We're a frog in a pot & the water is getting warmer

[Eva Webster]

Note: If you don’t have time to read the entire message, please scroll all the way down to see the important and urgent request at the end.

———————————————————————————————————

If anyone is interested to know what my state of mind is as I write this, let me disclose it right off the bat:  I’m mad as hell — more than usual, anyway (since there are always some things that tick me off about development matters in Allston-Brighton).

To see a new development in A-B that exceeds zoning in a restrained and measured way is becoming as rare as a white rhino sighting. Developers seem to think our neighborhood should have at a minimum 6 story buildings built everywhere, with no or little parking, and no setbacks or any other swaths of open space where trees could grow (never mind that most public sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate substantial trees — so the “sticks” we get usually die after a few years).  Nearly all large projects consist of tiny rentals - “sardine can housing”, as I heard someone recently characterize these dwellings.

So this is no secret:  A-B is often hit with the kind of development proposals that people in “better” neighborhoods/towns, developers themselves, and top decision-makers in City Hall, would never want next to their own homes, or elsewhere in their neighborhoods.  Therefore it strikes me as hypocritical when it is suggested that such development schemes belong in A-B, and we should embrace them.  Where developers/proposers and approvers themselves live, zoning matters — of course — but here, it means nothing.

We also have a few of our own home-grown proponents of rapid densification without gentrification (because renters who pay through the nose to live in their apartments certainly can’t sustain a South End-like retail scene, and they have little interest in neighborhood beautification projects). One fine young man who shall remain unnamed, and who has never seen a project he didn’t like, declared more than once that we should have no zoning at all.  To me, it makes as much sense as going back to living in caves.

I just wonder, would the Mayor want to live in a neighborhood with such out-of-control, unchecked development pressures?  Would he like chaotic, greed-driven, oversized development proposals that ignore the neighborhood context around them, to be targeting his own neighborhood, his own neighbors all the time? I don’t think so.

The reasons for these musings, and why I’m hopping mad right now, is a certain large project proposed in Allston Village (89 Brighton Avenue) that I feel is a disgrace.  The BRA comment period ends this coming Monday, and I worry that most people who should be weighing in on this development are either out of town, or unaware that this is going on, or both.

Let me clarify:  I’m not anti-development (I welcome well-designed projects in the right places, such as the 55-unit condo building at 1501 Comm. Ave., for example) — and I would equally welcome a thoughtful, reasonably scaled development at 89 Brighton Avenue.  But what is proposed there is truly excessive, it involves needless demolition of two existing structures, and has far too many units that are substandard due to their very small sizes and lack of light and views of any kind (across a very short distance, the windows are looking straight into the wall of other people’s windows, like in some 19th century poor tenement).

The proposed building is a fat, overbearing, 6-story tall, 138-unit (83 studios, with other units not much bigger), market-rate rental cash cow, with no open space whatsoever, and 69 parking spaces (2/3 of which would be in tandem).  If this building is built as proposed, it will completely block light to two sides of an adjacent apartment building at the corner of Linden and Gardner Street (owned by a different owner, not this developer).  With its massiveness and height, the proposed building will also stick out like a sore thumb, completely out of scale with the rest of Brighton Ave./Allston Village.

You can verify everything I have written here by perusing, if you’re so inclined, the Expanded Project Notification Form on the BRA’s website:

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/11ff5cdd-c2b9-4fce-a6ed-cb8a8e350d29.

The developers, two young men whom I saw present the project at the BRA meeting on July 14, struck me as ambitious “Donald Trump wannabes” who clearly just want to build themselves a hefty real estate portfolio, and it’s all that matters.  Worst of all, to build this cash cow, they want to demolish TWO structurally sound, viable, and architecturally valuable buildings, whose presence contributes to the character and fabric of that area. (I have attached photos of these buildings to this email.)

These two structures can and should be preserved (the Brighton-Allston Historical Society is advocating for that as well). Since the development site includes a large truck rental parking lot, and the directly adjacent lot with the Queen Anne house has a very large backyard, there is enough room to construct a sizable new development in that location, on the land these developers control, even if the two structures slated for demolition were to remain in place.

Some of you may say: “Eva, why are you getting bent out of shape over something in Allston Village — you live on the other end of the neighborhood”. You may also think, “Allston is a different universe – whatever goes on in Allston does not affect me”.  Well, I think you would be wrong about that — because whatever we allow to happen in Allston, will make its way to Brighton too – it’s only a matter of time.

