There’s a vote in the City Council tonight that merits your attention. The Council will vote on a special permit application to add three homes behind an existing house on a half-acre lot in Newton Centre. While the stakes for this particular lot are relatively small — whether the property owner can build four or three homes — the councilors’ votes will indicate their positions on two issues that will likely be central to the coming municipal elections: housing near transit and the proliferation of large luxury condominiums.
(This is a side view of the project, looking west. The building to the left is the existing home. The two buildings to the right are what’s proposed.)
The proposed new homes are at 145 Warren St., a half-block from the Newton Centre T station.
At the front of the very deep property is a nifty and unusual (especially for Newton) bungalow. Called the “Aloha House,” the plan is to restore the home and add three condominium homes (2,450, 2,140, and 1,860 s.f.) and some garages behind it.
The windows are no longer as they are depicted in this picture.
As a special permit application, the 145 Warren St. item has been before the Council’s Land Use Committee, where it was recommended to the full Council by a 5-3 vote. But, the larger context for Monday’s vote is the zoning redesign conversation that’s taking place in the Zoning and Planning committee. A key issue in the zoning redesign discussion is whether and to what extent to change the city’s zoning code to allow more housing around transit.
Proponents for more housing near transit — proponents within and without Newton, and including your humble scribe — argue that more housing near transit is necessary and important to help combat climate change. Housing near transit creates an opportunity to live a car-free or car-lite lifestyle and, thereby, reduce carbon emissions. Additionally, housing near transit that is in a village center, as is the case in Newton Centre, enhances that opportunity as households can walk to many destinations they’d otherwise have to drive to.
An important measure of housing near transit is density: homes per acre. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership* suggests that minimum reasonable density near transit is ten homes on every acre. The recently signed economic development bill (passed and signed in tandem with the Mass Housing Choice Act), requires that MBTA communities (Newton is one) create zoning districts around transit that have a density of fifteen homes-per-acre. Ten and fifteen homes-per-acre are good references for what we can project if the council passes zoning changes that add more housing around transit, particularly if the Council meets our state obligation by creating a transit district around the Newton Centre T station. Ten and fifteen homes-per-acre are also good standards for understanding what a councilor or council candidate means when they say they support housing around transit.
At four homes on a half-acre lot, 145 Warren St. will have a density of eight homes-per-acre. It’s hard to imagine that a councilor who professes support for more housing around transit will vote against the proposal because it adds too many homes on the site. Hypothetically, a councilor might object that four homes are not enough on one of the biggest infill opportunities in Newton Centre. But, the real-world alternative to four homes is three homes, not more than four, so it wouldn’t be productive for such a councilor to vote no.
The other likely big issue for the upcoming municipal elections implicated in Monday’s vote on 145 Warren St. is the proliferation of luxury condominiums, specifically the fact that the average new condominium is large — 3,400 s.f. — and expensive. In the recent special elections, both then-candidates and now-Councilors Tarik Lucas and John Oliver put commitments to use zoning redesign to reduce teardowns and prevent the building of more and more large luxury townhomes at the center of their campaigns.
There is no teardown at 145 Warren St.; the neighbors and the property owner agree that preserving the charming bungalow is a priority. But, the choice between real-world alternatives is similar to the teardown situation. In addition to the restored bungalow, there will be either three new modestly sized homes (average size 2,150 s.f. or 1,250 s.f. smaller than the average new condo) or two new larger homes, along the lines of what Councilors Lucas and Oliver and many of their now colleagues decry. In other words, a no vote on Monday will be, in practical terms, a yes vote for adding two large, luxury condominiums.
It is conceivable that a councilor could favor additional homes around transit and village centers, want to stem the flow of new large luxury condominiums, and still object to the 145 Warren St. special permit application. The three no votes in the Land Use committee vote — Councilor Lucas and Councilors Marc Laredo and Chris Markiewicz — have all expressed support for more housing near transit and village centers. And, Councilors Lucas and Markiewicz have been very vocal about their desire to reduce or eliminate the incentives the zoning code creates for developers to build large luxury condominiums.
Their objections to the 145 Warren St. special permit application are a likely preview of concerns that no-voting councilors will raise tonight. Their objections, though, raise some questions about their commitment to adding housing around transit and to slowing the proliferation of large luxury condominiums.
Counilors Markiewicz and Laredo raised an odd objection to this project: the proposed new homes do not fit into the context of the neighborhood. It’s an odd objection because, to be inconsistent with the context of the neighborhood there has to be some identifiable, coherent context to the neighborhood to begin with. The proposed homes may be on the most heterogeneous residential block in Newton, with its mix of architectural styles, building quality, relationship to the street, roof type, siding, ornamentation, garages, multi-family configuration, and unit sizes. Besides a particularly undistinguished two-building, four-unit complex next-door to 145 Warren St., no two adjacent buildings look at all alike.
It’s a particularly odd objection in light of the neighbors’ keenness to have the existing home preserved. They want it preserved because it’s such an unusual home for the block, and indeed Newton. Basically, the argument amounts to: make sure to keep this highly unusual home, but make the rest of the home look like the rest of the block, even though the rest of the block is a hodge-podge.
To add a little more hodge to the podge, here’s what’s coming to the lot currently under development at the corner of Langley Rd. and Warren St.
Councilor Markiewicz also raised objection to the side setbacks (the distance from the side of the building to the nearest property line) and the driveway setback (the distance from the side of the driveway to the nearest property line), while acknowledging that both were in part small because neighbors asked that the new homes not overshadow the existing house. With regard to setbacks, however, there is context to the neighborhood: lots of properties on the block have similar or smaller side and driveway setbacks.
