In the last few years, as I tool around Newton on my bike, I have noticed a proliferation of new houses, usually built to replace tear-downs, with flat roofs and with large glass panels or sliding doors on the side walls. My wife and I call them Riviera or St. Tropez Houses.
The increasing presence of Riviera Houses in the Garden City seems odd. A flat roof was once anathema in the northeast because heavy snow or high rainfall could quickly lead to leaks. Hence, the prevalence of pitched roofs, sometimes steep. Large windows, wisdom held, leaked heat in the winter and cool air in the summer. They were, obviously, less energy-efficient.
It might seem that a Mediterranean hill overlooking a harbor filled with sailboats, or a half-acre in the Loire Valley bordering a vineyard with a hillside in the distance, would better suit such houses. In addition, in Newton the vistas out those glass panels are rarely scenic. For example, one of these Riviera houses, with ample glass portals, faces an intersection near the busy Beacon Street/ Chestnut Street crossing. Consequently, its residents mostly view passing automobiles and a wooden fence on the opposite side of the street.
No doubt, modern homes are better constructed and insulated than those built in the day of pitched roofs and modest windows. The double-plated glass probably conserves temperature as well as an insulated wall, for all I know. Perhaps, the modern flat roof is as impervious to rain and melting snow as a conventional pitched roof. Still, I am curious. Is it a fad, or is there a practical reason for the proliferation of Riviera Houses in the Garden City?
I am definitely not an architect, but I love my HGTV and DIY shows. Liken me to that of a true-crime podcaster which some police detectives loathe LOL.
Assuming the Newtonites building such contemporary homes are paying a pretty penny for it, the homes I believe are likely built with a combo of steel, concrete, and wood, making the house beams stronger and less likely to collapse from the weight of snow.
Flat roof homes are easier to install solar panels on than hip and gable rooftops, as well as mounting heating/cooling/ventilation units out-of-site instead of at ground level.
The large floor-to-ceiling or perhaps ribbon windows are likely triple-pane / triple-glazed glass, creating a double-air barrier keeping out both cold and sound from outside. This is what is commonly used, in part, when making a building LEED energy efficient.
This is where my limited knowledge ends, I’m afraid. And again – any architect could easily debunk any of what I’ve stated, and I could learn more about it all, myself, in the process! 🙂
@ Jack. As an architect I think
You are spot on in your assumptions – for the most part. And I wouldn’t ‘debunk ‘ or take issue with much of what you have written.
Bob J is also correct in his observations that perhaps flat roofs and vistas out large glass panels may be more appropriate on the Riviera or on the coast of Maine.
The big question it seems to me is how it happens that the rash of teardowns have come to allowed,.. even incentivized by current zoning these days.
The environmental waste is shameful and the historical loss of some of the razed homes could / should be questioned.
One issue that our progeny may well bring to the fore, 50 years from now, by a future Historical Commission, ( if it’s allowed to exist ), will be weather or not these “contemporary “ homes should be deemed “preferably preserved”.
Will the better examples of today’s technologies and life styles as recorded in their construction be an accurate picture of our era ?
Are not the little ranch homes we’re losing at an accelerated rate today not that of 50 years ago ?
Jack – Your assumption that the new houses are built as you say is just that, an assumption. We’ve had two in my neighborhood that ran into water damage within the first year after occupancy due to poor construction. The new owners had to pay a pretty penny for those repairs on a brand new house. After putting significant money into the house, both owners moved to more structurally robust homes in the city.
One of my complaints about the teardowns is that the huge houses that replace them are filled with bells and whistles, but the infrastructure is not what it needs to be in order to last.
As for style, the eras come and go, and I don’t have a problem with that. In fact I enjoy seeing capes, ranches, Victorians, center entrance colonials, etc. throughout the city. We have about 4 of the new style houses Bob refers to in our neighborhood (we live in an area hit hard by teardowns), and in the future, we’ll just consider them to be one style build during a certain era.
Every time we have had a renovation done, the carpenters always say ” they don’t build them like that any more”, which I presumed to be a compliment; we have what is called a “farmhouse Victorian”, which is not that fancy.
I’m assuming that there are modern construction materials that are superior to the 1890s. The question is how well are they applied or whether they are used in these new buildings. The fact that they leaked after a few years means I suspect not. Imagine paying a million + only to have your roof leak in 2 years: I’d be calling my lawyer, then a roofer, in that order.
