Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Homeownership is needed to promote middle-class wealth creation

[sarah correia]

I worked in the real estate field for 15 years. 60-70% of the buildings lining Comm Ave & Its side streets are condos not apartments. That and businesses generally prefer to rent not own commercial spaces because there is more flexibility.

Sarah Correia

On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:33 AM, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote:

This is almost like a full-length newspaper article that I have written below -- not a short posting -- but it talks about something very important to our neighborhood (as well as some other parts of Boston).  Please read it.

---------------------------

In a number of community/neighborhood meetings in recent months/years, it seemed like I was the only person (as far as I could tell)  who strongly objects to the disproportionately large number of development projects currently built or proposed in our neighborhood (elsewhere in Boston probably too) being rentals.

Allston-Brighton already has a very low owner-occupancy rate -- only 20.6%. While certain parts of the neighborhood are faring better than that, in others that rate can be as low as 15%, 10%, or even below 10%.

According to the BRA's May 2013 research publication about Allston ( http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/c7e8aaf1-29c9-4716-9e33-87d73e5a7000/ - page 16), out of the total of 7,786 housing units in Allston, only 735 are owner-occupied.  So Allston's owner-occupancy rate is pitiful 9.4% -- and yet the vast majority of new housing units that have been built in the last few years, or are now under construction, or in the pipeline, are rentals.  (The Samuelson project in Barry's Corner -- hundreds of rental units only - is a particularly good example. If anyone thought it wasn't right, that that project ought to have had a homeownership component, you needed to be louder -- or at least use these groups to state your opinions. I try to stay tuned, and I didn't hear anything.)

An equivalent BRA research publication about Brighton ( http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/8978d92f-f540-45b5-8cc4-6593f88be43a/ - also on page 16) states that out of the total of 24,223 housing units, just 5,855 are classified as "ownership housing stock" -- which amount to 24.2% (but of course not all parts of Brighton are that "lucky" -- some areas are not much different than Allston).

Here is an interesting snapshot, also from a BRA report, 2013 Boston by the Numbers - Housing ( http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/76bd9781-55ee-4545-928c-706d571523a3/ ) 

So we are only doing better than Fenway-Kenmore.

Also, keep in mind that all the figures above are from 2013.  With the recent rental construction bonanza in Allston-Brighton, and also a substantial number of existing homes having been purchased by investor owners, Allston-Brighton's actual owner-occupancy rate may be lower now than what the BRA publications state.

I know of just one Allston-Brighton large residential project, currently under construction, at 1501 Comm. Ave. in Brighton, that was permitted as condos since the real estate crash in 2008.  And the only reason this came to be is that some Brighton neighborhood people worked hard to convince the Department of Neighborhood Development (which controlled that parcel) that this part of Comm. Ave. was sorely lacking in homeownership opportunities, and so the DND needed to pick a developer who proposed to build condos.  (I don't know if we would have had the same luck if it was a regular, private development project reviewed and approved by the BRA.)

Some people may assume that if developers want to build rentals, nothing can or should stop them.  I think this is a wrong way to think about it. Developers want to build, period. They're opportunistic. They want to "sell" to the BRA whatever projects bring them most money, and in their efforts to secure permits, they will always argue that they cannot do anything else but only that thing.

However, whatever generates the greatest profits for developers is not automatically the best near- or long-term outcome for the neighborhood, the city, or society.  The City has a moral obligation, I think, to shape development that is best for its neighborhood residents economic prosperity -- not just to accommodate deep-pocketed developers and real estate investors (who in most cases live in luxurious homes, far away and comfortably insulated from urban neighborhoods that they may have gradually turned into transient ghettos).

The negative effects of disappearing homeownership in Allston-Brighton are hard to overstate.  This is a very unhealthy trend, and if it continues, Allston-Brighton (and Boston in general) will end up with perpetually transient and impoverished population, a greatly diminished sense of community, and a large majority of residents who were never able to amass any tangible assets/home equity -- and thus end up effectively homeless (in dire need of public/subsidized housing) when their joblessness or diminishing earnings in older age make it impossible for them to pay ever-incresing market-rate rents.

But had those folks been paying mortgage, instead of rent, during their working years, their situation would be entirely different.

Many of those people will then be at the mercy of the state or federal government for subsidized housing -- and building such housing is, for a variety of reasons, obscenely expensive (it can be as much as $500,000 per unit -- and of course some people get wealthy on it, but it's not the poor).

In Massachusetts, money spent on building public/subsidized housing is usually borrowed and contributes to public debt (and of course, servicing debt costs money too).  Overall, having to provide free or subsidized housing diminishes the state's ability to spend on education, social services, healthcare, transportation and other types of needed public infrastructure, including open space (the latter notoriously underfunded -- our state-owned urban parks do not compare favorably with those in major cities in developed countries).