Here are but three examples of tiny or non-existent driveway setbacks.
Finally, both Councilors Laredo and Lucas objected to the 145 Warren St. proposal on the grounds that it’s just, as Councilor Laredo put it, “too big for the neighborhood.” Which is a little odd, because this is not a neighborhood of wee buildings, with the notable exception of the Aloha house, itself.
But, the size argument brings us back to the transit issue. As many note, our city is largely built out, in the sense that every buildable lot generally has a building on it. If we are going to build additional housing around transit in any meaningful sense, our zoning is going to have to allow buildings that would replace or be in addition to smaller buildings, yielding the biggest buildings on the block on virtually any qualifying block. If one is to be for more housing around transit, therefore, one must at least accept that there will be bigger buildings than currently exist.
If one if for more housing around transit and our village centers, this kind of development — adding multiple modestly sized units to a large lot — is almost certainly the kind of additional housing you mean.
So, pay close attention to how councilors vote tonight. It’s an important test of their support for more housing around transit and village centers and of their stated desire to prevent more luxury condominiums in Newton.
* From the MHP web site: A statewide public nonprofit affordable housing organization that works in concert with the Governor and the state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to help increase the supply of affordable housing in Massachusetts.
Hi Sean. Great article. Just wondering: what’s the actual definition of “near transit” from the MHP? What’s the radius? Thanks!
Thanks, Holly.
It’s somewhat complex, but the MHP’s starting point for a transit area is a .5 mile radius around each station. It’s less than .5 miles where there is station overlap (which Newton has), water, wetlands, and protected open space, which includes Newton’s golf courses. (The consequence is to increase the reported density for Woodland, Waban, and Riverside.)
I would not object to four houses if they were in the 1300-1500 sq. ft range.My objection to this development is that like all new development in Newton, there is an appalling lack of outdoor green space. Despite what the developers my say there will be very little green space with four houses of this size on that lot. The concept of a yard seems to elude developers these days. Then again, they are building to what the market demands so we should not be surprised. Buyers of new housing appear to value as much house as possible at the expense of open space. By the way, according to the developer, the “cheapest” unit will be a million dollars.
Bruce,
I would also love to see more 1,300-1,500 s.f. units on this site and in Newton, generally. (Keep an eye on the special permit application for condos at 1114 Beacon St. in Four Corners, which will have a bunch of smaller units.) But, three sub-1,500 s.f. units are just not a possibility on the site.
By right, the developer can build another home on the site, and one which could be very large.
And, several councilors have made clear that they would be more amenable to two additional units than the three proposed. The economics are much better to build a single super-luxury home or two largish (2,500 s.f.) homes than to build just three smaller units.
I would prefer to see six or eight 1,1250 s.f. or smaller units on this parcel. But, as I like to say, this isn’t SIM City. Sadly, you and I don’t get to design the opportunities for and constraints on a property owner. Given the real-world alternatives right now (and zoning redesign might change them in a couple of years), this four-unit proposal is a lot better than the alternatives.
Also, with Webster Woods a block away and Newton Centre Park a couple of blocks in the other direction, is there a meaningful policy reason to insist on more yard on this site than the market demands?
Agree Bruce.
So this won’t be affordable housing and will take away valuable green space. So the winner, is once again, the developer.
Is there an algorithm which quantifies green space lost vs. the chance that new home owners will use public transortation instead of their own cars. Density around MBTA stops and village centers is great as long as what is developed will actually fulfill Mass Housing Partnership’s goal of building affordable housing.
Lisa,
Under Newton’s current zoning regulations, this site is not a realistic opportunity to add housing that’s affordable to folks who are economically challenged.
Affordable housing requires a subsidy — either direct or indirect. Newton’s inclusionary zoning ordinance is an example of indirect subsidy. The cost of providing a unit or units at below market cost (rent or sale) is borne by the developer/property manager out of the profits from other units. The inclusionary zoning ordinance doesn’t even apply to four-unit developments, in recognition that they are too small to generate an indirect subsidy.
A direct subsidy requires a government or not-for-profit investment. Creating four deed-restricted affordable units in Newton is not an attractive proposition. It’s just inefficient. The land cost alone require probably ten or more units on this lot to make it attractive to a not-for-profit developer. But, our zoning makes it very difficult for a not-for-profit developer to build sufficient units.
While we definitely want more affordable housing in Newton, this special permit application is not the right opportunity. If you think that a lot like this should be the site of truly affordable housing, I urge you to contact your councilors and tell them you want zoning to give not-for-profit developers an opportunity to build 10 or more affordable units on a site like this.
While this project won’t solve our need for more subsidized housing, the smaller-than-average units will make Newton affordable to some households who don’t want and can’t afford the 3,400 s.f. condominiums that are sprouting all over Newton. Adding more smaller-than-average units will attract a wider variety of folks to Newton and put some downward pressure on the prices for small homes in the city.
If buyers don’t want large yards or open space, why should the city mandate that developers provide it? Many buyers would likely prefer not to have to incur the work and cost to maintain a private yard in favor of taking advantage of our plentiful public parks and playgrounds.
We should certainly protect and improve — and expand where possible– our public open spaces. But other than being sufficient for required drainage and permeability (already mandated by the building code), what value *to the community* do private, inaccessible, and often fenced/invisible-from-the-street private yards provide?
As we consider the future of zoning reform, the question we must ask ourselves is, “who will the changes benefit most?”
