By all appearances, Councilor Marc Laredo is the leader — or one of the leaders — of a bloc of councilors who are anti-housing … or at least housing-skeptical. So, we should look closely at and take seriously what he has to say about housing. Fortunately, he shares some of his thoughts in his most recent constituent/campaign* newsletter.
His thoughts are revealing.
Councilor Laredo leads with the assertion that decisions about our housing and zoning policies “must be based on facts.” (Emphasis his.) I don’t disagree. We must make fact-based decisions.
He cites some important facts. We have about 33,000 homes in the city as of 2020. That’s up from 32,000 in 2010. Factor in the 2,000 approved but not built homes**, we’ll have 35,000 homes shortly, which means we will have met the Comprehensive Plan’s goal to increase housing by 10% in the city.
He also says that Newton’s stock of single-family homes has remained basically constant for the last 20 years. He notes that the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance has had a negligible impact on housing production. Correct and correct.
But, Councilor Laredo doesn’t just discuss facts. He makes several important value judgments, starting with the declaration that Newton is a “built-out city.” Even assuming that Councilor Laredo means that there are few if any unbuilt lots remaining for residential development, it’s not true. Residential development is forbidden on most of the commercial lots in the city, a regulation that could easily be changed, creating more opportunities for residential “build out” without necessarily reducing commercial activity. We have one public and three private golf courses in the city. They could (and should) be developed (while reserving a significant portion as public open space). As a city we chose to buy and preserve Webster Woods, when the alternative was Boston College developing the land. Webster Woods is not “built out.” ***
What Councilor Laredo means by “built-out city,” apparently; there is no more room for new single-family homes. All but a trivial few of the lots currently zoned residential already have homes on them. Defining “built-out city” that way is, itself, a value judgment, especially when something north of 70% of those “built-out” lots have just a single-family home on them. Housing advocates, your humble scribe included, think there’s plenty of room for more housing and would never describe the city as “built-out.”
Whether or not we are a “built-out city” is a judgment, not a fact.
Councilor Laredo does include this odd statement: “This means that if we build more housing in Newton, it will have to be heavily concentrated in multi-family dwellings.” If we are going to build meaningfully more housing it won’t just be concentrated in multi-family dwellings, it will be almost exclusively in multi-family dwelling (unless, of course, it’s part of the development of a golf course).
Councilor Laredo says that while adding multi-family housing “will increase our total housing supply, it won’t do much to change the price of a single-family home.” That seems a very strong claim to make, especially in a letter demanding better data in decision-making.**** It’s also weird in that it pre-supposes that driving down the price of single-family homes is the point of adding more housing to Newton. Housing advocates, your humble scribe included, want to add housing options in addition to single-family homes, options that are more affordable than single-family homes, which command a clear premium over multi-family homes. We want to reduce the cost of housing in Newton, in general, not just the cost of single-family housing. That would be a success, even if (or especially if) single-family home prices remain strong. *****
Finally, Councilor Laredo’s letter is notable for the facts that he doesn’t talk about, the facts he doesn’t request: the facts about climate change, the facts about how adding housing can reduce climate change, the facts about Newton’s transit assets, the facts about how Newton’s housing density around transit compares to other communities, the facts about the regional housing crisis, the facts about the economic impact of the housing crisis. And, of course, the facts about how Newton’s exclusionary zoning has created a segregated Newton.
In the end, facts are important, but in the discussion about “much our housing stock should increase,” the facts that Councilor Laredo is looking for are not nearly as important as values. In the “Elections” section of the newsletter, Councilor Laredo suggests that his readers consider five questions as they evaluate candidates, including:
Do they always remember that they work for the residents of this city, not to further special interests or their own ideology?
It’s hard not to read Councilor Laredo’s housing discussion in the light of this question. Just behind his asserted concern for facts is a clear anti-housing ideology. Which is fine. Let’s just be open about what’s at stake and have that “robust discussion about how much our housing stock should increase” honestly.
—
* As was the case for his final two School Committee elections and has been the case for all of his Board of Aldermen/City Council elections, Councilor Laredo will have no opponent in 2021, so how, you might ask, is it a campaign newsletter? Councilor Laredo was very active in the spring special elections and is expected to endorse and campaign for candidates in this fall’s elections. In fact, in the same August newsletter, he says he will “offer my thoughts and endorsements” and sets forth his criteria for a good council candidate.
** Hate to be a stickler, but the topic is good data and Riverside’s contribution of 550 units to the total is not approved yet. I don’t think you get close to 2,000 without them. (Northland — 800 units, Dunstan East — 304, Riverdale — 204.)
*** I support the decision, but recognize that it was a choice, a choice that could have been different and resulted in residential development.
**** At a certain point, it stands to reason that more affordable options to single-family homes will have an impact on the price of single-family homes.
***** I’ll have something soon about the unfortunate fixation on single-family housing among some elected officials and candidates.
Asked why they moved to Newton and the majority of homeowners will agree that Newton is a “city” in name only, and that their decision to plant roots in this community is for its balance of suburban feel (e.g. reasonsable density) and close proximity to Boston.
According to World Population Review (https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cities/massachusetts) Newton ranks 11th out of 245 Massachusetts cities/towns listed, and 22nd in density. While the latter is 10 places behind Brookline, Newton is on par with Worcester and Waltham; double the density of Needham and Wellesley; nearly 3.5x the density of Medfield; and over 8x the density of Dover.
These metrics show that Newton is doing more than it’s fair share of contributing to regional housing. Brookine is 1.8x greater in desnity than Newton, its home values are also greater than Newton, not less. Kudos to Councilor Laredo and others who support sustainable growth, not growth for the sake of growth!
Matt,
Stipulated: many, if not most, residents of Newton chose Newton because of its blend of proximity to Boston and its suburban density. Throw in the schools for good measure. I’m not criticizing anyone for their self-interest in coming to Newton in the first place.
But, many of us have come to recognize that there are (at least) three reasons why what drew us in the first place is not ethically sustainable. There is a global climate crisis. Building transit near housing is number one on the list of things municipalities can do to fight climate change. Newton has 11 trolley and rail stations, none of which has the 10 homes per acre density around them that is considered the reasonable minimum. There is a regional housing crisis. Our fair share contribution to the area housing need would be 11,000 new homes by 2030. There is a growing awareness that the balance of proximity to Boston and a suburban feel was created using legal mechanisms that were segregating in effect … and, in at least one clear case in Newton, by design.