Living in tiny rentals or subsidized units is better than being homeless, but it is not conducive to having happy home/family lives.  Limited square footage and small rooms make it hard or impossible for residents to have guests/visitors, celebrate holidays in a traditional way, cultivate hobbies, keep pets that enhance people's lives, or collect and store things that bring them pleasure.  It's just minimalist existence -- you only have enough room to make a very simple meal in a small galley kitchen, watch TV or cruise the internet, and sleep (and don't even dream of having a king or queen-size bed). 

But the most important thing of all is this:  Large rental developments for working people are nothing but a gigantic wealth transfer from them to the Big Landlords, who via those rentals amass huge generational fortunes for themselves and their families (and also continue to acquire more and more real estate) -- while the working class renters, after transferring most of their paychecks to their landlords for years and years, usually end up in perpetual economic insecurity -- with nothing to own, and nothing to sell or lease when their working lives wind down, and they need to settle into retirement. 

The more I think about it, the more I think that we/the public should be outraged about this current "let's build rentals" development trend, which favors wealth creation for the already rich, at the expense of regular people who need homes.  Not everyone can, or wants to be a homeowner -- but many renters in Allston-Brighton (and Boston) do long to have their own homes, and the City of Boston needs to do something to help them.

For example, the BRA, with the help of state officials, could summon local banking industry leaders, and prod them to make financing available for constructing housing co-ops ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative ), as well as condominium projects for regular working people -- buildings that include family-size apartments, with real kitchens, not just studios, or small 1- and 2-bedroom units geared to singles and couples only (and where the kitchen, dining and living rooms are squeezed into a single room).

The BRA, with its immense power over development in Boston, could be also telling developers that they won't be getting zoning variances for their projects unless those project create homeownership for a range of incomes (and condo documents ensure that there has to be a 2/3 or 3/4 majority of owner-occupied units in the building).

There is also a great need for small and medium size affordable commercial/retail condos (storefronts and offices for sale to small business owners).  If the City wants to help small businesses -- as it always professes it does -- the BRA should be ensuring that new developments include small retail spaces for sale -- not just large spaces for another fast-food chain or large chain pharmacy.

Small storefronts would enhance Allston-Brighton and other Boston neighborhoods with greater retail diversity -- encouraging establishments such antiques stores, clothing boutiques, gift shops, bookstores, cafes, dance or art studios, galleries, etc..  Commercial condos for sale would give small business owners the stability that comes with fixed mortgage payments, saving them from escalating rents.  And when the time comes, they would be able to sell their storefront to another small business owner, and take those profits and maybe start another business in a different location.

I heard it in the media a few months ago that Mayor Walsh is concerned about deepening income disparities in Boston (as are other big city mayors).  So one way to address it would be to structure development policies in a way that helps working class people in Boston own their homes (and small businesses own their retail spaces) -- or even become small investor owners of a couple of condos, as a way of building their retirement portfolios.  

It is simply much better for our society to foster and enlarge the numbers of small property owners -- the backbone of the middle class -- than to further, endlessly enrich the people who already own a disproportionate amount of wealth. 

Here is an example of excessive, in my opinion, wealth concentration that was made possible by the BRA: right off Comm. Av. in Allston $150 Million has recently changed hands -- but community benefit from this project was only $100,000, a chump change, really, given the size of the development (the so-called "Green District" -- only it doesn't have any green space):

Allston Sale highlights hot city housing market

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/16/allston-apartment-buildings-sale-highlights-hot-real-estate-market/bQsCPpfXJu5njGLLZHDTPP/story.html

For wealth/income disparities to diminish, it's a no-brainer that regular people, not just the rich, need to be able to reap the benefits of real estate appreciation (or even small-scale speculation).  We simply don't need any more, or any richer, real estate moguls than this city and country already have.

But we definitely need to strengthen the middle class, and create avenues for those at the bottom to join the middle class (even if they can only benefit from it later in life by tapping into the equity of their homes, or by being able to share that wealth they with their children).  

Allowing a heavy concentration of real estate ownership in the hands of 1%, 2%, or 3%-ers -- which is exactly what is currently going on  in Boston -- is not the way to achieve the noble goal of HELPING REGULAR PEOPLE that the Mayor, other elected officials (if we are to believe them), and most of us espouse.

I expect that someone will say that imprudent lending practices led to the 2008 real estate crash, and that's why financing homeownership projects is harder now. Yes, it may be harder, but it is not impossible -- and could be made easier if the City was willing to focus its attention on this matter.

If bankers who finance development were to get a memo that the City of Boston wants to increase homeownership in Boston (especially in areas that have a great need for it), and won't be automatically green-lighting rental projects, they would realize they need to get on board with that policy, or lose business to somebody else (smaller banks, credit unions or private investors).