I briefly went to a college in southern Vermont that had flat roofs on its academic buildings
The back story is that the school’s founders wanted a prestigious architect but couldn’t afford one so they bought a design from a well known architect who had designed this campus for Florida (but it was never built there).
Let’s just say things didn’t work out well. The school went bankrupt during my sophomore year. I won’t blame the leaky roofs but I think it reflected other flaws made by the same decision makers.
Rick – The problem often lies in the developer not knowing/understanding/taking into account the particular environment in which they’re building. It’s actually not the roofs that leak. Poor drainage, high water table, cheap building materials contribute to early water damage from below. I don’t see evidence that many developers of new homes consider these issues carefully.
I’m with you, Greg. Build for the environment in which you live.
The ugly little secret about these expensive new houses is shoddy construction. Three in my neighborhood have had major problems with water leaking in through the roofs or ice dams.
There’s a large tear down ( it seems ) happening in Newton Centre at 75 Pleasant street. The lot is huge > 20000 sqft
Does anyone know what the plans are for that lot? It was purchased in September for 2350000.00
Is it SR1?
A walk to Newton Centre and Mason Rice school. Ideal lot.
Nice house. Beautiful mature trees in front yard. My guess is it was built +/- 1915.
These are among the best in town. Mahogany finishes, quartersawn oak flooring, updated ( from early steam ), heating, a real loss.
Big lot ,.. either a gigantic McMansion or multiple + million$ condos.
According to the builder, the new owner of 75 Pleasant St. Is replacing the tear-down with a single family home.
I was canvassing on Pleasant Street today and spoke with a neighbor. She confirmed that it will be a single family home. She said that the existing house had been so neglected that a reno wasn’t feasible. From the outside it is very stately. The assessor’s data base indicated it was built in 1890. The neighbor reports that the house to the left (1855) originally owned the land
Now, wouldn’t that be an ideal spot for a multi family? Green line access? Sean? Sean!!? Where are you?!!
The place was sold as a teardown–a shock to longtime neighbors like me who’d known the house (“stately” is correct) and the residents for decades. It’s a stucco-style Victorian with a very generous setback, a glamorous Mediterranean touch in this largely wood-frame neighborhood. The new owners have endeared themselves to the neighbors by spending their one-year demolition delay letting the crabgrass grow waist-deep, cultivating allergens, sheltering rodents, and just generally enhancing the local ambience. The apparent size of the lot from the front may be deceptive. I don’t know if more than a single-family would actually have been permitted. Nevertheless, it’s probably safe to say the graciousness of the site will be lost for good, with no compensating gain in occupancy.
That is so sad Amanda. One of your neighbors on Pelham shared that she didn’t dare sell her 1860s home as she knew it would be torn down. I feel exactly the same way. I am it’s custodian. I actually did Ansestry.com into all of the homes on my street including my home, the Herman Lincoln house
Amanda and MaryLee – welcome to my world in Newtonville! Except here in addition to tear downs, we get 5 story apartment buildings.
I go by that house on pleasant street everyday- they definitely could fit a multi family building on that lot if it were permitted. We have numerous multi family houses here split front to back, and 2 car garages in the back and front(!), in less space.
It’s with sadness but also schadenfreude that I see things like this in Newton Centre. My “village” has born a lot of the development, because it hadn’t yet impacted those in SR1.
Whatever is built there, the fact that they paid 2350000 for it means it’s going to be a 3 million dollar house. Not very affordable.
When you “assume,” you make an “ass” of “u” and “me.”
My daughter went to RIT in Rochester NY, one of the coldest, snowiest places in the Northeast US. There is a persistent rumor that when the campus was moved from downtown to a suburb, the designed adapted plans–wait for it–for a university in the Arizona desert. While it is probably not entirely true, the campus uses many of the same features as hot weather campuses regarding fenestration (i.e., windows), roofs, and underground wind tunnels that remain a comfortable ambient temperature in any weather, hot or cold. And RIT has won awards for its zero net energy buildings (it is, after all, the Rochester Institute of Technology) and innovative buildings, one of which looks oddly like the old Newton North.