When developers get the message that the BRA is fine with their acquiring contiguous parcels and demolishing perfectly good free-standing homes in Allston to put up present-day tenements, they will not view Brighton as a special place that needs to be protected — they will find places/streets/parcels in Brighton where they will try to do the same.  Except for the Aberdeen District and the Oak Square School, no free-standing homes in Allston-Brighton are protected. 

The only thing that can discourage such predatory development is news getting around that our neighborhood will not tolerate unjustified demolitions of structurally sound and/or rehab-able buildings, and we will adamantly oppose any such projects (and therefore zoning variances that developers always need for such projects will not be easily obtained/granted).

Going back to 89 Brighton Ave.:

If the planned demolitions are allowed to happen there (via BRA’s approval of the project as proposed) — other buildings in that area, practically all of them absentee-owned, will start falling like dominoes. And it won’t end just there.  We’ll be like the proverbial frog getting slowly cooked while it’s unaware what is happening to it (hence the title of my message).

I think that Allston Village deserves more respect than it gets — and respect for this place means that it should be viewed as a unique, important, period “town center” whose architectural character and existing feel and density should be protected.  Do you see Brookline allowing demolitions of 1-story storefronts in Washington Square or Coolidge Corner?  Those commercial centers would cease being attractive, sunny, inviting destinations if the Town allowed them to be made into dark canyons of tall buildings. 

In another few decades, Allston Village (if we manage to preserve it) will be treasured because no one will be building like this anymore (buildings with elaborate roof cornices and plethora of other architectural details - they will become rare).  So people will realize that they have something irreplaceable, something with its own character and atmosphere.

That is why the 1920s Bicycle Center building at 89 Brighton Ave. ought to be saved as a contributing building — and it should be put to PERMANENT community-enhancing uses (not just the laughingly temporary arrangement to use the space for a few months that the developer gave to Allston Village Main Streets — clearly in an attempt to win support for the development, even if it means that Allston Village is to lose an important, useful, 3–story, high ceiling, unlike any other, commercial building).

By the way, to make everyone realize how excessively dense the current proposal is, please consider this:  the Applebee’s parcel in Cleveland Circle is the same size (approx. 33,000 SF) as the 89 Brighton Ave. development parcel — and yet the Applebee’s parcel has been approved by the BRA to have a 92 unit residential building, while the 89 Brighton Ave. proposal calls for 138 units on the same size parcel.

The Bicycle Center building’s parcel is only 4,000 SF – which constitutes just 12% of the overall 33,000 SF development parcel. It would not break the project if the new residential building does not include that small 4,000 SF Bicycle building lot.

——————————

The things I have written here are not just my opinion.  A number of devoted, long-time A-B neighborhood activists are now mobilizing on this issue — and we need your help to persuade the BRA to prevent demolition of the two buildings (seen in attachments), which would lead to scaling down the currently excessively dense 138-unit project.

With the two older buildings retained, the project could end up being about 80-90 units (possibly with more retail/commercial space, which would be good). So this would still be a very substantial, large project — but a much better place to live than a super-dense and crowded 138-unit building.

I know — we’re in the middle of summer, and no one feels like doing much of anything except being outside.  But there are forces that are counting on our passivity and disengagement right now.  If the BRA receives no, or very little neighborhood opposition to the current proposal, they will be inclined to green-light this development without making it more reasonable and more livable for future residents.  

That is why it is VERY IMPORTANT than you send a simple, brief (or any length you want) comment letter stating your concerns.

You can email your comment directly to the BRA Project Manager Phil Cohen at phil....@boston.gov.

You can also type up your comment into an electronic form on the BRA website (click the link below, and scroll down to see the blank form in the bottom; the form will accept up to 3,000 words):

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development-projects/89-brighton-avenue.

We can only prevail if we have numbers on our side — so please send your comment ASAP (by the end of the day on Monday).

Thank you very much.

Eva

[Nancy Grilk]

Thank you, Eva, Nancy and I have sent our letter.  And, like you, we are not anti-development, change is a constant in cities.  But it's the quality of the change that matters and once again we are having bloated boxes that  grossly exceed zoning foisted on us that will not provide the kind of housing mix this neighborhood is sorely short of.  And at the same time the project would destroy existing and interesting  structures that could be incorporated into a pleasing addition to Allston.  Bob Pessek 

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<89 Brighton Ave.jpg><41 Gardner Street.jpg>

[Emma Hawes]

Is this development condos or apartments?

