I want to propose a slightly different way of thinking about, understanding, and discussing zoning questions. Let’s talk in terms of development potential.
At the slight risk of over-simplification, zoning comprises the regulations that limit the size (and shape) of buildings and the uses that are allowed on your property. In the context of residential zoning, it boils down to how big a house you can build and whether or not you can have multiple families living in separate units in that house.
Zoning contributes to development potential, but does not — on its own — determine development potential. Development potential is the intersection of zoning and demand. Let me illustrate with a house in one of my favorite neighborhoods: Truman Rd., off Parker St., south of Boylston St. (Route 9).
170 Truman Road is an 8,325 s.f. lot. Under current zoning, it’s legal to build a single-family home up to 3,500 or so on the lot. When the original house was built in 1953, the rules were a little different, but the lot would allow a much larger house than the 1,164 s.f. home that the developer built as part of a 40-unit development of similarly small Capes and ranches on similarly sized lots.
The original Truman Rd. homes illustrate how zoning alone is not development potential. The zoning applicable in the 1950s allowed much larger homes, but the developer built to meet the market, which, presumably, would not have absorbed the 40 3,000 to 4,000+ s.f. homes the they could legally have built.
The neighborhood had latent development potential, waiting for market demand for larger homes. When the city’s supply of large homes started to fall woefully short of market demand, it became worth it to tap that latent development potential. Now, a few of the homes in the development have been torn down and replaced with much larger homes — McMansions. 170 Truman Rd. was sold to a developer in late 2019 and was recently torn down. Construction is underway on a 2,800 s.f. home.
Same lot. Same zoning (more or less). A developer in 1953 and again in 2019. Why a little ranch in the 50’s and a big colonial now? We have an acute housing shortage in the region and demand is high. A big house will sell. (One might also ask, why not a bigger house now? The developer has left something like 10% of the space permitted by zoning on the table. Answer: there may be dwindling demand for 3,000 s.f.+ homes that fill out the lot. Again, zoning is not development potential.)
170 Truman Rd. is a perfect example of what folks refer to as “naturally affordable” but isn’t. It was only affordable when demand was low. Actually, our zoning makes it and like properties “naturally developable” when demand is high. And, small houses on large lots are especially vulnerable, because of the big difference between their current condition and their development potential. 170 Truman Rd. is not the first Truman Rd. home to be replaced by one more than double in size. And, I suspect it won’t be the last.
What’s happening on Truman Rd. and everywhere else there are teardowns is that the demand to live in Newton has gotten so high that the value of the land and the potential to build a big home on it, is greater than the value of the land with an existing small home and the cost to demolish the small home.
Development potential is a useful way to think about what some folks consider our other big zoning problem*: by-right conversion of modest single- and two-family homes in multi-residence districts to luxury condominiums — McMiniums©. These properties are big lots (required under the zoning) with the higher floor-area ratios (FAR) of multi-family districts. Zoning in multi-residence districts, in other words, has always allowed larger, two-family homes. Why have greedy developers only relatively recently exploited the full measure of the zoning? At the time they were built, the market only supported modest homes. The development potential was low. Now, there’s huge regional demand for more housing, including high-end housing. The development potential is high. And, if the opportunity exists, it’s generally easier to make money building high-end.
Development potential is also a useful way to think about solutions to the problem of disappearing modest homes. When RightSize*-endorsed councilors and candidates, like Councilor Pam Wright, pledge to reduce or eliminate the teardown-to-McMansion/-McMinium cycle, they want to reduce the development potential of lots with modest homes. Since they cannot eliminate the regional housing demand, they can only change the zoning. But, zoning reform that limits development potential to preserve modest homes has a cost: it will reduce the value of homeowners’ investments in their homes, though not enough to actually preserve these physically modest homes as financially modest, because there are precious few financially modest homes left in Newton. Nobody wins.
Development potential is also a useful way to think about the RightSize*-endorsed councilors and candidates, again like Councilor Wright, who fear that expanding multi-family housing will only result in more McMiniums©. Candidates like Councilor Wright ignore that the same market forces that would create development potential for large, expensive condominiums are also activating the existing development potential of the same lot for an expensive single-family home. One way or the other, the lot’s likely going to end up on the high end.