Thank you everyone for reading this -- and if you agree, in whatever way you can please advance these ideas in public meetings and in your conversations and correspondence with city officials and elected officials.

If I'm the only one who says those things, the chances that anyone in power will listen are small.  Also, it always takes many people's voices to outweigh the power of money in our political system.  In general, guess who is making hefty campaign contributions, and who isn't.  All it takes for developers to skew the BRA's decision in their favor is for the regular Boston residents to be passive and silent. 

Sincerely,

Eva Webster    

P.S.  I was nicely surprised yesterday to see an editorial in the New York Times (see link below) that strongly argues for more homeownership. It's time!

Homeownership and Wealth Creation - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/homeownership-and-wealth-creation.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

--
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.

[Eva Webster]

[David Hall]

Agreed, I'm always told about all these home ownership opportunities supposedly present in lower Allston where all the families live.

Earlier this year, I compiled transactions from April 1 to September 30 in Allston according to Redfin (which uses the MLS data):

Lower Allston: 8 sold, 1 currently on market

Allston South of the Pike: 65 sold, 11 currently on market

The market for home ownership is south of the pike, not in Lower Allston. Reality shows that Lower Allston is a stagnant market (which is not necessarily a bad thing if your goal is for owner-occupants to provide stability to a community, just noting that it is much harder to find property there for sale).

Two issues that could be addressed to encourage more owner-occupants to buy from investors:

(1) Many condo properties owned by investors are in non-conforming buildings due to one investor owning more than 10% of the units. Thus, it is more expensive to finance buying into these buildings.

(2) The disincentive in property taxes for an owner-occupant to buy from an investor. If you buy from an investor, it will be 6-18 months before you qualify for the residential exemption. 18 months has always seemed like an absurd amount of time to make someone wait for this exemption.

Lastly, I'll note that just because a project is built as condos does not mean they will sell, or sell quickly. Let's take 15 N Beacon, the giant building at the corner of Brighton/N Beacon and Cambridge St.

-Built in 1989 as condos

-Developer still owned 30 units as of January 1, 2014 ( http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?q=15+N+Beacon , all units owned by Hialeah). The developer is still trying to sell units 25 years after they were built. They have 7 units on the market right now.

-David

--
--
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.

[Feodor Kouranov]

While I sympathize with the sentiment, the article puts the cart before the horse at times. Homeownership does not create middle-class families. Middle-class income does, and that usually comes from work, not homeownership. There are many life situations where renting is the better choice for a middle-class family.

Allston Village is hard for a family with kids. So it's been all but abandoned to the student demographic. Thankfully, the Great Hipster Moat protects us in Lower Allston - too mainstream. ;-)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Allston/Brighton North Neighbors Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ABNNF+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to AB...@googlegroups.com.

[Merrill H Diamond]

Thanks for the very timely article, Eva.  

I share your desire to see more homeownership in a part of Brighton that has, for too long, been the repository of student and senior rentals and, based on seeing other proposals before the BAIA, is about to morph into a burgeoning rental community for young professionals.

--------------------

For those who don't know me, I'm part of the development team for The LANCASTER,  the 55 unit homeowneship development at 1501 Commonwealth Avenue to which Eva referred below.  Our new building was intended to usher in a wave of homeownership opportunities for Brighton.  However, it appears that The LANCASTER will be bounded by approximately 100 rental units to our immediate east (The Brighton Marine site) and at least as many new rental units to our immediate west (The Evergreen Institute site).

That said, we are now in the permitting stages of The ABERDEEN, a 40 unit condominium building to be constructed at 1650 Commonwealth Avenue.  Notwithstanding our stated commitment to providing homeownership in all forms over a 35 year history (we have yet to do a rental development over that period), it is discouraging to have failed to garner the support of the Brighton Allston Improvement Association ("BAIA") for The ABERDEEN.

Worse, we haven't received the courtesy of being apprised by the BAIA of any aspect of our project that has failed to address the list of esthetic and functional requests and requirements mandated by the Allston Brighton community during the community process.  To the best of our knowledge, we have done so and have made our commitments known in writing and in person.

It's difficult enough to do a homeownership project in Brighton, even with the support of the local boards and agencies.  To be treated as an unwelcome guest in a community in which we've developed The WATERWORKS (with my late friend and partner, Ed Fish) and now The LANCASTER, both of which are homeownership projects, is a bit disheartening.  

Please don't interpret the above as another rich developer whining about the injustices of the permitting or the community process in Boston.  I'm 70 years old and, at this point in my life, I don't have time for anger, jealousy or any of the other useless emotions that are more often the province of a younger person.  Rather, in light of the topic at hand, my mini-tome is merely an "exasperated sigh" to those who have stated their preference for good architecture (i.e., something other than the brick and glass boxes with staggered windows that typify much of the new architecture in Boston) and real homeownership in a part of the City that desperately needs it…and then fail to support such an effort.

