather than tinkering around the edges.
To be clear, “naturally affordable” housing units in Newton are typically units an owner has neglected.
The issue of multiuse zoned housing everywhere in the city wasn’t “tabled” – it was thrown out when it was clear that the community didn’t want it. It was proposed and removed in a blink of an eye, yet some people continue to use it as a political ploy. It’s gone and it’s simply not accurate to say that the concept is coming back.
Jane,
I watched the meeting on zoom where the council. They very clearly tabled it and said its possible it could be discussed next council term. They could have been referring to allowing multi-family in pockets of Newton (eg north of the pike) which is clearly unfair
Until I see a written statement by councilor albright to confirm its dead for the forseeablw future, i’ll go with what was said in the meeting
Jane and Lauren, Trio is 75% rented at Market, 100% of the affordable is rented. They expect to be filled by late summer.
So it would seem that there is a demand, or at least consumers for market rate rentals.
What Jack said. Plus folks should be careful about making assumptions when any large apartment complex is marketing availably
People move. People get jobs in different places. Move in with someone. Go to grad school. Have kids and need a bigger place. Get divorced and need a smaller place. Pass away. There’s always going to be turnover for apartments, which is a healthy for our economy and job market.
It’s a natural cycle and smart management companies will maintain marketing campaigns on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Frantz, there is not a thing wrong with your scenario of replacing a 2000 sf house with one that is 4000 sf. Indeed, if the former was in fact “perfectly fine” (like that call to the Ukraine, right) then there would not be a developer and ultimately a buyer seeking to purchase a larger abode on that property.
I have never understood the impulse much less possessed the chutzpah to tell my neighbors how they should dispose of their material possessions. Thinking that is somehow good and proper for city government to act so aggressively in enforcing personal taste is even more mind-boggling. After all, it is not like Newton’s best and brightest are spending their evenings in city hall. That stratum is too busy doing things that matter such as running the CDC.
Jack,
Not technically market rates as they offer 2 month free rent.
So effectively a 16% discount.
Thanks for the update, Jack. Several people have asked about this and no one has answered the question so it’s become a concern.
There was a bit of an edge in your response, Greg, to a legitimate concern. As you know, I’ve supported all of the developments, so why would I not what to know how things are going as we move forward? In my mind, it’s a responsible question as the housing landscape in the city changes.
Jane, legitimate question. Bugek, if I go to buy a car, and I am offered a $3000 discount off the Manufacture Suggested Retail Price, is that a market price? So they are offering a 16% discount to their market price for the first year. An inducement?
On a different topic, looks like we have a race for mayor after all!
It will be very interesting to see if folks on this forum are correct about all the hidden anti-Fuller vote. Look forward to discussing it in depth over the coming weeks!