Housing was the topic for last week’s “Let’s talk about … “ conversation, the latest in a series of community forums hosted by Newton mayoral candidate and former City Councilor Amy Sangiolo. It didn’t quite go the way you’d expect. The featured guest, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Principal Planner Nick Cracknell, essentially undermined his host’s housing platform.
The full video is here.
Councilor Sangiolo’s housing policy can be summed up as:
Add new or preserve existing affordable housing. Add only a minimum number of new or replacement market-rate homes.*
Councilor Sangiolo promotes accessory dwelling units (ADU). Cracknell loves them, but notes that they will only produce modest affordable housing. Councilor Sangiolo defends single-family-only zoning. Cracknell says multi-family housing is important. Councilor Sangiolo promises to limit developer-driven housing. If the Cracknell presentation made one thing clear, it was this: the biggest engine for building affordable housing in Massachusetts right now is new market-rate developments that include significant permanently affordable housing — principally 40B, 40R, and inclusionary zoning.
This is Cracknell on upzoning, and it’s a brutal rejoinder to Councilor Sangiolo’s preferred housing policies and her defense (with very limited exceptions) of single-family zoning.
I think there’s a bona fide need for multi-family housing, which you can call upzoning. I’m seeing a trend still going in the opposite direction. Most places that I work, or walk or play are willing to play the 40R game a little bit. But, most people aren’t interested — in the North Shore — in upzoning their communities. There’s still the tendency to roll up the carpet and go the opposite direction, despite what’s said. There’s no doubt that multi-family housing is something we need to get back for much of the population that can’t afford to live in a single-family environment.
Rolling up the carpet is exactly what Councilor Sangiolo, Right*Size Newton, and all the defenders of single-family zoning are doing. They propose next to nothing that will make it possible for folks of modest means to live in Newton and are reducing the opportunities for folks who need truly affordable housing.
Here’s Cracknell on the need for a full set of tools, including high-density development.
With the real message being, I think, it’s critical for any city or town that’s got a significant need for affordable housing to go into that toolbox and build a pretty robust set of options that … where one size doesn’t fit all. And, you’re not trying to create a high-density project to solve all your housing needs. But at the same time, you recognize that doing in-law apartments or accessory units, smaller units, micro units can take you a long time to actually address the market failure of not having enough housing. It’s really about increasing supply, increasing the quality.
Councilor Sangiolo wants to have a very limited toolbox. This, too, is true of many of the Right*Size Newton-aligned councilors and candidates. Their shared housing vision — more affordable housing, but as little market-rate housing as possible — effectively eliminates or diminishes two very powerful tools for adding more affordable housing.
Newton needs to use all the tools to create housing that is attainable to folks across the income spectrum: large-scale special-permit developments, 40B developments, 100% affordable housing by not-for-profit and by for-profit specialty developers, by-right multi-family housing, mixed-use development, even ADUs. The more you want to preclude or limit some of these tools — because you don’t want buildings taller than 3 stories, because you want to save single-family zoning, because you think developers are greedy when they build market-rate apartments that cross-subsidize permanently affordable apartments, when you invent a misleading populist-sounding name for a phenomenon that creates more and ultimately cheaper housing — the less credible is your claim to be a champion of affordable housing.
To be sure, I agree with Cracknell. Big developments with market-rate homes subsidizing affordable homes is not the answer to all our housing needs. And, there are flaws to our inclusionary zoning, not the least of which is its failure to provide sufficient deeply affordable units or units for people with disabilities, both of which were raised this week’s Zoning and Planning discussion and vote on the proposal to lower the local preference from 70 to 25%. It may be that we can tweak inclusionary zoning or it may be that inclusionary zoning is not the mechanism. In either case, we need reforms to our zoning and our housing funding to create more deeply affordable and fully accessible housing.
All the tools.
A few other takeaways …
Councilor Sangiolo tiptoed into the ugliness of anti-renter sentiment.
I hope she clarifies.
—
While Cracknell seemed to validate Councilor Sangiolo’s flawed “trickle-down housing” denial of housing prices being subject to supply and demand (while admitting he had never heard of it), earlier in the presentation he was quite clear-eyed about the market:
Cost of housing is up because demand way outstrips capacity and the market is so extremely high that the market does not deliver affordable housing without government intervention.