Best to all for a happy and healthy holiday season…

Merrill

Merrill H. Diamond

DIAMOND SINACORI, LLC

231 West Canton Street, Suite 1

Boston, MA 02116

617-512-1027 (tel)

Mdia...@diamondsinacori.com

[Been]

Easy to promote ownership with other peoples money.  The Times has a different opinion about owning in Boston

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/rent-or-buy-the-math-is-changing.html

[michael...@gmail.com]

Been, great post. On one side there is the line that renters are throwing their money away and not building equity. As your link states there are a lot of expenses with owning that go beyond what the peeps are sold up front. Sure, put 60k down on that 300k condo and that 60k will not double in seven years as per 80 years of mutual fund data. There are 200k plus income families in Brookline along Beacon Street who for this very reason choose to rent for now and will pull the trigger someday to buy based on their preferences and priorities. And, the young families in Boston are picking the South End and Southie.

As for bringing more middle class long term residents into three beds in Brighton; pretty tough to do as basic three beds in Brighton are starting at 600k ish. Families look at that and say time for Metrowest.

[Merrill H. Diamond]

Mea Culpa...

In re-reading my last post, I think that my tone was overly heavy on exasperation and self-pity and under appreciative of the help and input that I've received from the BAIA over the course of a challenging effort to receive community support for 1650 Commonwealh Avenue.

My apologies to Anabel and the BAIA for doing what I seem to do best (over-communicating).  

I remain hopeful that the unwarranted frustration in my previous post won't impact what has always been a very good relationship with this important community organization.

Best,

Merrill

P.S.  Note to self:  Sleep on any future emails before sending...

 

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

<PastedGraphic-15.tiff>

<PastedGraphic-15.tiff>

[jrcr...@rcn.com]

Two things I would state, without having read all the other posts, and so therefore I may be repeating something already said.
Whether it be rental or condominium, new construction increases density, and with that construction comes all of density's attendant problems. (ready to give up your car yet? Curse the B line trolley yet again? Look over your shoulder at night (inside or outside)? Sounds fairly obvious.

Secondly, it will take a huge amount of new construction to stabilize rents and prices in this local market. Will that happen? Who wants that to happen? Some certainly do: those that build and develop, for sure, and those who can afford.

Oops, a third thing: remember that any condominium, unless prohibited by its Master Deed or other deed restriction, can be rented out, and they have been, as we have seen since the first big wave of condominium conversions of the mid to late 1980s.
Except now, rentals are  prohibited to four or more unrelated undergrads. (Yeah, right, tell me how that is working out for you.)

Fourthly condominiums do provide home ownership opportunity, but they also provide investment opportunity, which will in some cases be a negative as we have seen, For instance when your landlord is from Shanghai or Dubai, or one of the other "bye-bye, see you later " places to which they retreat with their rent check.

Just food for thought. Gee, what's for dinner? Have you been to that  new loud restaurant with the exquisite and pricey healthy food yet?  There used to be a great little cheap place there.

all in fun and complete seriousness,

Jim Creamer

P.S. I forgot to sleep on this email before sending out, so forgive me if I offended anyone.

[Laura Bethard]

Hi all,

I get alerts for lots of charity things, and apparently today is a big charity day.  I thought it might be interesting to pass along the links for three projects looking for funding at one of Allston's local schools:

http://www.donorschoose.org/project/magnetic-learning/1433615/
http://www.donorschoose.org/project/a-not-so-typical-way-to-teach-language/1338569/

http://www.donorschoose.org/project/a-whole-new-world-in-color/1359603/

Hope everyone is enjoying their holiday season!

best,
Laura

 

-Yf thou were a latyn tretise ich wolde putte thee in the vernacular.

[michael...@gmail.com]

Jim, you make a great point about condos vs rentals. There could be a 100 unit condo complex finished tomorrow in a/b and many of those units would be gobbled up immediately sight unseen with foreign cash and rented as investments. Dozens of people in line to rent each unit. Boston running a housing shortage of 20k-30k units depending on the source. From micro units to 3 beds everyone has a hard time finding housing.

Interesting and different perspective in the below post. Not saying I agree with all of it but worth discussion.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/02/17/micro-apartments-boston

[Eva Webster]

On 12/2/14 6:29 PM, "michael...@gmail.com" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There could be a 100 unit condo complex finished tomorrow in a/b and many of
> those units would be gobbled up immediately sight unseen with foreign cash and
> rented as investments.