Put more bluntly, what makes Newton attractive in your formulation is straight out hoarding: hoarding the benefit of proximity to Boston, hoarding access to the state’s investment in public transportation, hoarding the opportunity that comes from living in Newton’s zip codes. (The zip code where you grew up is the single biggest determinant of lifetime health and financial outcomes.) It might be an innocent reason for moving to Newton in the first place, but it’s a lousy basis for ongoing policy decisions.
During this pandemic, I appreciated more the lower density of Newton. Many places I can walk in peace, have a backyard and yes drive into the city (to avoid public transportation)
It’s one of the things that kept me sane and I believe a majority of Newton residents have experienced the same appreciation of lower density.
MaryLee submitted the following comment, followed by the full text of Councilor Laredo’s letter:
If Sean is going to editorialize on Marc Laredo’s comments from his newsletter, let’s have his verbatim words. I thought his comments were excellent in tone and substance at teeing up the debate. So much so I posted them late last week on a forum, Nextdoor.com” that is, in my opinion, a lot more representative of where Newtonians are, verse the echo chamber of Village 14. The response was quite telling. 14 “loves”, 2 “likes” and no snark. Now some folks from here with singular points of view, can run over there and start making snarky comments. That will certainly be illustrative to the average citizen who doesn’t live and breath zoning redesign and it just tuning it to the debate.
—
I have removed the comment. It is Village 14 policy not to re-post newsletters or press releases verbatim. I posted a link to the letter in my post. Twice.
Sean
“ethically sustainable”
Those advocating should lead by example. Majority of the cheerleaders still live in single family homes and have not created an accessory unit. Some even have 2 cars in the driveway.
When i see the city of Boston totally built out with high rises (incl back bay and other expensive locations) then yes, its probably time Newton needs to revisit its density.
As of now, i see no evidence that the city of Boston is seriously (with urgency) building enough housing while expecting others to solve their problems
My apologies for violating the rules. I was unaware. And I appreciate the link to the newsletter, which I did not see, and serves the same purpose.
And since the gist of my comment is covered in yours, I am fine with the deletion
I grew up in a suburb that was very different from where I am in West Newton: cul de sacs, strip malls, no public transit, no walkability, no sidewalks, big long driveways etc. To me, my neighborhood is practically urban already. That’s why I like it.
And I say build up Newton.
But let’s not pretend what we are doing is helpful. Overpriced condos, knocking down small single families and modest two family homes and replacing them with oversized 3000 Sq foot condos where the residents drive their Audis to work. Who are we helping here? Who is this housing for?
MaryLee,
No problem for originally posting the full text of Councilor Laredo’s newsletter. Glad you’re fine with my solution.
Housing advocates, me included, most definitely do not think that what’s going on under our current zoning rules is good or useful. We’re losing reasonably sized homes and replacing them with unreasonably sized and much more expensive homes. (Yes, I used “unreasonably.” In the era of climate change, it’s hard to justify new homes over 2,000 s.f.) We’re building too many garages, which make it too easy to drive.
We need more housing options. More multi-family buildings with reasonably sized homes. You and I may disagree about whether it’s better to retain a modestly sized single-family home or use the lot for multiple modestly sized condos or rentals. But, I think we can agree that a modestly sized single-family home in Newton will shortly be very expensive — north of $1 million — if it isn’t already.
Please understand that the steadily increasing trend towards McMansions and McMiniums© is a result of our current zoning and the housing demand in the region. The anti-housing bloc on the City Council, led by Councilor Laredo, offers no solution, just more of the same.
I do not believe there is an anti housing block on the city council. What I do see on the city council is many variations of view points on what to build and where to build.
As a long time resident of Newton, I have witnessed a big change in housing development in the past 5 years as the interest rates plummeted after the recession of 2008.
Newton has no vacant land for new housing. It is a built up city.
I see our growth as incremental and I applaud city councilors who are cautious about how to design and implement new growth. I do believe this caution represents the overall needs of the residents who live here and want to keep it a well run and healthy living environment.
Please, Sean. Too many residents are exhausted by a battle that categorizes people as anti or pro housing development/affordable housing with no nuanced discussion.
I supported Austin St, Washington Place, and Riverside. But I oppose getting rid of the demolition delay, and I’ve become suspect in my support of housing affordability. Guess what? I don’t care. I’m tired of the fighting. I’m tired of having to be “on a side”
when I see things differently. Not better or worse-just differently.
Enough! People and groups on both sides judge people who are just trying to live their lives during an incredibly stressful time. Not only that, they have other issues they work on for the betterment of the city, and their voices are being drowned out.
As for Marc Laredo, you totally missed the mark as to what he wants.
Sean,
Laredo simply reflects the needs of residents who elected him. Its more accurate to say “Newton residents on housing”.
If you believe residents are clamoring for more density, they will simply elect someone who will drive that density.
If you believe in democracy, then Newton residents will eventually vote for what they want. No need to make it personal.
New report on greenhouse gases and land use in MA:
“Land use patterns have a substantial impact on the rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase: VMT growth in a “sprawl” scenario is 5.2 percentage points higher than a “smart growth” scenario with more development in urban areas and denser suburbs. ….. If VMT growth continues unabated, vehicle emissions could rise even as fuel economy improves, and rapidly increasing vehicle demand for renewable electricity will make it harder to transition other sectors to renewables.” https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/vehicle-miles-traveled-emissions/
If you believe climate change is real and not a good thing, reducing driving is necessary. Electric vehicles and denser development are pieces of the solution.
Lucia,
If councilors took global warming seriously, they would insist on zero fossil fuel parking spaces and EV only residential parking spaces… AND no gas hookups.
