A challenge to V14 readers: find a lot in Newton that’s currently zoned for single family homes only (SR1, SR2, or SR3) and is on the market for, was recently sold for, or could credibly be valued at $900K, on which a property owner could build and sell two $1.7 million luxury townhomes, imagining that zoning allowed a two-family building. Bonus points if it’s a lot within a half-mile of a T or commuter rail station.
The threat of a $900K single-family home being torn down to make way for two $1.7 million dollar condominiums is the latest version of the argument against expanding multi-family zoning in Newton. Make it possible to build multi-family homes on lots currently zoned single-residence and we’ll just extend to more of the city the problem we already have in multi-family districts: property owners tearing down modest, reasonably priced one- and two-family homes and replacing them with larger, more expensive two-unit luxury townhomes.
The problems with that argument:
- Any City Council that has the power to extend multi-family zoning also has the power to limit the size — and, therefore, cost — of homes in a multi-family building
- Even as recently proposed, the maximum size of multi-family buildings in currently single-residence districts would be significantly smaller than they are in multi-residence districts
- Continuing to make it illegal to build a multi-family home on a single-residence lot isn’t going to preserve a reasonably priced home on that lot, if it’s even possible to find a reasonably priced single-family home.
The teardown-to-McMinium© phenomenon, the argument goes, is eliminating our stock of “naturally affordable” homes. For reasons I explained here, it’s not a completely logical argument. Eliminating the phenomenon will not preserve “naturally affordable” homes. They get the impact wrong.
It’s a puzzling argument. Opponents of more multi-family housing want you to be worried about the power of the City Council to allow multi-family housing. At the same time, they imagine the City Council powerless to extend multi-family housing in a way that constrains or prevents the current teardown-to-McMinium phenomenon. To add confusion, they also say that it’s a priority to stop or slow the pace of tear downs, so they assume (correctly, I think) that the City Council can constrain development to slow the tear-down-to-McMansion/McMinium phenomenon in the first place.
It’s even more puzzling given that we’re not talking about an abstraction. There is a specific proposal to expand multi-family housing: the August 2020 updated draft ordinance, now withdrawn. (The August 2020 draft ordinance seems to have spurred the preserve-single-family-only-zoning forces.) The August 2020 draft ordinance would have expanded multi-family housing into single-residence districts, but with measurably less intense multi-family housing development than in multi-residence districts, either now or under the August 2020 draft. The mechanism that limits intensity in single-residence districts is floor-area ratio, or FAR.
To illustrate, let’s look at a candidate statement on the topic. On one candidate’s web site, the candidate wrote, under the heading “Preserve Affordable Housing”:
A developer buys a $900,000 home, tears it down, and replaces it with two luxury townhouses that sell for $1.7 million each. This is already happening in our city, and would happen even more frequently under a proposal being considered by the City Council to eliminate single family zoning within ½ mile of an MBTA station. This proposal is unacceptable as it will reduce our inventory of affordable homes and create more expensive homes.
Is the scenario of a $900K property being turned into two $1.7 million condos a real threat? Can one of the smart, well-informed V14 readers find a property where it’s possible? I’m skeptical. Actually, I’m more than skeptical.
Let’s use the August 2020 draft ordinance as a reference. Notably, the August 2020 draft ordinance expanded the right to build two-family homes to all single-residence districts, but maintained the existing floor-area ratios for those districts. This is important because our existing zoning code allows for more intensity on multi-residence lots than on equivalent single-residence lots, and that disparity was maintained in the August 2020 draft ordinance, even with the extension of multi-family homes to single-residence districts.
Back to FAR.
Floor Area Ratio tables from the August 2020 Draft Zoning Ordinance
To determine how big a building is allowed on a lot, you multiply the square footage of the lot by the FAR, which is a number between .38 and .58 for multi-residence lots and between .33 and .46 for current single-residence lots, depending on specific district and lot size. There are other dimensional controls, like building height and setbacks, that limit size. And, the proposed zoning codes includes some bonus space beyond FAR. But, FAR is the primary determinant of the development potential — how big the new home or homes will be.