Once again, Sean makes some good arguments. But as usual, the intended benevolence is not realized and the results do not pass the eye test. Look no further than the rents at Trio and Austin Street.
https://www.apartments.com/trio-newton-newton-ma/xj4gz5p/
https://www.apartments.com/28-austin-newton-ma/c0r3k9d/
The same arguments were made for both… “we need more housing”, “we need to add diversity”, “we need more affordable housing.”
Instead, what we got are temporary, luxury, mini-mansions for the well heeled. And who benefits most? Corporate developers and real estate investors. More Porsches, Mercedes, BMWs, Lexus’ and Telsa’s congesting Newton’s streets.
There’s something optically disingenuous about building condos that will each be over $1m; and requiring a minimum number of parking spaces (in order to market at that $1m price tag) even though the MBTA is within walking distance.
The West Newton Armory project….that makes sense. The work of CAN-DO…that makes sense. Projects where profit takes a back seat to the greater good… these make sense. And until the cost/benefit ratio of zoning reform better serves the greater good, Councilors Laredo, Markiewicz, and Lucas… makes sense to me.
Matt,
The choice is pretty clear at 145 Warren St. This proposal with the original home and three smaller-than-average new units or the alternative: the original home and one or two larger and, consequently, more expensive homes.
Of those three options: 2, 3, or 4 homes, which would you prefer were built? This is not a CAN-DO project or the Armory.
A couple of notes. You are right that the proposal is over-parked. But, the on-site parking at 145 Warren St. is primarily driven by neighborhood request, not the developer insisting on it (though I doubt they are unhappy to build it).
Councilors Markiewicz and Lucas have both been vocal about the need to preserve smaller homes — no teardowns — and discourage their replacement with large units. A no vote on this proposal (or forcing the developer to withdraw the petition) is really no different than bull-dozing three smaller-than-average homes and replacing them with one or two McMansominiums(c).
The Special Permit process should not be hijacked to achieve zoning goals that should be handled through the current Zoning Redesign initiative which is underway with a fairly vigorous process.
Certainly the city could purchase the property and turn it into an eensy weensy park if there is such concern over a modicum of green space in the city. Otherwise, the Aldermen should let the folks who actually own the land do with it as they are proposing.
Perhaps Newton’s best and brightest group of 24 can find something new to ban. I am pretty sure I heard a noise outside of my house recently which I found to be marginally distracting. Perhaps they can work to make it go away so my suffering can end. Otherwise I bet there is a national issue which is in need of their sage input. Protest military budgets and the threat of nuclear war never gets old.
Well considered article. 10 – 15 homes per acre. That is dense … but aligns with ideas put forth to best take advantage of transportation nodes. That will obviously mean very little green space left within that acre.
Some here seem to want to mandate that green spaces need to be preserved. Are they for high rise condos then?
Some here seem to want any future housing expansion to be small units that are cheaply done so that prices are ‘low’ … at least for Newton.
Amusing … very effective rebukes for maintaining status quo, limiting housing stock, and keeping prices for current housing on a steep uphill trajectory.
Self aggrandizement incentives are no joke!
Lisa, Bruce C, what is the public value of private backyard green space, and what do you feel is the right ratio? Environmentally, how would we rate a larger monospecies lawn or paved areas in comparison to a more dense development with solar roof or more sensitive landscaping? I’m not sure the proposed development has either of these, but isn’t it more complicated than just looking at open space?
In my 1920’s subdivision, we have ~5000 sq ft lots with relatively small backyards around 1500 sq ft.
Adam- I am making an observation. I would not ban nor limit how much or how little green space a homeowner should have. I have a decent yard size and it is why I bought my house. I love my private yard. It is by no means a manicured lawn and I can roll around in it without worrying about absorbing pesticides. It is my personal preference and I would not want to dictate my preferences to anyone else. In fact, if I sold my house, while the lot is not as large as the one Sean refers to, it could be torn down and three houses could be built on it.
What gets me,though, is the hypocrisy that drips from the garden city. For all of Newton’s liberal values espousing the dangers of climate change and passing this ban or that ordinance, the fact is that the larger our houses are the greater the carbon footprint there is. Now we can say how green we are by installing solar panels or putting in a heat pump, but the fact is less green space, public or private, is not a net positive for the environment. Of course if Newtonians need to have their yards look like a golf course, then it does defeat that environmental purpose. In which case by all means build up and out.
Sean- I agree this project is not a Can-Do development nor is it meant to provide anything remotely affordable. Let’s call this project out for what it is- a way for the developer to maximize their profit. The developer has been hiding behind the curtain of transit oriented housing and acting as if they are doing a public service. I just wish developers would be honest about their motives. Nothing wrong with making money and maximizing your profit as long as they are abiding by the zoning laws-just don’t tell me that they are doing it for the good of the city.
In this case, since it is a special permit, I would vote no since it reeks of greed by the developer. If they want to build two houses by right then, by all means, let them build it. If they wanted to build three houses, which I think would require a special permit, I would not have a problem with it either.
Hypothetical developer motives are irrelevant. The conversation should be focused on use of the land. 4 units will ensure some homes cost less than if just 2 larger units we built on the same footprint. This isn’t affordable housing unfortunately, but an example of finding ways to deliver new units to Newton below 2,500 Sq feet — as so much new construction in our city is 2x that size. The structure would have to be larger to accommodate affordable housing, or involve grants and subsidies; if someone wants to buy the land and propose that project, it would be amazing but that didn’t happen so we cook with the ingredients we have here. I see the project as material progress but not perfection.