This is not entirely true. And frankly, Michael, folks who are not sufficiently informed should not be spreading half-truths and misinformation.

Condominium developments can be structured (via an appropriate wording in the master documents) to ensure that only a small percentage of units can be rented at any given time, and the majority of units must be owner-occupied. High quality condominium projects in Boston and elsewhere have such restrictions (and having them actually makes it easier for would-be buyers to obtain mortgages).

Yes, there are many older condo buildings in A-B (usually former rental buildings that were converted in the 1980s) that don't have restrictions on renting, but Brighton (I’m not sure about Allston) has some high-quality condo buildings where such restrictions are in fact in place, and those buildings are great, stable places to live (I know folks who live in such places and enjoy a high quality of life).

Of course, the problem arises when apartment building owners who convert to condos, or developers of new condos, do not put those restrictions in place -- and the place becomes a “revolving door” as if it was a regular rental building.  (Not that a rental building is necessary a bad thing!  We have an excellent rental complex near the Reservoir that is stable and has many long-term residents, but that is relatively rare. That building is managed by a family with deep roots in the area, and they take pride in providing quality housing.)

It is true that many rentals or condo investor units are now going to foreign buyers, who may or may not even live in the country — and it’s not a good thing for the neighborhood.  I heard that some of those buyers are very difficult to locate when their tenants cause problems, or if they fall behind in paying condo fees — and being absentee landlords they don’t play an active role in managing the buildings well.   But this problem could be effectively dealt with by making sure that condo master documents require that the majority of units be owner-occupied.

Unfortunately, most developers are not putting rental restrictions in place when they have their lawyers draft the Master Documents -- because they don’t want to limit the pool of prospective buyers. All they care about is that they get the highest prices for the condos they will have for sale, and they assume that investors are more likely to pay high prices than prospective owner-occupants (which is NOT always true — if you build a quality building, the Waterworks is a good example, people WILL buy to live there, not just to lease the unit out for profit. Lots of people need and want to live in Boston, not in the suburbs, and there is a high demand for good condos.)

The bottom line:  There is absolutely no question that A-B is severely out of balance as far as homeownership is concerned — and the only way to improve the situation is for the BRA to instruct developers to increase production of owner-occupied housing in our neighborhood.  The BRA can do it -- but the community needs to push for it, as well as be well educated on the subject.

If anyone reading this thinks that homeownership, for one reason or another, is not for you — please don’t view the topic of homeownership solely through the prism of your own personal situation.  We’re talking about creating a better, more diverse neighborhood -- for all kinds of people — folks of different ages and incomes, those who want/need to rent, and also those who yearn for the stability of owning their homes, investing (often through sweat equity) in improvements, furbishing and decorating their homes to their hearts content -- and not depending on any landlord’s whim as to what they can or cannot do.

We will never have the owner-occupancy rate of West Roxbury (unless West Roxbury goes to pot), but we should not be at the bottom either.  For Allston to have owner-occupancy rate of just 9% is heart-breaking and extremely detrimental on so many levels.  You need to have about 30% owner-occupancy to have a well-functioning neighborhood, people taking good care of their homes and yards, befriending neighbors and helping one-another, investing in beautification, going after the city for better services, participating in local civic initiatives, voting, etc.


One last point — but an important one:  We should keep in mind that not all condo investor owners are bad for the neighborhood, or society.  If, let’s say, 30% of condos in a building are owned by local/Boston area middle class people — and they are responsible owners who provide housing to folks who can’t afford, or do not want to bother with homeownership, that is a win-win for everyone, and I have no problem with that.  (What I object to is when ownership of real estate becomes so concentrated only among the very wealthy that the middle class buyers don’t stand a chance. -- and the BRA should, in my opinion, start paying attention to this problem.)

For individuals who work for a living, staying in the middle class may be very difficult as they get older, unless they own their homes and/or have income producing assets (or major savings — but few people manage to save a lot during their working and family-raising years, and of course, there is inflation).

So if someone invests in a condo, two, or three to build their financial security for later years, it’s alright.  A nation’s (or city’s) wealth needs to be widely shared — it shouldn’t be just about a bunch of “big boys” or big-boy-wanna-bes gobbling everything up for themselves.

Eva

[David Reynolds Hall]

In the mayor’s housing report, one of the more interesting tables shows that from 2000-2012 Allston/Brighton has been stable in the % of households with “middle income” (50K-100K) and has increased in the % of households with income over 100k. They draw their figures from the 2000 census and the 2012 american community survey. I thought it would be interesting to get look at these figures for our two zip codes:

02134: 2000 2012
Middle 27.9% 28.8%
>100K 6.8% 14.8%

02135: 2000 2012
Middle 31.7% 28.5%
>100K 11.9% 31.6%


Based on those figures, it seems Allston/Brighton has a middle class that appears stable and an increasing number of households with high incomes. I’ll leave it to our increasing population of high income households to figure out whether they can build “middle-class wealth” without owning a home.