By its very terms, then, the August 2020 draft ordinance prevents property in single-residence districts from having the scale of the problem we have with teardowns on multi-residence properties. For a 10,000 sq. ft. lot the FAR is .48 for an MR1 lot and .53 for an MR2 or MR3 lot versus .33, .38, and .41 for SR1, SR2, and SR3 lots, respectively. The largest opportunity on a 10,000 sq. ft. multi-residence lot is a 5,300 sq. ft. building (or two 2,650 sq. ft. homes). The largest opportunity in a single-residence zone is 4,100 sq. ft. (or two 2,050 sq. ft. homes). The smallest opportunities are 4,800 sq. ft. (two 2,400 sq. ft. homes) in a multi-residence zone and 3,300 sq. ft. (two 1,650 sq. ft. homes) in a single-residence zone.
Takeaway: by the terms of the only concrete proposal ever made to add multi-family housing tp current single-residence districts, the incentive to develop multi-family residences would be much smaller than exists now in multi-residence zones, because the allowable building size would be smaller.
And, that’s just from the August 2020 draft ordinance, before councilors got their chance to further discourage large, luxury townhomes in those new multi-family opportunities.
Let’s look at two concrete examples to test the candidate’s threat of a $900K home being turned into two $1.7 million luxury condos.
9 Walter St.
Near me, 9 Walter St. recently sold for around $900K (actually $975K). It’s a 1,311 sq. ft. single-family home on a 4,500 sq. ft. lot in an SR3 district. The applicable FAR is .48, which would apply to either a single-residence under current zoning or a multi-residence building under the August 2020 proposal. With a FAR of .48, the property owner could build a 2,160 sq. ft. building on the property, provided it met other dimensional requirements. There is some talk of some bonus space available under new zoning, so let’s say potentially a 2,400 sq. ft. building — two 1,200 sq. ft. homes.
To believe that this $975K home would be turned into two $1.7 million luxury condos, you’d have to believe that each unit in a new two-family building would sell for 75% more than the original standalone home, despite those two new homes each being a little smaller (1,200 sq. ft.) than the existing single-family home (1,311 sq. ft.). But, we know that similarly sized single-family homes, all else being equal, fetch a premium over condominiums. Current listings bear it out. There’s not a single 1,200 sq. ft. home (or smaller) — single-family or condominium — for sale over $1 million. There’s one 1,230 sq. ft. condominium listed for $1,135,000. Still not close to $1.7 million. Most comparable units to our hypothetical 1,200 sq. ft. units are under $750K.
The candidate’s numbers don’t work even if you imagine that multi-family homes in current single-residence districts would be subject to the highest FAR for multi-residence districts. If this were a home in a district already zoned for two-family homes, the FAR could be .58, which means a property owner could build a 2,610 sq. ft. building. Add a bonus and call it 2,900 sq. ft., or two 1,450 sq. ft. homes. Those new homes would be slightly larger the existing $975K single-family home (which was nicely updated before sale) and maybe they’d sell for more than $1 million, though there is only one sub-1,500 sq. ft. condo — or any home — currently on the market for over $1 million. But, it’s a stretch to say that they’d be $1.7 million.
The other thing missing from the two-luxury-townhome concern is a look at the single-family alternative. We’re not going to preserve a “naturally affordable” housing by preventing it from being replaced by luxury townhomes if an attractive, profitable alternative is to build a very expensive luxury single-family home.
170 Truman Rd. — Pre-teardown
Consider 170 Truman Rd., an 1,164 sq. ft. home on an 8.325 sq. ft. lot in an SR3 district. It sold recently for $800K. Its development potential under the current zoning and the August 2020 proposal is 3,742 sq. ft. Call it 4,000 sq. ft. with potential bonuses. If torn down to create two 2,000 sq. ft. condominiums, they would likely sell for around $1 million, according to current comparables.
On the face of it, one $800K home is better than two $1 million condos, if not quite as extreme as the candidate’s asserted $1.7 million fear. Except, an $800K single-family home is not the real-world alternative.
170 Truman — New construction
The 1,164 sq. ft. home at 170 Truman Rd. has already been torn down and building has begun on a much bigger single-family home. Nearly three times as big. According to the building permit, they are going to build a 3,330 sq. ft. home. It will sell for at least $1.5 million, based on comparables.