Thinking longer term, it would certainly be interesting to consider zoning reform that would permit more units by right on a lot if the units were below a certain size. I would be all for that as a path to more ownership opportunity below 2k square feet.
@Sean, while we’ve never met live, your posts have been consistent and very well intended. At it’s core, I do agree with you that we need more housing. I do agree that costs are out of control. And I agree that public transport can only help to reverse the damage we’ve done to the enviroment.
But ultimately, @Bruce hit the nail on the head. Your efforts and benevolence is not advancing your desired goals. Instead, it’s padding the pockets of this developer, not to mention Austin Street’s, Trio’s, Northland and Riverside’s. Which if that is your goal, #slowclap. But I don’t think that’s the case.
And as for zoning reform, if the goal is to build more CAN-DOs and Armorys… around transit…I’d gladly vote to sacrifice some density. But just don’t try to tell (us) that Big Macs are healthy becase they have some lettuce, a tomato and a few pickle chips.
Lastly @Jason, if the proposal was not 4 units but 6, at 1/3rd the sq footage, and little to no parking due to proximity to transit, I’ll be the one you’ll see slow clapping. :-). Ultimately we’re saying the same thing, only I think we should ask for the 6 now, and not, “the next project”. The can’s been kicked down the road enough.
“padding the pockets of this developer”… this phrase comes up a lot and it fits a narrative that seems to exist, not just here, but in nearly every community. That is, developers are evil and driven only by profit. And yes, money is a key issue here, but it’s not the developers who are necessarily at fault.
Behind the developers are investors who make certain demands that drive other decisions. I recently spoke with someone working on an urban project in a large city with great public transportation. He was entirely opposed to putting parking in the project, but his investors insisted because it would help pay it back. I’ve been at conferences in which a wonderful project gets presented showing low- and moderate-income housing, retail, bike parking, etc., and the question from the developers in the crowd is “can I get the name of your investors? because I can’t get this kind of project funded.”
As Sean pointed out above, there needs to be some kind of subsidy and in the case of the larger projects you name (TRIO, Austin St., Northland, etc.) that subsidy comes on-site with the more expensive housing helping cover costs for the Affordable. It’s also why CAN-DO hasn’t been able to produce as many units of housing. How many people are willing to sell their homes at under market so that non-profits can build affordable housing? Are you willing to do that? Is that a fair thing to ask the market as a whole? How much property should the city buy to make this happen? Where are those opportunities?
145 Warren doesn’t present that kind of opportunity. Instead, we have a good project that should be approved.
There are issues around affordability, and we can work to make things better. For example, we don’t do enough for lower AMI folks, both in terms of housing availability and the services necessary for housing security.
But do we throw away “good” because it’s not “perfect”?
“145 Warren doesn’t present that kind of opportunity. Instead, we have a good project that should be approved.”
So what makes 145 Warren Street a good project?
Is it the four luxury units, none of which will sell for less than $1.5 million?
Is it 2826 sq. feet devoted to an underground parking garage in a development that is touted as transit-oriented? This on a block where 42% of the homes have no garage and 44% have just one!
Is it that fact that it has a FAR that is 50% over allowable ?
Is it the fact nine residents showed up at EVERY Land Use Committee meeting that was held over three year on the development of 145 Warren to speak in opposition because we saw that this would set precedent on our block that has MANY owner investor properties.
Is it the fact that approval of this project will have the opposite effect on affordability as it will drive up that value of the multiple 20,000 plus/minus sq. ft. lots on the northside of Warren as developers will seek to build similar luxury units?
Is it that there are at least 10 modest rental units on that northern side of Warren Street that will be lost to the development of luxury units?
So what makes this a good project since it neither creates affordable nor transit-oriented housing and potentially displaces current attainable rental units?
This discussion illustrates the principle that sometimes opposing views both seem to have justice on their side. Chuck first notes the potential environmental benefits of creating higher density housing in areas near transit hubs, its goal to decrease the use of automobiles. He then concedes that most investors have little desire to develop affordable housing per se; they are out to make a profit, and if putting a parking lot in such a development increases its value, so much the better. As MaryLee grimly observes, the resulting project will neither create affordable housing nor encourage the new occupants to forgo the automobile.
Add to these contradictions the poor regional transit system (infrequent service/ lengthy or non-existent routes to tech sites along 95 and 495/ high fares, etc.), and one wonders how many of those living in developments near the T or suburban rail lines will actually use them. Transit infrastructure must improve to make the eco-friendly goals of high-density housing viable (Check out the transit systems of European hubs like Paris and London to see how it should be done).
As for affordability, private enterprise alone will never meet the need. The set-asides for affordability are too few though better than nothing at all, as Chuck has noted in the past. But to construct lots of affordable housing will require one or both of these solutions:
– Government subsidizing private development, i.e. the much-trumpeted public-private partnerships;
– The beneficence of wealthy donors like the Gates Foundation and others.
Let’s face it: tax laws over the past forty years have led to the concentration of America’s wealth in the hands of less than 1% of the population. Local, municipal, state, and federal governments all plead poverty, and they want no part of subsidizing or managing affordable housing. Those who have benefitted from the ever-growing wealth gap will have to step in where government fears to tread. America has thousands of multibillionaires, and I pray (a forlorn hope?) that a portion of them will part with some of their wealth to help solve the housing crisis. Otherwise, developers will continue to construct houses, condos, and apartments for the Haves, not for the Have-Nots.
Bob
The housing crisis is caused by focusing job centers in specific areas. No amount of supply will help when good paying jobs are plentiful… ppl will just continue to move in
Fix transportation to job center from further distances or distribute job centers.
