Latest on Austin Street: 25% of units in smaller project will be affordable
by Nathan Phillips | May 11, 2015 | Newton | 45 comments
Tags: Austin Street | history
There's an updated story on wickedlocalnewton about the plan that Austin Street Partners will file with the Board of Aldermen tomorrow. This story still has an unnamed source but the person is identified as a spokesperson for the developer, so it's not an anonymous source. Unlike last week's story, this one states that 25 percent of the housing units would be affordable for people earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income.
Note: If you have a question, or expect a reply from Village 14 Staff, use Contact Us, not comments.
Paul on May 11, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Why only 25 units? What about a plan that has 40 units total, but they are all affordable units?
scratch that- it's only 17 units of affordable housing. What if it was 30-40 units total, all affordable?
Dan Fahey on May 11, 2015 at 9:12 pm
@Paul,
As a generalization, if all units were "affordable" developers would have a hard time making the numbers work.
But if all units are rentals, the total applies against the 40B formula.
Ted Hess-Mahan on May 11, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Dan, that is not entirely correct. As a general rule, if a rental project is publicly subsidized and/or a 40B project, it may be included in the subsidized housing inventory of affordable housing that counts toward the 10%.
Paul on May 11, 2015 at 10:55 pm
@Dan
I understand that in theory, but with another developer willing to bid $5 million for the lot, it makes me wonder how much profitability is built into the plan. I'm far from convinced that the numbers couldn't work with a 30-40 unit place, providing a reasonable ROI. A little transparency on expected profit should be expected, in my opinion.
With so many residents objecting to the size, we should be looking for a compromise that provides affordable housing, but keeping the the total size smaller, and profit to an corresponding appropriate ROI. We shouldn't be compromising resident concerns on size to enable higher than needed profits for the developer.
Greg Reibman on May 11, 2015 at 11:13 pm
@Paul: I know you are very fixated on the $5 million offer. I frankly don't remember the details (sometimes it feels like we've been talking about this since the Johnson administration) but did that proposal allow people to use the Austin Street lot during construction? I do recall that loss of the lot during a lengthy construction process was a non-starter for many people, including many merchants who said loss of parking would have been devastating. Also, how much parking was going to remain under that plan?
Paul, the Austin Street Partners were willing to put a lot more money into improvements that would benefit Newtonville than the other bidders. While structuring this as a 99 year ground lease would not pay as much in the short term, it has certain advantages in the long term, like retaining ownership by the city. I like that.
I was not part of the evaluation team, but I know they represented a number of different perspectives and areas of expertise on various aspects of the project. The GreenStax construction scored high because it shortened the period of disruption to the village by shortening the time it would take to complete exterior construction. That is huge for businesses who cannot afford to lose parking for their customers and employees for an extended period.
Short story long, the bottom line was not the only bottom line on determining which proposal would provide the greatest benefit to the city.
I don't remember the specifics either- they were similar in size. But I do know the city's evaluators scored the two proposals as the same. Presumably both had disadvantages and advantages, but both were similarly attractive to the city.
But it's a different point than my point here: how much profitability should the developers accrue from building on public land? Particularly if profits are correlated to size, and size is one of the key issues for many opposed to the project? That $4 million difference between the two bids alone suggests that we should be able to meaningfully reduce the size but still allow for profitability.
Well Paul they have reduced the size, including the height, the number of units and the amount of retail but also increased the parking, which back when this whole conversation started to heat up was the No. 1 contention.
@Ted
As I wrote to Greg- the proposals were evaluated to be of similar quality across the number of dimensions. You can read the report, Greg linked to it on an earlier thread. So when two proposals are tied as equally attractive by the evaluators, the bottom line should presumably play a larger role.
We haven't received much clarity on why the much lower bid was accepted. While GreenStax was a core cited element in the mayor's rationale, the other bid presumably had other advantages, as they both scored the same.