So which is it? The last and upcoming developments all have plentiful parking spaces and minimal (if at all) solar power. If they serious, they wouldn’t give a damn if developers wanted parking spaces
Also density not necessarily mean less cars on the road. Go to NYC, witness how horrible the car traffic is. The roads are jammed with fossil fuel cars even though it has the best subway in the country and shops at your footstep
Increasing Newton density does not automatically mean less cars… it means MORE because the population increases and you still need a car in winter, rain and getting to work because the public transportation is a joke
Imagine someone relocating here and moving into one of these new “transit oriented” development on the Washington St corridor with not enough parking. Then they actually experience the erratic schedules and delays of the commuter rail and the unreliability of the buses. Or that they can’t easily take them to go to the supermarket or an area with lots of retail. (ie a Target or something)
This isn’t Field of Dreams. I feel like a lot of people think “if you build it they will come” with public transit. Transit oriented development will only be successful if our public transit options weren’t garbage. Fix the public transit (and walkability and bikeability of our neighborhoods) and then maybe we can really promote transit oriented development. Until then, it’s essentially a bait and switch.
@Bugek what density does deliver if fewer car trips and a lower CO2 per capita. Yes, New York City has plenty of cars, but as noted in a recent New York Times article, a greater percentage of land in NYC is devoted to streets and roads than that of Boston. An effort is underway to reduce that car-centric thinking. People tend to do their daily shopping and commuting by foot, bike, or public transportation, where available. It’s not perfect and there are too many cars, but it’s improving.
I entirely agree that we need fewer parking spaces at the developments. BUT, along with that we need to provide access to safe ways to get around. This means protected bike lanes, bus rapid transit options, and better pedestrian access. So far, we’ve done little other than ask for fewer parking spaces. We need protected bike lanes on our major arteries. We need to sideline on-street parking. We need to offer subsidies on electric bikes (much as we do for electric cars).
And please, stop with the “people won’t ride bikes in the winter” BS because it’s been proven false again and again, most recently by a study on the impact of protected bike lanes in areas of Boston adjacent to Newton.
So yes, we need density, but we also need the other things to make this all work.
@Lucia, gotta agree with Bugek here. To curb our addiction to VMT we need not just denser developments, but developments with fewer cars.
If we continue to build snout houses with 3 car garages and condos with 2 deeded spaces, we’re not just creating more housing for people, we’re encouraging more autos and more travel. In the case of affordable housing, we can make housing even more affordable by having fewer deeded spaces per unit, making it an incentive (but still an option) to get by with one car, or perhaps in some cases, no car at all. At a recent land use meeting, the author of this thread made a fine point, which I will try to paraphrase: if there’s so much demand for housing, why wouldn’t we create housing that appeals to the “car-lite” crowd? Councilor Laredo took the opposite approach, suggesting that people generally want to own more cars, so we should accommodate them in our new housing. I have a great amount of respect for Marc, but I respectfully suggest that’s the wrong way to plan our future.
Chuck,
Hopefully we can use facts. North of the pike new units = 250 (current), 500 (planned)
If Newton car registrations increase over the next 2 years in those ZIP codes then the narrative of “increasing density to reduce car usage” can be either be debunked as BS or proven to be correct (making global warming worse)
Looking forward to the facts.
Newton car registrations WILL increase.
The question is, what will be the relative increase in VMT? Meaning, will the people who live in these developments use vehicles for as many trips as people who live in single-family homes .5 or 1 mile away? What will be the increase in economic activity around these developments and will that increase at a pace equal to the increase in car usage or will it be greater?
Sure, let’s look at facts, but let’s make sure they’re the right data points.
@Chuck – a point of clarification if you don’t mind. When you refer to biking in winter do you mean commuter or short trips. From personal observation the winter bike commuter is a hearty, committed soul who sensibly invests in multiple bike lights (fore and aft) mitts to keep the hands warm, ear warmers, and a heavy commuter bike – durable and able to withstand the road salt.
Interestingly I saw a bike with massive (4 inch maybe) tires on Beacon Street riding in lovely weather. The vehicle didn’t appear to be motorized, moved slowly though the rider was pedaling rather quickly. My husband said it was designed for snow which made sense though it looked like a fish out of water!
I would love to live in Newton without a car, but it’s just not practical. As MMQC points out, the transit options, with the exception of the D line, are subpar. If you want the commuter train to be a practical option, you need smaller trains running every 10-15 mins, both ways (see e.g., most of the Europe). Also, for anyone with kids, biking around town is not really feasible. Especially not in bad weather, when you’re incredibly cold, at risk of being splashed by cars and trucks, at risk of sliding on black ice and throwing the kids off the bike, etc. etc.
Stepping back, I really don’t believe smaller units will solve the affordability issue. I looked it up on RedFin – the average $/sq ft of Newton homes is $515. Take a family of four living in a 2000 sq ft unit. That’s $1,030,000 for the unit. How is that affordable? Note also that the average price is likely to be higher for these units since they will be modern, have new appliances, not have lead paint, etc. etc.
OK, then you argue, if we become more dense, supply goes up and prices come down. I think that works in economics 101, but not so much the Boston housing market. Look at Brookline. Much denser than here, as Matt points out. Avg price per square foot? Again, according to Redfin, $718/sq ft. So the 2,000 sq ft unit is a whopping $1,436,000.
Finally, with respect to environmental impact – electrification is coming fast, and with it will come a dramatic drop in emissions from cars, especially if said cars are charged via renewable sources or solar panels on your home. I suppose denser housing can lead to greater heating / cooling efficiency in homes, but people will still want to drive given the state of public transit, see above. So I really don’t see how denser housing in Newton will have a material impact on global warming. If someone has the numbers on this, I would love to see it.
@Tim, actually for new constructed condos the current market price per sq.ft. is $625
@ MaryLee – thank you. So then the 2000 sq ft unit is $1,250,000.
Assuming 10% down and a 3.5% interest rate, that’s a monthly mortgage payment of over $5,000. Using the recommended 30% of gross income spent on housing, and adding in $1,500 a month of property tax, utilities, etc., you need a household income of $260,000 a year to afford this.
@Tim only if it is new construction multi-family/condo within a certain radius of a center There are a number a variable that need to be taken into consideration
@Lisa I’m focused on the smaller trips, those under 2 miles. For those, most can be done on a bike all through the winter. Like everything else, this is not an absolute, but for many people, for many days it’s entirely doable. Just as people don’t like to drive in the snow and ice, I wouldn’t expect them to bike in it either. But a day or two after the storm, when the roads have been cleared people in Boston are back out.
