My cell phone started buzzing on Thursday evening. “Have you seen the proposal by the city” asked one neighbor. “I can’t believe we were not notified,” said another. “It’s outrageous,” said yet another. I went immediately to the mayor’s email. Near the bottom was a mention of the draft village center zoning changes and links to see the proposal. I had been aware that the city was discussing changes to village centers, but I do not live in a village center, and I did not pay too much attention. That was a mistake!
I live in Waban. I am walking distance to the center, but I live on residential Waban Ave. I bought my house almost 19 years ago and love my neighborhood. Up until now, the biggest concern was that cars drove too fast while many kids rode bikes on the street. However, this lovely residential street is on the draft plans to become a village center! The proposal is for the zoning to allow, “Residential / Commercial, Mixed Use.” My house is directly across the street from this new zone. To say I was shocked is an understatement.
How is this even possible? How could the committee even be allowed to propose complete changes to a neighborhood? This is not an “update” to zoning. An update allows for changes such as the height of buildings in a commercial district. This is a complete sacrifice of a neighborhood for the sake of one group’s social goals. It goes way beyond the stated objectives of the exercise.
I am so upset that the fate of my neighborhood (in addition to my home’s value) will be in the hands of others who do not live here. I ask again, how is this even possible?
Genuinely unclear if this is a joke post or not.
Not a joke. Why would you think that?
So you mean the proposed VC1 designation which is set to be at the very end of Waban Ave right across from the church within a 5 minute walk to the T station and less than 3 minute walk to the current businesses? That part? Its a bit disingenuous to claim the road is going to be VC1 because its not. Lets look at what VC1 includes shall we? These homes are in the proposed VC1 district around the corner from you: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3256341,-71.2292266,3a,75y,355.03h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTG0kRylotopbRBAtSKW52g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Clearly horrid additions to the village aren’t they? Such extreme development surely does not belong in our villages?
Look at this horrible commercial building in Newtonville, proposed to be in VC1!!: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3485311,-71.2067508,3a,66.9y,241.03h,102.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1StqjCXLS2pREv3sVQoZKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Clearly out of place in our villages.
At the end of the day we need to make sure more people, more seniors, more families, more small businesses can settle and call our villages home. We are not talking something like the giant towers in Newton corner, or even the smaller mixed-use buildings like Trio. The reasoning behind why we need to look at options to allow more by-right builds; 2-4 unit buildings, allow smaller offices and commercial spaces is in the documentation, its there, I am not going to explain it and you may not agree with it, that’s fine.
These changes are not going to destroy your home, or your neighborhood they just aren’t, guarantee you your property will keep increasing in value. Any new builds won’t happen tomorrow, or next year. Maybe, just maybe, one of your neighbors will choose to sell and a small 4 unit apartment building will go up (still limited to 2.5ish stories) and maybe its someplace that has an elevator and maybe sometime down the road as you get older you may wish to downsize and move to a place you don’t need to use stairs in. Maybe you can move right across the street and stay in your village.
Change is hard, these things can be scary, I do get it! As humans we tend to look at the worst possible outcome of change, and not balance what could be. Read through the options that are being proposed for by-right, read through on VC1 and what it looks like, page 11 of this document as a good starting point: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/92430
I live in Newtonville, I know change and have seen it the past 10 years I have lived here. I would have done a few things a bit differently, but the village is hopping, business is doing well, and we have a ton of great new options my wife, kiddo, and I can walk to.
Challenge yourself to not just say no, challenge yourself to think about what could be and what benefit allowing a few more people to live nearby would mean, what having a dentist office across the street could mean.
John. I am not sure why you claim that my street is not going to be VC1. I am looking at the proposed map. The area on Waban Ave up to Manitoba Rd is listed as VC1. And the map makes it clear that this is for Commercial and Mixed Use. This is a large change to this street. Your link shows another VC1 area. But I am commenting on my street. If I had wanted to buy a house on a commercial street, I would have. But that is not what I wanted.
I don’t like that you suggest that I don’t want Waban to have a mix of residents. That is not true. Plus, my street does have seniors and families. All are friendly and help each other. I myself am a single mom, not affluent, my home is my savings, and my neighbors are my family. You may want to see my street turn into a commercial zone, but I do not have to want it too.
Robin is right. Waban Ave – Manitoba block is a VC1 block where Residential-Commercial Mixed Use can be built by right. Here is a better Google Map picture – https://www.google.com/maps/@42.324869,-71.2336799,3a,75y,24.72h,99.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNeH1v1mEn2iH8mApRTIDIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Why did they forget about Chestnut Hill ? Of all places in the City that’s perhaps the best area for more density housing- I appreciate the throwback to the gilded age of tennis clubs and large estates but maybe in the era of diversity, inclusion and global warming people need to rethink priorities. One could easily live car-free down there – Rapid Transit Green Line Station / Starmarket / CVS / The Street Restaurants, Banks and Shops/ Movie Theater all walking distance.
I don’t know much about this, but from this post, the attachments and comments, my guess is developers would find extending the Waban Village commercial & mixed-use (denser housing?) zoning to Waban Ave. & Manitoba Road another very welcome opportunity to make money in Newton, regardless of negative impacts on current residents’ lives.
A little part of all of us wants to be idealistic. But ultimately we come back to Earth; a pragmatic reality.