[Nancy Grilk]

rental

[Emma Hawes]

Yeah, rentals are NOT what AB needs to increase "workforce housing." Young workers need to be able to buy condos so they're not throwing their money away! D:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 2:47:58 PM UTC-4, Eva Webster wrote:

[Merrill H. Diamond]

Joanna -- Good morning.  My name is Merrill Diamond and my development firm, Diamond Sinacori, is the co-developer of the 55 condominium units at The Lancaster at 1501 Commonweath Avenue in Brighton.

In response to your post below, I would note that we sold all but 4 units of the 55 condominium units at The Lancaster within 3 days of putting the units on the market at an average price in excess of $600 psf. Most of the sales were made to young professional.

Brighton desperately needs more homeownership opportunities and, in my opinion, I think that we've proven that a robust market exists for this type of product in a high-quality, well-designed building.

Please drive by as I'd be curious to know your own opinion, and anyone else's, of what I think is the best new multifamily building of any that have been developed in Brighton in the past 75 years or more.

Best,

Merrill

Sent from my iPhone

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION RESIDENTIAL, LLC

231 West Canton St., Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Read my latest blog posts athttp://ignitionre.com/blog

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joanna Baker <joanna...@rcn.com>
Date: July 28, 2015 at 9:38:05 AM EDT
To: "cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com>, "evawe...@comcast.net" <evawe...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: We're a frog in a pot & the water is getting warmer
Reply-To: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com

Tight rental market suggests incipient trend away from purchasing homes and sticking with rentals for the younger generation, who can't come up with a down payment and may never seek home ownership.  

Perhaps rentals will become less transient.  Downsizing older adults may eschew home ownership after years of boilers, lawns and HVAC maintenance.  Just wanted to mention this possible shift in American housing marketplace.

- Joanna Baker

Beacon St.

Brookline 

On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Emma Hawes <ebh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, rentals are NOT what AB needs to increase "workforce housing." Young workers need to be able to buy condos so they're not throwing their money away! D:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 2:47:58 PM UTC-4, Eva Webster wrote:

Note: If you don’t have time to read the entire message, please scroll all the way down to see the important and urgent request at the end.

———————————————————————————————————

If anyone is interested to know what my state of mind is as I write this, let me disclose it right off the bat:  I’m mad as hell — more than usual, anyway (since there are always some things that tick me off about development matters in Allston-Brighton).

To see a new development in A-B that exceeds zoning in a restrained and measured way is becoming as rare as a white rhino sighting. Developers seem to think our neighborhood should have at a minimum 6 story buildings built everywhere, with no or little parking, and no setbacks or any other swaths of open space where trees could grow (never mind that most public sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate substantial trees — so the “sticks” we get usually die after a few years).  Nearly all large projects consist of tiny rentals - “sardine can housing”, as I heard someone recently characterize these dwellings.

So this is no secret:  A-B is often hit with the kind of development proposals that people in “better” neighborhoods/towns, developers themselves, and top decision-makers in City Hall, would never want next to their own homes, or elsewhere in their neighborhoods.  Therefore it strikes me as hypocritical when it is suggested that such development schemes belong in A-B, and we should embrace them.  Where developers/proposers and approvers themselves live, zoning matters — of course — but here, it means nothing.

We also have a few of our own home-grown proponents of rapid densification without gentrification (because renters who pay through the nose to live in their apartments certainly can’t sustain a South End-like retail scene, and they have little interest in neighborhood beautification projects). One fine young man who shall remain unnamed, and who has never seen a project he didn’t like, declared more than once that we should have no zoning at all.  To me, it makes as much sense as going back to living in caves.

I just wonder, would the Mayor want to live in a neighborhood with such out-of-control, unchecked development pressures?  Would he like chaotic, greed-driven, oversized development proposals that ignore the neighborhood context around them, to be targeting his own neighborhood, his own neighbors all the time? I don’t think so.

The reasons for these musings, and why I’m hopping mad right now, is a certain large project proposed in Allston Village (89 Brighton Avenue) that I feel is a disgrace.  The BRA comment period ends this coming Monday, and I worry that most people who should be weighing in on this development are either out of town, or unaware that this is going on, or both.

Let me clarify:  I’m not anti-development (I welcome well-designed projects in the right places, such as the 55-unit condo building at 1501 Comm. Ave., for example) — and I would equally welcome a thoughtful, reasonably scaled development at 89 Brighton Avenue.  But what is proposed there is truly excessive, it involves needless demolition of two existing structures, and has far too many units that are substandard due to their very small sizes and lack of light and views of any kind (across a very short distance, the windows are looking straight into the wall of other people’s windows, like in some 19th century poor tenement).