It sounds like you saw someone on a fat bike. Those are often used in mountain biking or on snow. Nice, but not really something I’ve ever used. I put studded tires on around Halloween and just keep riding.
Chuck, your views on biking are incredibly ableist.
A few loosely connected thoughts.
I don’t believe that building more privately-developed market rate units on the scale that Newton is politically capable of will make any significant difference in creating greater affordability within the city. Our lever simply isn’t that long.
However, if we do nothing, prices of all residential property will be even less affordable, older homes will continue to be converted into more expensive modern structures, and developers will continue to squeeze in higher density where they can. I can’t see that as a winning strategy for many people either.
I have been reminded many times in life that failing to make a decision is still a choice with consequences. The world is not stuck in amber.
At this point in this country, we aren’t building enough residential units to meet even the needs of population growth. Talk about pushing our problems and failure to solve them onto the next generation. Generations of Newton families have been able to live near each other. That’s likely over for many people. It’s something to think about.
“Newton is built out.” If I take a notebook and scribble on every page – some pages a fair amount, many other pages a little – is the notebook full?
We don’t even need to look at new units to see the current lack of affordability. 20% down for a mortgage puts home ownership out of most “regular” people’s grasp, dead stop, and ties up a lot of savings and risk in an illiquid asset. The fact that home ownership offers many financial advantages to those who can afford it is a byproduct of tax and interest rate policy, but *only* if you can afford it. So where are the affordable rental spaces in Newton?
Affording even a a run of the mill Newton home to keep your kids in a great school and give them a great upbringing is financially stressful for so many Newton families. How many two income families became less than that during the pandemic? How many one income families faced even worse? Stress and uncertainty so powerfully shape our life and health.
The State simply must merge its transportation policy with its housing policy if we want to make a meaningful and sustained impact on affordability, congestion, and carbon emission. Cities and towns can’t do it alone, and errant policy decisions by the MBTA in particular can defeat any long-term housing plan by any municipality. That’s not a reason to throw up our hands and curse our fate.
Electrification of vehicles and conversion to renewable energy sources does nothing to solve the congestion issues that impact the quality of life for drivers and non-drivers alike in a successful metropolitan area. Pushing people further away from Boston metro without addressing congestion and transportation efficiency will directly impact current and future Newton residents. We need state leadership to help plan this conjunction of commercial, residential, and travel activities. However, in this case we can act meaningfully at a local level, especially with the advantages of Newton’s distributed village model.
For this reason and others, in a competition for strong local economies in the future, Newton could do quite well and help pay for quality of life improvements that benefit everyone.
The “car vs. no car” debate is a false dichotomy. Realistic solutions to congestion and transportation-related carbon emission are related to vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). Some of that will involve residents with no cars, but that’s not where it ends. With good planning and zoning, though, we can rebuild village centers as commercial hubs that capture more local trips and replace more of them with walking and biking by more people. Queue the “older people can’t bike in a January snowstorm on Washington Street” of you like. Even though I know some older Newton residents who do in fact to exactly that, our bigger wins will come incrementally. We win with every single longer vehicle commute/shopping/dining trip that we convert to a walking/biking/transit/local driving trip. At the same time, we build strong local businesses and a sense of community and place. That in turn makes it more possible to go car free (or, say, for more kids to remain car free longer). And it makes Newton a more vibrant place (or better yet, a collection of vibrant places).
At some point we have to stop the moralizing over developers, especially the “greedy developers are getting rich” or “developers will save us” ideas, and view them as rational actors. It isn’t a surprise that they try to maximize their profits and gains, as do many other people in Newton including the ultra wealthy and plenty of others of us. That’s why we create regulations, ordinances, policies, and guidance for everyone including developers and make them stick. We also need to have high expectations and clear visions of where we want to go, where developers and development are a piece. That’s not something Newton has done especially well for decades, and it’s hardly benefited us.
@ Tim – 2 studies on electric vehicles and greenhouse gases: “Some might say that VMT reductions are unnecessary because the use of ZEVs will eliminate all emissions from vehicles. But vehicle manufacturing emits large quantities of GHGs.” Driving California’s Transportation Emissions to Zero
2021 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3np3p2t0#supplemental
“rapidly increasing vehicle demand for renewable electricity will make it harder to transition other sectors to renewables.” https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/vehicle-miles-traveled-emissions/
The production of electricity in MA is currently 25% green, and I believe that includes biofuels, which not all support as green electricity.
@Mike Halle … just wanted to give a thumbs up to your post.
Going to need some names here Sean, rather than urban legend or anecdotes.
I’ve lived in Newton since 1972,
and I have yet to meet one person who has moved to Newton for its “suburban density”. Not a single soul.
If you know for a fact that “many”or “most” people moved to Newton for the
“suburban density”, then it shouldn’t be a problem having at least some of these individuals support your claim by going on the record, otherwise your claim
is simply a bald faced lie.
Your claim should be very easy to prove if it’s true.
@Mike Halle – excellent post. But – every time I read about commuter transportation hubs – all of which inevitably lead into Boston, I ask “why?” Boston is slowly sinking and current predictions don’t paint a rosy future. Presently I’ve been quite pleasantly surprised on my recent forays into the financial district to see that traffic volume is far from it’s pre-pandemic levels. So a question I think asked here before: When do we turn our eyes westward? When do we focus on expanding beyond 495 and cease our pedestrian view of Boston as “the hub” and develop transportation that leads to more places than a sinking city?
Paul, I don’t know if “suburban density” was verbatim on our checklist when we moved to Newton, but I don’t find the statement too far off the mark. We lived in a fairly dense part of Jamaica Plain (a street with a combination of three deckers and condos). We wanted to move to a place that had a more coherent school system, somewhat larger homes, and varied housing stock that was relatively more affordable than JP or Brookline. But we also wanted proximity to Boston and really liked the distributed density and “group of small towns” feel of Newton’s villages. We would have been happy in a more urbany location in Boston or a more rural location like Wayland or Lexington, but we chose here.
I believe that Newton is a sweet spot for a lot of people who have explicitly chosen to live here (as opposed to being born here). It’s a “goldilocks” city. “Suburban density” is perhaps too simplistic a description, but on average it may work out. “Sweet spot” might also just be “compromise”, but the result is the same.