Density fanboys (and ladies) will say we, “need more housing…at any cost!” But practically, to what extent? At the detriment of learning, when classroom sizes double? Or being trapped on endless traffic?
No matter how you slice and dice; regardless of which angles you’re looking at regarding rezoning; it all leads you into ONE single conclusion….a red carpet to add more housing to village centers…at any cost!!
VC1 for example, allows a developer – BY RIGHT – to take an existing mixed use proper, and make it 100% residential…and adding an extra floor of height in the process.
Is a traffic mitigation plan required? Nope. Are they required to do anything to help with classroom sizes? Not that either. “By Right” absolves developers of an any of that.
Over the next few years, Newton is adding THOUSANDS of apartments (at very healthy margins for developers) – from the two Northland projects, 528 Boylston, Riverside and Korff Ave (formerly known as Washington Street).
Shouldn’t we see how they impact schools, roads, first responders and other city resources before we create zoning that added more consumers of said resources? Prudence says we should (wait and see).
And also, residents alone does not create village vibrancy. Without businesses, restaurants and cafes, what do we have? More people walking their dogs or waiting for Uber to take them to restaurants, bars and cafes…outside of Newton!
Friend and neighbors, we need to take a “wait and see” approach on see how the thousands of apartments coming online in the next 2-5 years will impact Newton, before giving Developers the rubber stamp to print residential based profits. We can’t let an idealistic desire to solve the REGION’s housing crisis, to write checks Newton’s residents can’t cash.
To create vibrant city centers, we need to support our eateries; and wean ourselves from the convenience of Amazon, not just blindly build apartments and hope for the best. Pragmatism may not be sexy, but you can’t retire solely on hopes and dreams.
a quote from magee coughlin of boston!!!!!!i
i”m replacing boston with newton!!!!!
“progress is wonderful,
newton is growing and changing,and that is part of life”
but she asks if newtons powers to be consider what is being lost!
its great to have lots of luxury condos, apartments and mcmansions,
but what about livable neighborhoods
where people know each other and people have some history!!!!!!
And yet again.
We need more affordable housing! More density around commuter hubs to support efforts against climate change!! Yes!! Yes!!! I am a good person for supporting this!!
Oh – wait – near me? Ha – no. Do it over there —->
Silly.
Oh, I can’t say that. Hmm, well then pls satisfy this list of 30 very long and tedious bureaucratic steps that are filled with subjective assumptions that we can poke holes in at ease and effectively delay the idea into the ground. Hey, if you’re gonna do it, it has to be done right! I’m good!
Keith, at least you are being honest. You want to change my neighborhood to satisfy your social goals. So sorry for the delay. Why not take all the areas you deem needing change by eminent domain? Wouldn’t that be faster?
Newton’s conscious is torn —
Tons of virtue signaling from the relatively wealthy population —but when the actual practical implications of truly solving the problems are truly examined and the degree of sacrifice needed is better understood … well, things get reassessed.
Instead people focus on relatively tiny efforts to address problems with large scale. Efforts that do nearly nothing except to provide cover for the virtue signaling.
We live in a wonderfully beautiful neighborhood. Do we really want to make it more dense, less bucolic? Maybe a bit over there. But not right here!
It is such a fascinating phenomena. It is a tough situation. But one where, if true significant change is going to occur, we have to recognize small teeny delayed steps won’t do it.
Kieth. I agree. But perhaps we can think about ways to make our town a truly affordable place to live. Let’s start with the public schools. It costs a fortune for our kids to ride the public school bus and to play a sport or participate in an activity. Affordable housing is bearly step one. Then we build huge, fancy schools and ask for tax overrides. Stop trying to solve this problem on the backs of the current neighborhoods. I hear people above saying let’s get creative. But this town only wants to build, build, build.
Keith,
“What” Problem are we solving? If the problem is the lack of $1.5M – $2M dollar townhouses and the lack of $4000 rental 2BR apartments. If the other problem is helping lining developer profits at the expense of Newton.
Then YES, this rezoning is definitely going to solve those 3 problems!
The housing problem will never be “solved”. Attempts to lower prices will result in greater demand. Attempts to restrict prices will result in less supply. There will always be unintended consequences and trade offs such as traffic, parking, pollution, school services, rodents, price gouging, etc. See Hong Kong, New York City, London, Toronto and on and on.
There have been tens of thousands of new units in Massachusetts yet prices continue to rise while the poor and middle class get pushed out of and away from Boston.
We can make efforts to ease the burden, but the problem will always be there.
Good morning Folks,
Please note an important correction: the VC1 zone as proposed allows only residential and 2.5 stories “by-right”. By-right does NOT mean the property owner gets to do anything she wants, rather there are many additional rules in our current code and MA building code that apply – and more rules coming in the draft text we’ll see in this weeks packet.
It is widely acknowledged that our many village centers are very different in form and character from one another. Importantly, the boundaries of each to the surrounding residential zones vary substantially. Some are directly across from active retail uses, some have retail and other uses within them, some have residential uses within the business area. It is therefore proposed that limited commercial uses and/ or one additional story be allowed as it may make sense to do so – only by special permit in VC1.
Over time, what makes good sense may vary, but in any case the discretionary special permit process allows for plenty of public input.
So far we have only the proposed three zones, the broad metrics that define by-right and special permit options, and draft maps. There will be several months of public and.committee review of the drafts, a second iteration published early in 2023, and further review and input.