And, candidates like Councilor Wright ignore the ability of the City Council to expand multi-family zoning in a way that transforms the development potential of the lots to provide more modest homes without reducing homeowners’ investments: reasonable regulation, particularly maximum unit size. The details need to be worked out, but we can figure out a formula that reduces the size of a single-family home that can be built on a lot, which would reduce the incentive to build McMansions, and creates an incentive to build multiple modest units in a duplex or triplex, which would maintain the value of the homeowner’s investment.
If you look at the problem through the lens of development potential, we have three choices, in the face of our chronic and worsening housing shortage across the region:
- Leave everything as is and watch homeowner after homeowner realize the development potential of their lots and build McMansions and McMiniums (or sell at a premium to a developer who will)
- Change zoning to reduce the development potential without offering an alternative, which would reduce homeowners’ investment
- Change zoning to transform the development potential and create incentives for the kinds of modest homes we need more of in Newton while preserving homeowners’ investment
And, of course, choices one and two do nothing to address the region’s chronic housing shortage.
At least one of the RightSize* Newton endorsees gets it. There seems to be a consensus or near consensus on the City Council that we need to add more multi-family housing around our village centers. About that likelihood, Councilor Emily Norton writes on her campaign web site:
[W]here we do allow for more density, for example near transit, we should require that new units be compact, because simply by virtue of a smaller size, they will be more affordable.
In other words, don’t just increase the development potential, transform it to serve our larger housing goals. The same statement could read:
Where we do allow for more density, anywhere we decide to upzone from single-family zoning, we should require that the new units be compact, because simply by virtue of a smaller size, they will be more affordable.
Councilor Norton’s understanding of the City Council’s ability to manage development potential stands in stark contrast to Councilor Wright’s assertion that multi-family zoning will lead inevitably to McMiniums**. Councilor Norton’s understanding of the City Council’s ability to manage development potential is also consistent with the Planning Department’s August 2020 draft Zoning Ordinance, which limited the FAR of by-right two-family homes in current single-residence districts, when compared to same size lots in multi-residence districts and had very strict dimensional limits for proposed multi-family conversions. And, of course, the August 2020 draft was also a draft, a starting point for discussions, discussions in which Councilor Wright and others could have advocated for further limits rather than spreading unfounded alarm about the unstoppable threat of overdevelopment.
Finally, development potential addresses the role developers should play in our housing future. If there’s development potential, developers will exploit it. Developers just gonna develop. So, let’s create development potential that yields the housing we want.
Note: One of the cruel ironies of those who want to maintain Newton as it is: early Twentieth-Century Newtonians built a regulatory scheme that makes it extremely difficult, in this century, to maintain the Newton those Twentieth-Century Newtonians enjoyed.
* Housing advocates, like your humble scribe, consider the biggest problem with our zoning that it’s illegal to build the multi-family homes we need to address the housing shortage, address climate change, provide housing choices across a spectrum of households and household incomes, and start to reverse racial discrimination in land use.
Please ask your local ward councilor to lobby for your cause by first demanding that hundreds of affordable high density units be built in YOUR ward.
I see no bullet point on their websites to build hundreds of affordable high density units in thier OWN WARD…but lots of suggestions to build SOMEWHERE else
… then you can start calling out councilors outside your own ward
Is this really a path towards actually affordable housing though? Would these new multi-family units be affordable in any real sense? Sure, we could do things like force developers to build less parking spaces, limit sq footage, etc. That might lower prices marginally, but these will still be brand new, premium $1m+ condos – quite out of the price range most people consider affordable.
So who are these $1m+ condos for? Would we not just be providing more housing opportunities for families or working professionals who would otherwise opt for lower-priced options like Waltham, Watertown, Quincy, or Medford? Or are we just enticing those living in condos in Boston to move here instead?
I understand that enough supply at any price point will drive prices down across the region. However, that also assumes that a coordinated effort take place across every community – including, and most importantly, Boston itself. It assumes that job growth in the Boston area won’t continue to accelerate, it assumes that population won’t grow, and it assumes that demand won’t grow just as fast as new supply.
Just look at the greater Boston area. Huge job growth and economic activity, and cheap financing has pushed prices up everywhere. The new jobs that are being created are numerous and high paying. There is a thriving upper-middle class taking advantage of this and buying these ‘mcmansions’. However, the economic ladder has bifurcated. Many of those working service sector jobs, in retail, or the gig economy have, over the past decade, faced layoffs, inflation, and relatively stagnant wage growth. They’ve been left out of stock market rallies, and they’ve been denied loans, leaving them out of years of real estate appreciation.