It can’t be that constrained supply and high demand are responsible for high housing prices, but adding supply won’t lower prices. That just doesn’t make sense.
—
It wasn’t just her guest who undermined Councilor Sangiolo. It was her supporters, too. In one of the quick-poll questions during the session, nearly half of the presumably mostly friendly audience said they want more housing within a quarter-mile of transit. This has not been Councilor Sangiolo’s position.
—
Councilor Sangiolo says she doesn’t understand why ADUs haven’t caught on fire. I can provide an answer. They haven’t caught on fire because they don’t meet a market need. It’s not enough to create a category of housing that renters want/demand. It’s also got to be a category of housing that potential landlords want to supply. The slow uptake of ADUs can be explained by not enough people in Newton having the space, need, or desire to divide their home or create an external apartment on their property, while they live on the property.
* I think this fairly represents the housing policy of most of the Right*Size Newton-endorsed candidates and their allies, as well. Some RSN allies, however, like Councilors Marc Laredo and Lisle Baker, appear to be less concerned about replacement market-rate homes.
Certainly Covid has nothing to do with the “slow uptake of ADU’s” , right?
Sean
Could you also make a post on why pro development councilors do not have a bullet point on their own website to build thosands of affordable high density housing specifically in their OWN WARD.
They support density, but vaguely in someone elses Newton backyard
One day I want to love someone as much as Sean loves attempting to dunk on Amy
Sean, thank you for motivating me to watch the video and inspiring me to vote for Amy. Your inaccurate hit-piece of a post uses material out-of-context. Dishonest, to say the least.
Cracknell also says in the video posted, “people are not interested in up zoning their communities. There’s still the tendency to roll up the carpet and go the other way, despite what’s said. There’s a real conflict between the headlines and the policies that are put in place.”
Kale may be good for you, but eating it by the ton only rots out your insides.
Smart, thoughtful, measured change is what most communities and their residents want. Evolution is what drives the bus, not revolution.
That is why I support Amy Sangiolo and the slate of newcomers (and sitting Councillor Pam Wright). If you agree, please don’t forget to vote, otherwise we’ll find ourselves eating a ton of kale – served by for-profit developers cashing in on our good intentions.
Having posting privileges on V14 doesn’t mean you need to post on every one of your private peeves. Is this really of interest to the Newton community? IMO Sean’s posts have reduced the clout V14 used to have in the city and negatively affected the number of active participants in the blog comments.
Sean, I listened to all of the clips and you totally misrepresent what Cracknell says. He was talking about upzoning in “rural” communities. If you consider Newton “rural” that would explain why so few agree with your posts.
I recently learned that Mayor Fuller blocked an emergency response training program endorsed by the police and fire departments. Could you find out if it was to save the short money that it would cost or was it because she has a problem with the Red Cross?
In retrospect, perhaps kale is not the appropriate analogy.
Why? Because despite the number words Sean uses; the countless hours of research, video splicing, and narrative spinning he does, most Newton residents want Newton to remain a leafy suburb of Boston – not be the next Boston proper, the next Brookline, the next Cambridge, nor the next Somerville.
We vilify leaf blowers trying to make a buck, while extolling the virues diversity and equity. Defund on one hand, then saying there is not enough workforce housing on the other. And all the while, Developers are pulling the puppet strings and raking in the profits in the background. This is not the majority of Newton.
At heart, Newton leans more towards the middle than far left. In 2020, Bernie did not win Newton, nor did Lizzy Warren… in her home state. Newton voted convincinig for Joe Biden…President Biden. So Newton… don’t let the headlines of the few, dictate the policies of the many. To ensure your voices are heard, please go vote:
Mayor
Amy Mah Sangiolo
Ward 1
At Large: John Oliver (Vote for only John.)
Ward: Kevin Riffe
Ward 2
At Large: Tarik Lucas (Vote for only Tarik.)
Ward: Emily Norton
Ward 3
At Large: Pam Wright (Vote for only Pam.)
Ward: Julia Malakie
Ward 4
At Large: Lenny Gentile (Vote for only Lenny.)
Ward: Chris Markiewicz
Ward 5
At Large: Rena Getz (Vote for only Rena.)
Ward: Deb Waller
Ward 6
At Large: Lisa Gordon (Vote for only Lisa.)
Ward: Barry Bergman
Ward 7
At Large: Marc Laredo (Vote for only Marc.)