Public engagement on zoning redesign has grown substantially since we began community outreach in 2021. Please do join us!
Meanwhile I wish you all a happy thanksgiving!
Given that Waban has a T stop, elementary school, grocery story, Post Office, library, coffee shop, deli…, where would you suggest there be additional housing in Waban?
It is an ideal location for addressing climate change with so many amenities that you can walk to and with public transit. It is critical that Newton allow more places for people to live in locations like this. Because Newton and other towns closer to Boston have limited new housing, development has happened farther away from Boston and from transit. Therefore, people have to drive more and more undeveloped open space is cleared for development.
Would you allow more housing on Wyman St., down Beacon St. or Woodward? Or would you prefer that there be taller buildings allowed right in the center? It’s got to be allowed somewhere.
Unless the housing provides ZERO parking and zero fossil fuel, the claim of “addressing climate change” is simply a developer talking point.
If the councilors want to use that excuse then ZERO parking spaces.. or would that cut into developer profits?
This is more entertaining than anything on TV… NIMBYs [who know nothing] vs. a City Council [that thinks it knows everything]. You’ll laugh! You’ll cry! You’ll shout out loud! Cancelling my Netflix subscription and keeping my eyes right here on V14.
Robin –
You correctly ask the timeless question: “How is this even possible?”
After 39 years actively participating within the decision-making processes of my respective communities (Upstate New York; Newton), I have witnessed putrid politics play the big role that swamped all other roles. Without PEOPLE (concerned citizens; homeowners; taxpayers who own businesses but live elsewhere; et al) getting ENGAGED in their City’s governing, INVOLVED, and PARTICIPATING the politicians will push their power about.
In 2009, I attended and spoke before a packed Council Chambers on a sweltering Summer evening when the issue to shutter Auburndale’s Branch Library were discussed/debated. The total annual budget to fund the City’s nine Branch Libraries was an amazingly worthy $395,000! But former Mayor Cohen slashed that budget after his tax override failed! Petty politics? Yup. And worse. You ain’t seen nothing if Mayor Fuller’s tax override fails in March.
So, the larger point is: We The People must be ever vigilant when our elective public servants hold power and authority that oftentimes brings bad decisions. Some use their power for all the wrong reasons. Got time to learn of a dozen or more anecdotes? People ought to have flooded the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings and twice-monthly City Council pow-wows. People power is not anarchy when acted on for the best and right reasons.
Best of everything.
Gotta love these self-righteous, “altruistic” posters who have no regard for the huge sacrifices made by homeowners to purchase & maintain their homes. The insinuation that people don’t care about others is both reprehensible & disingenuous.
This insulated blog is oblivious to the fact that most residents do not approve of the increased density. People are sick & tired of the increased traffic and “road improvements” that essentially doubled many commute times. We all don’t have the luxury of biking to work. And then there’s the pesky little issue of picking up our kids after sports practices.
Re- the link provided of the orthodontist’s office on Walnut St. The gentleman beratingly tells the orig poster that “change is hard” and “It’s only a dentist’s office” – lol!
I spent years going here. Every 15 mins there were cars pulling in & out, tying up traffic, horns beeping, cars circling around for parking (the lot in back is tiny), revolving door of rambunctious NNHS teens getting their braces adjusted. Not that there is anything wrong with this.
It’s simply not right to force this on a quiet residential neighborhood thereby decreasing the residents’ quality of life.
The gentleman’s condescending attitude to the orig poster is a huge turn off.
At least he didnt play the “race card”….. yet
Why not address the most egregious issues with the current special permitting process? Why change the current incentives from sensible development to a model where it will be primarily based on profit only?
Because the developers will be shutout next year when we hit 40b threshold
This is the last eternal gift the council can provide developers to pillage Newton for profit
Yes, this whole sham started as a simple change to standardize zoning language.. has morphed into a giant social engineering experiment
Well, what can i say? This is so upsetting! I just can’t stop thinking about how we moved to Newton from NYC and what a paradise by comparison! Wonderful, smart, gracious and considerate neighbors! The gorgeous greenery, compared to all that NYC concrete! No need to keep looking over my shoulder when walking to the T. The breathable air! The peace and quiet, especially at night, but even during the day. And so close to downtown Boston, too! Paradise in so many ways. And even affordable for a young guy and his new family. But, given these proposed changes, i guess it’s over. Back to Manhattan? But why do they want that here? For the $? Or maybe they just want it to turn out to be like Queens and Brooklyn?
Welcome! Newton’s a great place! So is NYC! While I would love if Newton had some of the amazing cultural institutions and later night activities that NYC has, I think your concerns about Newton’s Big Apple-like trajectory are perhaps misplaced.
Population densities:
Newton 4,988 people/sq. mile vs:
Manhattan 72,918
Brooklyn 36,732
Queens 22,124
Somerville 19,652
Cambridge 18,512
Brookline 9,292
It would also be great if this weren’t required:
People per car:
Manhattan: 6.5
Brooklyn: 5.5
Queens: 3
Newton: 1.3 (by my calculations)
@Mike The comment is all about direction of “progress”, but maybe you didn’t understand the gist of the posting
“But, given these proposed changes, i guess it’s over. Back to Manhattan? But why do they want that here? For the $? Or maybe they just want it to turn out to be like Queens and Brooklyn?” sounds more than just about direction. The gap between Newton and NYC is enormous, and not notably smaller today than compared to twenty years ago.