Society as a whole has an obligation to provide for its most vulnerable – the sick, the disabled, the elderly, and the poor. Most families buying $1m+ condos aren’t included in those groups. I don’t see an economic diversity argument here. There isn’t a whole lot of difference in my experience between families that can afford a $1m home vs $1.5m home when interest rates are this low. Is there no way to provide truly affordable housing for those groups through subsidies or partnerships or some other direct means?
Trusting that enough housing be built regionally that it will actually have an indirect ripple effect to lower costs at the bottom of the spectrum seems like a gamble – one that has the power to transform the city as we know it, regardless of if the desired outcome is achieved. The idea would be easier to get behind if it were more of a outcomes focused, concerted effort and less of an act of conscience.
It seems there is tremendous effort by Newton’s housing advocates to push for density… EXCLUSIVELY in transit-oriented neighbhoods.
1. “Transit” is at present inefficient, not widely used as a result, leaving a large population of its riders dissatisfied and resorting to working from home or back into their cars.
2. It’s inequitable and the inherent definition of NIMBY (as housing advocates will get to keep their neighbhoods single family zoned)
That said, there are some interesting points in “development potential”. First, let’s start with, “provide housing choices across a spectrum of households and household incomes”. The unicorn in the Newton housing market is the affordable home… TO BUY. Contrary to the cries of housing advocates that people prefer to rent, the death of the American Dream to buy, upgrade and build weath has been greatly exaggerated!
To maximize “development potential”, Newton can take a page from California’s recent elimination of single family zoning.
1. It’s statewide – and equitable
2. Allows homeowers to sub-divide by right – giving one plot of land additional development potential in terms bulidng multiple, modest homes vs only 1 or 2 really big ones.
3. And this doozy, “The bill also contains a provision requiring the developer to live on site for at least three years to curtail speculative buying.
Meets many of Sean’s goals… but with much fewer words. 🙂
PS Does this vary from the various candidates that I’ve supported personally? Sure. But give it time, the ink no these Cali housing rules have barely dried. And I still prefer the Pam Wrights of the world than those Councilors who would rather dump hundreds of luxury apartments in Upper and Lower Falls (while preserving their single family neighborhoods) or continue to approve McMansions and McMiniums© that have fancy appliances but still burn fossil fuels, lacks solar panels and allows for multi-car parking – all attributes that are against the housing advocate’s mantra.
Rentals rather than condos primarily benefit wall street.
You may be surprised to know that NORTHLAND is a “private equity investment company”. Its goal to provide the best $ for its INVESTORS.. by collecting rents
No issues with a company trying to make $… but for ppl to pretend they are doing Newton a favor is laughable
The primary market for rentals is young people in their 20s and 30s. If you restrict apartments in the city, you effectively box out young people from living in the city.
You might be surprised to learn that large mortgages that fund the purchase of large single family homes are used to provide profits to….large financial companies funded by investors? I don’t understand this argument that investors benefit from apartments. Investors benefit from all kinds of housing.
Garry,
The difference is, the renter benefits are short lived…zero equity with all payments going to wall street.
Ownership is mutual benefit. Build equity, dont need to throw rent money away and having stable monthly payments.
I’m sure there are thousands of 20 somethings clamoring to live in Newton rather than boston, allston, brookline for live awesome 20s social scene…
There are many benefits to renting vs owning. For example, you eliminate unexpected repair bills. Renters also typically face lower utility bills vs homeowners.
In addition to young people, renting is often an attractive option for older people who are looking to downsize and eliminate some of the hassles associated with owning a home.
Newton is not far at all from the social scene in Boston. I chose to live here myself as a compromise between the boringness of the outer suburbs and the noise and traffic in the city. I am confident there are plenty of young people who would make that same choice.
In addition, many people who complain about development worry about the impact on our school enrollment. Attracting young people in their 20s (and older folks downsizing) living in apartments is a way to increase the tax and housing base while having a minimal impact on school enrollment.
Garry,
Things you mention are true… except when a 2BR rents for more than $4000 a month..
How would you suggest getting the rents to come down?
The most obvious way to me is increasing the supply.
@Bugek – you certainly can pay $4000 for a 2BR in Newton but you can also pay half that. A quick Zillow check yielded 15 or so 2BR’s in the $1900-$2500 range. Yes, still a lot of money but no where near $4K.
In any case there’s not much of a point in a is-buying-better-than-renting argument. Clearly some people will want to do each based on their own personal circumstances.
