2014 photo of Tanglewood Road off Florence
Alderman Vicki Danberg posted this on a Newton Highlands list serve discussion about McMansions:
“The issue of McMansions is an important one for Phase 2 of Zoning reform, into which Zoning and Planning (ZAP) is entering. Another issue I am very interested in is banning “Snout Houses” , with garages that dominate the front facade of a home, some of which (homes) have no front entrance at all; just garages. One new model of a similar type is the new 2 family on Centre near the corner of Walnut.
“Ted Hess-Mahan, I and others are looking at requiring garages to be no more than 40% of the front facade, and possibly 10 ft to the rear of the front facade.
“What is your opinion on this?”
I like most of my it – except for the reference to zoning reform phase 2.
Why not try to fix things like this now and let them simply contribute to phase 2.
If not we shall be waiting many years for any new amendments.
what issue does banning “snout houses” fix?
Yes please!!! These house types are purposefully unfriendly to pedestrians and contribute to a more desolate feeling and looking streetscape.
More “taste” legislation by the incompetent incumbents… how come no one is talking about addressing Newton’s $1 Billion in unfunded pension and healthcare benefits??
@Janet
isn’t all zoning legislation ‘taste legislation’?
Agreed with @John_on_central, but keep in mind also that zoning requires off-street parking for (I think) two vehicles behind the setback. Snout houses are one of the unintended consequences, especially on small/non-conforming lots when builders try to maximize their investment. 40% of the front facade still sounds like a lot (perhaps as much as what’s pictured here) It’s hard to visualize what might come next with these requirements.
@Jerry
It’s a bit over the top to me when government making design decisions on private enterprise. If someone wants to buy an ugly house, what do we care?
@ Janet – I think this is similar to historic districts zoning. Snout houses change the character of a neighborhood by moving the focus of the house from the door or front porch to the garage.
This kind of legislation existed 50 years ago Oak Hill Park would have never been built. Likely the only affordable housing projects built in the city of Newton.
Oak Hill Park consisted of ranch style homes with garages facing the street but not usurping the entire front of the house. Totally different architecturally.
@Janet
I’ll say it again – that’s the essence of zoning.
* When zoning says the ratio of house size to lot size can’t exceed some maximum – “that’s government making design decisions on private enterprise.”
* When zoning says you can only a build a single family house on that lot – that’s “government making design decisions on private enterprise.”
* When zoning says you can’t build more than two stories high on that lot – that’s “government making design decisions on private enterprise.”
So sure, reasonable people may think that zoning rules shouldn’t restrict this particular kind of “snout house” design but not on the basis of it’s “government making design decisions on private enterprise.”
If you truly believe that, then you need to advocate for disposing of the entire zoning code.
I don’t believe all incumbents are incompetent. (But I do like the alliteration!) I don’t think that style is something that needs to be incorporated in zoning legislation. It is a matter of taste. Do we elect people based on their taste or choice of style?
People,
This is just plain old silly. John Said:
“Yes please!!! These house types are purposefully unfriendly to pedestrians and contribute to a more desolate feeling and looking streetscape.””
So some of you are in favor of yet another ban because it doesn’t appeal to you in your walking route? If you feel “desolate” walk 10 feet and there will be another house that wont make you feel as “desolate”.
When the zoning reform started, it was initiated because most people who know about zoning (not me) feel there are too many laws/restrictions in our zoning so that developers that come to Newton would have to decipher our zoning codes using and paying for an attorney. The goal was to simplify our codes.
The zoning codes aren’t suppose to be used for anyone that has small issues. You don’t like how a house looks, walk on the other side of the street, change routes… but don’t make it more difficult to develop in Newton. Whether you are for or against Austin st/development in general, if we don’t clean up our zoning and make it easier for people to abide by our zoning codes we will be very sorry in the near future. Developers will not come to Newton to build residential/commercial projects. The city will be at a stand still and we will be more and more dependent on property taxes and overrides as our city will lose out in commercial tax money. Some of you like that, I don’t.
Apart from being architectual abominations, I’m surprised the fire department doesn’t have something to say about the lack of pedestrian egress to the street. How do you get out of there quickly in an emergency. And for that matter, do you have to get a P O Box to get mail. I’m totally in favor of banning these atrocities. Go Vicki and Ted!
This is a great move by Vicky and Ted that I enthusiastically endorse. I hope the City can move on this before the completion of zoning reform. One of my favorite walking areas is on the right side of High Street in Upper Falls heading toward Route 9. I first discovered its charms five years back while canvassing the neighborhood for local candidates.
There is true architectural symmetry on High Street that’s attributable to monstrous granite stone walls facing the sidewalk that are almost identical to each other, but very unique to Newton or anywhere else I’ve been to. Adding to this symmetric effect are prominent front porches that grace most of the homes on this side of High Street. They differ in size and style from one another, but they blend together with warm grace and style, and seem to beckon the visitor to knock and be welcome.