Newton may be in the direction of NYC, but only if you are looking SW from Cambridge.
Mike halle,
If you were so concerned about the number of cars in Newton, you’d be banging the table to insist no developer to build a single new parking space in townhomes/condos
No one is forcing (law change) because it clearly affects developer profits. Unless someone is publically advocating for this i consider them a hypocrite (or developer lobbyist) and have no right how to tell others to live
Wow, point out a statistic, get handed a strawman and be told what to think, or be labeled a hypocrite or a developer lobbyist.
Since you (didn’t) ask, I think that most everyone in the city would do better with more robust transportation options. I think we should support people who choose to go “car lite” as well as those that can go “car free”, whether they do it out of altruism, necessity, or to save money, time, or hassle. We will become a more sustainable society not through absolutism but person by person, day by day, trip by trip.
And we will succeed when more people choose a more efficient way to get around than driving not because they have to, but because it is better for them. Everybody can win. We have just stacked the deck against ourselves as a society. Congestion is a thing. So is losing mobility and social contact when you lose your ability to drive living in the suburbs. Or having to pay people to shuttle your kids to afterschool care.
We can work to solve all of these problems. Other places have done it. We don’t have to be perfect, just better. We can start by making planning decisions that give people more options, some of which may be better than everyone driving everywhere every day.
Mike Halle is your solution to loosen zoning rules to allow developers to make the right choices for us by right? If that’s the case I have a tunnel to sell you
For pro-density “climate change” advocates: One way to insist on zero fossil fuel cars – any development over 4 units MUST include a ‘private garage’ which only allows BEV only. Free for residents who live in the units, $$$$ for non-residents
don’t utter the terms “climate change” if you are not advocating for this or ZERO parking spaces
Or Mike could be banging on the table insisting the Commuter Rail stations be improved and the trains electrified and run like the T; banging on the table insisting Newton have safe cross town bike routes and sidewalks; banging on the table insisting the MBTA buses run later and more frequently (the state has already committed to electrifying the buses); banging on the table insisting a toll gate be put on the Newton Mass pike entrances to reduce cut-through car traffic; banging on the table insisting our elementary school be designed to prioritize walking, etc.
BEVs don’t reduce traffic. Pushing development further out on the Pike increases traffic and pollution, unless the Commuter Rail becomes a viable alternative.
Mike, facts have never gotten in the way of conspiracy theories, those wanting to pretend it is still 1962, or those with obvious axes to grind.
Sorry Ted, it appears that you and Mike Halle don’t let facts get in your way. Mike Halle writes that Newton has 4,988 people/sq.mile. Useless stat since it lumps every zip code and ward into a single stat.
When you actually analyze individual wards and precincts, a far far different picture emerges. W5/P3 has a density of 3481 while W5/P4 has a density of 3604. W3/P2 has a density of 3917. My area W2/P2 is 6862. W1/P4 is 8459/sq.mile. Quite a difference even if facts are not your forté, I calculated these stats after City Hall provided me with the sq.miles and population for each ward and precinct.
I am more than willing to share the entire ss with you and Mike Halle.
Bob, sure my statistics were high level. And yes, questions of density and zoning *are* local, and I would say far below the ward and precinct level down to neighborhoods and streets. No disagreement with you there.
But my facts, which are in fact citable facts, were chosen with some thought based on the comment to which I referred. Alex compared NYC to Newton and wondered whether/why there was intent to make it like Manhattan, or “just” Queens or the Bronx. Past commenters have wondered why “some people want to make Newton into Cambridge or Somerville”.
I provided citable and accurate facts at the same level of granularity as those commenters. And those municipalities I mentioned have at least some of the same kinds of variations in density as Newton. Cambridge’s Brattle Street or Fresh Pond is different than Central Square. Somerville’s Winter Hill is different from Davis Square. Manhattan has Central Park which artificially deflates its population density numbers. The take-home fact is that these municipalities, taken as a whole, have extremely different range of densities.
It would be great to see ward-level (or zipcode level, or census tract) comparison of those municipalities. However, an high level apples to apples comparison is still useful, even when oranges are awesome too.
Jackson Joe, first, way to create conclusions out of whole cloth.
Second, seems like our 50’s era zoning laws are letting developers make a bunch of decisions right now that don’t please “keep things the same” people or “build more housing” people or the “need a more sustainable city” people. The rules are benefiting the teardown developers and the people who buy from them. Inaction on our part is a choice.
Mike Halle, you aren’t the first person to confuse a question with a conclusion. Where you like to criticize other members statements you don’t clearly state where you stand.
I’m not against reforming archaic zoning regulations but I am against depending upon market forces to seek the results that we all seem to agree are desired (affordable housing, greener environment). The last result that I’ve seen of trickle down zoning was the development disaster that occurred in Seattle 15 years ago, but I’m sure it’s happened in many other locales where zoning regs were loosened too
I attended the info session today and found it to be a joke! The process was to “hear” from people by giving them 2 mins. They did not answer even the most basic questions. Essentially they gave 2 mins for people to into a vacuum.
Here are what I consider to be basic questions that they claimed not to have answers.
1. does your proposal satisfy all the needs of MBTA act? if not, when is the is there a phase two phase three of this rezoning that expands the scope beyond village center?
