Over the course of many years of debate over development, some residents, particular those in the business community, have advanced a basic precept, which I have dubbed the Reibman Principle: If you build it, they will fall. In other words, if lots of new houses and rentals and condominiums become available, then the price of housing will drop. Years ago Greg advanced this basic idea, in his own words, in response to my observation that the price of rental units in new developments, even those set aside as affordable, seemed too high for families of modest income. The concept derives from Basic Capitalism 101: when supply outpaces demand, prices fall.
Most of us would like to see Greater Boston, not just Newton, become more affordable for young families, retirees looking to downsize, workers relocating here, and folks from diverse communities. Over the past dozen years, unfortunately, property in Newton has become ever more expensive, and not only from the lack of supply. We have all witnessed the tearing down of Capes and Ranches, replaced by McMansions priced in the millions. Developments like Austin Street, happily, have placed a limited but important number of affordable units on the market. But even with projects like the Armory, wholly dedicated to affordable housing, prospects for affordable housing seem dim.
Enter the Reibman Principle. Since government on all levels is loathe to build dedicated affordable public housing; since private developers insist that at least 80% of their projects be rented or sold at market rate; it then follows that the default solution is to flood the market with new housing of any sort, even the most expensive. To do so often involves the following steps: changing zoning regulations to encourage more developments, large and small; rezoning, particularly near public transit sites, to allow the conversion of single-unit homes to multi-units; encouraging the addition of in-law apartments to existing single-family homes; improving public transit as well as bicycle and pedestrian safety so that traffic doesn’t explode in the face of increased population density. If, as seems probable, government won’t do the building, then the Reibman Principle suggests that we encourage the private sector to build through zoning reform, thereby solving the housing crisis and lowering prices.
Some residents, to be sure, reject that Newton need take any responsibility at all for addressing the regional housing crisis. They say they moved to Newton for its suburban feel and green space, and fear the possible consequences of increased housing development: crowded schools and roadways. At my age, 72, it’s easy to be nostalgic for a simpler time and to resist any change. But I have come to accept that Newton and all its neighbors must play a role in addressing the regional housing shortage. But how to do so? The devil is in the details, and I can’t bring myself to believe that capitalism coupled with lighter zoning regulation will foster more affordable housing. But I wish it would.
Bob, I think you give Reibman too much credit. Across the country, it is referred to as the trickle down theory of affordability. It doesn’t work in economics and it doesn’t work in housing. I have yet to see the test case to prove the theory of the case.
Your skepticism is well founded
The only way Newton will make any dent in increasing our stock of modest and affordable housing is to protect our current housing stock and partner with non-profit developers to ensure that the vast majority of new housing is truly affordable. We don’t need more luxury housing
I disagree. 20 years as a broker and worked in Neighborhood revitalization. If you did a massive educational program that taught building trades and then got the “Cost-to-construct” down to $175 a square foot, then you could ramp up supply. And ramp up supply to secondary cities connected via the train to capital cities.
Supply and Demand is real. Build 100,000 new homes in a state, you’ll see. You can look at Arizona over-supply through 1960-1990 as poof of this fact. Or the rust belt huge supply of leftover property and corresponding prices.
Except it applies everywhere else and we don’t have any reason to see why it doesn’t apply to housing.
Take cars for instance – the second most expensive thing people regularly buy (after housing). Used car prices shot way up when we choked the supply of new cars during the pandemic due to supply chain issues.
A brand new $30,000 car is an unaffordable luxury for something who can only afford a $5,000 used car. But the supply of those new, unaffordable $30,000 cars is still important to the people that can’t afford them, because without new $30,000 cars, used $5,000 cars wouldn’t exist.
What happened to used car prices during the pandemic when we stopped building new $30,000 cars? They shot way up. Turns out affordable used cars only exist when people buy new $30,000 cars and sell their old 20-year old car to someone else. When new $30,000 cars were scarce, no one was selling their old cars, and supply dried up and used car prices shot way up.
Can we build a quality new car for $5,000, the way we expect new housing be affordable as old housing? No – a brand new $5,000 car will be a total piece of junk. But when the automobile supply chain is functioning, we have a healthy supply of affordable, used cars that people that can’t afford new cars can buy. But those affordable used cars only exist because we build lots of new cars.
We don’t build anywhere near enough new housing. And much like how new cars will always be expensive, new housing will always be expensive because construction costs and materials are expensive, and new housing can command a premium because it is new. It is built to modern code and modern standards around insulation, HVAC, appliances, and more. It isn’t beat up by decades of use. Of course it’ll be more expensive than old housing.
But much like cars, the supply of shiny new housing affects the availability and price of older, more affordable housing. All of the starter homes around us are just old, beat up houses built many decades ago that can’t command the same price as a new house. Those starter homes aren’t affordable anymore because we don’t build enough new housing. When new housing isn’t being built, people aren’t vacating their old homes, so the supply of affordable old homes dries up and becomes expensive. If we did build lots of new housing – even though it might not be affordable to your average person, it’ll result in more old affordable homes becoming available, as people who want and can afford those new, nicer homes can buy them, move out of their old homes and sell those old homes at more affordable prices. This notion is known as filtering, and is widely acknowledged in academic literature.