You might say that a new single-family home wouldn’t be the alternative. The candidate (and their allies among currently elected officials and candidates) have pledged to reduce the incentive to tear down homes such as the $800K Truman Rd. home. (Presumably, if they can do that, they can also create an opportunity to build multiple, smaller, less-expensive homes in a multi-family building that is not too big for the neighborhood. But, I digress.)
70 Truman Rd.
Imagine that this candidate and their allies get elected and craft zoning that eliminates the incentive to tear down a home like 170 Truman Rd. Then, you’d have to deal with another phenomenon, illustrated by 70 Truman Rd., just around the corner from 170 Truman Rd. It’s a bigger — 2,117 sq. ft. — home than 170 Truman Rd. on a slightly smaller — 8,053 sq. ft. — lot. But, it’s not a post-teardown McMansion; it’s the original 50s ranch with a low-profile addition. It was recently assessed for $934K, which is not a “naturally affordable” starter home price … and is likely a good $100K or 200K below what it would fetch if it were for sale.
16 Daniel St.
Want another recent example? A home behind 9 Walter St., 16 Daniel St., has a moat around half of it waiting for a new foundation to support a 331 sq. ft. addition to the now 1,820 sq. ft. home. The home sold for $965K in 2015. Not “naturally affordable.” There’s no chance it will be “naturally affordable” at 2,150 sq. ft.
Are the candidate and their allies in the camp to save “naturally affordable” single-family homes — including former councilor and current mayoral candidate Amy Mah Sangiolo — proposing to prevent additions? Is Newton ready to tell homeowners, enjoy the house you have, because not only are we not going to let you replace it, we’re not going to let you add to it, either? If the preserve-naturally-affordable-housing folks cannot outlaw additions, they are not going to be able to preserve “naturally affordable” housing. Period.
Heck, even if they can outlaw additions, they aren’t going to be able to preserve naturally affordable single-family homes. Remember 9 Walter St.? $975K. For a 1,311 sq. ft. home on a pretty small lot.
So, back to the candidate’s threat of zoning reform leading to $900K single-family homes being turned into two $1.7 million condos. First, a $900K home is not naturally affordable. Second, there’s no evidence to suggest that there would be such an outcome, even under rules that allow more intensity than the August 2020 proposal. Third, if the city doesn’t allow multi-family housing in current single-residence districts, the alternative is more homes in Newton becoming increasingly out of the “naturally affordable” range.
If the candidate and their allies are worried about housing being too expensive, the answer is multi-family housing.
Almost every single family home can currently legally turn into multifamily via accessory unit.
The city should focus on making it easier/cheaper for homeowners to create one.
Startup boxable is targeting $50,000 for detatched unit so costs are coming down to reasonable levels
Why would we who live in Newton now want to expand multi family zoning throughout the city? FAR has become obsolete. Land Use permits waive most of the regulations now.
I live in Ward 2/1. Both small and big old homes are disappearing rapidly and this has been happening for the past 20 years. New expensive structures both single and double are the new normal. Why do we need zoning reform? This would only accelerate our housing development phenomenon. Slow down these dangerous trends there are too many destructive unintended consequences. Russo’s is closing because the owner was
aging and his property could sell for$35 million. Slow down development in Greater Boston. We are losing more than small, old homes.
@Sean. Are you getting paid by the word?
@Lisa, LOL!
@Sean, I’d go further than you on one point: whatever “naturally affordable housing” Newton has is going to disappear, largely independent of our actions, unless the Boston economy collapses. With such a profound regional shortage of housing, the Boston area draws throngs of well-paid folks who will outbid the locals for any place available, large or small, expandable or not, within 20 miles of Boston. Will fully remote work catch on and relieve the housing crunch? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet on it. And we obviously don’t have the public will to build a modern, high-speed transit system.
YAWN. It’s really seeming like YIMBYs have the inability to talk about and care about anything other than housing. I thought I was a YIMBY, but I don’t think there is any room for people like me (who care about other things like public schools, public transit, -affordable- housing, public facilities, parks, inequity, bigotry, climate change etc – YIMBYs only care about those issues if they can frame it in terms of zoning and development) in this current brand of YIMBYism. If I have to read one more scolding, condescending post from a white person happily living in a single family home lecturing the community about development I may vomit.