Another semi-equivalent measure may be the “trick or treat” test: are houses close enough, neighborhoods tight enough, and streets safe and accessible enough that kids can go out trick or treating, have fun with friends, and come home with reasonable loot?
What’s your view of Newton residents’ general preference for density or primary desire to live here?
So to recap…..
1. No one moved to Newton in search of density. (Thank you @Paul Green)
2. More housing does not mean lower prices (but a market crash or economy correction/hiccup will…another topic for another day)
3. The T is the Ford Pinto or drunk uncle of public transportation (unreliable and cringe)
4. Bikes are not used en masse (sorry Chuck)…just drive around Newton or even Brookline and Boston (both have bike lines on major streets) where trying to find bikers is like playing Where’s Waldo? It’s either too cold, snowy, raining or hot (like today). It’s New England. Compound that with the high ratio of families and an aging community, it makes absolute sense why there are no bikers. Square peg, round hole. Newton is neither San Diego, Brooklyn nor Denmark.
5. Jane’s 100% correct. In the 10+ years living in Newton, this city has never been more divided. And calling Councilor Laredo and others anti-housing or “housing-skeptical” (what the heck does that even mean) is not helpful. Middle ground is never reached in a conversation starting with an insult.
6. Still don’t understand how this community’s most vocal housing advocates mostly live in single family homes, in single family zoned neighborhoods, often with more than 1 car, seldom takes public transit and do not have solar on their roofs.
At the end of the day, what we have is not solely a local issue, but a much larger regional, state and national one. We (Newton) should do our part, but so should everyone else.
Vote wisely come November. Which candidate best matches your beliefs; grounded in reality and reason, or “Field of Dreams”. 🙂
I agree with Mike Halle. (Count me as another person that fits that description Paul Green, so now you’ve met TWO folks!–maybe you should meet some new people once Covid ends… 😉 )
One of the main reasons I moved here was the mix of suburban and village feel. I like having a mix of single family homes and a more built up village center within walking distance. I’ve got no issue with accessory apartments, and Newtonville has a large number of 3 family homes. Or 5 family condos/townhomes. And quite a few apartment buildings on Walnut St and Washington St, even before Trio and Austin St opened. If I wanted more suburban, I’d have moved to Wellesley or further out.
And I’ve met a whole mess of folks who moved to Newton because they couldn’t afford Brookline. And would love Newton to have more of a Brookline feel. Wouldn’t those folks count as Suburban Density folks?
Paul Green and Matt Lai, I certain respect that we likely moved to Newton looking for different things. But however you define “suburban density”, I certainly didn’t move to Newton because it was some wonderland of single family homes. There are many Newtons as you move North to South/East to West. I moved on purpose to Newtonville. Nonantum was my other choice or Newton Corner. I almost bought in both places. I couldn’t afford Newton Centre or Waban, but it also didn’t really fit what I was looking for. I liked the mix of houses, the mix of incomes, the more active (if rundown at the time) village center. I’ve been very happy with the improvements to the Village Centers, especially Newtonville. I’m at Trio multiple times a week, either for CVS, Clover, or drinks at Mida. (or shoes for the kids, who seem to go through them monthly). And I really like the “Newtonville Coffee Court”, which is what I’m calling the intersection of Cafe Nero, George H and Starbucks. Can’t have healthy retail without some degree of urban density. Some of us just like a more built up environment. Or in the case of Newtonville, adding to a more built up environment.
I happen to think there is some middle ground here. But here is the thing: I’m not sure our politicians, including Marc Laredo, are really interested in exploring that middle ground. And certainly we’ve all argued this ground ourselves many times and we are all firmly in various political affiliations. I will say that Marc’s questions at the end of his post are cast in a way to make it clear that he views that some of his current colleagues are putting ideology over what is best for Newton. And conveniently, what is best for Newton is what HE agrees with, his own ideology-embrace of the status quo. (Or as he puts it– “facts”.) (And perhaps a run for Council President or some future day a run for mayor, but I’m a cynic I suppose…)
I’ve got no issue with any of that. And clearly there have been some battles between Marc and Susan this year on the council. But I just don’t view Marc Laredo as leading on this particular issue, 3 months before an election. At least the housing advocates seem clear in what they want. I’m not sure Marc is “grounded in reality and reason” as Matt Lai said above. I’d view his position as grounded in keeping Newton the same as its always been, partly because that is the way he thinks the political winds are blowing. That’s not reality and reason. That’s inertia and overvaluing the status quo. I’d like to think we can make Newton better along the way. Matt calls that the “Field of Dreams”. Always did like that movie. If you build it, they will come. Seems to have worked for Newtonville, despite the predictions of doom and societal destruction. I think I’ll vote that way.
Matt,
recap: /ˈrēˌkap/ a summary of what has been said.
Your comment’s not a recap. It’s a summary of your opinions in the form of a highly selective simplification of the discussion. Which is fine I guess, it’s just not a recap. A recap acknowledges what other people say. I personally put a fair amount of effort into listening to others and expressing ideas in a nuanced, balanced way that I hope is fair and respectful. I would think a recap would capture that, whether it came from me or anyone else.
I think Newton would be a better and less divided place if more discussions included the honest and sincere phrase, “I get what you’re saying.”
So, I get what you’re saying. But where do your six points leave us? What’s the way forward from your point of view? How do we make tomorrow better than today? Critiques have their place, but they aren’t visions or plans. At the end of the day we do need visions and plans.
@Fig, trust me….driving thru Newton after 10pm can be kind of depressing. We close way too early…good thing Boston is so close. 🙂
Look, there much you describe that I’m very much a fan of. Would love more life in our Village Centers. Here in Upper Falls (particularly our immediate neighborhood), we have tremendous diversity in people, ethnicity and economics. But here’s the thing…
Let’s not pretend that irresponsibly building for the sake of building is going to bring prices down. Brookline had grown far denser than Newton, and is far more expensive I came from Brookline, and I can’t afford to go back…without a steady diet of instant ramen and bologna sandwiches. I don’t want this to happen to our son.
Is it Laredo and crew that’s putting ideology over “what’s best for Newton” or the other side of the aisle?
Field of Dreams was a great movie. It was also fiction.
PS. Happy for you and the added vibrancy brought to Newtonville due to Austin Street ant Trio…,but are homes any less expensive or accessible?