J you forgot one key ingredient…….LAND……..You need new land to build new housing, If you doubled the amount of land available and built 100,000 new homes your idea would be possible otherwise its false
And Jackson joe you forget that you can just build taller.
“If you build it…” more people will have homes!
We don’t have a housing shortage in this area. We have a housing CRISIS! Newton has plenty of places to add more housing in ways that build on our sense of community. Which is in part why I believe it would be wise to rezone village centers.
“Affordable” housing presents a different set of challenges. Suggestions like “protect our current housing stock,” will do absolutely nothing to support affordable housing. It would likely do the opposite by driving up the value of more modest homes.
Good luck trying to find a “non-profit developer” who can build lots of affordable housing in Newton. The Armory was an anomaly because the City acquired the property for $1.
Wanna know where we blew it? Northland!!
The Northland Special Permit application presented the opportunity for Newton to
add a lot more affordable housing. The City Council settled for the minimum. I must have posted two dozen comments on V-14 critical of the way the City Council was negotiating with Northland. They not only shortchanged us on affordable housing, the City Council also failed to get fair compensation from Northland to support our schools, which directly led to the current proposal for a debt-exclusion override.
Mike Striar, I basically agree with with most of what you have said, though I also agree that Newton probably doesn’t have enough real leverage to reduce the price of housing significantly (though we can increase availability, and probably more affordable units).
But “directly led to the current proposal for a debt-exclusion override”? Countryside replacement will cost about $60M in construction costs, or which $20M or so comes from the state if we secure the rest of the funding by July. I don’t see how Northland was ever going to make up enough of that to avoid an override, whether they contributed one time or contributed to the bond. Maybe we could have gotten more, but not that much more.
I hear you, Mike, and you have been consistent in your approach over time, which I respect. As for Northland, when I raised similar concerns several years ago, a few councilors told me that they had wrangled as many concessions as they could from the developer. “It won’t happen if we ask for more,” they basically told me.
In any event, set-asides in developments alone barely address the affordability problem.I still believe that it will take a public-private partnership to create affordable homes in both the cities and suburbs. As for hopes of flooding the market to drive housing costs down, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
Fifty years ago I had the distinct honor to join members of the Newton Board of Aldermen who established a first in the state plan to encourage developers to contribute 10% of new units built under a special permit to a program that filled those units with low income people. Our intent was to let private business participate in assuring Newtonites that 10% of our housing stock was available to economically deprived, low income people, including seniors, workers and families.
In addition to being accused of being communists and/or socialists, we were told our program was stealing hard earned money from Investors, builders and developers.
The City of Newton had reached that goal, or was near achievement, depending on who is doing the counting.
All denials to the contrary, we are about to abandon that program as we plan to add 8,000 new homes to our municipal housing stock.
Explain, Peter.
First, it’s an honor to be on the same thread as Peter F. Harrington. The City Council misses the wisdom and leadership he provided.
Regarding the Countryside debt-exclusion, I support it. But that doesn’t mean I excuse it. The issue with that school building started years ago when a newly constructed Avalon added more than 60 students without any compensation to the City mitigating the impact. That’s how we wound up with those ridiculous modulars bolted to the side of that building.
Years later, having learned nothing from the Avalon experience, the City Council did not prioritize the two things from Northland that would have been the most meaningful to Newton. Affordable housing, and financial compensation to mitigate the costs associated with the schools. They sold Countryside down the river for chump-change. In my opinion it was inexcusable.
When my son started kindergarten at Countryside in 1992, there was already a “temporary” module in use there. Avalon didn’t open until 2003. I’m not sure when the old Emerson Elementary School closed due to a dwindling population, but that building was converted to condos in 1984.
Here is Josh Morse’s list of problems with Countryside. Sure, it would have been great to get more support. But support would not have prevented the need to rebuild Countryside. The state school building officials agree.
1. The school sits below the water table and chronically floods. It is never dry. Mold remediation is a common effort.
2. Due to the school sitting low on the site, sewage must be ground and pumped up to the street level. This yields a unpleasant chronic odor in the school, and results in frequent system failures resulting in sewerage cleanup in the school, and periods of time with the restrooms secured.
3. Although efforts have been made to improve accessibility, the building is not fully accessible and has no fully accessible restrooms.
4. Woefully undersized classrooms with no space for breakout or individualized learning
5. No music room, which forces the music program to either use the stage or share the afterschool offices.
6. Nearly every building system in the school is beyond its useful life and in poor condition.
7. Due to the failing heating system and extremely inefficient building envelope, it is not uncommon to have some classrooms with temperatures in the 80’s, while others are in the low 60’s.
8. Art Room is a small fraction of the size it should be and is not equipped to be an art room
9. Gym is the smallest in the district and cannot support normal gym activities.
10. Library is too small to allow for normal library functions and can only fit roughly half the books that we should have in there.