Ward: Lisle Baker
Ward 8
At Large: David Kalis (Vote for only David.)
@Matt Lai: Please be more accurate if you’re trying to make a point of the 2020 primary results. Sanders and Warren combined got a lot more votes than Biden. If Bernie wasn’t running, Warren would have probably won. Ed Markey, one of the most progressive senators, won handily in Newton. Of course, Biden’s presidency may very well result in a shift towards the center.
Looking for stories in the last week before the election? Here’s one: Mayor Ruthanne Fuller swears in four new police officers. Ceremony was indoors at police headquarters in Newton right after she sent a newsletter warning of a covid incrrase. The mayor, the police chief and the newly sworn in officers were not wearing masks. All officers were white men.
@ Newtoner…..and if Bloomberg wasn’t running who would those people have voted for? I think you are both comparing apples to oranges.
For those of you who think I have misrepresented Cracknell, please read Matt’s comments. He gets it.
The folks on the North Shore, Amy, Matt, Matt’s favorite candidates, they don’t want to allow the housing that Cracknell says we need.
At least Matt’s honest about it.
Leafy suburbs.
I disagree that accessory dwelling units provide a very effective mechanism for housing in Newton, even to meet the modest requirements of population growth and relocation be residents within the city. The number of people willing to take on modifications to their own home for the purpose of having an accessory unit is, I believe, quite small. Everyone is not a developer. It’s great to offer the flexibility to property owners, but it’s a solution tailored for the individual, not the city.
On the other hand (and I say this not having attended this virtual discussion), these discussions that bring together possibly-disagreeing voices are very helpful, and I applaud Councilor Sangiolo’s initiative in organizing several of these fora. It’s very hard to discuss these topics in Newton, or maybe anywhere. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, and try persistently. The forum I attended, about West Newton Square, was organized around the Planning Department’s vision kit. It went very well.
I don’t know how well such a forum would work if sponsored by the City of Newton (it is probably easier when led by someone outside of government), but I’m heartened to see it is possible.
Sean we’ve been over this. Multi story high density housing is extremely expensive to build and it won’t create new 3 bedroom units below $1m per unit. It will make existing land owners and developers a lot of money. Is that who you’re advocating for?
I agree with this statement from Newtoner: “Is this really of interest to the Newton community? IMO Sean’s posts have reduced the clout V14 used to have in the city and negatively affected the number of active participants in the blog comments.”
As a very long-time V14 poster, I’d stopped coming here because it had gotten so boring frankly. The only difference of opinion I’d have with Newtoner is that it’s not just Sean. It’s pretty much everyone.
I repeat the story from my then 8-year old son when his teacher told me that he didn’t participate in class: “Why would I say anything? I’m not thinking about the things she’s talking about. I’m thinking about dinosaurs and she’s talking about flowers.” Maybe a little diversity of topics would help?
Kyle,
Yours is an unusual take. I think the prevailing wisdom is that there is greater efficiency in building and maintaining multi-family homes than in equivalent single-family homes. Can you cite any sources for your claim?
Thanks.
@Sean – Why are trying to put your thumb on the scale in this election?
As I recall, Sean posted similar hit pieces on Tarik Lucas and John Oliver in the last special election and just look at how that turned out. It seems like there is change in the air and some people are getting awfully nervous.
Sean,
I don’t think anybody denies that building Watertown style mega apartments is more efficient than the luxury townhouses we’d get if Newton zoning was meaningfully changed. But most of us want neither, and we’ll vote to make sure Newton remains a “leafy suburb.” If you want to live in Watertown, move.
Anyone that read through all of this post should promptly watch the forum itself and then determine what you think for yourselves, because this is very out of context.
Also – Amy is not “anti-housing.” I would urge everyone to look at her responses to surveys that housing advocacy groups in the city have put out, read her website, or frankly just email her. Amy opposed TRIO not because she’s “anti housing” but because it had the minimum number of affordable units required by ordinance. As she said at the time, if the developer had agreed to more affordable units, she would have supported it. Amy opposed Northland, again, because she felt THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE UNITS and she wanted the developer to provide more permanent and usable T connections.
I do not understand how opposing a luxury development because it isn’t affordable enough or green enough can be construed as being anti-housing or nimbyism. I don’t. It boggles my mind.