The proposed building is a fat, overbearing, 6-story tall, 138-unit (83 studios, with other units not much bigger), market-rate rental cash cow, with no open space whatsoever, and 69 parking spaces (2/3 of which would be in tandem).  If this building is built as proposed, it will completely block light to two sides of an adjacent apartment building at the corner of Linden and Gardner Street (owned by a different owner, not this developer).  With its massiveness and height, the proposed building will also stick out like a sore thumb, completely out of scale with the rest of Brighton Ave./Allston Village.

You can verify everything I have written here by perusing, if you’re so inclined, the Expanded Project Notification Form on the BRA’s website:

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/11ff5cdd-c2b9-4fce-a6ed-cb8a8e350d29.

The developers, two young men whom I saw present the project at the BRA meeting on July 14, struck me as ambitious “Donald Trump wannabes” who clearly just want to build themselves a hefty real estate portfolio, and it’s all that matters.  Worst of all, to build this cash cow, they want to demolish TWO structurally sound, viable, and architecturally valuable buildings, whose presence contributes to the character and fabric of that area. (I have attached photos of these buildings to this email.)

These two structures can and should be preserved (the Brighton-Allston Historical Society is advocating for that as well). Since the development site includes a large truck rental parking lot, and the directly adjacent lot with the Queen Anne house has a very large backyard, there is enough room to construct a sizable new development in that location, on the land these developers control, even if the two structures slated for demolition were to remain in place.

Some of you may say: “Eva, why are you getting bent out of shape over something in Allston Village — you live on the other end of the neighborhood”. You may also think, “Allston is a different universe – whatever goes on in Allston does not affect me”.  Well, I think you would be wrong about that — because whatever we allow to happen in Allston, will make its way to Brighton too – it’s only a matter of time.

When developers get the message that the BRA is fine with their acquiring contiguous parcels and demolishing perfectly good free-standing homes in Allston to put up present-day tenements, they will not view Brighton as a special place that needs to be protected — they will find places/streets/parcels in Brighton where they will try to do the same.  Except for the Aberdeen District and the Oak Square School, no free-standing homes in Allston-Brighton are protected. 

The only thing that can discourage such predatory development is news getting around that our neighborhood will not tolerate unjustified demolitions of structurally sound and/or rehab-able buildings, and we will adamantly oppose any such projects (and therefore zoning variances that developers always need for such projects will not be easily obtained/granted).

Going back to 89 Brighton Ave.:

If the planned demolitions are allowed to happen there (via BRA’s approval of the project as proposed) — other buildings in that area, practically all of them absentee-owned, will start falling like dominoes. And it won’t end just there.  We’ll be like the proverbial frog getting slowly cooked while it’s unaware what is happening to it (hence the title of my message).

I think that Allston Village deserves more respect than it gets — and respect for this place means that it should be viewed as a unique, important, period “town center” whose architectural character and existing feel and density should be protected.  Do you see Brookline allowing demolitions of 1-story storefronts in Washington Square or Coolidge Corner?  Those commercial centers would cease being attractive, sunny, inviting destinations if the Town allowed them to be made into dark canyons of tall buildings. 

In another few decades, Allston Village (if we manage to preserve it) will be treasured because no one will be building like this anymore (buildings with elaborate roof cornices and plethora of other architectural details - they will become rare).  So people will realize that they have something irreplaceable, something with its own character and atmosphere.

That is why the 1920s Bicycle Center building at 89 Brighton Ave. ought to be saved as a contributing building — and it should be put to PERMANENT community-enhancing uses (not just the laughingly temporary arrangement to use the space for a few months that the developer gave to Allston Village Main Streets — clearly in an attempt to win support for the development, even if it means that Allston Village is to lose an important, useful, 3–story, high ceiling, unlike any other, commercial building).

By the way, to make everyone realize how excessively dense the current proposal is, please consider this:  the Applebee’s parcel in Cleveland Circle is the same size (approx. 33,000 SF) as the 89 Brighton Ave. development parcel — and yet the Applebee’s parcel has been approved by the BRA to have a 92 unit residential building, while the89 Brighton Ave. proposal calls for 138 units on the same size parcel.

The Bicycle Center building’s parcel is only 4,000 SF – which constitutes just 12% of the overall 33,000 SF development parcel. It would not break the project if the new residential building does not include that small 4,000 SF Bicycle building lot.

——————————

The things I have written here are not just my opinion.  A number of devoted, long-time A-B neighborhood activists are now mobilizing on this issue — andwe need your help to persuade the BRA to prevent demolition of the two buildings (seen in attachments), which would lead to scaling down the currently excessively dense 138-unit project.