11. The building has no student or staff support spaces which results in teaching, working, and learning in the hallways.
12. The myriad of modular classrooms are all well past their useful life and are literally rotting away.
The “Reibman Principle” forces higher property taxes on lower and middle income and the elderly which encourages them to move out of their homes that then get razed and get converted to McMansions which is exactly what his bosses want since it raises the income level of Newton’s residents and is good for business. Who wants lower income and elderly to seniors to stay in their homes? Apparently not many
This really isn’t a fair description of the problem or the potential solution Bob. Mike has it right, the problem isn’t just affordable housing, it is lack of housing in general. Affordable housing is a crisis within a crisis.
There is a reason why every governor of MA, Republican and Democrat, has focused on housing production as a vital need for the Commonwealth. Because it isn’t hard to see what happens if we don’t produce enough housing to keep up with demand. We just have to look to California…
The truth I’ve found often lies in the middle. We don’t have to listen to the “keep Newton as Newton” crowd, and we don’t have to build housing in a vacuum and without a plan. Thoughtful zoning changes make sense to me. More density in the villages seems like good possibility too.
As for keeping the naturally affordable units in Newton affordable, I’ve yet to see a realistic plan that does so. The very thing that causes the housing crisis will eventually eliminate the vast majority of those units, no matter what restrictions you put on the zoning of those houses and apartments, absent a full affordability restriction like the affordable units at Trio and Austin Street. You might slow down the teardowns or rehabs by a year or two, but you aren’t changing market conditions.
But honestly I feel like everything that can be said has been said on this topic. And with an override in front of us, I won’t be commenting on this thread again.
Why bother making this theoretical? Look at reality.
WHERE in the ENTIRE united states is there a town/city which has the following:
– LOW Crime
– Excellent Schools
– 10 mile radius to high paying jobs
– SANE property taxes
– market rate AFFORDABLE housing
NONE. Because it simply doesn’t exist. It’s like asking for world peace. You certainly can keep building until home prices come down but I can GUARANTEE you the schools will no longer be excellent, or property taxes are comically outrageous.
What ppl SHOULD be hoping for is excellent education, plentiful jobs and a STOP to trying to shove all jobs in a central location. If employment could be found equally around the suburbs then housing wouldnt need to densely populated to a central location
The problem with “stop trying to shove jobs in a central location” is that private industry decides where to put the jobs. This isn’t central planning. The state has been trying to move success out of Boston and into Worcester and Springfield, but it will always be a challenge.
Harvard, MIT, and our other universities are magnets for high tech and life science companies, which then become magnets for other companies. It feeds an entire chain that includes people and housing. People and companies want to be close. Look at Kendall Square.
You can fight it, you can lament it, or you can ride the wave.
On the plus side, the density produced by this concentration is easier and more efficient to serve with mass transportation (assuming you have a viable transportation authority) and other services. But you have to in turn accept density.
Mike you are right. It’s all a part of structural racism where those of lesser means have fewer opportunities for higher paying jobs and the wealthier communities like Newton become less accessible for lower or even middle income families (who also desire home ownership), as the wealthier, more powerful interests protect the rights of those who wish to tear down moderately priced homes and replace them with McMansions that basically only lighter skinned people can afford.
“private industry decides where to put the jobs.”
Not exactly. And they don’t decide where to put housing either. Tax incentives and zoning and ( central? ) PLANNING committees certainly have a lot to do with it.
The idea that this is economics 101 is interesting – because it is 101. Trivial supply and demand concepts fall apart in the face of more complex realities.
I suggest that those annoyed with housing prices in the Boston region should direct their ire at… the city of Boston. It is incredibly difficult and expensive to build high density housing in the city. There are also few 3 and 4 bedroom units (i.e., units suitable for families) in areas proximate to the downtown. Finally, the abysmal state of Boston public schools pushes many families to the suburbs.
We can build all the housing we want in Newton (and cause more congestion, over-crowded schools, etc. in the process), and barely make a dent in the region’s housing crisis.
If the city of Boston is not willing to demolish their historic districs (expensive enclaves such as back bay) to make room for 40 story condo building… why should Newton have any responsibility to fix the problem they created?
If they going to share to tax revenue with Newton, then lets talk.
Ahhh, the circle of life continues.
Many good points above. Create a A+ wonderful town within a great broader community and there will be higher demand to live there, and prices go up. Many won’t be able to live there due to this demand and higher prices. It is simple.
Want to lower prices?
A. Make the town much less desirable.
B. Mass produce housing.
C. Do B enough to make A happen .. basically, a bit of both
A is easy
B is hard to do without making A happen (thus C is an option).
When Regan promised trickle down economics, it was also accompanied by a principle of laissez faire when it came to government intervention.
In matters of regional housing, we have actively high government intervention clearing the way to make developers richer – creating a generation of lifetime renters trapped in high rents, prohibitive to obtaining home ownership and the extinction of starter sized homes for purchase.
There is something very off-putting when a Democratic majority’s policies end up doing more to help pad profits than actually help its citizens. There has been sufficient recent history to show that what’s currently being done is simply not working. A quick search on apartments.com and Zillow will quickly show that.