We moved to Newton because we wanted a safe community, close to Boston, with great schools and honestly, we wanted a house. We wanted a yard. We live in a lot of land of 5400 square feet and our house is 1100 square feet (yes we have a single family house that is smaller than many of these new luxury condos). We live close to the green line. We have loved living in a neighborhood of mostly single family homes in modest size. But as the older generation sells, homes become two family townhomes or giant single family homes. Neither of which the current neighbors could ever afford. The majority of my neighborhood are families with two working parents, and we were lucky to buy when we did. We all moved here for different reasons, but I know that when I sell my home (in many many years), we won’t be in a hidden gem neighborhood. Our neighborhood will slowly be converted from homes that are valued at $1M or less, to luxury townhomes that each go for $1.5M. Where a single family home stood (with one or two cars), become a two family townhome with four cars. You convert 10 single family homes to 20 town homes, the amount of traffic doubles. You do from 20 cars to 40 cars in a span of 5-10 years.
We love our single family home. We shovel. We rake. We mow the lawn. We love the private space of our yard. We don’t want to share a wall. We don’t have to decide with another family who to hire for the outside work, replacing the roof.
But the talk of building affordable homes have made it okay for developers to tear down a small cape house (value of $800K) and replace it with TWO luxury condos valued each at $1.5M. That isn’t affordable. It is creating density. It isn’t creating affordable homes.
I also moved to Newton because of its density. I grew up in a suburb that was an hour from a major city with homes built on an acre of land. It felt very isolating. In fact, one of the selling points that the realtor used when writing the description of my house was “walk to shops.” You don’t write that for many homes in Weston or Wellesley.
And as @bugek likes to remind me, we should deal in facts. So Matt, while you’re looking at facts about bike ridership you should check out this study on a city that you may have heard of: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2021/07/22/research-suggests-bostons-new-protected-lanes-boosted-bike-traffic-80-percent/
Sean,
Would it be fair to say this years council election will be a referendum on high density development in Newton?
After November, I hope we can all stop bickering and allow the councilors to reflect voters choice regarding housing.
Chuck, Boston has such a HIGH college student population that biking is popular (no other choice for students). Newton has completely different demographics
@NewtonMom
You nailed it.
“Electric vehicles and denser development are pieces of the solution.”
Let’s hope the denser development doesn’t use concrete.
If the manufacturing of concrete were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses next to China and the US.
The move to electric cars is great. But cars are a low percentage of emissions in transportation. You need to go after trucks to make a significant dent in emissions in the transportation sector.
Source
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
On bikes….
Let’s factor out every adult bike ride from the discussion for a moment.
Besides the charm of it, our neighborhood school model depends on walkability and bikeability to function. Current school related congestion and parking dominates local traffic concerns in Newton. That gets better if we make it easier to bike and walk. It gets much worse if kids or their caregivers believe it’s too dangerous. Plus it’s our social responsibility to keep them safe.
Many kids are already walking and biking to school – frequently on streets with missing sidewalks or any thought to bike accommodation. During the spring we had 60-80 bikes at each of the middle schools. At Day, my kid’s school, many of those kids cross Waltham Street, ride down a four foot wide sewer easement, dodge Albemarle traffic and cross the very-not-handicapped accessible Cheesecake Brook bridge. And they do it almost every day of the year. Because that’s what kids do. I’m proud of them.
Those kids stop biking (and their friends stop walking), and traffic in West Newton stops functioning. Or we spend even more money to add more school buses, which are already pretty inconvenient for kids and families.
Alternatively, we commit to making biking and walking to schools and other major destinations as easy and safe as we can, in addition to revamping our school bus and local transportation system. We recommit to the historically-conventional idea that those kids that can ride, walk, or take the bus to school.
Electrify the school buses and we’ve made a real dent in our carbon emissions. Every new kid walking, biking, or bus riding to school means one less car trip for a caregiver. Those are huge.
Compared to many other congestion mitigation and sustainability options, this idea is both imaginable and scalable, as well as realizable and relatively affordable. It’s cheap money to solve an otherwise vexing problem. It also benefits all the adult rides that we said we were ignoring at the beginning.
I believe this idea in well-aligned with how many families view their ideal Newton: safe, neighborly, local, and convenient.
Mike halle,
Definitely agree that new protected (with barriers) bike lanes should focus on high school routes at the very least (followed by middle school)
I don’t understand where the red tape is coming from. Who would object to a protected bike lane along walnut leading to NNHS?
I felt Newton has spent thousands already on lime, blue bikes but have not done anything for school kids who would benefit the most from biking
Mike Halle, my kids always took the bus to elementary school, middle school and high school because we live too far from the school. The school bus was a pleasure! Last year for the first time I drove my kid to South (on the days she had in person school). Traffic was a nightmare. I hated every morning and afternoon pick up. She will be taking the bus again this year.
It is beyond me how the fee at south to park a car is the same as taking the bus. If we want more families to USE the bus and not drive a car, we need it to be affordable and convenient. The bus is NOT convenient right now – it gets the kids home too late. But I am not going to add my own personal car to the normal flow of traffic. Happy to pick up after a sport practice, but not in general.
We need to make the school bus more attractive so more families use it. . . and charging $350/year per kid isn’t going to do it. Make the bus free and parking fee $350.
Where people want to live is personal opinion. Greenhouse gas emissions based on density is science. Unless you are living off the grid in a yurt and riding a donkey (annual GHG emissions 23 kilograms), denser housing has lower greenhouse gas emissions.
“One of our findings shows that density variables play a significant role in reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Increasing population, job, or road densities are generally associated with zoning changes, which is the most potent land-use management tool to promote public health, safety, and welfare (Mass Audubon 2019).” Aslanyan, T. and Jiang, S. 2021. “Examining Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled and Carbon Emissions in the Boston Metropolitan Area.” https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2106/2106.06677.pdf
Bugek – agree about the Blue bikes. Protected bike lanes would do a lot more for bikers.
@ Rick – 60% of transportation emissions in Massachusetts are from SUVs (aka light-duty trucks) and cars.
@Bugek
The question I have is, how to keep a perm bike lane clean? ( snow and debris ). Are there drains along the way? The city would have to commit to plowing it and cleaning it.