With the two older buildings retained, the project could end up being about 80-90 units (possibly with more retail/commercial space, which would be good). So this would still be a very substantial, large project — but a much better place to live than a super-dense and crowded 138-unit building.

I know — we’re in the middle of summer, and no one feels like doing much of anything except being outside.  But there are forces that are counting on our passivity and disengagement right now.  If the BRA receives no, or very little neighborhood opposition to the current proposal, they will be inclined to green-light this development without making it more reasonable and more livable for future residents.  

That is why it is VERY IMPORTANT than you send a simple, brief (or any length you want) comment letter stating your concerns.

You can email your comment directly to the BRA Project Manager Phil Cohen atphil....@boston.gov.

You can also type up your comment into an electronic form on the BRA website (click the link below, and scroll down to see the blank form in the bottom; the form will accept up to 3,000 words):

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/projects/development-projects/89-brighton-avenue.

We can only prevail if we have numbers on our side — so please send your comment ASAP (by the end of the day on Monday).

Thank you very much.

Eva

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout.y

Sent from my iPhone

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION RESIDENTIAL, LLC

231 West Canton St., Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Read my latest blog posts at http://ignitionre.com/blog

On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Joanna Baker <joanna...@rcn.com> wrote:

Tight rental market suggests incipient trend away from purchasing homes and sticking with rentals for the younger generation, who can't come up with a down payment and may never seek home ownership.  

Perhaps rentals will become less transient.  Downsizing older adults may eschew home ownership after years of boilers, lawns and HVAC maintenance.  Just wanted to mention this possible shift in American housing marketplace.

- Joanna Baker

Beacon St.

Brookline 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.

[Merrill H. Diamond]

Hi Shar, and thanks for your nice comment.

You raise a valid point, but almost all of the units at The Lancaster have been purchased by end-users.  The few investor units were purchased the first day before we steadily raised prices and have been or will be re-sold at a profit to other end-users.  Also, as a practical matter, the relatively high selling prices of the units makes renting them out at viable rents a challenging proposition.  Further, the ability of investors to buy units to rent out for use as tax shelters was eliminated in 1986.

I can't speak about other new  multifamily condominium projects in Brighton since, at the moment, I believe that The Lancaster is the only one.  However, based on the success that we've had in tapping a market that had previously been ignored, I suspect that there will be additional homeownership projects in Brighton or, at least, there should be...

Best,

Merrill

Sent from my iPhone

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION RESIDENTIAL, LLC

231 West Canton St., Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Read my latest blog posts at http://ignitionre.com/blog

On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Shar Persen <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Merrill, 

I'm an admirer of many of your projects, but I question what you say about condo units. As has been the case with many condos in the Brookline-Boston neighborhoods, the condo docs of those units don't limit how many units can be rented out at a time and for how long. So what happens is that investors purchase the condos as income property, with the sole aim of making money with no regard to other residents in the building or the neighborhood. So you're right back to short-term renters who don't have a stake in the neighborhood. Could this happen to The Lancaster?

best regards, 

Shar Persen

Beacon Street, Brookline, resident

---

Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: We're a frog in a pot & the water is getting warmer

From: mdia...@diamondsinacori.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:35:38 -0400
CC: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com; allstonbr...@googlegroups.com; evawe...@comcast.net
To: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com

[Mike D]

Merrill,

Hi, it is great to see you adding to the housing stock in Brighton with units that are in demand and sell out quickly. There are many posts on here about issues such as density, parking, and owner occupant condo docs and it will be interesting to hear your insights.

Mike

[Eva Webster]

Mike - a developer, someone whose profession is to engage in real estate development for profit (which may or may not be in synch with the needs of abutters and the community) cannot have an entirely objective take on community and development issues.

A developer also knows certain things, pertaining to maximizing income from development, that are not in his interest to reveal in a public forum, or to a community person like you.  

Also, Merrill is not on AB2006 (he only copies this group when he replies to a posting on the CCC group that was sent to both groups).

--

To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.

[Merrill H. Diamond]

What she said...

Sent from my iPhone

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION RESIDENTIAL, LLC

231 West Canton St., Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Read my latest blog posts at http://ignitionre.com/blog

On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:26 PM, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote:

Dear Shar — let me take a stab at the issue you presented (also, trying to get Merrill out of the pickle ;-)

When a neighborhood, or a condo complex, become too transient (with all the negative consequences that it brings), we naturally want to identify the roots of the problem, including the people who we perceive to be the main culprits — because we want to address and remedy the situation.  So it’s easy to blame developers, big landlords, and even small investors/owners for the problem.