Many of you clearly know a lot more than me about economics but I have a thought that I don’t understand about the housing crisis here. In the 70s and into the 80s it didn’t seem that bad to find a home here. Newton was more expensive than Brighton and Waltham but several of the villages had sections where a middle class family could find something. So today it’s really tough everywhere and people can’t afford Brighton or Waltham anymore either. Most people I know from here moved out to Medway, Fitchburg, Wareham, Nashua, Hudson etc. They moved because of the housing prices not because they wanted to move out of town. So what I wonder is, what has changed? Is it we have more people? Is it because a family of 4 won’t live in a 2 bedroom anymore.? What is really driving the scarcity of mid priced homes in Metro Boston? We had them at one time, why did they go away. I do think it’s a problem but hard to know what the answer is.
I would say that there are several different reasons but the main one would be a very strong job market with lots of high paying opportunities
The answer is not hard. The reason for the current housing crisis is that the chasm between the supply and demand for housing has grown exponentially since the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1980s, Massachusetts produced twice as much housing as it does now. In just the last ten years, the gap between demand and supply has grown by 100%. And, although the Fair Housing Act passed over 50 years ago, the Greater Boston Area remains deeply racially segregated.
The causes are also fairly straightforward: restrictive zoning policies that impede the creation of multi-family housing. Public funding incentives to ease restrictive zoning and create more affordable housing are insufficient to mitigate the vast gap between supply and demand. Suburbs like Newton have actively resisted adoption of multi-family zoning requirements under the MBTA Communities Act.
The solution is simple: eliminate restrictive zoning and permit more multi-family housing by right, particularly near public transportation, to close the gap between housing supply and demand.
Rapscallion Thee Stallion:
What restrictive zoning does NYC have? Last time I checked, I see nothing but 40 story condos and sky high rents & prices
Ppl keep pointing out that building more will actually reduce prices to affordable levels. So which city/town in the entire USA has affordable homes AND LOW CRIME AND excellcent schools AND close to high paying jobs. NONE because it doesnt and can never exist
Somehow, Newton is going to be the first in the entire country in the last 50 years to produce such outcome. Yes if you destroy the schools and make it crime infested
Michael Joseph Leavey,
The reason for the affordability change from decades ago is quite simple:
Its just unaffordable to you. Decades ago, to be highly paid you had to be a Doctor, Wall street, IVY graduate. Now engineering in Biotech, tech now pay new grads 150k starting salary. 10 years experience gets you 250k+. This huge influx in high paying jobs centered around downtown Boston has create ppl who can overbid.
ie there much much higher percentage of high earners that ever before in Metro Boston. You build more, these folks will buy more. As we have seen, not even Manhattan or Hong Kong has seen a tipping point due to increased supply (and not recession)
So a sea of 40 story condos in Newton is what it would take to create a tipping point because buyers will flood from around Boston & around the world if you could buy a 2BR new condo for 400k with a 15 mile drive to downtown Boston AND next to the T.
Heck, I would buy one too for investment purposes.
The Reibman Principle is totally wrong. While supply and demand is a good general guideline for commodity economics, housing is different. New housing creates gentrification, not lower prices. What you CANNOT build today are more OLD houses. And it is older houses that generally cost less. Instead, older 2-family homes are torn down to build expensive new apartments, and a few lottery winners get below-market rents as the city’s form of liberal guilt expiation. That is not a market solution.
Older houses cost less for many reasons. New building codes, while well intentioned, raise costs. New buildings must meet current zoning (or get a variance), while most homes in Newton (and some other places, but Newton’s a prime instance) were built either before zoning existed or under older codes (note the big 1953 rezoning to “keep the riff-raff out”). Rich folks gravitate towards new construction or restored classics (Victorians), not ordinary older homes.
So all of this crap about building “affordable” units via lottery (the 15% or whatever) is just a smokescreen for developers. Real lower-cost housing could be built but it would require allowing more land now used for large-lot single family homes to be used for lower-cost buildings, like 2-4 unit wood houses on small lots.
That Rapscallion guy has got it exactly right. Restrictive zoning has contributed to a massive housing shortage. I also agree with Mr. Stallion’s solution of more by-right multi-family zoning in Newton, particularly in village centers and near transportation hubs. Seems like a no-brainer at this point.
But the housing crisis is not something Newton can solve in a vacuum. All the pieces of the problem are too interlocked. So the need for new housing must be addressed fairly across all municipalities. And I can tell you from my experience as a real estate investor and developer that many communities are far more resistant to residential development than Newton. My partners and I gave up residential development ten years ago, because local regulations became increasingly restrictive and not worth our time.
Spoken like a true developer who only cares about pillaging the communities which allow maximum profits. All of those restrictive zoning laws had no effect on prices in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, but I wouldn’t expect you to be able to see that.
There are plenty of others that would build in Newton without windfall profiteering.