A short BLOT (bottom line on top) paragraph could do wonders here. It’s rather presumptuous to think more than a handful of people would take the time to read this in full.
I don’t think we need to restrict the hypothetical to SR(n) areas. Promotional conversion of single family, smaller homes is running rampant in the areas already zoned for multi family. The conversions of smaller ranch style homes to less affordable multiple units is happening in R3 areas.
Proportional not promotional
Meaning v/900000 : v2/1700000
Townhomes are not multi-family and they’re not always condo. Townhomes are usually fee-simple, meaning you own the house and the land it’s on. Multi-family or duplex, triplex, etc would be converting an existing house into multiple apartments.
@mmqc – so much to love about your YIMBY comment. Go you!! ❤️
Instead of being lengthy and condescending, would love to their efforts rally around ATTAINABLE housing. Not million plus duplexes for $4k/mo two bedroom apartments.
Instead, zoning that promotes subdividing existing lots and reduce setbacks so we can see multiple, more modest sized 1k to 1.5k sq ft homes built on a single lot and programs that provide down payment assistance (security) to young families starting out or families in need.
A home doesn’t have to be unattainably expensive or trap someone in the hamster wheel of eternal renting. It’s what the market is asking for if the self-branded YIMBY can stop staring in the mirror.
What the housing market needs are
more George Baileys…helping folks get into attainable homes…one at a time. Mr. Potter blogging in a Bernie Sanders t-shirt doesn’t make him “progressive”. He’s still in it for the profit.
PS. I think Bernie would agree on attainable homes vs luxury apartments.
Lisa,
I get a 20% bonus if I exceed 1500 words.
Newton,
Third paragraph.
Rick,
You are probably right that there isn’t an MRn lot that meets the criteria, but the candidate was making a very specific point: making two-family homes legal across Newton would simply extend the problem we have in MRn districts. But, an even cursory read of the August 2020 draft ordinance shows it’s not true. The inflammatory numbers are just icing.
Matt
“…zoning that promotes subdividing existing lots and reduce setbacks so we can see multiple, more modest sized 1k to 1.5k sq ft homes built on a single lot ”
I was under the impression that the original zoning Rehaul was focused on this. Somewhere along the line it got hijacked and became “woke” and controversial
Matt,
Great goal. More 1,000 to 1,500 sq. ft. homes. But, a 1.311 sq. ft. home in my neighborhood sold for $975K. Even tiny homes in Newton are super expensive. Single-family homes are a terribly inefficient way to provide affordable or attainable housing.
Compare 9 Walter St. above to a proposal to build twelve homes on a roughly three time larger site a few blocks up from 9 Walter St., with nine homes under 1,500 sq. ft. and the remaining three not too much larger. Isn’t the small apartment building going to provide much more of the housing you say you want?
@sean – ok, maybe closer to 1k sq ft than 1.5k.
But to your earlier (and repeated) posts, if more modest homes were built, won’t the prices come down.
I’ve come around on the need for housing…but not to the point where the Korffs and Gottesdeiners of the world reaps all the profits. And what is Gottesdeiner doing with his multi millions? Plunging it back into affordable housing? No, he bought a WNBA team.
Lastly, instead of a small apartment building, wouldn’t a small condo building offer the same number of homes…but that people can buy at a more modest price?
Sean – making sure you saw Krugman’s article in the NYT. Focus was on San Francisco. With other main points.
But the key point for this note … to make housing affordable in highly sought after knowledge driven (white collar based) metro areas, density needs to increase, a lot. And there is plenty of space … just need to think vertically.
This is simple. But people complicate it to avoid disrupting their own comfy life.
They hem and haw about the high price of housing … and then are unwilling to accept the very clear antidote. Instead they support one-tenth measures to try to make themselves feel better while enjoying their leafy green single family neighborhood.
Clear example of virtue signaling with minimal risk of actually having to sacrifice anything.
Matt,
The proposal I mention above is 50 Jackson St., a twelve-unit condo building.
The problem with your proposal is that it’s too complicated. In order to build two or three homes, you’d have to subdivide, so you’d have to have lots wide enough for frontage for multiple properties or do back-lot subdivisions, which require easements and lots of driveway.
Again, why complicate things when it would be straightforward to allow multi-family homes with strict dimensional controls?