Gary,
Newton doesn’t live in a bubble. The rents/prices ARE ALWAYS going to be relatively to boston, watertown, waltham, brookline
No matter what you do, this is always going to be the case unless you remove one of the 3:
1. Excellent schools
2. Very low crime
3. Ease of cummute into job centers
So technically yes, keep increasing supply until the schools turn to ??? (Overcrowding, lack of attention)
“How would you suggest getting the rents to come down?
The most obvious way to me is increasing the supply.”
No the most obvious and efficient way is to build affordable housing that doesn’t include a profit motive. I’m not saying that for profit developers should make as much profit as the can. I’m saying we should expect them to meet our affordable housing goals
I think two things can be true at the same time: there is demand for more affordable rental AND ownership units in our region.
Lots of interesting information on the regional supply shortfall for affordable rental units provided by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, here:
https://nlihc.org/housing-needs-by-state/massachusetts
I agree that affordable unit mandates can be a useful tool. However, they cannot be the entire solution.
In addition to the data Jason JH supplied, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation can show how woefully short we are on the supply side:
Newton represents about 1.3% of the MA population, and the average household size is 2.3 people. In the past decade, the Census says that the MA population increased by about 500,000 people. Newton’s “fair share” of this growth would be 6350 people or so. If you divide that by 2.3 that means we need 2800 new housing units or so per decade *just to meet natural demand growth*. This is leaving aside the shrinkage in avg household size over time, the failure of our neighboring communities to increase housing by enough as well, and the probability that demand growth in the Boston area is greater than for the state as a whole.
All the high profile development projects in Newton that we have been discussing, including Northland and Riverside + all the others together total only about 2000 units. We’re still falling behind!
You can create as many regulations on affordable set-asides as you want but they will not overcome this natural demand driving prices up. Create more than this minimum, work at the state level to ensure our neighboring communities do their share, *and* have affordable set asides and only then can you really chip away at the affordability problem.
Newton is never going to be an inexpensive place to live, but right now the demand driving prices up is really ridiculous. The house next door to me has a tiny lot, no garage, and 1200 sq ft of living space and recently sold for $850,000. Across the street another relatively small home that hadn’t been updated in 30 years+, had a terrible kitchen and multiple structural issues, and tiny rooms (not open concept), sold for $799,000 (currently undergoing a complete gut renovation).
The supply shortage is really severe and we need to face up to it or even the upper middle class in the city is going to disappear.
Gary,
If you are relying on developers to keep building supply until rents/prices come down, you’ll be disappointed for the following reasons:
Developers generally increase supply when prices increase. Primarily because they must secure funding.
If a developer encounters declining rents/prices then funding dries up. Who would loan them $20M when at time of funding rents expectes to be $4000…
But after completion (2 years) the expected rent is now $3400‽ investors are now facing a loss.
Similar to condos. Condos buyers disapear when prices decline because waiting gets cheaper prices… it then takes years to sell all remaining units. With initial buyers probably wanting to back out..
This is not theoretical, you can study this during the 2001, 2008 downturns when prices declined
Summary: Developers will not keep building as prices decline. Do not need a phd in economics to realize this
That’s correct. Happily, we don’t need to make prices decline in absolute terms. We need them to stabilize and then over time incomes can catch up and overall affordability improves. This has the fortunate side-effect of reducing windfall profits for developers – but they can still earn returns.
Bugek and Mr. Lai,
I am very sympathetic to the neighborhood equity issue. Some neighborhoods get more new housing and some get less. So, I’m on board with a plan that puts new density in some of the neighborhoods that don’t seem to have as much now. For instance, phase in multi-family zoning starting in the neighborhoods with the least density, or something like that. I’m not married to any particular solution, but yes, we need to start building multi-family housing in Chestnut Hill (north of the T) and in Waban. And, yes, Newton Centre.
What I’m less sympathetic to is the argument, made frequently: it’s bad to have density in my neighborhood and other neighborhoods don’t have density. To put it in practical terms, if you argued against the scale of what is now Trio, for instance, and also make the equity issue, you’ve lost me. Trio needed to be as big as it is. Anti-growth folks knocked a needed floor off of Austin Place. Lenny Gentile cut a back-door deal to reduce the size of Riverside, &c.
I with there was a correction button!!