2. Benefits of special permit are quite apparent. special permits give us the city the ability to negotiate with developers to make direct cash investment such as Northland investing $1.5 million towards countryside or in kind investments that others have made.
What you’re proposing it’s going to result in 100s of millions of dollars if not a Billion dollar + in increased real estate value. Negotiating investments would mean we do not need current override or for any other overrides in forseeable future. I’m sure you have believe benefits of by-right outweighs benefit of any investments and not subjecting the current residents to any overrides. please explain the benefits that you see for by-right.
3. Most special permits are required to project impact on school enrollment. given that this is a by-right proposal please let us know when you will share the impact on school enrollment for your entire proposal.
As you can imagine time is of essence since the city is currently evaluating two debt exclusion for two schools. based on your projections the city may consider adding few classrooms here or build 5th middle school or third high school in future. As a voter, I would like to consider that information.
Sumukh, I attended the meeting as well and I agree with all of your points. I do hope that they study the school impact. That will certainly play into my thoughts on the override vote.
I am interested to hear how the next few meetings went, if anyone attended.
The NIMBYs in this city remind me of the Republicans in congress. Full of criticism. Devoid of any plan of their own. If NIMBYs actually controlled this municipality, Newton would still be a farming community. But Newton is a city. And city’s must constantly evolve in order to remain vibrant and livable. New England is littered with cities that have been on the decline for many decades because they failed to adapt as times changed.
I applaud the effort to change the zoning in Newton, and I support most of the changes being considered. I do understand and respect the opponent’s concerns. But as I read through these comments, most of those concerns strike me as unfounded, and many demonstrate a lack of understanding about current zoning regulations, the Special Permit process, and the fundamentals of real estate development.
Nevertheless, every member of the Newton community has the right to have their voices heard and their concerns addressed. I encourage people to be involved in the process, regardless of which side of the debate they are on. Mostly though, I would encourage zoning change opponents to keep an open mind, and base your final opinion on facts rather than fears.
Mike Striar, NIMBY you say while living on 38,148 sq.ft. Amazing.! My wife and I in our two family house on Court Street have raised 3 children and always have a tenant on 16% of the land that your single family house uses. How are we NIMBY and you’re not? Remember the saying about folks living in glass houses.
Newton is incomparable to every other city in the state. Please on your own l, to be more informed when you speak, compare population and median household income or per capita income. We are not similar to any city except perhaps Brookline, who has a mere 30k people less than us.
We are not a traditional city and if you want to live in one please move. That way those of us who understand Newton and its unique and wonderful nature can think about what is best for OUR BACKYARD. Not what is best for somerville or cambridge which by any economic metric are incomparable.
Exactly! In addition to Newton for about 37 years, I’ve lived in Queens, Manhattan, St. Louis and Cambridge. I appreciated all of them, but IMHO
Newton is the best just the way it is!
Alex, there is no “just the way it is”. We can’t preserve Newton in amber even if we all agreed to (and there’s a difference of opinion). Current zoning is leading to significant teardowns that are unpopular with many. The current special permit process isn’t leading to universally popular outcomes. The local population is growing. More cars are on the road. The state is making real demands about housing for MBTA communities.
Inaction isn’t going to preserve Newton in the past. That means any future will require action. There are different views on that action, based on Newton’s good qualities and the things that people like from other places. There’s plenty of opinions on all sides about how Newton isn’t perfect, so we should be able to come up with some ways to make it better.
Mike Halle, on this we do agree. Nothing stays the same. My concern is that my neighborhood in general and my street in particular (Court Street) bears a much much larger burden than other neighborhoods and streets. Even now Waban Center with a much more useful Green Line station has no VC3 zoning being proposed in the rezoning plans while Newtonville with a much less useful and accessible commuter rail has six(6) VC3 zones.
Bob, I think your comments about specific village centers, zoning, and densities make sense and deserve a response. I would like to know what that response is, as I would others I believe.
I would say that Newtonville’s commuter rail station and access to bus service on Washington St. and Waltham St. offer *potentially* better access to transit long-term. Pre-pandemic I was a regular commuter rail rider from West Newton into Yawkey Station, so I understand the value and the limitations of CR. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the Green Line is a series of valuable transit nodes right now, and that in the future, outbound service to the Riverside development will provide important access to jobs.
Reluctantly, I have come to accept that Newton needs to build more housing, especially affordable housing that helps maintain some socioeconomic diversity in the Garden City. It makes sense to place new housing near public transit as well and to create environmentally friendly transportation nearby if it doesn’t exist.
Here are several qualifiers:
Public transit has to be better: more reliable and more frequent. It also needs to cover routes that don’t exist now but once did- along major north/south and east/west routes. I envision modestly sized electric buses traveling along Beacon Street and Walnut Street and Washington Street and so forth. Without improvements in public transit, the main roads, already clogged during rush hour, will slow to a crawl as the number of residents with vehicles increases.
A significant percentage of the new housing should target lower and middle income families. Otherwise, Newton will continue to become an almost exclusive enclave of the wealthy and privileged. I know, some of you have no qualms with that and view my ideas as nothing short of socialism! So be it: Newton has no shortage of super-wealthy people. Let’s create opportunities for others to stay here or even move in.