Are there anti housing/anti development politicians in this city? Yes. But people like Amy are certainly not them. Take Riverside – a large development that is transit oriented and has a significant number of affordable units, and has been redrawn to a scale supported by the surrounding community. Amy supports it. Or look at the Austin Street development – Amy’s opposition to Austin St FORCED the developer to add more affordable units in order to gain her vote. If we had more people on the city council willing to put their foot down and make developers do more than the bare minimum, instead of voting for any and every proposed development and then accusing anyone that opposed it for any reason at all of being “anti housing” we would have many more affordable units in this city.
I don’t understand how anyone can think that the status quo is good for affordability in Newton. Yes, we’ve added affordable units, but we could be adding so much more by negotiating with developers instead of blindly pushing through any luxury project and deciding that we did our part because it will have a few affordable units too.
Moreover, I can’t count on my two hands how many medium and small sized homes have been demolished and replaced with McMansions in a three block radius from me. That’s the status quo. That’s what’s been happening under Fuller. That’s not good housing policy for anybody, and it’s going to keep happening unless we elect folks like Amy.
@Matt I don’t think national politics has anything to do with it. I’m probably what you consider “far-left” but it doesn’t take being a moderate to recognize that shoving through + ridiculing any opposition to EVERY single proposed project, even when the project is a luxury development with the minimum number of affordable units and fails to be remotely transit oriented, is not a good housing strategy…
And if there are going to be weekly walls of text bashing Amy on this website can y’all get a moderator to also post fact checks right after…or just not have weekly posts bashing Amy!
Lisa:
LOL. I think you give Sean way too power. Also, this isn’t a hit piece. Also, special elections are unique. Also, define “change is in the air”. I think that is just Autumn weather.
And Sean, I think most of Amy’s presentations haven’t really agreed with her supporters online postings fully (or even the candidate herself) but I thought that was a nice feature. At least the ones I saw had real experts, and they gave their views pretty fairly. I didn’t always agree, but then again they didn’t always agree with Amy.
I think Amy has run a very good campaign overall. The challenger has to take some risks. I don’t think very many people paid attention to these presentations considering the overall size of Newton, but I applaud the attempt.
I never understand the folks who get mad at Sean’s posts though, and say they somehow ruin Village 14. He posts maybe 10% of all posts, just don’t read his stuff if you don’t like his musings.
Although Sean, I think the housing cake is baked for both candidates. Can we be spared a bunch of posts about housing policy before the election?
To my view, I’d love the next few days to be mostly about the candidates statements, and then a fun prediction page the day of the election. But maybe that is just me.
Fig Game,
“Although Sean, I think the housing cake is baked for both candidates. Can we be spared a bunch of posts about housing policy before the election?”
Probably not.
But, of course, “just don’t read his stuff if you don’t like his musings.”
Muffin Meal:
Just a point of clarification. Amy could get those additional units at Austin Street because the city owned the lot. It had a LOT more power in that project.
For Trio and Riverside, a lot less power, largely due to 40B. Not saying those negotiations were amazing, but there is a big difference. I don’t think the city would have gotten much more, especially in Trio. Riverside is not my area, so I don’t know that as well. But if we meet our 40B requirement, we then have a lot more power to negotiate. Whether we would then do it fairly, I think depends on who gets elected.
Also, I take Amy at her word that she supports more affordable housing. But I’m also very aware of my neighbors and friends who support her, and of the folks on the area councils that support her, that are NOT in favor or more affordable housing. If you want no additional density you are far more likely to vote for Amy vs. Ruthanne.
It is entirely possible if elected that Amy will chart the exact path she is stating in her position papers. I don’t think that goes far enough, but it isn’t nothing. But on this particular issue, Ruthanne has a track record of what she has done as mayor. And there would be a lot of Amy supporters who would want her to block any large project in the city. That’s my honest take on my concerns on this issue.
Just my 2 cents.
Sean how quickly you forget.
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
Sean:
True, I don’t have to read it. But you do help run this place, and at some point you flood the zone, as my kid would say.
Or, in the words of a close friend to describe my verbal ramblings “Honey, sometimes you are too much of a good thing.”
Or, to put it in a more recent context of my life: I love ice cream. I recently went to Rancs on a bad day and had so much ice cream my stomach hurt. Now, I need a break from sweet sweet ice cream. Just a short break. The ice cream will taste good soon enough.
I’ll probably read the posts anyway though.