There is only shortage of affordable housing close to Boston, far western Massachusetts is still affordable
I wonder how “energy inefficient” the existing housing stock is there on Warren St, and whether the energy efficiency promised by conventional views (i.e., calculating with averages determined from somewhere else besides on Warren Street) holds up to scrutiny …
Just seems obvious that someone would want to run the numbers before making pronouncements.
And, if the current isn’t all that bad when compared to the proposed, I also wonder how much investment in improving the existing houses would it take to beat the pants off whatever a new development promises …
[p.p.s.: +1 on you, Sean, for the quality and tone of the writing above … ]
There’s an analogy that I heard a few years back comparing housing to cars. It went something like this: until that point, you rarely heard people complaining about there not being an affordable car. People with means purchased new cars, and that put the older used cars on the market. Some cars wore out (or were destroyed in crashes) and yes, there were people who couldn’t afford cars at all (or didn’t want them) but for the majority of Americans, as evidenced by the state of our transportation system, a car was, at some level, within reach. Car companies went as far as to essentially abandon the lower end of the market and focused much of their effort on the high-priced SUVs. They actually relied on this cycle.
So, what happened? Well, during the pandemic the car companies cut back on production and, long story short, are now slower to get moving. New cars aren’t coming on the market the way they did. The result? used car prices are through the roof, some are actually appreciating in value… which is entirely whacked. People are having trouble getting cars to get to work (if that’s a place they need to go).
The housing market, the analogy goes, works much the same way. New homes come on the market with fancy countertops and amenities, and those attract the upper end of the market. Their older homes, now somewhat less desirable, hit the market and the cycle keeps some level of affordability happening. (long-term, some homes survive this and later emerge as even more desirable antiques. Think of an old Victorian vs. a tract home built in 1975. In 50 years or so, someone is going to love the antique nature of those mid-20th century features. 75 years ago, that Victorian may have been seen as old and drafty) This only works if you can build new, either by tearing down or building on new land. When you can’t do that, through restrictive zoning or other means, then you are just making the existing homes more expensive… much like an auto market with no new stock coming in.
The crisis we’re in is, to a larger part, of our own doing. No single answer is going to get us out. Yes, we need public/ private partnerships. Yes, we need non-profit developers. Yes, we need traditional developers. But NOT building isn’t the answer. That’s how we got here.
Chuck
Based on your logic – hong kong, nyc, tokyo would be affordable as they have built condos as far as they eye can see.
Developers build according to demand, the demand is from the excellent job market.
Unless you want the government to force developers to build units exceeding demand(which will result in blight during recession) then no amount of building will help.
Bruce C – reducing green space and increasing density obviously increases the carbon footprint for a given lot (in general — things like more efficient building codes, green roofs and solar panels mitigate this somewhat, grass lawns are arguably harmful to the environment). I think the argument is that denser cities have smaller per capita carbon footprint, which is ultimately what matters.
I know people say that a luxury building helps affordability because it would puts more affordable affordable housing on the market. In Newton, most naturally affordable housing (by the area’s standards) seems to get torn down. I watched a bungalow in my neighborhood get replaced by a large, expensive two family home. I guarantee that my 1300 Sq foot built in the 1800s home will get torn down when ever we move and replaced with something large and expensive. And whenever we move, it won’t be able to be in Newton because we’ve been priced out for a long time.
MMQC’s depiction of the fate of that bungalow on her block is the rule, not the exception, in Newton. In that sense Chuck’s analogy with the new car/used car industry during the Pandemic breaks down entirely. When that elderly couple gets enticed to sell and to move elsewhere by that offer from the “teardown” developer, their modest ranch house will never become an entry home for a young family seeking to move to a suburb like Newton. It becomes a MacMansion with six bedrooms and space for a platoon.
Perhaps a pessimist (realist?) like Bugek is right: until desirable jobs relocate to the rural parts of the Commonwealth, regions with those jobs like Greater Boston will face a housing crunch. I’d prefer we solve the problem in other ways and leave rustic places rustic.
Bugek, somehow I feel that we’ve danced this dance before. Let’s look at some urban rent indices:
NYC rent index: 100.00
It should be noted that the some of the original zoning limitations on building size originated in New York, and there are still plenty of houses in Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx, but you do you.
Hong Kong rent index: 77.56
Renting in Hong Kong is only going to cost you, on average, 3/4 of what it cost in NYC. It’s the most expensive city in all of Asia. I don’t want to research or go into the history of zoning and construction in a British island colony, so let’s go an hour away by train to…
Shenzhen, China rent index: 28.27
This is what rent looks like in a place with condos as far as the eye can see. Which brings us to…
Tokyo, Japan rent index: 47.30
Now this probably includes all of the Ku within Tokyo, including those that are 2 hours west of the city center by train, but since NYC probably includes queens, I’ll go with it. Tokyo, with its condos as far as the eye can see is less than 1/2 the rent of NYC.
Now to be fair, we have to note that the rent index in Boston is only 76.96 at the moment, so our housing to demand ratio seems to be doing better than NYC.
More housing than demand = cheaper rents.
/as always, this is a personal statement and reflects only my views.
Anne
Do those numbers take into account distance to job centers. Or even rent per sq foot. 3 br 500sqft apartments are very common in Asia… is this how we want families to live ?
In the same way, MA state numbers could be reported to be low based on x,y,z metrics but we all know the reality closer to boston.
Also,
What are the similar stats for purchases instead of rent?