Instead of wealth creation, maybe we should move the focus to the question of families in Allston/Brighton. According to the same survey, we’ve seen some large decreases in the number of family households:

02134: 2,859 -> 2,328
02135: 7,165 -> 6,072

So, in 12 years, A-B lost ~15% of its families. I don’t believe it is possible that the neighborhood lost 1,500 units of family housing to demolition. Rather, we’ve had a transition of family households into nonfamily households consisting of roommates.

It seems housing appropriate for families is present in the neighborhood. Building more three bedroom apartments does not mean more families will move in. Rather, that housing will be occupied by young people looking for roommates, just like our existing stock of this housing.

Assuming we want to increase the number of families in A-B, there needs to be options for young people other than roommates. According to the city, there are ~3,100 undergrads and ~4,400 graduate students in our neighborhoods.

This notion of all our three bedroom apartments being occupied by students is punctuated by the City’s estimate that every 3 dorm beds constructed on-campus opens up one off-campus apartment.

Many graduate students don’t want to live in dorms, nor would the young professionals in our midst no longer in school (or the postdocs, many of whom live with roommates). These people would likely stop living with roommates if there were affordable studios and 1 bedrooms were available.

Rather than construction of new 3 bedroom apartments for families, an increase in the supply of affordable studios and 1 bedrooms would return our existing stock of 3 bedroom apartments to the market, available for occupancy by families.

Of course, another route is to construct 3 bedroom apartments and require them to be owner-occupied in the condo docs. Good luck getting 1,500 units of family housing via that route.

-David

[Eva Webster]

Good points, Michael.  I think Boston still has room to grow, but it is running out of room to build in Allston-Brighton (except for the Beacon Rail Yards area that will become available in the next few years).

The regional approach to housing creation — making sure that towns just outside of Boston contribute substantially in that regard as well -- makes a lot of sense to me.  I overheard somewhere that Mayor Walsh is interested in advancing that approach, but it’s a tricky matter — it requires that the state do transportation planning (and construction of course), and help communities with building schools, and so on.

In the meantime, developers are not about to leave Boston alone. Other Boston neighborhoods, with lesser density than ours, should be asked to welcome some tall scaffolds and cranes too, I think. But they are politically stronger due to higher owner-occupancy rates (homeowners vote in municipal elections in high numbers), so they will be kicking and screaming trying to prevent densification — and we will continue to be under pressure.

If the city tries to squeeze too much in the parts of A-B that are already fully developed, our quality of life will likely suffer.  I don't want our neighborhood to be so congested, so packed,  that our streets will look like canyons (the BRA design guidelines tell developers to put buildings right up to our narrow sidewalks, and in many cases it simply violates the neighborhood’s character — I’ll send a separate message about it, with illustrations, in the near future).

If, as a result of new development, our streets are unable to accommodate decent size shade trees along sidewalks (be it next to the road, or as part of a front setback of a large development), or between properties -- then to me it means the the developer is overreaching.  Let them build — but not in a way that creates an asphalt/concrete desert.
  
So given that we have so little buildable land (in Brighton in particular), I think that all of us who love Allston-Brighton (incl. our elected officials) need to be very thoughtful about WHAT KIND, WHERE and HOW MUCH development we should be embracing -- because these may be our last chances to correct things that we don’t like, and to bring things that we do like or need.

So how can we use the inevitably upcoming development to get the very best out of it for Allston-Brighton?  And what that “very best” is?

Figuring it all out cannot be done on a random, purely-reactive, subjective, project-by-project basis (as it is being done currently).  It only leads to mistakes, squabbles, chaos, missed opportunities, and some irreversible design blunders.

I think we really need to have a thoughtful conversation in the community, with the BRA’s participation, on this subject.  We need a serious visioning exercise to figure out which parts of Allston-Brighton can benefit from development (and not just any development, but quality development), and which parts of the neighborhood’s existing character are worth protecting (and fighting for if necessary).

If we don’t have a clear vision of what we want Allston-Brighton to become in the coming decades, what kind of neighborhood ideally it should be, what we should pass down to future generations -- how can anyone (the BRA, Elected Officials, the BAIA, ACA and other neighborhood groups, and individual citizens) intelligently evaluate which projects are the right fit for us, and why?

I think A-B needs some collaborative entity representative of key stakeholders to figure out those things.