Once again, what Fig said. What else should we be talking about on V14 days before an election if not issues related to the election?
This is a volunteer blog so why wouldn’t the bloggers want to devote their time to subjects they care about? I appreciate that he’s willing to take a deep dive into topic and go to the considerable effort to provide videos, graphics, etc.
Don’t agree? Don’t blame Sean for doing the exact thing this blog was created to do. (And since Sean and I started this we’re the sole authority on why it was created and so maybe it’s always been “ruined.”) Jerry has always been generous to allow guest posts. Go and create a thoughtful post with video etc. to support it. Or don’t.
Or as Fig said, you can skip his posts if you want, just as I skip many commenters tiresome comments.
Former councilor Sangiolo’s policy regarding affordable housing essentially links the creation of affordable units to development of market rate housing. Under this policy, if you restrict the building of market rate housing (which she has consistently either voted to do or advocated for in the projects noted here), you automatically limit the building of affordable housing as well, *even if you increase the % affordable in a given project*.
Just this past Monday the Planning department presented a study of the most recent set of 61 affordable units, for which *over 1300* people applied (this was in the context of potentially adjusting the Newton resident preference %). The need is extremely large, and a few additional units here or there isn’t going to have a meaningful impact. Patting ourselves on the back for creating a handful of affordable units here or there in the face of this reality is to simply not face facts.
Northland + Riverside combined will provide roughly 250 additional affordable units. This still amounts to a drop in the ocean.
In another thread I posted a simple calculation showing that population growth alone in Eastern Mass means we need 300-500 units of all kinds every year. Newton is not meeting even that level of growth, and the result is that prices continue to skyrocket. If we want to have Newton be an inclusive place, we need to find a way to meet the demand. Doling out a few affordable units here and there and calling it a day simply doesn’t even begin to meet the definition of inclusion.
Mayor Fuller is also not really confronting these facts, but she is at least trying a little harder than Sangiolo appears to want to do. I don’t think it is accurate to say that any candidate whether for mayor or city council wants to allow developers to run rampant and pave the city over. The question is whether or not we are willing to a) face reality or b) allow the city to become solely a playground for a super wealthy elite which consoles itself by allowing a small number of less fortunate people to live here too in a few enclaves. The teardowns and so forth that we all dislike are best characterized as a response to the demands of the market, and you can characterize that as “greedy developers” if you want. Restricting their activities though doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
Muffin Meal Connoisseur,
First, I’d feel a lot better about Amy’s sincerity about affordable housing if she acknowledged that our inclusionary zoning ordinance and 40B have created the bulk of recent and near-term affordable units and that the price of those units is market-rate apartments. I don’t love developers and wish the City Council had pushed for more affordable units (and lots less parking) on Northland, Riverside, Trio, Austin St., &c., but I don’t demonize developers and question the intentions of the city councilors when a good-faith, very lengthy, very involved process doesn’t go my way. The mayor and the City Council don’t control what market-rate apartments go for (except inasmuch as they continue to restrict supply). As mayor, Amy wouldn’t be able to do a thing about what market-rate apartments go for. In the end, Amy did not vote for Trio and its affordable units and didn’t support Northland and its affordable units. Opposing affordable housing based on the non-falsifiable claim that she could have gotten more isn’t principled policy.
Second, Amy supported the Riverside compromise. I wrote about it here. Whether you like the compromise or you don’t like the compromise, the net of it was 25 affordable homes lost. It’s tough to say that affordable housing is your #1 priority when you support a plan that reduces affordable housing as a price of meeting neighborhood concerns about the size of the development. Affordable housing is like the second or third priority, at best. No crime there, just don’t sell yourself as committed to affordable housing.
Third, you wrote, “[Teardowns-to-McMansions] is not good housing policy for anybody, and it’s going to keep happening unless we elect folks like Amy.” Zoning reform proponents, particularly those of us who favor more multi-family housing by right, have a plan. Make it easier to build modest-sized homes in multi-family buildings. That is what will prevent more McMansions and McMiniums and create reasonable housing opportunity. I wrote about that here. Amy doesn’t have a plan. She has talked about subsidizing the purchase of modest-sized single-family homes. We don’t have the money. And, it would be an incredibly inefficient way to deliver truly affordable or even attainable housing. She (and others, like Pam Wright) do a hand-wave at preventing teardowns, but the specifics are lacking, largely because any mechanism that would act as a disencentive to tearing down would almost certainly mean reducing the value of current residents’ homes to make it easier for future residents to move here. (Matt Lai, what’s the political appetite for that?)
