It appears that the proposal for multi-family housing at 145 Warren St. does not have the votes in the City Council and will be withdrawn. A vote was scheduled for July 12, but was postponed until tonight. There appear to be fifteen yes votes and nine no’s. Sixteen votes are required to pass. Rather than have the proposal rejected, the petitioner is expected to withdraw.
The petitioner proposed to preserve an existing bungalow-style home on the property and add three homes behind it. The new homes would have been 2,450, 2,140, and 1,860 s.f.. By withdrawing, the petitioner has the opportunity to refile a different proposal immediately.* Based on discussions in the Land Use committee meetings on the to-be-withdrawn four-home proposal, the overwhelmingly likely outcome for the property is fewer, larger homes. The petitioner would still require a special permit for three homes, the existing home plus two new homes, but could build two total homes by right (without City Council approval). To give some idea of what’s likely: in 2016, a similarly sized lot three doors down Warren St. was developed into two town homes — 3,472 and 3,728 s.f.
From multiple sources, the nine no’s are Councilors Lisle Baker, Lenny Gentile, Marc Laredo, Tarik Lucas, Julia Malakie, Chris Markiewicz, Emily Norton, John Oliver, Pam Wright.
That Councilors Lucas, Oliver and Wright oppose the project is a bit surprising. All three (and to a certain extent Councilor Markiewicz) have been very vocal that reducing teardowns in the city is their priority. They want to reduce the incentives that encourage developers to demolish modestly sized homes and replace them with McMansions or McMiniums©. The three additional homes in the 145 Warren St. proposal would have been significantly smaller — average 2,150 s.f. — than the average new condominium in Newton — roughly 3,400 s.f. — and smaller than what will be built, either three total homes by special permit or two total homes by right. Essentially, opposition to this proposal is the same as tearing down three modest homes and building one or two much bigger homes.
Is it possible that some councilors oppose the project because they wanted even smaller units? Sure. Councilor Lucas, for instance, is on the record saying that the proposal was just too big. But, smaller units are simply not among the real-world outcomes for the site. The alternatives are two new homes in addition to the existing home or one new home in addition.
Based on recent sales data, the three new units would not have been cheap, probably just under and over $1 million. But, the similarly sized homes across the city that Councilors Lucas, Oliver, and Wright think it is a priority to preserve are as or more expensive. The conversation about teardown is not about subsidized affordable housing. We’re talking about having a variety of home options in the city, not just 3,000+ s.f. homes. Sadly, the “naturally affordable” homes that Councilors Lucas, Oliver, and Wright hope to save can be in the $800,000 to $1 million range.
On the other hand, the homes we will get at 145 Warren St. will not be naturally affordable.** Given the by-right opportunity to build two 3,500+ s.f. homes, it’s extremely unlikely that the council will convince the petitioner to build one fewer of the same size homes as currently proposed. If it’s the existing home plus two new 2,500 to 2,800 s.f. homes under a special permit, they new ones will likely be a half-million dollars more expensive than the homes proposed. And, a single new 3,000 to 3,500 s.f. home in addition to the existing home would likely sell for over $2 million.
It may also be that Councilors Oliver and Wright have different objections. Neither is on the record on this proposal. But, they’ve both stated that teardowns are their priority, so it would be surprising that other issues were more salient than home size.
Bottom line: the practical consequence of Councilor Lucas, Oliver, and Wright’s opposition to the proposal will be more of the large, super-expensive homes that they say is their top priority to prevent. Put another way, they have prevented an opportunity to create a few more modestly sized housing options in Newton.
* A new public hearing will be required for a new proposal.
** I have not addressed the likely very high price of the existing home, after it is renovated. There appears to be wide consensus — among neighbors and on the council — that the existing home should be preserved, in any proposal. At least one very expensive home is going to be part of the mix at 145 Warren St.
McMansion bad. McMicroManagagement good.
It is heartening to know that the citizens of Newton can count on the copious domain expertise of our elected representatives to make Newton a better city.
It seemed pretty obvious, based on the land use committee vote, that getting sixteen councilors to say yes was highly unlikely.
Village 14 techies- comments, at least on Firefox, keeps vanishing when submitting due to a captcha error. Is there a solution?
Shedding a tear for the developer who purchased the property but wants to make excess profits by getting a special permit.
The council really needs to complete the zoning rehaul so that developers can stop the “special permit” PROFIT ARBITRAGE game
@Bruce C. we’ve asked our tech support to look into the Captcha issue.
@sean
Seems the numbers would have been more like 13 to 9.
Noel and Greenberg we’re absent
Folks, Simon’s comment is straight disinformation.
Background: with regard to 145 Warren St., Simon isn’t just a general opponent of housing. He’s one of a small group of near and nearish neighbors who have very vocally (and, it should be said, effectively) opposed the development for a variety of reasons: size, parking, traffic, context, basically any argument they thought could stick. (A much larger number of neighbors have publicly expressed their support.) I am reliably informed by multiple sources that Simon has been in regular contact with councilors on the item.
In other words, Simon had similar access to me to the news about what would happen to the item last night. He knew that the item would not come to a vote. He knew that every councilor knew that the item would not come to vote.
Councilors Noel and Greenberg were absent for perfectly legitimate reasons last night. Councilor Noel is on vacation with her family. But, both were ready and available to vote had the item come to a vote, even if the item was going to fail.
So, no. The vote would not have been 13 to 9. And, Simon knows it. To suggest otherwise is straight disinformation.
@Sean
Wow. You call out my comment as disinformation, but Lets stick to the facts.
Noel and Greenburg were indeed absent.
You have nine councilors listed as being a no, yet they did not even get to vote on the petition.
It is you my friend who is using this platform to spread disinformation.
Simon,
We both made statements about a vote that didn’t happen.
I based mine on conversations with various parties who agreed on the number of no votes and the specific councilors who would vote no. I based mine on the action that the petitioner took based on the consensus on the outcome. Hard to imagine that the petitioner withdrew a multi-million dollar proposal and didn’t have the noses counted. Do you or any of the nine dispute that they would have voted no?
You based your speculation on … what? Councilors Noel and Greenberg were in regular contact throughout the session and were prepared to lawfully vote over Zoom. An assertion like yours that has no basis in easily obtained fact is disinformation.
This is a great local example of a national trend outlined by Economist Jenny Schuetz at Brookings (link below). Every time the city council votes down a multi-family project (or, as in this case, the project gets pulled because of imminent failure) it helps add to the price of housing. So Congratulations Simon, for keeping the price of housing in Newton nice and high.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/whos-to-blame-for-high-housing-costs-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/
To let you know how well Simon’s messages made it through, in an email exchange with a city councilor, one of the reasons noted to oppose this project was a FAR argument that was taken, almost verbatim, from Simon’s public comment.
As a follow-up to @Chuck’s post, this piece from the NYT includes a number of great links: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/opinion/housing-crisis-eviction.html. (It is probably behind a paywall.) It points out that by making by-right construction of new housing so difficult, we are contributing to a nationwide housing shortage that will keep the next generation from being able to stay. But it also links to criticisms of purely market-based YIMBYism. Personally, I’d love for the city to explore allowing multi-unit construction by right under strict limits of per-unit square footage. Not a panacea, but I think it would help.
John white,
A good start would be to reduce the red tape/cost on detatched accessory units.
Technically very high percentage of homes in Newton can be made into a multifamily unit. Its just a matter of cost.
A startup is proposing a 375sqft detatched home for only 50k.
The accessory ordinance passed and the sky didn’t fall. Infact, the expected number of units is way way lower than supporters suggested.