No the most obvious and efficient way is to build affordable housing that doesn’t include a profit motive. I’m not saying that for profit developers shouldn’t make as much profit as they can. I’m saying we shouldn’t expect them to meet our affordable housing goals
Thank God (and Lenny and many others!) for “back-door deals”. If it wasn’t for them, the Riverside CC votes would not have been unanimous.
There are a number of fascinating points noted on this thread. The consideration of density is a welcomed occurrence, and quite rare in my experience. Though I’ve visited the area on several occasions I reside in VA, yet many of the issues discussed here are similar if not the same. Allow me to suggest consideration of mixed income development where developers trade some of their density for affordability. In this scheme, developers are allowed higher densities in exchange for pledging (binding legal agreement with the locality) a higher percentage of units affordable to households based on their income. You can increase both the yield and depth of income served while also decreasing the developer’s cost by utilizing LIHTC funding to construct the units. LIHTC can be complicated to employ however there are private entities capable of assisting the developer or locality if they’re interested in accessing the funding.
It saddens me that we seem to believe that it’s not possible to achieve affordable housing using market mechanisms. In many places in this country housing is affordable and they don’t need to resort to special subsidies or requirements to get it. Why can’t we?
I would add that non-profit organizations are not a panacea nor are they necessarily particularly virtuous. Non-profits in health care are a cautionary tale on that front, but worthy of a separate thread. The problem is not so much the profit motive itself, but the regulations and channels we use to shape the market in which it operates.
Gary,
Point to a city in US with relatively low crime AND an abundance of HIGH paying jobs with affordable housing..
Maybe north dakota (oil boom?)..
I would argue that of we had a decent commuter rail, everyone would not be trying to cram into a 10 mile radius of Boston to avoid a soul crushing commute.
Ie demand will not be concentrated into a single area
Austin, TX comes to mind. Many jobs, much lower costs than here, lower crime rate than Boston. Also Madison, WI. Columbus, OH. Raleigh-Durham. How many do you need?
Don’t get me wrong, I love Boston, it’s my home and I prefer it to all these cities, but if I lived and worked in one of them I could afford a larger house and my living standards would probably overall be higher even if my salary was lower. Almost everywhere is less expensive than Boston. SF and NY I believe are the only more expensive metros in the country.
Gerry
Austin only appears cheap to you because your income is much higher than the average austin resident.
Austin salary: 71k
Newton salary: 150k
The poverty rate in austin is 13% compared to newton 4%.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/austincitytexas/PST045219
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/newtoncitymassachusetts
Well, exactly! You don’t have to be wealthy to live there! There are good paying jobs – SpaceX is moving there.
My home is 950 sq ft, 2br, 2ba, no garage, and worth ~$730k (according to the avg of Zillow and my mortgage co).
Here’s a listing in Austin for $735k: 4br, 3ba, 2858 sq ft. Includes garage and larger yard than mine.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6052-Abilene-Trl-Austin-TX-78749/29486769_zpid/
And FYI my salary is considerably lower than the average Newton resident.
The whole point is that Newton’s housing costs are so out of control that lower-income people have been pushed out by rising housing costs. The average house sold in Newton is $1.15m! I’m sorry but if you think Newton prices are reasonable or affordable then you’ve lost me completely.
https://www.redfin.com/city/11619/MA/Newton/housing-market
It’s hard to compare Newton to other cities like Austin directly because Boston has grown differently and not annexed neighboring communities as other similar cities have elsewhere in the country. If Boston was in TX, FL or CA it would have annexed Newton long ago and the comparison Boston Austin would be more apples-to-apples than Newton Austin.
Gary,
Would you go to Beverly hills and complain that many ppl can’t afford to live there? Newton is home to one of the wealthiest zips (02468) in the usa.. why is it so surprising?
Newton is expensive because
1. Good schools
2. Low crime
3. Ease of commute to high paying jobs
Pick which one you want to remove to bring home prices down
I am surprised Covid has not come up in this debate. I have observed many of my younger colleagues at work (and especially those who are single) want to go back to the office. Generally those of us who have a family are not so eager.
Covid is not going away in a hurry, but at least the planet has had a brief reprieve in terms of air quality and emissions.
I still do not understand why Newton would want to continue Zoning Redesign under these conditions.
So many unknowns…
I am beating my head against a wall. It’s true that Newton has good schools (though not the very best), and it has low crime and a convenient location.
It’s also indisputably true that Newton has not produced new home at a rate that keeps up with demand. Why is that so hard to admit? Why would I have to give up good schools or low crime? Just create more homes.