As people say, they’re not making more land. So you have to go up. And that is the main contention it seems. Many people don’t want the change from a 1 or 2 story “village” to a city-like 5 and up stories. It’s not about NIMBY etc. it’s about the scale and size. Plenty of people like to live in Boston; A number of acquaintances of mine have “Downsized” to Brookline or Boston – still expensive, but they made money on their investment in the home in Newton. So economic growth is traditionally tied to physical growth (in this case up). And so, if I want to live a more village like (btw, take a CLOSE look at the Village 14 logo at the top of the home page – how many stories do you see there? THREE. how quaint; “Village 14” indeed. Time for an update of the logo to 5 or 6 at least? ) town I will have to move further out.
Which brings up another question for another time – we have 8 billion people on the planet. In 1972 there was a little less than 4 billion. Doubled in 50 years. How much more growth can we (and the environment) take?
Hi Rick:
Honest question. I’ve never really seen a problem with 4 or 5 stories. Newton Highland is 3 stories for instance, 4 stories in some places. I get the concerns about traffic and school. The concerns with 4 stories with a setback 5th story I just don’t get. It seems pretty moderate for most of our villages, especially Newton Centre, Newtonville and West Newton. West Newton already has that height in various places (police station, building above Sweet Tomatoes, back of the movie theatre.).
Maybe this is my background. But why do you feel 2 and 3 stories are the ideal?
Personally, I’m far more interested in the type of retail on the first floor, and the activation of the streetscape. So I like to see buried power lines, wider sidewalks, and seating. The extra floor never bothers me. Certainly 6 stories feels suddenly tall. But 4 and a set back like Trio? Not to me.
I must have missed the “pillaging.” But I’m proud to have built homes for families. And not ashamed to have been at least partially motivated by profit. Welcome to America, Comrade!
As to the effect of zoning regulations in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s… it was far less restrictive. Which is in large part, why we didn’t have this type of housing crisis back in the day.
Mike you are out of your mind. Show us three new zoning restrictions that were instituted since the 70’s. Helping families buy luxury housing is wonderful but people like you are responsible for perpetuating the continuation of systemic racism in this city and country.. You might call me a communist for helping out the needy and I would call you something else for your “America First” banner.
Jackson Joe, one of the responses of the Civil Rights movement was to change zoning rules from racially based to development based. In short, making it harder for ANY housing to be built. In addition, over the past 50 years, homeowners have been granted greater standing to challenge housing development on a host of grounds, including environmental impact. Back in the 1960/1970, the number of checkpoints for zoning were also far less complicated. In addition, over the past 50 years, personal wealth and home wealth became far more closely intertwined. And increasing supply/reducing demand and therefore sale prices became against current homeowners self interest. I could go into more detail, but the housing crisis is also a zoning crisis. Mike is right on that.
If your issue is with gentrification, the idea that developers are always the enemy is also very short sighted. Ideally there would be better government and local incentives for more work force housing. As it stands now, there are incentives for low income housing (but hard to build in Newton absent free land or major subsidy). But not for middle income housing/homeownership. And the barriers to entry in Newton are extremely high for most developers of scale. It takes longer to build here. Every major project I’ve seen has taken years, and there is often a nonsense lawsuit to delay it further. Delay means carrying costs.
And certainly I don’t think you calling Mike someone who is America First is called for. Just because Trump is a developer doesn’t mean all developers are for Trump/America First. Quite the contrary in my experience. (although the passive loss deduction in the TCJA certainly was good for their bottom line…)
@ Fig – you say “but hard to build in Newton absent free land or major subsidy.”
Two words for you: Webster and Woods.
No need for a 3000 word response…but there is your free land that is owned by the city. No excuse. You cant have it all. Preserve the suburb, or convert to the city. Some of you people seem to want both. Its bonkers.
Webster Woods also has the Green line running through it. Would be an ideal place for a new T station and high density residential. City should do a conservation land swap for the 15 acre parcel behind Newton South
@Fred – Couldn’t agree more!
Frank D:
I actually think you could have done just that with Webster Woods if Newton had been smarter 10 years ago and acquired the full site. The synagogue location would have been ideal for an affordable housing project. Already a built environment, near a supermarket and walking trails, and walkable to the T.
With that said, what you said doesn’t change the facts on the ground, which is that affordable housing total development costs in Newton are quite high. You can point to Webster Woods, but the acquisition cost of the land there was 18 million. We just have already spent it.
As for wanting both city and suburb, that’s not what I want. I want Newton to do its part to alleviate the Commonwealth’s housing crunch, I want slightly more dense village centers and transportation centers (4 stories to 4.5 stories are fine with me), additional commercial/retail spaces at every project on the first level, buried parking or parking in the back to encourage walkability and community feel, and consistent attempts to slowly increase our affordable housing that is protected long term via restrictive use agreements in title. Honestly I think Newtonville has been an experiment in this approach, and I’m loving it. And I’d like every part of Newton to participate in these changes, not just the north side. If zoning reform happens, much of what I like will be included, and I doubt I’ll be alive to see the full transformation, which will likely take decades if not longer.