Kyle,
Yes, the 11 Cherry St. example has been brought to my attention previously. It is, if I may, Cherry (St.)-picked. It’s at the high end of the range of recent sales and may even be an outlier.
But, let’s take the unit as representing a trend.
One, it comes in (as Cracknell put it) not at the top of the market. In fact, it comes in below the median house price in Newton. The fact of the purchase indisputably lowers the price to live in Newton. Can folks of modest means afford it? No, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Two, the thirteen-unit building adds supply. The people who purchased the homes on Cherry St. did not participate in the bidding for the next similar set of similar homes that went on the market, which puts downward pressure on prices. If we add more similarly sized condos in village centers, prices will go down, or at least grow at a slower rate.
Third, there are now thirteen households who can use public transit to go to work. And, thirteen households who have don’t have to drive or have to drive a lot less to shop, eat out, go to school, &c. Does every household have a car? Probably. Will they drive? Certainly. But, is there any argument that they will drive less than if they couldn’t live in West Newton Square and had to move to, say, Wayland? (If your response is that they would have stayed in Newton and just bought another house on the market, you’re proving my other point: They would have bid up that existing home. And, another household would have had to find housing outside Newton.)
I, for one, love Sean’s posts. I generally tend to disagree with Sean’s take on housing (and most of his political rants, for that matter), and I’ve only met him once — at the Alicia Bowman/Greg Schwartz recount, where I was there for Greg and he was there for Alicia. Yet, despite my disagreements with him, what Sean does is stake a clear position. Agree with him or not, his posts drive comments. Those comments lead to more comments, and that is why folks come to this blog (it’s certainly why I check it out). There’s the entertainment value too. Sean has sharp elbows, but he’s thick-skinned and doesn’t seem to mind when a commenter fires back at him. There’s no reason we all can’t have a little fun in the days leading up to the election.
Sean – you wrote
” Make it easier to build modest-sized homes in multi-family buildings. That is what will prevent more McMansions and McMiniums and create reasonable housing opportunity.
Statements like that show that you know very little about real estate demand and prices. Let’s take for example the 2 family homes near you on Athelstane Road that were recently sold for just over one million and torn down and replaced with two new units at the “affordable average price of 1.5 million. That example is happening right now on Langley Road and many other locations. You call that “affordable housing” or contributing to oversupply that will reduce prices but I see it as removing affordable housing from the marketplace, replacing it with expensive alternatives and enabling the same developers to reap huge profits from which they will make contributions to your favored candidates to continue the status quo,
It will also decrease the remaining supply of moderately priced existing homes and put price pressure on the dwindling supply.
You can think about all of the trash produced from demolition, especially those houses that are in good condition but are a good target for a developer to make a killing ( see White Ave) These unnecessary teardowns will only increase the amount of trash that comes from Newton. I have seen some estimates that it may be as high as 25% of the total produced in the city.
Doesn’t that count at all for a self proclaimed “environmentalist” like yourself
I’m still waiting to hear why Mayor Fuller blocked the Emergency Response training program that was endorsed by police and fire departments.
Jackson Joe,
Thank you! You are making my point.
Let’s take the two two-family homes on Athelstane. Our current zoning allows for their replacement with much larger homes. (Read here for my take on why they were more modest than zoning allowed in the first place.) Two reasonably sized (and, therefore, more likely reasonably priced) homes (rentals, I believe) are turned into two much larger, more expensive homes.
You and I agree that’s a bad outcome. On the housing front, we’ve lost an opportunity for people of more modest means to live in the neighborhood. The cost of housing in Newton goes up. Though, it’s important to note that the two units that were built on Athelstane (the other lot is a hole) appear to be rentals or owner-occupied with a rental. And, at an assessed value of a little over $2 million and an average size of 2,300 s.f., it isn’t the worst McMinium example. Averaged, the value is still less than the median house price.
But, agreed that, from a housing perspective, worse than what they tore down.
I propose the ability to add more but smaller units. Allow triplexes and fourplexes in addition to single or two-family homes. But, cap the unit size in multi-family buildings at something like 1,200 s.f. in current MR1 and SR1 districts and larger elsewhere. And, allow as many units as allowed by current floor area ratio, with a minimum unit size of like 750 feet.