@Gatty Miller
Instead of banging your head against a wall why not discuss this with your neighbors? The majority of your neighbors voted against the Northland Project. They voted against density and the associated effects.
Garry,
“Just create more homes..”
How many tens of thousands of units need to be created before prices decline. I would guess 20,000 to 40,000
Demand is high because every parent wants their kids to go to a good school
You think the schools can handle (and remain excellent) such size increase WITHOUT massive property tax increases?
So i guess i forgot item 4.
4. Reasonable property taxes
Double property taxes and you’ll see how quickly home prices will decline.
You seem to be arguing that something that is literally impossible (move a city of 90,000 people to a different, less desirable geographic location) is something worth discussing but building more homes is not. I find it difficult to engage with this argument.
You also seem to suggest that cities with >90,000 residents can’t have good schools or low crime rates. These are arguments I reject.
Finally, building more homes would reduce the need for higher property taxes overall. We’ve already gone over strategies to build units that limit the impact on the school system. So I fail to see the logic in anything you are saying.
I have nothing more to say that is productive, so I will leave it there.
Gary miller,
would love your last comment to provide the number of new units that would have to be built in Newton to lower prices.
We should be honest about that number, I believe it;s north of 20,000 new units of housing before prices decline
You have successfully goaded me into one last comment. Demand for homes is regional, not community-based, so a simple number for the city is impossible to provide. Every community in the Boston area must contribute by increasing supply. Newton could do its part by increasing the supply of housing units at greater than the baseline, natural increase in demand. This would mean at a minimum >300 units per year (preferably closer to 500), sustained for a significant period of time. We have not reached this level of housing starts in decades. Let’s start there. Is that really such an unreasonable number?
It’s obvious that a sudden build of 20,000 units is impossible and unreasonable, and I reject the argument that it’s that or nothing.
gary,
Thank you, we can agree to disagree 🙂
If you want equity, regional zoning is the answer. Otherwise, Newton will stay the way it is, with a bit more density near commercial zones and the T. That’s not a wrong answer. If Newton, through its City Council, decides it does not want a footprint that looks like Watertown or even Brookline, that’s okay.
What Newton could do to naturally increase density is to eliminate SR 1 and SR2 zones. That would “densify” over time a good chunk the center and south side and would allow the prospective building of infrastructure and schools to handle the density. That combined with limitations of floor area/footprints/setbacks, etc would help prevent McMinimimums and McMansions, though will not really solve the equity issue. I think the City can be more aggressive with inclusionary zoning and using its CPA muscle to encourage more permanently affordable housing.
For everyone advocating for all this new density what do you think a new construction 3+ bedroom unit (condo or house) would sell for?
If the answer is over $1.25m (which it is) why make this change. More people than ever currently live in Newton. Do we need to destroy the suburban feel of Newton that so many of us moved here for?
I support density in our village centers and that’s where mixed use housing with affordable components should be built. Beyond that though the roads and infrastructure in town can only handle so much and densifying all the SFR would be too much.
Kyle,
You asked, “For everyone advocating for all this new density what do you think a new construction 3+ bedroom unit (condo or house) would sell for?”
It depends on how big the three-family unit is and how big the building it’s in is. The proposed Jackson St. apartments have, IIRC, 1,200 or 1,250 s.f. 3-bedroom units. They will be a lot cheaper than the 2,800 s.f. standalone home at 170 Truman Rd. Somewhere in the middle is one of the townhomes on Centre St. in Newton Highlands, which is just over a million for 2,000 or so s.f.
We know that there is a premium for unit size (see the quote from Councilor Norton’s web site, above). And, there is a premium for a standalone home, over a condominium.
If we don’t build more options, both of prices and of types of homes, we can be sure that prices for existing homes will go up, making it even more expensive to move to Newton.
“Do we need to destroy the suburban feel of Newton that so many of us moved here for?”
At least one of the people in my marriage wanted a single-family home in a more suburban city or town (at least as one factor) when we moved here. But there are at least three reasons to accept that what we came to Newton for — the suburban feel — is unsustainable. 1) Single-family zoning is, essentially, suburban sprawl, which contributes to global climate change. We need to reverse that. 2) There is a chronic housing shortage in the region, which is a result of the exclusionary zoning in municipalities like Newton, which zoning artificially limits the supply of homes and causes economic dislocation. 3) We have come to learn and appreciate that single-family zoning has its roots in racist intentions and has had a segregating effect. We cannot in good conscience say it’s fine for us to enjoy and benefit from the fruits of systemic racial bias.