Not saying they shouldn’t- just that to really support biking there would need to be infrastructure commitments besides painting lines on the road ( which makes me also wonder how frequently those nice new lines will be repainted).
Anyways this thread has diverged greatly from the affordable housing topic…
Bugek,
Good or “obvious” ideas get winnowed down one piece at a time. Bike lanes on Walnut St in the Newtonville business core were shot down early in the process in favor of the widest possible sidewalks, for instance. There are fair arguments either way, and the sidewalks are lively and booming now. But there are no bike lanes in the busiest section of the street.
There’s a chance to get a low stress bike path in the Albemarle/Cheesecake Brook area from Washington Street to the river past F. A. Day, but it might have parking impacts.
In other places, protected lanes might require land taking or loss of park green space, both of which are potential pitfalls.
Finally, protected bike lanes require engineering time, and our civil and transportation engineers are beyond flat-out right now. Even slam-dunk projects are backing up. Decades of neglect brings a lot of cleanup work before you even get to the good stuff.
As for bikeshare, the first round of bikeshare (Lime) was free for Newton. My understanding is that the money for the second round (Blue Bikes) came out of quick-spend state programs that wouldn’t have supported complex projects like permanent protected bike lanes. Blue Bikes is a bit of an experiment, but linking up with Boston’s successful bike share system seems to be the best bet if you’re going to make one.
@Fig, Mike Halle & Chuck T,
A few regular posters on a privately
curated and edited blog is hardly
equivalent to “most” or “many” in a city
of 90,000 + residents.
Has anyone asked what the true motivation or motivations of Sean Roche are? Is he a professionally licensed, degreed or otherwise legitimately credentialed individual
whose profession is directly related to housing public policy, urban planning, affordable housing, or any other relevant profession?
Or…
Is his interest not an extension of his own
professional career and pursuits, and
he is simply another of the many
hobbyists who have
no professional and/or practical experience to speak of, yet speak with authority with no actual curriculum vitae?
Yeah, the “most” thing is funny to me especially after the last election. Now I voted for Bryan and Maddie but they lost handily. I don’t think that Sean et Al can say they know what the majority of Newton wants.
@Lucia 08/12 at 9:56 am – “denser housing has lower greenhouse gas emissions”: You meant “per capita”, right?
As a teacher at Newton South for 34 years, I commuted by bicycle whenever the weather permitted it. Though more and more students now bike to school (the bike racks are usually filled), too many students drive cars or get chauffeured there: hence, the dangerous traffic morass on Brandeis Road twice a day.
Free or inexpensive bus service to school could change this picture. Studies have found that when public transit of any sort is free or inexpensive, ridership increases accordingly. Safety, I believe, limits the number of students commuting by bike (thanks to Climate Change, wintry weather is less of an impediment). Painted bike lanes help; roads with bumps like Clark Street have fewer cars and slower traffic, conditions that encourage cycling. If we truly want our students on school buses or bicycles, it could easily happen.
Paul,
I think we’re all just talking here. I’d love to have more professionals and experts in various disciplines engage here, but even then we’d all gain cred only on the strength of our thoughts or arguments. I find that conversations that revolve around who has standing to express their opinions don’t hold their interest, or their audience, for very long.
As for your argument, you said, “it shouldn’t be a problem having at least some of these individuals support your claim by going on the record”. We literally did what you asked. Of course is doesn’t prove the “many”, but it does disprove your absolutist “not a single soul” statement. You, me, Chuck, Figgy, we are all anecdotes.
As for V14 and any flaws and biases it may have, at least we’re both engaged in conversation because of it. Our world broadens when we talk.
Back to “many”. I have learned that speaking for others and their opinions always carries risks. I try to be clear in expressing my opinions as that. That’s why I said “I believe that Newton is a sweet spot for a lot of people who have explicitly chosen to live here (as opposed to being born here)”. I think I’m on pretty safe ground, but if you have a different viewpoint, let’s hear it!
Well said, Bob. We don’t use the buses because we are too far from a stop and it’s too expensive for the service. But we also are too far to walk and get to school on time and I have a child with a disability that makes biking impossible. I hate to have to drive, but I don’t feel like we have an option. I know others who feel similarly.
@paul I’m not sure I understand your comment on “most”. No one thinks that this blog is at all indicative of any trend in the City of Newton. People like MMQC just like to throw barbs around without any real consequence…. so I give comments with the value they deserve.
The only time I used the word “most” was regarding trips being done around town. I use “most” because the national data shows that most trips in this country are of the shorter variety.
MMQC, I agree there are so many people in suboptimal school transportation situations. It should not just be cheaper to ride the bus, it should be dead easy (and safe) to get to a close bus stop. Or what about kids who could bike on nice days, but want to take the bus on rainy or snowy days or when they have to carry a tuba?
Our current system throws out some partial solutions (you can walk, bike, take the bus, or drive/be driven) and forces people to conform to their limitations. It’s rigid and all or nothing.
We should flip things around, set goals (less driving to school, greater safety, more efficiency, more choices and opportunities), and build the mechanisms around helping families within those goals. There will always be exceptions and other cases where driving to school is the only viable option. We can make it rare, or rarer. It’s easier to address it well as an exception rather than a default.
We have drifted from density and development as a topic. But it we think of school transportation broadly as part of a citywide transportation system, we can start to see opportunities where we, rather than just the MBTA, have control of transportation. We can make walking and biking the best and easiest choice for more people more of the time.
And I know you don’t just throw barbs 🙂
Yes! to ‘think of school transportation broadly as part of a citywide transportation system’
I don’t think siloing transportation into groups – shuttles/buses for college students, high school students, health care employees, 128 employees, etc. benefits us socially, environmentally, or economically.
“Density” Boston-style, 1,165 sq.ft. at $1,030/sq.ft., parking not included.
Article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/10/metro/bostons-famous-skinny-house-back-market-12-million/
Map: https://goo.gl/maps/aJ3CgpB5XQDpLhL57
While we should think of transportation as a whole, especially mass transit, I don’t thing K-8 students necessarily belong on a bus with high school students or the general public. But once kids hit high school, we could think of mass transit, because it would help us coordinate. I can’t speak for everyone, but no one wants to idle at south or north, while we wait for the kids to get out at a specific time, however there could be routes more often to accommodate such things. Once the first wave of kids hit the busses at the end of high school, there are smaller waves through out the late afternoon/evening, once clubs, sports, theater and other things end.