Long story short, I love some of the modern architecture I am seeing in Newton, including what Bob J and his bride would call a “Riviera House.” One of my favorites is on Commonwealth Avenue near City Hall, which was designed by a well-known, well-regarded Newton architect who has live in the area for decades designing high quality housing, and has been on “This Old House” on Channel 2 more than once.
As I get older (I’m 62), I had thought I was going to tolerate change less well and become more snobby, like many of the Newtonians I have encountered over the years through my fair housing and affordable housing advocacy. Thankfully, I am actually embracing changes in our community–especially modern architecture. And while these new houses may not be affordable, there is a simple way to make housing in Newton more affordable: eliminate restrictive zoning which prevents the construction of multi-family housing, particularly in and around village centers.
@Frank Rich “Whatever is built there, the fact that they paid 2350000 for it means it’s going to be a 3 million dollar house. Not very affordable.”
That is true Frank, but there are many people of means who have the ability to build huge new houses. The original house wasn’t affordable especially if it is as much disrepair so this doesn’t fit neatly into the scenario of developers buying up modest affordable perfectly livable house, tearing them down and building two (or more) luxury units. That tends to be more the scenario drawing frustration.
As someone who has only owned 100+ year old homes, it saddens me that the house was allowed to fall into such disrepair and will be torn down. I do hope that the new owner builds something that is congruent with the street. It would be very cool if they would take some inspiration from the existing home for the design. Given its age, I would think this would have had a Historical Commission review and been subject to a demo delay.
Everything that gets build doesn’t have to be affordable as long at there is a viable strategy and plan to increase the stock of affordable housing. I don’t see 75 Pleasant Street as a fit for a 5 story apartment building(not sure you were suggesting that). I do see the 36,000 sq. ft property where Walgreen’s sits as an absolutely perfect site to build true transit-oriented small units. Since that Walgreen’s is closing in a couple of weeks it is clear something will go in there. The owner has held it since 1986. I’m guessing he is looking to cash it. But without a strategy and intervention from the city, I think it is unlikely that will happen. I would think the owner would need some special permits since is zoned BU1. Hopefully the city will have strong influence what goes in there.
Or maybe it will just be a bank 🙂
@Mary Lee “Everything that gets build doesn’t have to be affordable as long at there is a viable strategy and plan to increase the stock of affordable housing.”
As long as it’s not next to you, I’m guessing. Or on pleasant street.
Meanwhile Newtonville has had affordable ( there’s a large low income housing development on my block) apartments all over the place since I moved here
and yet we’re getting the vast majority of the stuff dumped on our side of the tracks.
It’s creating a lot of resentment on this side of town. Time for Newton Centre to get a 5 story apartment building. I guess the Walgreens will do, but likely it would include the other shops down to Johnny’s Deli to have a large enough footprint.
And my name is Rick
Well the Ted, I assume ( pun intended) you would be well in favor of a multi family at 75 pleasant street, since it very near the village center. I bet the neighbors wouldn’t be.
I grew up in Syracuse NY so I know all about cold and snow, believe me. It’s actually yuckier here, cause its snowy and the rainy which is worse than Syracuse weather.
Sorry about bungling your name Rick. And it is Johnny’s Luncheonette 🙂
The Walgreen’s property is more than large enough at 36,000 sq feet. The Kessler House which is owned by the Newton Community Development Corp (NCDC) is 4 stories on 21,379 sq. ft. NCDC also owns the 9,085 parking lot at 12-14 Lyman Street. These three lots are contiguous in the back. So no need to infringe on Johnnys. There are also currently two empty store fronts on that block of Langley.
But none of that will happen organically
Rick frank,
If you think north of the pike has beeb dumped on…
Wait until we get a majority of “agenda driven” councilors. We’ll get 1 mile stretch of Washington street of Trios. 10,000 new units?
Mayor fuller will ensure density will not be built in Newton’s special and unique neighbors. Ie dump everything north of pike
As a resident of Upper Falls I can assure you that not *all* the development is north of the Pike. There is definitely a dearth of it in the heart of the city though, and that is a result of the current zoning! If you want more equitable development the zoning has to change.
Walgreens in NC is closing? Yikes. That’s where I’ve been going to get all the stuff that’s no longer on the half-empty shelves at CVS. Minimal foundations under those buildings on Langley, I’ve been told. If so, good luck putting up something hefty without destroying the rest of the block.