I believe the price per sq foot in hk, japan are multiples higher than NYC
Ann,
There seems to be a disconnect with the numbers you present in Shenzen as “very affordable”. Look at this article. The reality for purchases is the complete opposite of the rental index you provided. The rentals may be low because its very common for ppl to rent a room with no toilet or kitchen.
From the article: cheap rentals are ““handshake buildings” — packed so close together that residents can stick an arm out the window to shake hands with a neighbor.” … ie a disgusting slum. no wonder its so cheap
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-20/workers-flocking-to-china-s-silicon-valley-can-t-afford-to-buy-homes
“Yet the boom has led to the highest property prices and lowest home ownership rates in China, a warning for the country’s other growing cities. The average two-bedroom unit now sells for about $900,000, in a city with per capita income of just $20,000.
With the cost of an apartment equal to 43.5 times a resident’s average annual salary, Shenzhen’s housing affordability is only a notch better than Hong Kong, the worst among 80 megacities”
Housing (especially affordable housing) has become the definition of insanity…doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result.
The ONLY way to break the cycle is government subsidies. And until that day comes, any efforts to rezone thus far, concentrates more density in Newton’s most dense neighborhoods – while leaving its mansion filled neighborhoods as single family.
It’s time to break the cycle.
Bob, to the contrary, it proves the point. The car market can (traditionally) adjust to market demands. The housing market, thanks to restrictive zoning, cannot. So that bungalow becomes more valuable BECAUSE of the restrictions instead of becoming more affordable or even remaining at the same affordable level. It’s also a macro problem, and one that Newton alone cannot solve. We need regional change.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned numbers. The original developer purchased this property for $1.1m – a bargain. They went through the special permit process, saw the writing on the wall and sold a tear and a half later for $1.7m to the current developet. Should we feel sorry for this developer supposedly making a wee profit? I say no!
If the rules and regs permitted and made it easy, I bet developers would be happy to build many many large 10+ story complexes with many many condo / rental units. There are plenty of spaces to put these. In Newton and all the neighboring towns. It is the red tape we all demand that limits supply. This limited supply is the root cause of the price challenge. Let the market freely meet demand and prices will drop.
We have justification for the red tape, sure. But it is that red tape that is the biggest cause of pricing challenges. Don’t kid yourself.
Keith B,
Why would developers keep building if supply exceeded demand? ie as developers build more, the prices decline
So why would anyone buy? just keep waiting the prices will get even cheaper. What happens during a recession with all the excess units … blight and decay and a downward spiral.
Again, I point to Shenzen, China where there is zero red tape for developers: “The average two-bedroom unit now sells for about $900,000, in a city with per capita income of just $20,000.”
The reality is simply different to the theoretical
A nice example of an affordable housing plan which includes a public and private partnership. Not sure why this can’t be done in Newton.
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/government/2021715/positive-reviews-affordable-housing-plans
There has to be a way to do this. Don’t know what it is but it seems like we have many economists here on V14 with ideas. After WW2 building most of these suburbs built to make way for GI’s and people wanting homes away from the city. Now we are hitting a another big bottleneck around all the global tech cities. At least we have terrible winters in Boston. If our weather was like San Diego just triple the prices!
Very interesting Lisa. It shows what I think is a much better targeted approach resulting in 50 units all affordable built on 14 acres which leaves lots of a green space and 2.8 units per acre vs the 10-15 that has been suggested here
@MaryLee – It looks like a great project for Easthampton but I’m not sure where we’d find an available 14 acre site (and the funding to buy/build it) here in Newton.
@Jerry. East Hampton property values are among the highest in the country.
@Lisa – I wasn’t asking about property values but about land availability. That was a 14 acre site.
Jerry, I feel like there is just a real lack of imagination in regards to this issue. In Newton Center alone we have 3.7 acres of single level parking lots on land owned by the city. Why we can’t build above some of that? Plenty of near by green space with the Newton Centre playground and NC Green. And it would be true transit-oriented development.
So we may not have 14 available, acres laying around unused, but if the city got creative and didn’t depend upon for-profit developers throwing us crumbs we could move the needle significantly
Exactly. Also Northland is on 22.6 acres, Riverside is on 13 acres, and Webster Woods is 25 acres. This situation is the result of the priorities and choices the city government made to allow developers to profit instead of creating true affordable housing.
Another example worth considering is in Cambridge, What an amazing model that could be adopted in Newton, given the correct incentives to home owners.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/14/real-estate/his-final-wish-drop-quest-more-diverse-cambridge-retired-architect-bequeath-his-multifamily-home-nonprofit-affordable-housing/
Lisa,
Opportunity cost. 3.7 acres of prime real estate next to the T could probably generate several million in revenue with 0 expense.
It would be valued accordingly. The city could always build housing paid by public funds and then run the whole thing at a giant loss (lost Opportunity cost) to tax payers forever
The only way would be allow developer 10 stories and for the high priced luxury market rate units subsidize the affordable units. Ie making the gap between rich and poor even worse
Bugek – is that really your argument? Did I say it must be that supply exceeds demand? No. I’m saying create supply to meet demand at lower price points, which is huge.
If you don’t think developers, with red tape cleared, could make good money creating 100 unit complexes near a T, and these units would be priced well below average home prices in Newton, I’m not sure how to continue with the discussion. Put a few of these up and average home prices would come down. Would mine come down? Maybe — if that building was right next to it.
Restrictive zoning is a major factor in keeping averages high and climbing. And all of us homeowners chiming in are benefiting with our appreciating home values. The selfless thing is to loosen all the red tape.