High Street has a treasured if slightly worn look to it, like a pair of comfortable old hiking shoes you just can’t let go of. There are rambling bayberry bushes, locust trees, old black wooden screened porches that have been painted over countless times, and turn of the 19th century doorbells which are turned by hand and emit a deep ring. It’s one of the few places left in Newton that has the feel of what it was like growing up here.
I bring all this up because I understand that there was a recent request to the City to approve a renovation of a High Street house that would have included a two car garage snout house, visible from the street. There have already been several approved changes on High Street, but this would have completely upended the description of the Street I have just provided. Fortunately, High Street is in the Upper Falls Local Historic District and this was not approved, but many, many other streets and neighborhoods are not so protected.
If these “Snout Houses” become the face of increased density in and around our city centers, our Smart Growth advocates are going to have an even tougher time selling their ideology.
Simon, I think you’ve hit on a key issue – the relationship between housing and traffic. Few talk about this nexus in the Austin Street issue, mostly talking about one or the other in isolation. Snout houses exemplify the subsuming of people to their cars. The house literally takes a back seat to the car housing.
But ‘smart growth’ (I favor ‘wise growth’) is the antithesis of this kind of development. It is about transit oriented development where we no longer think of housing as having to be tied inextricably to car travel. It means unbundling parking from housing so tenants or buyers can decide if they want to live with just one car or even car free. It means parking maxima instead of minima for businesses. It means embracing the car and parking sharing economy to take advantage of our huge excess of parking and cars.
Bob,
Let’s say (god forbid) you lose your money and you need to downsize. The only offer you’ve gotten in the year is someone who will change your house into a snout house, but you can’t sell because the offer is no good due to the ban. Are you happy with Ted and Vicki?
@Tom,
You should also consider what the neighbor across the road might think too? They are surely entitled to some rights?
It is why come the City Charter, I would like to see Elected Officials continue to sit on our planning boards.
@Nathan,
I agree. If people want the density that is the way to go. But for that to effectively happen we would need something like the transit options over in Central Square (Cambridge) brought over to here.
Simon,
Neighbors have rights, but not as much as the owner (in my opinion). We shouldn’t ban something because a non-owner doesn’t like to walk/bicycle/drive by it. What type of a society have we become when strangers have more to say about property than the owners?
Please help me to understand the counter argument?
Tom,
I guess it comes down to setting expectations, and zoning certainly supports that. I believe if a particular style, size, or use of property is completely out of context with the immediate vicinity that is bad form 😉 When that happens or is about to happen the neighbors all get up in arms and complain to their Aldermen.
b.t.w – My understanding is that Phase II zoning is all about form/context based zoning.
Simon, you are correct only in the narrowest of senses. While the first house to break with the “style” of a neighborhood would be our of context, the n-th with n>>1 is not. That is how styles evolve. That is certainly the case with the proliferation of many larger houses in my neighborhood at least: 15 years ago, few; today, rather common. Indeed, now the small 1950’s ranches stick out like sore thumbs. They too will ultimately come down in the next couple of decades as their owners seek to profit from that prior investment.
The utility of a zoning provision is in inverse relation to its specificity. Asking that houses be two story for example provides the landowner and potential developers with rather substantial flexibility and hence is not a bad thing. Prohibiting a specific style of house for aesthetic reasons is a rather perverse use of the power of our Aldermen (or Councilmen or whatever). The benefit of realizing the full financial potential of the investment a property owner has made in his or her land far outweighs any benefit that a neighbor can or should have in terms of dictating how that land is used within broad reason. It is rather clear that an owner who wants to sell to a developer or a buyer who wants to live in a house of this type is rather negatively impacted by a prohibition. How exactly is the neighbor substantively impacted?
Should this absurdity go forward, I only hope that the citizens of Newton who continually put folks like Aldermen Hess Mahan and Danberg into office ultimately reap what they sow.
Developers don’t build “snout houses” because they (or potential homebuyers) are in love with the style. They build them because it’s an easier (read *cheaper*) way to fit a large house with a two-car garage on a narrow lot. It’s cheap to build because it’s basically a large rectangular box close to the street that fills the buildable width completely. A short straight driveway means less money on pavement, very little front yard so less landscaping, fewer windows, no real design elements so cheap build.
Affordable=Ugly.
@Tom. What you propose is extremely hypothetical and very unlikely to occur. I’m certain that many thoughtful developers would be able to operate nicely without employing a snout house design. In some instances, they and the seller might not make quite as much money with this kind of control, but I’m reasonably certain both would do very well and that a lot of eager buyers would line up to buy a thoughtfully remodeled house that complements other homes in the immediate neighborhood. Few things in life are “either/or” and designing a new or remodeled house that fits in should certainly lend itself to some middle ground approach.