It is also reasonable to expect the city to produce surveys and studies of the projected impact of growth on the student population, road traffic, demographic distribution, tax revenue, and so forth. I assume that city government is taking prudent measures to gather as much information as possible on the future shift in zoning regulation and the influx of development.
Let’s make changes with our eyes wide open.
good intentions, but there is likely only a small handful (if ANY) towns/cities in USA with:
– very good schools
– very low crime
– reasonable commute to good paying jobs
– affordable to most people
This is reality. Now, it’s definitely possible to provide a token amount of affordable housing to relive people’s “liberal guilt”. Its also possible to destroy the schools to lower the prices and totally defund the police
BTW, Northland development just bought a condo tower in LA for half a BILLION dollars! This is who we are allowing to develop Newton (without significant givebacks). To remind everyone, Northland is a private equity investment company catering to Hedge Funds and billionaires. Bonus recipients thank the progressive council of Newton for their new Ferarris and mansions
https://www.globest.com/2022/11/11/northland-buys-las-tallest-apartment-tower-for-504m/
@Bugek – Newton is decidedly not “affordable to most people” …. and how did “defund the police” suddenly come into this discussion?
Jerry,
The point is, if you want newton to have affordable housing to most folks WITHOUT a lottery then you will need to change Newton to:
– very bad schools
– very high crime (defund police)
Else, we are just creating a token number of affordable units just enough to relieve “liberal guilt” and pretend how progressive we are
Bugek, it’s good we aren’t defunding either our schools or the police, either by choice or by financial necessity. We do, however, have schools that need maintenance or replacement pretty badly. There is essentially zero evidence that an affordable housing push in any Boston metro community will result in calamitous changes in public education or safety.
To your other points, not being able to solve a problem in its entirety (affordable housing) is not a reason for inaction. It is certainly a common excuse, though, and that’s why the state is increasingly putting pressure on municipalities to do their share.
To Northland, the development that the city approved went up for a public vote. It passed.
As I said previously, I am a realist about the total potential impact of new construction vs affordability. That doesn’t get in the way of me believing we need more housing.
Mike you say that the public voted for Northland and I say that they bought the election by outspending their opponents by far greater than 10-1.
I’m not even talking about all of their political contributions either.
I’ve lived in Newton 60 years. Raised my family here. Lost family members here. Even ran for Mayor here a lifetime ago. So I’m not going anywhere, anytime soon. I will however continue to speak-up on the issues that are important to me, and that I feel are important to the city of Newton.
I agree that Newton is a wonderful city. It’s the people who live and work here who make it a great place. But the though that we are a city that somehow defies comparison with others, is as arrogant as suggesting our ancient zoning laws are a good fit for modern times.
Times change. Newton no longer has the industrial base it had 100 years ago. People are much more concerned about all environmental impacts, including those related to homes and cars. The face of retailing has changed in the last 20 years, as traditional brick and mortar struggles to compete with the internet. Our entire region is in the midst of a housing shortage, and an affordable housing crisis. Yet, Newton’s population was higher throughout the 1960s than it is today. All good reasons to contemplate change.
Mike there is nothing wrong with contemplating change but making changes should be for the benefit of the majority and not a select group (developers bank accounts). Where is the benefit in tearing down a functional moderately priced house to further fill up landfills so some poor folks can have a brand new 4 million dollar home?
I see developers now want their cake and eat it too. After lobbying and getting special permits, they now want to delay construction because costs have now eaten in their profits.
To the city council: time for a BLIGHT tax/fine. If they have to make less $$ then that’s their problem, don’t leave an empty hole for residents to stare at
https://figcitynews.com/2022/11/riverside-project-on-hold-other-projects-delayed/
Another example of council putting developers above residents
Once again I point people to this agreement:
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
It’s not about what Newton wants or doesn’t want.
I’ve given up on this issue. It’s a done deal. All the heat on V14 won’t make any difference either way. Ruth Anne’s signature is on this document. I think anyone who wants to keep newton the way it was will have to leave town. Meanwhile, there may be 5 stories on boths sides of Walnut Street in Nville. Talk about a Canyon. I pity the poor trees trying to grow in that shadow.
@ Rick Frank – thankfully the voters can voice their displeasure by VOTING NO ON THE OVERRIDE. Id say that’s likely a done deal too.
RAF’s political games and complete inability to manage a budget will not win her a bailout. vote no early, vote no in march, and tell everyone to vote no. Oh and her disdain for the public schools is so obvious and offensive it hurts.
Also, its not about keeping Newton as it is, its about acknowledging that we will never be Somerville. By adding more condos, you increase the value of single family, crowding out even more young families. So, when people say, “you cant keep newton as it is” and then in the same breadth say “we need to make newton affordable for future generations,” then you clearly dont know what the he!! you are talking about. Making newton affordable for families through 2 bedroom, 1.3 mil condos is not the answer. For anyone.
All you self righteous people need to learn about how economics works. You need to learn about supply and demand. When you incentivize a developer to take a 1/4 acre plot of land and split it to a 4-family, you increase their profit potential AND increase the value of the 1/4 acre. Today those are selling for 1.3, getting knocked down and rebuilt to a 3-4 mil house. In this multi family world, each can go for 1.5 mil, or 6 mil total. Who is that good for? Personally, Id rather buy a beautiful house on .5 acres in waltham for 1.5 million instead of a condo in newton.