Keith,
based on your logic: we already have SEVERAL HUNDRED new rental units come online north of the pike. Did the average rent come down? hell no! 2BR at renting for $4000+
This is not theoretical or opinion, its a cold hard fact. I think you’re implying we need several THOUSAND before average rents come down? how crowded will schools, traffic, hospitals become?
You build 10,000 new rental units north of the pike then yes, rents will come down and we’ll also have major blight during the next downturn
This has been a good thread. Did the city council vote?
If we make it easier and open up more land for doing it and loosen the the red tape a lot, yes …. There would be a ton of building all around Newton and yes, average prices would drop! And yes, fair, our infrastructure would need to improve. But this is the way to create an amount of affordable housing that would actually make a difference.
Not sure what you mean by blight, BTW.
Our city has what …. 70K people? Creating 100 new affordable homes is a drop in the bucket. We need thousands!! All of you that fret over 10-20 … that is nice. But it is not what is going to fix the issue here. And to be clear, this is needed in other towns too … not just Newton.
Kinda like climate change … many people feel good over little changes …. when we all know it will take massive change to make a real difference.
We need massive change here to actually address the problem.
Very few are good with the implied tradeoffs though. And I understand. But again, let’s not kid ourselves about what really needs to happen to address the problem. Either make this area not as desirable or remove the huge obstacles to creating the housing.
Keith B,
You are proposal theoretical solutions when the outcome can be seen “right now” in front of our eyes.
SEVERAL HUNDRED new units north of the pike all within 1 mile radius and 2BR rents are $4000
There’s no if, but or guessing… this is ACTUAL ourcome anyone can see with their own eyes TODAY
Blight = you build excess supply from demand then when prices fall below profitable costs … foreclosures, lack of maintenance etc etc
One thing not mentioned about this special permit. Its technically 6 unit as each unit can create an inlaw unit
John White, no the City Council did not vote. Before they could even start any discussion on it, Vicky Danberg chartered it signaling that the developer didn’t have the votes for it to pass. If it had gone to a vote and failed, they couldn’t bring the project back for two years. It will come back before the City Council next month. I am assuming the developer is lobbying for votes.
The fact that it wouldn’t have had the vote in the full City Council should say something to folks. This isn’t a good project. It is ironic that affordable housing advocates have put on a full court press for a project that creates four luxury units on a street zoned M1 and covers 2868 sq feet of the lot with an underground parking garage. Somehow this seems to have taken on more consequence as is relayed in the subject line in this post.
We will have these debates as a part of zoning resigned. The special permit process should not be the vehicle to address zoning.
Bugek – nothing you said removes the fact that this IS a supply and demand issue. You may not like the actual solution needed to make lasting change, that is fine.
Right now demand is so high and growing, and supply is so limited and severely limited in growth, that prices continue to climb.
If we want to
1) find a real, long-term, and comprehensive solution .. and …
2) don’t want to reduce demand by making our town less great
Then massive supply needs to be created.
If you don’t agree, that is fine. We can agree to disagree.
In the mean time, folks can assuage their guilty conscious by finding a few affordable housing units at a time. Hey, it is better than nothing. Just doesn’t actually fix the issue.
The developer might have taken a signal from the land use committee vote. Since the committee vote was 5-3, the denial of the special permit by the full council only needs five additional votes. Based on past voting patterns of councilors, it is not hard to imagine that there are five additional councilors who would vote against the permit. I would be very surprised if it gets the two-thirds majority required.
Keith,
Agree that supply would bring prices down but you need to be upfront and honest about HOW MANY you are talking about. 10’s of thousands along with all the issues associated with it
– higher property taxes
– crowded schools and classrooms
– traffic
– increased crime – debateable, not a certainty
– loss of equity for seniors who are on fixed income. Ie hit to their retirement nest egg
Not disagreeing with the solution but i find it hilarious that the affordable housing advocate are going for bat for luxury developers to make more $$
Too bad this project did not pass through. I designed the previous version of this project also at 4 units, also with green roof and one parking entry under. My client got so frustrated that they sold it. Time is money and the more time that has to be spent and new owners making a run etc. the more the costs go up.
Its is not an attractive site. The land slopes down to the north and backs up to the Green Line. However, the existing bungalow is a very important structure. It is a gem of history and architecture. It has one of the best residential interior spaces in newton, a performance space, built for a female pianist who recorded the first piano recital over radio. The importance of the existing home outweighs the number of units the price, the size etc. I have been in a lot of homes in my past 30+ years or practice, keeping the bungalow should be paramount. Major kudos to the present developers for continuing this plan.
That being said, for those properties that do not have an architectural gem to trade, the problem I see with trying to get affordable housing in Newton is the zoning and the special permit process. If the city and the community truly want some more affordable units which I am not convinced they do, the easy forward is to start with the low hanging fruit. Take the existing MR zones and allow more units by right based on lot size with a stipulation on unit size. This would be a simple, understandable change that developers would welcome. It would create new units by right at a smaller square footage, really the only hope for new units in the “affordable category” without subsidies. It would also take the politics out of the equation.
With all due respect Mark, you should know that the developer actually gutted the interior of the existing home. There is nothing left. You write “It has one of the best residential interior spaces in newton, a performance space, built for a female pianist who recorded the first piano recital over radio. It has one of the best residential interior spaces in newton, a performance space, built for a female pianist who recorded the first piano recital over radio. The importance of the existing home outweighs the number of units the price, the size etc.”