Instead of two 2,300 s.f. units, in roughly the same size envelope, the new Athelstane two-family could have been three or four 1,000 to 1,250 s.f. units.
Under my proposal, you get more smaller units than under current zoning. And, the property owner doesn’t suffer a loss in property value. The only potential downsides: I haven’t reduced the incentive to tear down and a new building would be just as big as under current zoning. But, the only way to address those is to diminish property values.
I haven’t heard any specific proposals from Councilor Sangiolo, Councilor Pam Wright, candidate Barry Bergman, or any other Right*Size Newton-endorsed candidates who promise to prevent teardowns, but if they propose to prevent what happened at Athelstane, their proposal would mean that the property owners would be denied what looks like multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value.
Also, the house on White Ave. is nuts. I can’t imagine they are going to get what they’re asking, but Newton’s a hot market. Worse, they could have put 5 modest units in that size building.
Sean,
Capping units to 1200sqft is an interesting idea. Developers will like super-luxe these units with crazy amenities + shared spaces to keep the prices elevated.
So a 4 unit will become 3 unit(1200sqft) with 1200sq of crazy nice amenities (high end gym, movie room) and a massive shared outdoor space with luxury seating, bbq
Ie units are smaller but price is just as expensive (if not more!)
Bugek,
Amenities and shared space take space and money. I don’t see how they make sense at the scale of a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building.
I think that you (and others) overstate the ability of developers to shape the market. A small unit in a triplex is a small unit in a triplex. In Newton it will cost more than a unit in a triplex in Somerville. It will cost less than a detached house in Newton or a unit in a big, high-service building like Trio.
Let’s not overcomplicate this.
Sean
The price on Athelstane was $1,650,000 for each unit. That’s not affordable to most people.
I’m trying to understand why you support teardowns and replacement with McMansions but then say you would support more smaller units. Given the option to produce 4 smaller units or the two larger units that were built is no contest. Every developer motivated by maximum profit will choose the two townhouses every time
Maybe the problem is that you don’t understand construction costs and price mechanisms.
I can’t speak for any of the candidates that you mentioned but I think they would support the concept that you proposed in situations where the newer construction would be IN SCALE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
That doesn’t mean the exact same size as what is currently there, it means that monstrosities that tower over every other house on the block (White Ave) will not happen.
White Ave is a product of the policies of the current regime and people like yourself that have come up with no proposals to stop them
Jackson Joe,
According to the assessor’s database, 34-36 Athelstane was co-owned by the current residents of its now separately owned condos. Not sure where you’re getting the $1.65 million price from.I was looking at the wrong property. Yes, it looks like the condos sold for $1.63 and 1.95 million. Both are well above the median house price for Newton. They are 3,200 and 3,100 s.f, respectively. (I assume the smaller went for less because it’s in the back and off the street.) Under my proposal, unit size would be capped at 1,250. The developer would not have been able to build these two McMiniums, but could have built five to six 1,000 to 1,250 s.f units.
This was a bad outcome from a housing policy perspective, but I do want to note that there are actual families that live there and are now my neighbors. That they took advantage of our bad zoning does not reflect poorly on them.
“I’m trying to understand why you support teardowns and replacement with McMansions but then say you would support more smaller units.”
I don’t support teardowns and replacements with McMansions. That’s why I want to put a cap on unit size.
“Given the option to produce 4 smaller units or the two larger units that were built is no contest.”
That’s why I propose to take away the right to build two larger units. Cap on unit size.
“I can’t speak for any of the candidates that you mentioned but I think they would support the concept that you proposed in situations where the newer construction would be IN SCALE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.”
If the scale of the existing neighborhood is smaller than what zoning allows, then you’re proposing that property owners be deprived of the value of their homes under current zoning. I don’t have strong feelings one way or another, but as a political matter it’s dead in the water. So, if your answer to teardowns and replacements is scale of the existing neighborhood, it’s not a viable policy solution and we’ll be stuck with the status quo. Teardowns and McMansions and McMiniums.
Sean I would suggest that you read the op ed in todays Tab if you want to get a fuller (not Ruthanne) story about Lexington Cove and the process that was involved. Since there is no need to use this issue anymore as a dishonest campaign tactic, maybe we can hear both sides and make the final version even better than the initial plan.