Best,

Eva


On 12/2/14 10:54 PM, "michael...@gmail.com" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eva, I agree with you on the 100 unit condo example in a/b. Like you said,
> getting condo docs to require a certain amount of owner occupancy is usually
> an uphill battle and does lead to higher property values and allows more peeps
> to get mortgages. Cash buyers do have a lot of influence. I apologize to the
> board for being misinformed.
>
> David, I think you hit the nail on the head. Attracting families involves more
> than just about having 2-3 bed units available. I may be wrong but it seems
> younger families are preferring to live in the city these days in areas like
> Southie and the South End.
>
> There is massive demand for all housing in Boston from Waterworks luxury
> condos to garden level studios in Fenway. I wish we would spend more time
> thinking about how to address the housing shortage in Boston for all
> residents. Or, maybe we just say "Sorry, Boston is maxed out, try another
> town."

[Matthew Danish]

Let's not forget that density brings many benefits to the neighborhood. Density with diversity is absolutely critical for city safety: eyes on the street. Density with diversity also supports the many, varied, interesting small businesses that we have come to know and love. Properly designed, density causes automobile traffic to decrease, because people don't feel the need to flee their own neighborhoods every single time they leave home. Density means bringing people together, which is what cities are all about.

One of the main aspects of the character of Allston/Brighton is that Commonwealth Ave continues the corridor of density that emanates from Beacon Hill, the Back Bay and the Fenway. No other outer neighborhood (former inner-ring suburb) in Boston can claim that feature: by comparison, the data show that all of Dorchester, Roxbury, Jamaica Plain and Mattapan are relatively low density compared to Comm Ave. It doesn't help that urban renewal also destroyed a great deal of those neighborhoods, that was never rebuilt. Allston/Brighton, near the Comm Ave corridor, retains the densely populated city character that many of us who live here find attractive and indispensable. Of course, there are certainly many things that could be improved --- one of the reasons I am advocating for Comm Ave to return to its original concept of being a "green corridor" is because that would fit the densely populated character of the neighborhood so well.

I would like to see, and I try to advocate for, development that can attract a wide variety of people from many different backgrounds, with many different goals, from many walks of life. Because ultimately, maintaining that kind of diversity is what makes a neighborhood healthy and functional. That would imply a diversity of housing stock too, whether it be financed in the form of rentals, condos, co-ops, or whatever else is appropriate. And it also implies an increasing amount of housing stock, for as long as the population of the city increases, we need to have housing units available to keep pace, or else we will find that increasing prices will push out and destroy the very diversity we were trying to foster.

Matthew Danish

--

--
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.

[michael...@gmail.com]

Look who it is! The infamous Matthew Danish, lover of bikes and hater of cars :)

Matthew raises some good points. Check out the Vendome building in the Back Bay. Dense, yet one of the nicest buildings in the city with some famous condo owners, dogs, and renters. Check out the pool at the Harbor Towers on the greenway in the summer and you will be shocked at the number of families, I could not believe it this past summer. Dense building that was originally affordable housing. (Side note this building throws a massive shadow on the greenway yet opposes new construction nearby that also would throw a shadow on the greenway, sounds familiar to those of us at Cleveland Circle). Columbus park packed with dogs and young families from the dense North End on the weekends. On the other hand, we see lots of young families in lower density areas like the South End, Southie, and JP. Question here of course is who will stay as kids get older? But, a return to local schools is a huge step in the right direction. Anyway, back on topic which is really not a density debate.

We all love a/b and want the best for the area and often have different opinions of how to get there. Brighton is often stereotyped as an area with all students and nothing else. I literally get strange looks when I say I live near Cleveland Circle. "Yes, I am a ten minute walk to Washington square, one minute from chestnut hill, Brookline, and Newton, who would want to live there?!?! The d line is about 20-24 mins from reservoir to park street during rush hour. Brighton center has easy street parking and highway access to the pike for those who work in metro west and the 128 tech belt. We have a beautiful reservoir and local museum. Sure we can and should set limits for owner occupancy and restrictions on developers, but that is only one side of the equation. Families will not just magically appear in three bedroom units! Rather we have to make a clear statement of what the value proposition is for families and other potential long term residents.

[Deborah Putnoi]

Deborah Putnoi
artfor...@mac.com
www.thedrawingmind.com
617-640-7176

[Eva Webster]

What are you talking about?  They were both posted when they were originally sent.

On 12/9/14 9:26 PM, "Mike D" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

It looks like the posts from Matt and Fred did not post.

On Friday, December 5, 2014, Fred Hapgood <fhap...@pobox.com> wrote:

Matt --

If I might expand a bit on your terrific essay, another big plus for
density has to do with transportation. We can look at the relation
between density and transportation in two ways: how to get to the kind
of transportation we would like best, and where we seem to be going,
like it or not.

To take the last point first:  I think anyone who has lived in B/A
for any length of time has noticed how traffic conditions have
deteriorated across the spectrum, from the availability of parking,
to the deterioration of transit mph, to the length of time spent dead
in traffic.