Just one quick comment on this.
Population of Newton in 2020: 88,923
Population of Newton in 1960: 92,384
Garry,
Not sure that is unique to newton
Watertown(with its lovelt high density development) had 39k population in 1960, now it’s about 35k
https://historyofmassachusetts.org/watertown-ma-history/
“More people than ever” is simply not true. The inner suburbs and even Boston itself are all *less dense* than in the past.
“We have come to learn and appreciate that single-family zoning has its roots in racist intentions and has …”
Says the person living a single family home surrounded by other single family houses… with no intention of moving out
Bugek,
My moving to a multi-family home doesn’t cure the problem of our not having enough multi-family housing, in fact it exacerbates it. I’m willing to have my lot zoned multi-family and any lot in the neighborhood. If you want to rezone my block and put up an apartment building down the street, I will happily appear at the hearing where you request a special permit (though I hope you won’t have to) and support your petition.
This is a zoning problem. The kind of house I currently live in is just not relevant. What I’m willing to have my neighborhood zoned to allow is the issue.
Gary, I stand corrected. Although with the amount of additional housing that’s been approved and population growth we will likely be approaching that peak very soon.
Sean you didn’t answer my question, how much do you think a new construction 3+ bedroom will sell for? The cost of land and labor is very high in Newton and I’d like to put a price on these “affordable” new units instead of abstract. To you’re other points 1) there are far better ways to make an impact on climate change 2) the region has a transportation problem first and foremost 3) wow just wow, not sure how to respond to that one
At Jackson St., a 12-unit apartment building, I suspect that the 3-BR market-rate units under 1,500 s.f. will sell for $650K to 750K, based on comparables. I think that only small (<1,500 s.f.) 3-BR condos in buildings with more than 2 units will sell for under $800K in the near-ish future. Larger homes, homes in townhome condos, standalone homes will all be more expensive.
1. There is no single step that a municipality can take that will have a larger impact on climate change than to increase density around transit.
2. The transportation problem stems from the housing problem, people have to drive too much to get to work, because of suburban sprawl.
3. Let me suggest, "Systemic racial bias is bad and getting rid of it should be more important than maintaining suburban feel."
Sean here is an actual example of a 2 BR 1,498 square foot unit in a new 13 unit building selling for $1.065m. This is before the recent increases in material and labor costs. This building also comes with a $422 monthly HOA. So please reset your expectation of what a new construction unit will cost and how affordable it is.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/429-Cherry-St-11-West-Newton-MA-02465/2077633506_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare
Kyle,
Interesting comparable, but I still think that most 3BR units in apartment buildings will go for closer to 750K than to 1 million.
Also, you asked about 3BR. By definition, a 3BR unit in a condo is going to have smaller rooms and be less “luxurious.” (That said, 3BR-condos are less readily available.)
In the end, we’ll see. For sure, though, if we don’t build more 3BR condos, the price of the ones that do get built will get increasingly high.
Sean,
How is your attached or detatched accessory unit coming along?
You can a multifamily on your lot next year if you really wanted to. No one is stopping you
Sean your logic is that if you add one more bedroom the cost will come down?
In reality this building is not particularly luxurious and is an excellent comp for any future 12 unit development. Buildings with this many units require expenses you won’t find in duplex condos including, underground parking, fire sprinklers, and elevators.
Increased density will not create market rate 3 bedroom units for $750k. It will create units that cost in excess of $1m and have high HOA fees.
Kyle,
Sean’s logic can be debunked by observing NYC real estate. Did the excessive density and smaller units cause prices to decline in the past 30 years? quite the OPPOSITE!!
I look at increased density as mentioned in my prior post as a way to keep our primary villages from dying. If we get additional affordable/workforce housing, all the better. I’m at the edges of the NIMBY discussion personally since I live 1 mile or so from 2.5 villages (Wegmans a village?!)m ,which is a little far on the walkability index. I think the city can/should push affordable housing and incentivize workforce housing. Have a great Columbus and Indigenous Peoples Day Weekend!
It took me a while to find a development related thread to share this info. Perhaps this has already been shared but the Walgreens in Newton Centre is closing on November 8th. I can only assume that the property may have been sold. That or the current owner of the 20,000 sq. ft., Yu Sheng Hsiung & Chang O of Chestnut Hill intend to develop it.