My kids used the green line from 6th grade on, but my younger one missed the opportunity to spread her wings that way due to COVID. She is now going to be a sophomore in high school, but I would sign her up to take a bus after sports practice that would drop her off closer to the house, so that I don’t need to make a special trip. I don’t know how late busses are going to work this year.
Well said, Mike! And not just about the barbs. And you also make a good point about kids who may need the bus only sometimes.
If Newton has a commitment to the environment, one thing we can do is cut down on parents needing to drive their kids to school. It also results in a lot of idling. This seems like a totally doable thing that could make a difference.
Lucia – re: mixed age group busing: would rather not have my 1st grader coming home quoting Quentin Tarantino movies.
If Newton was REALLY serious about global warming, they could move the needle “immediately ” by adding a fossil fuel surcharge of $1000 a year to residents with more than 1 gas car. Only low income residents excluded.
The city would use that big pot of money to install solar wherever it can.
If its an immediate threat as everyone tells us then should have been signed yesterday.
Or is it only urgent enough when used as an argument for high density housing?
@Adam B. Great point! Folks should also bear in mind that in creating bus routes the city must also include bus routes for children in Newton’s private schools as well. We tend not to recall that the logistics aren’t limited to our 3 high schools (North, South and oft forgotten Central), 4 middle schools and is it 16 elementary schools plus the early Ed Center.
@Adam – not for toddlers either. High school and college students definitely can use mass transit. In Boston, middle school students ride the public bus and T, as I did it as a kid.
@Bugek-
What would be the mechanism for Newton to accomplish that? It can’t be done through an excise tax – that’s set by statute though collected locally. I don’t think the legislature is going to adopt any such measure so unless you have a local path forward which I don’t see — that sounds DOA to me.
Lisa, do you mean school buses? I don’t think Newton families should be subsidizing school bus routes for families that opted out of NPS. If it’s the MBTA, it only makes sense if the private schools are en route to other things. How heavily would they even be used by private school students and would it be enough to warrant new or changing routes? (I question this) Otherwise, why can’t the private schools provide their own school buses?
I believe NPS already provides school bus service for at least some private schools in the city.
I have always been in favor of an organized plan for after school transportation. In Boston, BPS students could ride the bus to a registered after-school program that was on the available routes. BPS has school choice, so the busing is different, but it made getting to a wide variety of great after school programs so much easier. Since after school programs at elementary schools are often oversubscribed, transportation helps to balance the system while at the same time lifting a huge weight off of both caregivers and the after school programs themselves.
All these options happen if we stop thinking about transportation in silos (as Lucia aptly said).
MMQC – no, I mean school busses. I understand your objection but this goes back to a law passed in 1936 – chapter 390 clause 2 titled “An Act Providing For the Transportation of Private School Pupils To And From School”. As long as the schools are not operated for profit, private school pupils are entitled to the same rights and privileges as public school pupils with regard to transportation. Sadly not finding a current link on my phone and the NPS transportation page refers to the law but doesn’t cite it. So, if yellow busses are available to elementary, middle and high school students of NPS the district legally must make them available -for the same fee- to pupils at private non-profit schools.
Lisa,
Could Newton make all city parking spaces free for Newton registered EVs? Since we pay via the app, it could be easily implemented
Technically they could also enforce sidewalk parking to EVs only. Extreme, but everyone is claiming the threat is immediate
Bugek-
A very interesting carrot and stick approach. I don’t think it qualifies as a surcharge. In other words, you found a very clever work around. Nice!
Just to get this thread back on housing; my wife is listening to nville area council meeting regarding new story building on walnut street ( where CVS was, and down under yoga etc). 27 units.
I predicted this, and I will predict that within 1 year the building across the street will do the same.
5 story. Sorry for typo.
Rick, I missed the meeting. Any chance you could post the highlights. I don’t know much about this potential project.
For the record, I wouldn’t be opposed if all of Newtonville got increased height and better retail space. But that CVS space is primed to go up, and the Masonic building next door is built pretty high (4 stories at least). And from the window placement, there used to be a pretty tall building where the CVS stands now. I’d prefer 4 stories I think, mostly so it doesn’t overshadow the Masonic.
Any idea what the Masonic feels about all of this? Are they getting a piece of the development? Their parking lot and retail needs some help.
Sorry to ask so many questions. No worries if you don’t know/don’t want to respond. I’m just curious.
I don’t know, my wife was listening and I just asked her about it. The tenants of the Masonic building are not happy because the plan will block sunlight that currently comes into the top floors. The new building will be nearly as tall ( if not as tall ) as the Masonic building.
I give it a year before the whole of walnut street goes up- domino effect. I hope Tom at the UPS store doesn’t get out priced. He’s a real asset to nville.
Rick, I like that UPS store as well. Also love the Great Harvest Bread store and Newtonville Pizza, both of which have been great to my kids over the years (just really neighborly places and multiple acts of kindness)
I heard by the way that Los Amigos is moving into the Rox Diner space. I like Los Amigos, but I’m not quite sure why they need a space that big. Maybe they will serve breakfast… 😉
I don’t think the units on the other side are as easy to develop btw. I do think that one day the Shaw’s lot is going to become parking and office/housing. It’s a large lot and the Shaw’s supermarket is rarely crowded.
As for the Masonic folks not liking a tall building next to them, I wonder if I can find any pictures of what used to exist in that space prior to the Pike. My recollection is that most of Newtonville was 4 to 5 stories. I’ll see if I can confirm.
“My recollection is that most of Newtonville was 4 to 5 stories. I’ll see if I can confirm.”
That would be interesting- a REDUCTION in building heights? Could it happen again? And I wonder why it happened in the first place?
Marc Laredo: Housing :: Stephen Miller: Immigration
Rick, didn’t see this question until now. It happened because we used to tax by the floor. So some folks reduced height to reduce tax.
@Fignewtonville
Seems crazy. The taxes were so high the next builder only built one story? I believe more likely the pike went in, the trains stopped stopping, Newtonville became less of a stop…was housing on those higher floors?
@Ted oh please. Let’s divide Newton even more than it already is. #nothelpful