There is a lot of middle ground in my opinion. It just is hard to find it from our calcified tribes.
Fig you have some good points and some that I disagree with, but “America First” is not a Trump movement. When Mike called me a communist it was just like what people in the real America First movement did. Look it up, it’s an interesting study of how the past does repeat itself in ways.
@Fig – Here in lies the issue though. People like being close to the city but perhaps dont like the city. Here are some thoughts and opinions to consider:
-I appreciate your desire to solve the problems of the state, but New is expensive and apartments here cost more than single family elsewhere. We cannot and should not solve the issues here because of cost and really shitty public transit.
-You didnt answer the point…allow Dudley road to be conservation land and develop the heck out of a site that abuts the T. Alleviates both concerns in my previous post, cost and proximity to subway.
-People who live in a single family house with a yard likely don’t want to move into a townhouse. just a thought. Personally I wouldn’t ever live in Somerville or Cambridge and I pray that we dont become more like those places.
-We are the garden city, not the townhome/apartment city. Keep it that way. I would be pissed if someone bought the lot next to my house and slapped down a multi family. Many would not live here if that was the trend…and then you can kiss our property values goodbye.
However, I do agree that things like the newton center triangle lot should be converted to a 4-5 story underground garage (with public and private parking) with first floor retail and 2-3 floors of apartments above it. It is one thing to force bullshit rezoning on single family districts, it is another to be intelligent about redevelopment. There is a middle ground and I think this site is one example.
@Frank. Well said!!
The silent majority in Newton agrees with you. It’s just a question if they can overcome the well heeled developers and their cronies that don’t care what anyone else wants or thinks and have the money to spew their propaganda and scare tactics.
Point of record: it’s the City of Newton, not the Village of Newton. Located right next to the much larger City of Boston.
@ Ted – wow, really? I never knew that! But alas, WTF is your point? City means we have to have high rises and density? I thought city was jsut a function of government type and population…
“In Massachusetts, the essential difference is structural: a city is defined by the presence of a city or town council as the alternative legislative body to a town meeting.”
Shit, I was right! I guess it doesnt mean we have to crowd out families who like yards and space to instead try to build cheaper apartments. Newton is great. Sure there is room to improve, but there is no room to completely change the fabric of our community.
If you want to live in a city, please move to Somerville and join the echo chamber there. Enjoy!
@Ted
True but this is Village 14 ( kind of like goes to 11 )
“The City is principally suburban-residential in character. Unlike many communities that are established around a single Main Street or downtown, Newton is comprised of thirteen distinctive villages – Auburndale; Chestnut Hill; Newton Centre; Newton Corner; Newton Highlands; Newton Lower Falls; Newton Upper Falls; Newtonville; Nonantum; Oak Hill; Thompsonville; Waban; and West Newton. We pride ourselves on being known as “The Garden City” and open space comprises 19.6% of the City’s total land area, of which 55% is publicly owned.”
Newtonma.gov
@fignewtonville
For the same reason you think 6 is too much.
It always “depends”. I think putting even 3 stories on both sides of walnut street would be terrible – it would be dark and canyon-like.
why should Newtonville have all the fun?
Rick, but there are three stories in Newton Highlands. Do you think that village is dark and canyon like?
I think change is hard and most of us, myself included, are not great at estimating the impact of change on our lives for good or bad.
Example: I was very worried and upset about NNHS being relocated closer to Walnut at one point. Most of my worries didn’t come to pass.
If anyone wants to see my redesigned logo it’s here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/snvn803ukka3ffx/newton-ma-village-14-logo-1.png?dl=0
one thing ppl are not taking into account. For both sides of the argument.
Most developers build to demand, they do not build a significant number of units by “speculating on demand”. They never want to be in a situation where they have thousands of units in the pipeline with 0 demand. They would be forced to lower prices on the new units and any pending buyers will backout. This creates a vicious death cycle for the developer
The point is. Any zoning change will not suddenly create thousands of units overnight. AND at the same time, they will NEVER build so much supply that prices will lower (financial suicide for reason above)
They will build for maximum profit and in return provide token number of affordable scraps for the lucky few to fight over. Ie we will get just enough affordable units for the crazy left to overcome their liberal guilt.. oh and make sure the units are built in the poorer sections of Newton, away from us
@Fig – Newtonville’s density (Village Center, Austin Street, Trio) sits on its edges. Not sure a Northland sized project dropped feets away from Cabot Elementary would not be well received.
Hi Matt:
Newtonville actually extends beyond the Pike, goes east to Whole Foods, North to Fire Station 4, and West to Eliot Ave. Big chunk north of the Pike. Lots of folks who don’t live around here think it has a border of the Pike. It doesn’t. And the Village extends over the Pike. Especially lately, with both sides activated. So our density is kind of smack dab in the middle of the village, centered on both sides of the Village center, with more coming. We also have the senior center being expanded, Newton North High School traffic twice a day, Dunstan East a few blocks west of us, the Armory next door to that, and several 25 unit to 35 unit projects skulking about looking for approvals/financing. Austin Street was 68 units, Trio 140, Dunstan East will be 302 (but that is in West Newton, but on the edge of Newtonville) the Armory 43. And I think the zoning changes we are all talking about on this thread are very much similar to this, 4 to 5 story apartments, medium size to large lots.