$2,350,000 ? It’s the price of land.
And this land has two frontages . Tyler Terrace and Pleasant Street.
That’s two huge houses at $3,000,000 each. It works!
@Blueprintbill (or anyone) Even though the subject property has ample frontage, splitting one lot into two in the SR2 district requires that each new lot be 15,000 sq ft (or 14,250 sq ft by special permit), as far as I can tell. I don’t think anything but one single family home can go here without a variance or additional land from the neighbors.
Jeremy,
The zoning rehaul draft had specific language for this case.
Flag lot, dual frontage lot.
There was a maximum building size, so you couldn’t build a giant footprint. Which means you could split the lot cleanly as long as each was bigger than 6,000 sqft(i recall?)
The developer has has purchased a significant lottery ticket with high chances of jackpot…. as this flag lot clause is pretty un-controverisial
@Bugek I thought someone indicated that an individual bought the property not a developer. If it were an MR1 they could built two large townhouses. Sort of interesting neighborhood zoning wise…closer to Centre there are some MR1s and then closer to this house there are 2 families and condos that are SR2.
Newton highland mom,
A cursory search does confirm the buyers are individuals who have worked hard and deserve to be rewarded by building their single family dream home on a large private lot.
Quite surprised a developer did not outbid them in 2020. A rare case of a buyer having more $ than developer for a potential sub-divideable lot
One could argue the lack of consistent zoning (MR vs SR) across all villages exacerbates housing inequalities.
Ie a buyer in Nonantum cannot outbid a developer who is eying a property for special permit to build multifamily
Vs
buyers in waban, newton are wealthier, less likely to sell and can outbid developers for larger lots.. to prevent multi families spreading in ” special & unique” neighborhoods
The property was listed as a single-family and bought as such a year ago. Case closed. (The Tyler Terrace “frontage” is more theoretical than practicable anyway, as it sits atop a vertical cliff.)
Re Walgreens: I wonder if the neighborhood can hope at last for a grocery store, with or without housing above it. If NC is to be the next location promoted as ideal for “smart growth” because of all the convenient shopping, it would be absurd to allow the shopping to be eliminated in order to make way for the growth. I seem to recall that when Casselman House was built on Sumner Street, one of the arguments in its favor was that Walgreens was right around the corner. Oops.
Amanda,
It would be great if Newton center ward councilors can make a definite statement on their vision for building affordable high density housing in the center.
Their confirmed position on this location can help voters to decide…
But alas, i suspect it would be political suicide.. best to to be vague and suggest more density in some elses neighborhood
@RIck Frank, do you still live on Brookside Avenue, which is a Scenic Road where homeowners are entitled to certain aesthetic protections from tasteless neighbors? I live on Watertown Street, within a few hundred feet of the West Newton Armory, which will be redeveloped into 100% affordable housing, and Dunstan East, which will be 25% affordable housing in up to five stories of apartments. And, yes, you bet I support those projects, which will be approved under Chapter 40B, the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act.” So, suck it up, cupcake (pun intended, whatever you mean by that).
@ Amanda. I just drove by the “ Pleasant Street property abutting Tyler Terrace, and it’s not at all a “ vertical cliff “. I’m sure you’re familiar with the two relatively new homes built on the north side of Comm Ave just west of City Hall that were built in essentially what became a quarry. This site is a piece of cake in comparison and the property is easily developable as two lots.
We’re talking + $3,000,000 homes here. I just hope they’re not designed from the tailgate of a pickup truck.
I’d argue that more tear-downs of century plus old homes is a good thing for increasing housing supply. It allows for more affluent folks to come into the newer, larger, single family homes. It will increase the quality of our public schools (assuming school age children in these houses will be sent to public vs private) and increased tax revenue for the city and increased retail revenue for local businesses and restaurants. Increase median income also is directly co-related to increased school rankings, safer neighborhoods and better quality of life. Let them tear!!!! Let them build!!! Make Newton wealthier!!
Blueprint Bill: Thanks for the dialogue, but I reiterate: the property was listed as single-family and bought as single-family a year ago. I’m not aware of any request to change that designation. If the existing house comes down and two pop up in its place, somebody’s got some explaining to do.