#Economics101. Happy to give a lesson to whoever wants to have a real discussion without the gaslighting.
MAPC is not really about creating affordable housing. It’s about creating housing for the high tech work force for the tech and bio labs in Boston, for which those condos will be affordable.
And Boston gets their high tech offices and developers make good profits.
Frank Zappa once said ” I don’t get more cynical with age, I get more evidence for my cynicism”. Amen to that.
Remember the no bid charade I mean Charrette contract that was awarded to the Principal Group, for us to all weigh in in Washington Street “Vision”. Yea, me neither.
Workforce housing and affordable housing are both important. Workforce housing (across the entire spectrum of work and salary) provides benefits of a good local economy to more people. And if done right, it can provide those benefits with a less of an impact on quality of life issues like traffic congestion than would happen without the appropriate planning.
It’s not like workforce housing and affordable housing aren’t related. Without workforce housing, people with the means to do so just scoop up existing housing stock and possibly upsize it. Those people will always be able to outcompete other folks with less money and time. People will do a lot to hold a great job.
Bottom line: workforce housing may not in itself be strictly affordable housing. Not building it in areas where the demand is high, however, will likely make all housing less affordable.
@ Mike – building more condos in newton makes all single family homes less affordable. That is an undeniable fact which no one here likes to admit.
You have to say the things no one wants to admit if you want to be productive in a discussion.
@Frank D–
I know your comment was addressed to the other Mike, but your last post piqued my curiosity. How does building condos in Newton make “all single family homes less affordable”? Is that “fact” a real fact, or just your gut feeling?
@Mike, in a pure economic sense it is factual. Perhaps it is a “textbook” outcome, but it is an expected outcome. In short, by rezoning single family for multifamily, you increase the stock of housing, bring down the average cost of all homes by introducing more, less expensive homes.
As a result, assuming constant demand (which is a fair assumption given the lack of homes for sale and/or the short listing period for homes) for single family in Newton, the price people are willing to pay to live in a single family home should be expected to increase.
Also the value of “land”, whether true land, which we know is incredibly scarce, or through knockdowns, goes up as well. Effectively, a developer who takes a .25 plot of land and builds a 3.5MM home makes X dollars, typically 100-200k profit lets say. If the same person build four 1.5MM townhomes, total 6MM, you can expect a wider profit margin assuming all four sell.
So in summary, by increasing the stock of housing through rezoning, you increase the value of land (finite resource), increase the value of single family homes (declining stock), and increase profit margins for developers.
Frank D,
Also note that Waban and Chestnut Hill get to keep density to a laughable minimum in the re-zoning plan. Yes, this will keep their single family home prices elevated… oh and they just happen to be the big donors to the Mayor
Frank, I think your explanation of how building condos will drive up single family home prices falls apart when we consider alternatives, like not building more housing.
Currently, land is scarce as you said, and so are opportunities to live in Newton. Developers are buying up land and upsizing existing homes, making homes less affordable. Prospective residents who want to live in Newton but who could choose a condo or apartment are left to choose single family homes, and perhaps remodel them in some way to meet their needs.
Your argument also assumes that there will be a rapid conversion of properties zoned single family to multi-family dwellings. In general, that’s not been the case in places that change their zoning. It tends to happen gradually when people move out (at most). Something like 67% of residential units are single family homes, so the pool of more than 16,000 isn’t all that scarce.
What is scarce is housing opportunities in Newton, strictly affordable or not.
@Mike Halle
You refer to “Something like 67% of residential units are single family homes,” Can you please share the data/source and also outline the timeframe during which only 33% were converted? (But I can probably find that in the data itself). TIA
Sumukh, not sure what you mean by “only 33% converted”. Newton has had multi-family zoning for more than a hundred years (though some of those units were likely boarding houses and rentals). See this 1921 zoning map, provided by our awesome city map expert Doug Greenfield:
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46930/637423500562030000
@Bugek – Waban is indeed pretty low density. Chestnut Hill though has three malls, and apartment complexes like this and like this so you can hardly call that “laughable” low density.
Those chestnut towers with CONDOs (NOT rentals) which cost 1M and $1000 monthly HOA?
Which ward councilor is pushing for few thousand RENTAL units with 20% low income in Chestnut Hill with access to the T? No one, somehow these “special” & exclusive neighborhoods are “excluded”
The Waban proposal is laughable when compared to other villages, they really think we are stupid enough not to notice the discrepancy
Most of the Chestnut Hill residential high density is well outside the 0.5 mile Multi-Family Zoning MBTA Communities goal. It’s ridiculous that the area surrounding the Chestnut Hill T Station with an easy walk to Star Market / CVS and “The Street” was excluded from consideration.
@Frank D–
That’s an interesting theory about home values. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.
While I don’t agree with some of your assumptions, we can both agree that the value of single family homes in Newton is likely to increase over time. [A bet I wish I could place in Vegas]. In my opinion though, only a minuscule percentage of that increase would possibly be attributable to any of the residential zoning changes being considered for Newton today. Most of it would be the result of other market forces including the natural increase in value over time.
Here are my thoughts. We have an affordable housing crisis in the region. We have high demand for housing in Newton. We have village centers near transit hubs that not only could absorb more housing, but would benefit from it. Newton Centre is a good example. Single story retail buildings are an inefficient use of land. It costs us in terms of housing units, property taxes, and sustainable vibrancy of that village center.