But I have come to believe that this is like blaming a carnivore for killing its pray.  Human greed/self-interest will always play a role in real estate matters — therefore a counterbalance to that natural (sort of) behavior has to come from the entity that is supposed to be in charge of community & development planning, as well as zoning  (in Boston, that is the BRA; in Brookline, some other boards/departments).

Another force that can provide this much needed “counterbalance” is the power possessed by well-informed and active owner-occupants in condo buildings, and on a neighborhood-wide scale, civically active neighborhood residents who can pressure elected officials to do the right things with respect to community/neighborhood planning.  (Keeping neighborhood people thinking and conversing is the main reason I engage in writing postings to this google group — we need a forum on which to discuss things and to learn from one another.)

Some condo associations that are becoming, or have become de-facto rental buildings may be beyond hope (in terms of returning them to a majority owner-occupant status).  To prevent an excessive number of rentals in a condo building, the original master documents need to state that a majority of units at any given time have to be owner-occupied (either that, or the master documents have to be updated with that provision if there are enough unit owners who want that).

Developers of a new condo development rarely want to include a restriction aimed at ensuring owner-occupancy — unless it’s a luxury building where all buyers are concerned with protecting their quality of life, OR unless the BRA or (the Planning Board in Brookline, I guess) would be inclined to REQUIRE that a new development be structured in a way that favors majority owner-occupancy.  I have not witnessed the latter approach in practice yet — but I believe the time has come in Allston-Brighton to have a discussion about it with the BRA.

Of course, once units in a condo building are mostly in the hands of absentee owners, it’s very hard for owner-occupants to undo that situation — although I’m sure there have been some very determined, hard-driving owner-occupants (especially in desirable parts of Boston) who engaged in, and won battles for control of buildings that were in danger of becoming too transient.

Protecting the NEIGHBORHOOD from becoming too transient is, or should be the responsibility of community/development planning boards and the elected officials who have the ability to influence them.  The problem in Boston is that community/neighborhood-oriented planning is almost non-existent.  The BRA focuses primarily on facilitating development that is desired by big developers and investors — and it rarely, if ever, identifies or takes the initiative to require development (or certain aspects of development) that are needed from the community perspective.  (If no one requires those things, such as homeownership for example, even when big zoning variances are constantly given out left and right, developers are not obligated to provide that kind of development from the goodness of their heart.)

Long-term neighborhood residents always have to fight to protect their interests (because no one at the BRA proactively watches out for their interests) — and unfortunately, often there just aren’t enough folks with sufficient time and energy to devote to this activity.  The BRA’s default is to accommodate developers — so the neighbors can only get what they need/want if they are willing and able to fight for it.  It’s fundamentally a very unfair system that was set up intentionally to favor developers at a time when Boston was not doing well economically and had blighted areas (or so some people claimed) — but those times are long gone, while the old unbalanced system remains in place. 

Generally speaking, I think that developers, due to the very nature of their business (which focuses on generating profits and taking advantage of market conditions), cannot be held accountable for the lack of proper community/neighborhood/development planning in our area, and for the fact that Allston-Brighton has more than our fair share of transient housing.  They’re doing what is in their interest.  The fault lies with the system that is set up to disempower the community (and strengthened by the undue role of money in politics).

Anyway, ensuring that we have a healthy, economically and demographically well-balanced neighborhood, with a good quality of life for permanent residents, and strong civic life and democracy, is something that developers cannot give us.  We have to get it ourselves, by organizing ourselves politically and demanding that key decision makers in City Hall pay more attention to our interests, not just those of people with a lot of money to invest in real estate.   

Eva

———————————————————

On 7/29/15, 6:48 PM, "Shar Persen" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com on behalf of sla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Merrill, 

Thanks for the feedback. 

I guess my question then is, outside of raising prices until only a few can purchase, what keeps investors (some of whom seem to have a lot of cash) from buying and then renting their units? 

As an example, I live in Regency Park (1731 Beacon) and the percentage of renters has been on the rise, which (in my view) has not been all good. And what prevents a one-family home from being purchased by an investor who could divide it and sell the units as condos, which then, in turn, could be rented out? 