On the one hand, I am sad to see this as this is a very popular store close and it has been unfortunately our poor excuse for a neighborhood market as you could get some staples there.
But I have always felt that the property, taken as a whole, given all the underused parking, was a severe underuse of some valuable village center property. But why am I not optimistic that this prime spot for transit oriented multi-use development with a heavy % of affordable units isn’t what we will see there. This property, plus the Citizen’s Bank and Sovereign Bank properties are optimal locations for affordable transit orient development. But it won’t happen without a proactive strategy by the city.
The owner you mentioned has built apartments complexes recently
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2014/04/bra-set-to-approve-apartments-at-elephant-walk.html
If the city allowed 10+ stories in exchange for affordable units then i could see it happening.
You should call out the ward councilor to push for 100s of affordable high density housing in this location. Elections soon.. so good opportunity
I’m supporting Amy who has a track record (Austin Street) of expecting more than the 17% affordable. She also supports have the city be a key player in the development of affordable housing. Building affordable housing could potentially attract many of the workers that the businesses need so desperately.
Unfortunately it may be too late for the Walgreen location for the city to lead this on this property, but I would like to see the city be proactive on the other two locations I referenced.
In regards to the Walgreens’ location, it would most assuredly required a special permit and the Land Use Committee could influence is by requiring small units
Marylee
Trust me, its never too late. If you offer a height of 15 stories, the developer would be on your door steps within MINUTES ready to negotiate.
Each added floor probably adds 20% more profit!
Bugek, I don’t see any scenario where there would be support for building a 15 story building in that location. I wouldn’t support that
MaryLee, clearly you aren’t familiar with Bugek’s style of posting…
With that said, the Walgreens parking lot and building is a very underused part of Newton Centre. It should be redeveloped. And the access points means it would work well for a larger development. If it works in Newtonville, why not in Newton Centre?
Fig, I have long advocated for the development of all of the NC single level parking lots and the idea of the city potentially acquiring the Walgreens, Citizens Bank and Sovereign Bank properties as potential locations for true transit oriented and affordable housing with retail on the 1st floor and residential units above. Read my post above from10:55 today.
I was responding to the idea of a single 15 story building vs multiple mixed-use development which could yield the same number of housing units and be more congruent with the area. I don’t believe any of the mixed use developments that have gone in Newtonville are 15 stories ( I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), but I do think that a development overlooking the turnpike could be more stories than one smack in the middle of Newton Centre. I don’t subscribe to attempts to pit one village center against another
MaryLee, I know. Bugek knows that too. He was just suggesting a 15 story building because he knew it would never happen.
As for pitting one Village against another, that isn’t my intent. And I think most folks here will say I have a decade long track record of supporting affordable housing in Newton on this site. But I’ll also say that it is far more likely that we will find affordable housing projects, and larger scale residential projects in general these days, North of Commonwealth. That isn’t pitting one village against the other, that’s just the truth.
And a location like this one would be prefect for an Austin Street or a Trio. I’ve never understood why we don’t have more residential housing above our commercial/retail in Newton Centre, especially with the green line right there. I’m guessing the political will just isn’t there… I wonder why that is…
I can somewhat understand the Waban argument that there are no buildings of any size in that Village. But for Newton Centre, that isn’t true. 4 to 5 story projects should be a no brainer…
I don’t disagree. My vision kit that I submitted has housing above all of the one and two story buildings in Newton Centre.
I do think that there would be incredible pushback, from the merchants.to build above them as I knw that would be viewed as very disruptive. I remember all the hullabalu when there was discussion about putting the Senior Center in the Newton Centre Triangle, which I also advocated for including a visual that was four stories with retail on the 1st The beauty of a Walgreens, Citizens Bank or Sovereign Bank location, is that the project would be essentially replacing them. and lots of underutilized parking lots. I’m not sure if the Citizens Bank Building could be retrofitted. Probably not but worth looking at.
I have spoken at the public hearing in support of the 25/26 units building going in at the Newton Highland T station and I believe there is/was a similar project back behind the little commercial strip although I have lost track where that one stands.
5-7 stories would be plenty with underground parking. Close down Langley Road between Centre and Beacon incorporate the parking lot and have a series of mixed use buildings with plenty of open space. It could turn into a destination location for people to safely walk around, shop, eat etc, I could easily see 500+ smaller units there that could house moderate income people that increase the pool of available workers for our retail establishments that can’t find people who can afford to live in Newton.
Strongly seconding MaryLee & Jackson joe.