I’m not suggesting I support all the zoning changes being considered. I think it’s an extraordinarily valuable debate though, and I support the process that will determine which [if any] of the changes are ultimately adopted.
@Mike Halle – You originally said ” In general, that’s not been the case in places that change their zoning. It tends to happen gradually when people move out (at most). Something like 67% of residential units are single family homes, so the pool of more than 16,000 isn’t all that scarce.”
You refer to “places that change their zoning … tend to have gradual change”. You further quote, 67% residences remain single family (ie 33% converted to multi family). I thought you had data around those specific “places. Hence, my question around data / source for me to understand.
However, it appear you do not have a community that rezoned, where we could understand the the rate of shift away from single family. Pl. let me know if I misinterpreted.
PS – Not sure how to read the map and arrive at the 67% either. Open for looking it in a different way.
It may merit its own thread but Albemarle Gardens just sold for $30M.
That’s 112 relatively affordable units that may soon be gone.
Are we moving in the wrong direction?
Wow, Albemarle gardens is quite large. If razed, you could definitely fit at least 300+ luxury rentals.
To be honest, it did look kinda run down
Assuming a special permit is not needed and that its private property, the new owner should be allowed to build whatever zoning allows. It’s quite a large parcel and it’s not affected by the new village zoning discussion
I think the new owners could still make good $$ by gut renovating all the units and charging $3500 for 2BR (afterall trio 1 mile away is asking $4000+). Infact, that may be the smartest move as it won’t force the new owners to offer below market units.
As for the existing tenants paying affordable rents, its privately owned and all tenants have a legal lease valid for 1 (or maybe 2) years. If new owners are NOT asking for a special permits then there really nothing to see here.
I’ll note that this is why many of us don’t rely on “naturally affordable” housing to stay that way. Even if the city was far more restrictive regarding teardowns and special permits, these types of homes would eventually go back to market rate. A property that sells for 30 million could be a teardown, or it could just be a refresh and remarket hold, as rents are high even for moderately rehabbed units. Absent a restrictive covenant that runs with the title, the vast majority of “naturally affordable” units will not stay that way over the next few decades. As current owners sell, or their heirs sell, or they conduct the improvements themselves, there will be a natural mark-up to market rate, tear down or not.
Only way you get restrictive covenants is if the state mandates them (via grants, low income housing tax credits, etc) or you strike a deal with a developer for a certain number of affordable units, a la Trio and Austin Street apartments. That’s why that type of affordable housing is so valuable.
fig, I would argue that trio/austin model of % affordability is the worst of all cases. To support subsidized units, 80% of the other units MUST now become UBER-LUXURY with inflated rents to subsidize the 20%. It creates a gigantic wealth gap demographic.
Developers are unable to create a large number of middle class units because of this market manipulation rule.
Anyway, the purchaser of Albemarle Gardens got a good deal. 114 units at 32M = 285k per unit.
Add luxury renovations to total 350k per unit. If they can get $3200 average per unit (38k a year, since Trio nearby wants $4000+ a month), that yields 12% return per unit.
No need to subsidize, no need to beg for special permits. Not too shabby
Bugek, the developers build to maximize profit. So they are going to create luxury units with the highest return on investment absent another force. There are some other considerations (size mix, not wanting to be stuck with too many 3 bedrooms vs studios, local market, etc.) But mostly, with a market as hot as Newton, left to their own devices, the market dictates what is built, and the market will always lean towards the highest rent potential for new construction. I’m sure there is some small increase in rents to account for affordability, but mostly you are reducing the developer’s profit from extraordinary in a good market to just very profitable. Or to put it another way, if folks are willing to pay $7,000 a month for a 3 bedroom with granite and a master bath, that’s what the landlord is gonna charge, affordable units or no…
There are plenty of single family rentals at insane prices in Newton and Brookline to back up my point. They aren’t subject to affordability costs below the size threshold, and they charge even more that the luxury apartments. Because folks will pay it.
Let’s also talk about middle class units. I agree there is a massive gap for such units. There are great programs to create low income housing, far fewer subsidies for working class. Part of the problem is that the need for affordable housing is so great in MA, and so many affordable units are losing their restrictions and so much naturally affordable housing is being redeveloped, that the focus tends to be on the units to benefit the poor, since there is no safety net for them. It is a huge gap and it isn’t fair, but with the need being what it is, I don’t see it being solved by the market or the government.
the follow up, the new owners are rhino capital advisors. No info about their intentions. I personally expect luxury renovation one building at a time. Could fetch ‘close to trio’ rents if renovated nicely enough
https://www.rhinocapitalllc.com/portfolio/
If you notice there was a small house on Silver Birch and a small house on Thurston that was put on the Newton Historic Commission’s agenda. Both are small “affordable” homes that are about to be demolished for mega homes. IMHO we are going to be a city of village apartments and high end condos and then the MANSIONS and nothing in between. Either you can afford luxury or you can get an apartment. The small ranches and Capes in Newton are an endangered species.
Sad but true NewtonMom. The NHC had to schedule a second monthly meeting as there are so many full demo requests
And the proposed zoning redesign does nothing to address this. As a matter of fact, it will incentivize teardown of modest homes that are in VC1. It also incentivizes the teardown of commercial properties in VC2 and VC3 displacing local independent businesses.