Northland is just a different beast. You could put a stadium on Northlands site. Same with Riverside. Those are villages onto themselves to some extent. So yes, it would be different if you just plunked down Northland in Newtonville. Because we don’t have a similar amount of open land unless you close the high school. The only two similar site in Newton are Riverside and the Chestnut Hill Mall.
I appreciate that my opinion of the amount of change would vary if I lived next to Northland. But I think the large majority of Newton’s village would see change more similar to Newtonville than Northland. Especially if we are focused on the village centers.
I stand by my take that Newtonville is much improved. Even the Newtonville Area Council, typically a grouchy insular bunch that have cried wolf about every change in Newtonville since they were created, recently talked about how great Newtonville has become (in an attempt to block the zoning changes, but still…progress!).
Like everything else, the reality of increased density is not as clear cut either way. More traffic is bad. More shops are good. More kids are tough unless we have a declining school population. More chain stores bad. Better food options good. And sometimes we just get lucky, like the Coffee Courtyard next to Austin Street. Camella’s is opening up next to that in a few months. More food options are always good!
@fignewtonville:
Where in NH? Here’ Lincoln street
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Laurie+E.+Hackett,+MSW,+LICSW/@42.3215365,-71.2071572,3a,75y,240.67h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSqeomVzpy_mPEJOTHxbFFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DSqeomVzpy_mPEJOTHxbFFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D224%26h%3D298%26yaw%3D218.39337%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!4m12!1m2!2m1!1snewton+highlands+restaurants!3m8!1s0x89e3826d1614c381:0x26dc0284381569e5!8m2!3d42.3214749!4d-71.2072447!10e5!14m1!1BCgIgARICCAI!16s%2Fg%2F1tdkc24_
Frank, just turn your streetview in the other direction. Three and four story buildings until it meets Walnut,no?
If you stand in the middle of that area, I really don’t see an issue with that type of height.
NewtonvilleFig
Not on both sides of the street. And besides, what they’re proposing for the short stretch of walnut street is up to 5 stories both sides.
Well this has been fun. I’ve enjoyed reading this and wanted to wait a week before weighing in.
@Bob I’m flattered. But I’m sure you’re giving me too much credit for what’s established economic theory.
Let’s look at this as if it was a segment on “Sesame Street.”
Let’s say there are 100 people who desperately need an apple.
Bert has 5 apples. Earnie also has 5 apples.
They’re both able to sell their apples for a ridiculous price of $5 each because among those 100 people looking for an apple, there’s more than 10 people who can afford that price; or can find a bank willing to loan it to them; or are willing to take on a second job, etc.
That still leave 90 people appleless people.
The next week, Bert gets 10 apples. Ernie gets 10 too.
Now we have 20 more apples out there, plus the 10 from the week before.
Well, turns out, they can still sell their apples for $5 because there’s still 70 or more people who still want apples.
It’s not until Bert and Ernie collectively have in excess of 100 apples that they’re going to have to start substantially lowering their price.
Same thing with housing. Even if we increase the supply of housing 20% or even 50% it’s not going to impact the price until there’s enough housing to meet demand.
Except, of course, people need housing more than they need apples.
Our problem is we’re building more housing but it’s still not enough. And you can’t live in an orange.
Greg,
Except you fail to mention that Developers DO NOT want to build housing while the prices are declining over LONG periods of time (existing deposit holders bail and buyers wait) unless they want to commit financial suicide. If prices do start declining, the volume of new builds declines significantly.
Your theory does not match reality.
Gasp!
Greg, you mean building more housing was never really to bring the prices down to be affordable, but that was merely an excuse to give developers a green light to make money? After all this time we’ve been duped into thinking that increasing the housing supply will bring about a gradual decrease in price. But now we find out it’s a step function, sort of a bubble if you will. The trick is to build up to the bubble but not to let it burst.
I don’t consider creating a place someone can call “home” a trick.
@Rick Frank–
I’m not sure why you feel “duped.” The law of supply and demand has not changed. It’s even older as your antiquated vision for Newton. I’m thinking you’d be happy if Newton was still a farming community with about 2000 white settlers.
The supply and demand law has a caveat for real estate. The creators of the supply have no incentive to increase building when prices are on long term decline.
Look at dunstan east, now an hole in the ground for Newton. They say building costs are high, but what they mean is rents can’t be raised high enough to cover costs.
Unless the process of land acquisition, building and selling is in months.
Developer buys land at X, gets bank loan for X. Break ground and take deposits. Prices are in decline, deposits back out, buyers wait. Developers cannot lower prices below bank loan
Ie supply of high density housing will trickle when price trends decline. Single family houses built for contracted buyers may do well (reduced land cost)
Almost no one considers moving to Newton in isolation. Entrants in the market almost always consider Brookline, Needham, Wellesley, Weston, Wayland, etc. Many couples in Boston move to Newton because they want to raise children in a low-density community. Yep, a lot of our demand comes from the fact that we are lower density than places like Boston and Brookline.