If we ask ourselves where we think this trend is going, if we ask what
we should be planning for over the next twenty years, it seems
reasonable to suspect it will get worse. Boston's ranking in the world
is almost certainly going to continue to rise and with it the
attractiveness of the city as a place to live and work.  We need to
think about how to respond.  One alternative is mass transit, but that
technology has its own set of capacity limitations. The only system
with no barriers to expansion is walking, but to make walking work you
need a dense commercial infrastructure, one with lots of jobs, and in a
world where driving is increasingly inconvenient, to make a dense
commercial infrastructure possible you need a dense residential
structure.

Finally, I think that most of us would prefer to live in a city where
most of what we need was within walking distance. Most of us like the
idea of a dynamic, stimulating street life. But most of us think
anything like that is just a fantasy, that automobiles are
indispensable. We'll see.

Fred






----- Original message ----- From: Matthew Danish
<matthew....@gmail.com <javascript:;> > To: AllstonBrighton2006
<allstonbr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> >
Cc: abnnf <ab...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> >, "cleveland-circle-community"
<cleveland-circle-
    comm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [AB2006] Re: [Cleveland-

    Circle] Homeownership is needed to promote middle-class wealth

    creation Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:26:58 -0500

AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;>

>
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 <javascript:;> .

>
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 <javascript:;> .

To post to this group, send email to

cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> .

Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.

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

http://www.BostonScienceLectures.com
http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/

--
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 <javascript:;> .
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> .

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.

[Eva Webster]

A while ago, there was a discussion here (on AB2006) about renting vs. owning your home.  Someone argued they are better off being renters and investing their money elsewhere instead. That person was looking at housing solely as investment – but that’s not the only way to look at it.

Still, I maintain that for most working people, there are no safe investments (for whatever funds they have left after paying high Boston area rents) that can beat appreciation of a decent quality home/condo in the long run (a decade or two).  And there are also additional considerations — such as having long-term neighbors, a stake in the community, a sense of belonging, the pride and pleasure of being “the king of your castle” -- that are important too.

The message below is in some ways relevant to this topic — I sent it today to the Cleveland Circle group, so it may be a duplicate for some people (in which case, please skip it).
 
------ Forwarded Message
From: Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net>
Reply-To: "cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Cir...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:12:04 -0500
To: "cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Cleveland Circle project has a new developer, architect & program

On 1/3/15 3:29 PM, "michaelgdemarco" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about seniors who can not afford "higher end?"

Not to be flippant, but what about people in general who can't afford "higher end"?  They end up living in cheaper/more affordable communities, usually farther away from the city.

It’s safe to assume that all low-income people (including the elderly with no real estate assets) would like to have subsidized housing in attractive locations of their choice — but in the real world, that is not possible.

I think it must be terrible to find yourself aging and not earning a decent paycheck anymore, not own anything, and you realize you can’t afford to live in areas where you used to live/rent (often for all, or most of your life).

And that is why working people should strive to purchase homes with fixed, affordable mortgage payments (even if they have to pool their resources with relatives or friends to do it, or get roommates to meet mortgage payments), and not spend years and years turning their hard-earned money to landlords.  With some exceptions, renting all your life pretty much guarantees that as senior renters on fixed income, they will be priced out of the housing market they are used to.

If you a have a home that’s paid off or has substantial equity, you have a variety of choices — you can continue living there, or you can rent it out at a net profit, or get a roommate, or sell the place and move to a different area, or even move in with your children/family (if possible) and help out with their housing costs.

Landing alone in a little room in some subsidized senior housing project is not something most people look forward to — and yet so many folks choose to make life decisions that lead to that, and taxpayers have to foot the bill for it as well (hence less money in the budget for other societal needs).

By the way, Brighton already has a substantial number of subsidized housing units for low-income seniors, more than any adjacent community.  The ones that come readily to mind: the huge one on Wallingford Rd., but also Patricia White Apartments, Covenant House, Providence House, Wingate, Reservoir Towers, and possibly others that I don’t remember from the top of my head.

The developers of the Cleveland Circle project want to fill the demand for “higher end” senior housing — which is not a bad thing. House-rich seniors who no longer have the mental and physical stamina one needs to take care of a house often prefer to downsize, and that gives them funds to go the “high-end senior housing” route.  That frees their houses for new families – and in a chain reaction, that frees other housing units that the new house buyers used to occupy.  So however you look at it, it’s a net gain in the Boston area’s housing stock.

------ End of Forwarded Message

[Mike D]

Merrill,

Hi, thank you for bringing condo development to Brighton. Yes, the views and opinions of the community as a whole should be the driving force-not just the opinion of one group.

What can us residents of Allston/Brighton do to help?

Thanks,
Mike