I'm asking not so much for a hard-and-fast answer but for some insight on what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood. A certain amount of rentals are necessary and desirable, but it seems that some measure of stability is needed to create a strong neighborhood. In the Boston area--with its many colleges, hospitals, and research institutions--short-term rentals seem to work well for many, but does the transient nature of a large quantity of rentals add anything to a neighborhood?  

best regards, 

Shar

---

Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: We're a frog in a pot & the water is getting warmer
From: mdia...@diamondsinacori.com

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:57:05 -0400

CC: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com; allstonbr...@googlegroups.com; evawe...@comcast.net
To: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com

Hi Shar, and thanks for your nice comment.

You raise a valid point, but almost all of the units at The Lancaster have been purchased by end-users.  The few investor units were purchased the first day before we steadily raised prices and have been or will be re-sold at a profit to other end-users.  Also, as a practical matter, the relatively high selling prices of the units makes renting them out at viable rents a challenging proposition.  Further, the ability of investors to buy units to rent out for use as tax shelters was eliminated in 1986.

I can't speak about other new  multifamily condominium projects in Brighton since, at the moment, I believe that The Lancaster is the only one.  However, based on the success that we've had in tapping a market that had previously been ignored, I suspect that there will be additional homeownership projects in Brighton or, at least, there should be...

Best,

Merrill

Sent from my iPhone

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

IGNITION RESIDENTIAL, LLC

231 West Canton St., Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Read my latest blog posts at http://ignitionre.com/blog

On Jul 28, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Shar Persen <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Merrill, 

I'm an admirer of many of your projects, but I question what you say about condo units. As has been the case with many condos in the Brookline-Boston neighborhoods, the condo docs of those units don't limit how many units can be rented out at a time and for how long. So what happens is that investors purchase the condos as income property, with the sole aim of making money with no regard to other residents in the building or the neighborhood. So you're right back to short-term renters who don't have a stake in the neighborhood. Could this happen to The Lancaster?

best regards, 

Shar Persen

Beacon Street, Brookline, resident

[Eva Webster]

Dear Shar — let me take a stab at the issue you presented (also, trying to get Merrill out of the pickle ;-)

When a neighborhood, or a condo complex, become too transient (with all the negative consequences that it brings), we naturally want to identify the roots of the problem, including the people who we perceive to be the main culprits — because we want to address and remedy the situation.  So it’s easy to blame developers, big landlords, and even small investors/owners for the problem.

But I have come to believe that this is like blaming a carnivore for killing its pray.  Human greed/self-interest will always play a role in real estate matters — therefore a counterbalance to that natural (sort of) behavior has to come from the entity that is supposed to be in charge of community & development planning, as well as zoning  (in Boston, that is the BRA; in Brookline, some other boards/departments).

Another force that can provide this much needed “counterbalance” is the power possessed by well-informed and active owner-occupants in condo buildings, and on a neighborhood-wide scale, civically active neighborhood residents who can pressure elected officials to do the right things with respect to community/neighborhood planning.  (Keeping neighborhood people thinking and conversing is the main reason I engage in writing postings to this google group — we need a forum on which to discuss things and to learn from one another.)

Some condo associations that are becoming, or have become de-facto rental buildings may be beyond hope (in terms of returning them to a majority owner-occupant status).  To prevent an excessive number of rentals in a condo building, the original master documents need to state that a majority of units at any given time have to be owner-occupied (either that, or the master documents have to be updated with that provision if there are enough unit owners who want that).

Developers of a new condo development rarely want to include a restriction aimed at ensuring owner-occupancy — unless it’s a luxury building where all buyers are concerned with protecting their quality of life, OR unless the BRA or (the Planning Board in Brookline, I guess) would be inclined to REQUIRE that a new development be structured in a way that favors majority owner-occupancy.  I have not witnessed the latter approach in practice yet — but I believe the time has come in Allston-Brighton to have a discussion about it with the BRA.

Of course, once units in a condo building are mostly in the hands of absentee owners, it’s very hard for owner-occupants to undo that situation — although I’m sure there have been some very determined, hard-driving owner-occupants (especially in desirable parts of Boston) who engaged in, and won battles for control of buildings that were in danger of becoming too transient.

Protecting the NEIGHBORHOOD from becoming too transient is, or should be the responsibility of community/development planning boards and the elected officials who have the ability to influence them.  The problem in Boston is that community/neighborhood-oriented planning is almost non-existent.  The BRA focuses primarily on facilitating development that is desired by big developers and investors — and it rarely, if ever, identifies or takes the initiative to require development (or certain aspects of development) that are needed from the community perspective.  (If no one requires those things, such as homeownership for example, even when big zoning variances are constantly given out left and right, developers are not obligated to provide that kind of development from the goodness of their heart.)