The problem for the “keep building” crowd is that for any realistic increase in housing stock, the pressure on prices will be infinitesimal. Demand for Newton housing is intimately related to housing in the broad area. The immediate Boston area has about 2 million residences. Eastern MA probably has about 3 million residences. Even if you build tens of thousands of new residences in Newton, prices will hardly budge since the price impact is spread over all of eastern Massachusetts.
If anyone disagrees, please show me a study that claims that extra building in a MA community reduced housing prices.
How about this question instead: Show me a way to address the housing crisis across Eastern Massachusetts without building more housing?
What is the goal? Do we want the price of housing in Newton to drop by a half? I don’t think this what we really want. My guess is we just want is for housing costs to grow at a slower rate.
The first role should be do no harm. This is why I resist any policy solution that is speculative. We should not experiment with solutions that are not proven to solve the problem. It is better to do nothing than do make the problem worse. For example, good intentions lead to the mortgage interest tax deduction, and subsidized loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The loan limit is now up to $1M. Why is the government subsidizing home loans, let alone loans on home with value well in excess of $1M? Some people qualify for FHA loans that only require putting 3.5% down. If you subsidize real estate loans, people borrow more, and buy bigger homes than they would have otherwise. This has contributed to higher home prices across the country. Similarly, people complain that college is too expensive. Same story. The government subsidizes student loans. Students end up having horrendous levels of debt, and the subsidy puts pressure on college costs. So, I think the government should get out of the subsidized loan business and giving people tax deductions that are tied to housing costs.
The economist Herb Stein once said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” At the state level, housing costs increases will not outstrip income increases forever. Going forward, there are some big headwinds in MA for housing costs going up too much. MA is no longer a fast-growing population state. I’ll spare you the details, but going forward we have made some mistakes that will impede economic growth at the state level. Also, we have a ton of office space. Vacancy rates are high and they will continue to climb over the next 3-5 years. You can’t pull a switch and turn office space into residential space, but in the long-run the transition will happen. Slower economic growth, slower population growth, and transitioning space better will reduce upwards pressure on housing. As another poster noted, so will the trend of telecommuting.
@Greg “Show me a way to address the housing crisis across Eastern Massachusetts without building more housing?”
To be clear I think the wealth gap is far too wide and housing is far too expensive.
Now, to play devils advocate, why should we care? Other than being an ideological progressive minded city politically, why should we care? Newton alone cannot solve any larger problems, we cannot even solve our own (see the bullshit override).
I feel like in a new world of mobility, work from home, etc…there is FAR more freedom of choice as far as where one lives. Doesnt that alone help alleviate the problem? People are far more likely to live in NH, Western Mass, or RI if they only need to travel to work in Boston or the 128 belt 1-2 times a week instead of 5.
Silver lining of COVID perhaps. But honestly…Newton structurally is not set up for mass housing projects. The green line is pathetic, commuter rail stations are only on the north side, and the bus system is nearly worthless. So, you cant have your cake and eat it too…ie how do you expect to push electrification, densification, etc without changing things beyond Newton’s control (MBTA, Pike, etc)?
@Greg
Go west.
Land is a helluva lot cheaper. It boggles my mind all the building that’s going on in downtown Boston, when the Union of Concerned Scientists maps show how much will be underwater in 20+ years. The taxpayers are going to be ( literally) bailing out downtown Boston. It makes no sense. And with work from home becoming more of a norm, central office space isn’t needed as much. Make satellite small offices all around the state if co location is needed.
And by “trick” I meant for developers- you don’t want to overbuild or your rents will collapse.
It’s a perverse incentive- build enough housing but not so much that rents go down.
Rick, as you know Newton is west of (and adjacent to) Boston.
Here’s a link that actually has quite old data but still valid
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/underwater
Following on the go West theme…
https://www.instagram.com/p/Coz7c61PPvn/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Newton shouldn’t have to solve this all by itself.
Newton population:
1960… 92,384 residents.
2021… 87,453 residents.
@Ted yes but the push for housing has to do with jobs in Boston.
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
This agreement between MAPC and surrounding mayors ( Mayor Fuller signed it) has to do with supplying housing for Boston jobs.
I think however Covid changed a lot and much work is being done remotely, freeing up people to
A) live further west
B) live further west without commuting
At any rate, building more housing will not lower prices until there is a glut. And, the builders ( and management companies ) have no interest in building so much that they have to lower rents, it’s common sense.
The only developers who would build to lower rents are non profits. By definition they are subsidized by different tax rates and funding sources.
Transit oriented development…not!
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/02/21/green-line-slow-zones-mbta-data-boston-globe/
Would Newton put its money where its mouth is regarding affordable housing…and implement rent control?
https://www.boston.com/real-estate/real-estate/2023/02/21/boston-rent-control-michelle-wu-real-estate-industry-campaign/