So it HAD the one of the best interior spaces. That is GONE. In spite of that, the house has been landmarked so the developer can no longer use the “preservation” of what is left as leverage as the landmarking preserves what is left.
Also the fact that you find the lot unattractive is irrelevant in regards to a special permit request
Perhaps this is a good place to note that the City of Newton is the ONLY city in Massachusetts where the (24 member) City Council authorizes special permits. All other 350 municipalities in Massachusetts have urban planning professionals make these decisions. As a result, development decisions in Newton appear more politicized than elsewhere.
This an interesting conversation about the micro issues regarding housing in Newton.
I have serious concerns that any attempts to create affordable housing will fail because of the macro policies at play. The Fed, through its QE plan, has essentially decided that the way to help the economy recover is to inflate asset prices. How? By lowering interest rates to zero and buying mortgage backed securities, among other measures. You see the effect nationwide – home prices are up everywhere, in some places far more than in Newton.
So yes, we can and should debate the details of zoning policy. But the “affordable” $600,000 small condo will, if current trends keep up, be worth $800,000-$900,000 in a few years.
I don’t have a solution to this issue but we shouldn’t pretend it’s not happening.
@Mary Lee. Why should I know that the interior was gutted? I worked for the original developers. We were going to save as much of the existing interior as possible. if that is true I am sorry to hear that. It could have easily had a preservation restriction in an approval. As to the unattractive site. It’s is much better to develop these areas then pristine sites. I would like to see a photo of the demo that was done.
Tim,
Interesting point about the Fed. Whatever underlying affordability issues we had in the past has been made magnitudes worsen by zero interest rates… causing housing to be viewed as “get rich quick” assets
Nothing will deflate prices faster than a 5% 30 year fixed mortgage.. which by the way is still very low historically
Affordable housing advocates should focus their energy on the Fed, you will literally see prices deflate within several months
@Mark, sorry, I should have phrased that differently. Of course there is no reason that you would know that as you aren’t affiliated with this iteration. I should have phased it less snarkily. It is true that you always seemed to have a great appreciation for the house. There isn’t an easy was to share a picture here. Maybe you can see it on the link below.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LGMa7_HhCLIC0Hx_xrLVij_6hWDgFjiwcsIQOHnUnO0/edit?usp=sharing
Wow. I think we should all pause on what Lisa said about Newton being the only city in MA that has the city council play this role. An extra thick layer of politics and red tape.
The red tape is built to preserve what we have today. Quite often single family homes with nice properties and green lawns and plenty of trees. Great walking communities. Appreciating home values. Much that many of us enjoy and very much have an incentive to preserve. So … many talk like they are socially sensitive but defend to the death the red tape and heck, let’s make even more!
@Bugek on July 16, 2021 at 4:57 pm: And QE is a response to what many see as efforts by Newton’s Barney Frank and others in government to increase the affordability of housing, thereby giving rise to the financial crisis of 2008. Here is what The Atlantic had to say about that, though much has been written elsewhere as well
Unintended consequences of reasoning by back of thumb.
Who would support five smaller units on this site. Say 900 – 1500 sf? I am trying to take the temperature for the new “village Zoning” study the planning department is undertaking.
Thanks.
Mark,
It depends on the price per foot they will be sold for.
Personally, at this location I would like to see ZERO parking spots if you going past 2 units (main house + accessory unit) because do we have a climate crisis or not?
Once you allow 5 units, it provides precedence for 10,15,20 units if a developer could combine lots in similar location. Not saying that’s a bad thing just something that opens the door.
Mary P:
Strongly disagree. And that article was a response interview from the American Enterprise Institute to Barney Frank’s view of lack of regulation of lending institutions causing the housing crisis. It was a response interview with limited analysis, not a reasoned article from the Atlantic. I’m fine with folks quoting conservative think tanks, but let’s call it what it is, conservative talking points.
I also strongly disagree with the premise. Calling out the affordability issue without putting forth the far more major causes of that particular crisis leaves the impression that you are blaming the issue on lower income citizens wanting to own their own home solely. That is unfair and incorrect.
Also Barney Frank has given multiple hour interviews of this issue, the idea that he advocated for this as a guess alone ignores a lot of reality and fact.
Even my Republican friends privately acknowledged Barney’s mastery of financial issues. Disagree with him or not, but this was right in his wheel house.
@Fignewtonville on July 18, 2021 at 12:39 pm: And among those who, in the running-upto years, were working in the banking industry generally and particularly in mortgage loan originations, secondary marketing and processing, are those who know first hand and disagree with your disagreement above.
Likewise, in particular, the fellow at Paulson who invested short.
Not rhetoric. Not opinion. Not belief or faith by reputation.
Mary P is correct. Speak to someone at Fannie or Freddie at the time, and they will tell you that they received incredible congressional pressure to increase the number of loans in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Is this really surprising?
Michael Lewis writes stories to sell books. In doing so, he often leaves important facts out.
One of the challenges resulting from QE is the plentiful supply of historically cheap money to corporations. Individuals benefit from the “cheap” part, but supply remains controlled by underwriters/lenders who remember the run-up to 2008.
“These buyers often come armed with the kind of financial firepower ordinary Americans can’t hope to match, housing experts say.”
Among Newton’s challenges will be whether home owner-occupancy is something to be valued. Corporations always look for places/investments to park cash and (like households) earn gains. Real estate is no exception.
So, will decisions taken by city leaders lead to a greater prevalence of renters and non-resident ownership, to what degree, and does that matter? To my eye, “yes”, “could cut owner-occupancy from 70% to 50% in a generation”, and “as an outcome to be avoided, yes”.