Long-term neighborhood residents always have to fight to protect their interests (because no one at the BRA proactively watches out for their interests) — and unfortunately, often there just aren’t enough folks with sufficient time and energy to devote to this activity.  The BRA’s default is to accommodate developers — so the neighbors can only get what they need/want if they are willing and able to fight for it.  It’s fundamentally a very unfair system that was set up intentionally to favor developers at a time when Boston was not doing well economically and had blighted areas (or so some people claimed) — but those times are long gone, while the old unbalanced system remains in place. 

Generally speaking, I think that developers, due to the very nature of their business (which focuses on generating profits and taking advantage of market conditions), cannot be held accountable for the lack of proper community/neighborhood/development planning in our area, and for the fact that Allston-Brighton has more than our fair share of transient housing.  They’re doing what is in their interest.  The fault lies with the system that is set up to disempower the community (and strengthened by the undue role of money in politics).

Anyway, ensuring that we have a healthy, economically and demographically well-balanced neighborhood, with a good quality of life for permanent residents, and strong civic life and democracy, is something that developers cannot give us.  We have to get it ourselves, by organizing ourselves politically and demanding that key decision makers in City Hall pay more attention to our interests, not just those of people with a lot of money to invest in real estate.   

Eva

———————————————————

On 7/29/15, 6:48 PM, "Shar Persen" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com on behalf of sla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Merrill, 

Thanks for the feedback. 

I guess my question then is, outside of raising prices until only a few can purchase, what keeps investors (some of whom seem to have a lot of cash) from buying and then renting their units? 

As an example, I live in Regency Park (1731 Beacon) and the percentage of renters has been on the rise, which (in my view) has not been all good. And what prevents a one-family home from being purchased by an investor who could divide it and sell the units as condos, which then, in turn, could be rented out? 

I'm asking not so much for a hard-and-fast answer but for some insight on what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood. A certain amount of rentals are necessary and desirable, but it seems that some measure of stability is needed to create a strong neighborhood. In the Boston area--with its many colleges, hospitals, and research institutions--short-term rentals seem to work well for many, but does the transient nature of a large quantity of rentals add anything to a neighborhood?  

best regards, 

Shar

---

Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: We're a frog in a pot & the water is getting warmer
From: mdia...@diamondsinacori.com

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:57:05 -0400

CC: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com; allstonbr...@googlegroups.com; evawe...@comcast.net
To: cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com

[Charles Denison]

I totally agree. We need better neighborhood plans in place, developed by the city with participation of all the residents of a given neighborhood. It should include the desired mix of housing types (ownership vs rental) and very clear form-based design guidelines (especially regarding open space, setbacks, parking, etc.) As we know, in Allston and Brighton there are some streets that naturally support more density, with more urban-style buildings up against the street edge and other streets that more naturally support standalone houses with yards. The zoning in Allston/Brighton (and many other neighborhoods) hasn't been updated in many years and currently doesn't reflect a lot of changing trends and goals that Boston is now trying to achieve. If we had clear zoning and design guidelines, the BRA could simply require developers to follow them, and we wouldn't have so many disagreements and discussions on a project by project basis about what's appropriate.

Charlie

[Charles Denison]

Everyone has their own perspective, and in general I think the more perspectives you get on an issue, the better educated we all are. Developers are much more plugged in to what the real estate market is like in a given area (demand for rentals vs condos, cost of development, prices that things are selling/renting for, who's buying, etc.) Of course everyone has their own biases, but that doesn't mean that their opinion doesn't matter.

Charlie

[Mike D]

Eva,

Yes, I agree that a developer has an interest in profits and may not be in synch with the community.

There has been much praise of Merrill on here and he has already answered public questions from "community persons" and revealed information. Maybe he answers more questions from the community, maybe he doesn't, but I think we all benefit when a wide variety of opinions are expressed.

[n isler]

Just a brief comment from a long time condo owner in a building where we have not  restricted rentals.  Every time there is a  recession the number of rentals increases; as the economy improves rentals go down and ownership rises - at least that's been our experience.  The problem is that during any recession jobs are hard to find (to put it mildly).   If you are an out of work owner who gets a job offer requiring a move but can't sell because you would take a loss, and can't rent the unit because it would put you over the allowable percentage, this puts you in a difficult bind.  Sell at a loss, keep paying the condo fee on a unit producing no income while you need to pay for lodgings somewhere else, or turning down the job.  We have had the good fortune of not having major investor owners; our investors have basically been people who once lived here.  Other condos undoubtedly have different, less positive, experiences.

---

From: Charles Denison <cden...@gmail.com>
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com; AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com; evawe...@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:34 AM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.