Keith B.,
It sure feels that way.
I recently read an interesting story about the history of 3 deckers in the Boston area. They started building them before there were quotas on immigration. So many Irish, Jewish, Italian( and folks from lots of other countries) people were coming here that it caused a housing shortage and the prices got too high for people to buy homes. The 3 deckers served the housings needs of the time period and it seems like Metro Boston needs a moderm day solution to same problem.
Mike leavy,
The modern day solution is accessory units.. buy
T without any red tape and at a $50k price point.
Accessory units are fully legal in Newton(and Boston too), the solution is already here if a homeowner wants to.
Ken B I complete agree with the idea of thinking vertically. Take for example that almost all of the retail in Newton Center is one story, two at most and when there is a second story, it is almost never housing. We could add housing above.
Take for example the there is 3.7 acres in Newton Centre, owned by the city dedicated to single level parking lots. If it is felt that we need to retain all that parking, the housing could be built above. But to achieve our climate action goals it seems to me that replacing parking lots with housing is better that replacing open space with housing
Take for example there are two large properties in Newton Centre owned by banks (Citizens and Santander) that have a rediculous amount of space dedicated to parking. And Walgreen has more parking that it would ever need.
Why can’t the city get creative with the land owned by the city? The Ann Arbor MI has a very successful approach where they are building affordable housing on city owned property, mostly parking lots. Could incentives be offer to get those two banks to relocate or greatly reduce their footprints?
I realize that some will object to building up, but isn’t building up on existing hardscape preferable to eating up existing green space? Wouldn’t an effort driven by the city to build small housing units be more efficient than build exponentially more density in the hope of adding a few units of affordable housing?
MaryLee
If the city was SERIOUS about “climate action goals” then they could remove every single parking space in the city and REQUIRE solar panels on any new units of housing (or major renovations)
“climate action goals” is simply used as an excuse to enrich “for profit” developers
Also, the Ann Arbor model (non profit driven) is fine as long as we are being honest about it: ie every Newton resident who pays property taxes will be subsidizing (from their taxes) approx $1500-$2000 for each unit “forever”. Because the city has the eat the lost opportunity cost of market rate units vs subsidized rate.
“Because the city has the eat the lost opportunity cost of market rate units vs subsidized rate.”
Bugek, that assumes that they were ever going to develop those parking lots for market rate housing. they would lose the parking revenue IF they chose to eliminate the parking, but they could keep it and build above. An analysis would have to occur to understand pros and cons and priorities
They own the land which is always a significant factor in for-profit development. If the city served as the developer, after they built it they could potentially lease it to a property management company and develop some revenue stream to subsidize it,.
I’m just looking for a little more “out of the box” thinking
Marylee
If the city ever developed the parcel in the prime-A location, its priority should be generating revenue.
Given the unfunded pension liabilities, the city is looking at skyrocketing property taxes or bankrupcy if it didn’t get uts long term finances in order.
Developing a prime location at a market loss “forever” is irresponsible given pension liabilities.
Bugek – solar panels do not work on many houses and buildings because of our trees canopy. Some of the places solar panels work well is over parking lots, like NSHS. Though I fully support your call to remove all public parking in the city!
I was just talking to a neighbor about triple deckers. I love them. I think they’re a great way to have smaller units while also offering things like balconies and small shared yards. I’d love to see these make a comeback and have modern triple deckers replace homes not worth repairing versus these oversized monster condos.
MMQC —
100% with you on triple-deckers. They would be a great type of multi-family housing for Newton. Efficient land use. Easy to regulate unit-size. Great starter homes for young families moving to Newton.
Matt —
I amend my statement above. If you want to lobby for regulations that encourage folks to build small homes on small lots, go for it. As a matter of fact, I’m reminded by a correspondent, small homes/small lots were very much a part of the zoning redesign conversation in ZAP in the summer/fall of 2020. Encourage your favorite ZAP councilor to support it. More importantly, it doesn’t need to be either small homes/small lots or strictly regulated multi-family in current single-residence districts. Both accomplish the same aim: more (quantity) modestly sized homes. If small homes/small lots is more effective, great. If strictly regulated multi-family results in more 1,000 – 1,500 sq. ft. homes, great. Let’s allow both!