But as I wrote to Greg above, my point for raising it here was to point out that there is likely a good amount of room from a profitability perspective to further reduce the size of the project, and still provide a profit incentive to the developers.
Greg- why can't we reduce it further? We can increase affordable housing units, and cut back on overall units. I'm good with 100% affordable at 35 units. Don't want anything, but that's what compromise is about.
How much money does Austin St Partners have to make off this?
Why should we reduce it further? We need housing. Our seniors need housing. Young professionals need housing.
Our merchants need customers. Newtonville has an echo system (a grocery store, restaurants, the senior center, retail, banks, a pharmacy, the commuter rail, buses, cultural facilities, etc) which make it perfect for smart growth.
And they've even preserved the parking!
Its called compromise Greg.
The seniors can go elsewhere. I think it's wrong-headed to pursue affordable housing in one of the most expensive places in the country. I don't want more density, more traffic, more kids in schools when we have enough issues already and a huge building lurking over the rest of the village center. But I see the other side. I'm willing to compromise. How about you?
Jerry Reilly on May 12, 2015 at 12:47 am
@Paul – You say you want compromise but it doesn't look that way to me. The developer, clearly in response to public objections, went back and redesigned the project and reduced the number of units. That sounds like an effort at compromise to me.
Your response is REDUCE IT MORE, that doesn't sound like the response of someone seeking compromise.
You also say "seniors can go elsewhere". That to me is a breathtaking statement. Other opponents have objected that future residents of Austin St may have kids, that we would then have to educate. A letter in the Tab worried that the Phillip Neri residents across town would be renters. If these comments are being made by people who just don't like a project, so they're just raising any issue they can think of, that's depressing to contemplate. If those comments are genuinely held and believed then I fear for our city.
If the aspirations of some of us is not only for a gated uniform community of only the wealthiest of citizens, but a community that excludes children, old folks, and renters, that's one chilling vision … at least to me.
H L Dewey on May 12, 2015 at 12:48 am
@Paul Thanks so much for your generous support.
"The seniors can go elsewhere."
Speaking as one of those cursed 'seniors' I would just point out that for myself, and others like me who have lived twenty or thirty years or more in Newton, and paid taxes, voted, put our children through the schools, I find that brush-off just a little bit insulting. Have you discovered a way to avoid becoming a senior yourself? I can assure you, you will find yourself in that situation sooner or later. I'm confused, you state at one point that 'the seniors can go elsewhere' and then one sentence later you complain that there will be more kids in the schools? Are these seniors breeding at such a rate that they are filling up the classrooms, and if only we could rid the city of the senior scourge we'd have plenty of room in the schools? Make up your mind, eh?
@Paul
I'm good with 100% affordable at 35 units. Don't want anything, but that's what compromise is about.
Once again, there's nothing in that statement that would make me believe that you have any real interest in compromise. The entire business model of this sort of development is that the proceeds from the market rate units subsidize the affordable units. That's the essence of the entire project. So saying you'll compromise with 100% affordable units is the equivalent of saying "I'm perfectly willing to compromise when hell freezes over".
Mike Striar on May 12, 2015 at 1:21 am
I don't agree with Paul on everything, but he's absolutely right to question the business deal. I believe the Austin Street parcel should be developed, but $1M [or $10,101 per year] is a total giveaway.
Paul on May 12, 2015 at 6:49 am
lol, Jerry. Developer proposed 80 units, opponents want zero. He reduces to 68, and you think that's the fair compromise.
Not much else to say.
They aren't paying market rate for the land, it's a huge difference. Other developers pay $1 million for a much smaller plot to build on single family house at $2 million. 4o units of affordable housing with the land is likely sufficiently profitable.
PS Jerry I'm not looking to make it not financially feasible. Let's open the books, scrutinize the numbers, and give the developers an appropriate ROI, sizing it accordingly. I believe that they are making millions off the current proposal, with an ROI far exceeding what we should be offering. To the detriment of many citizens who want it smaller or nothing at all.
Jane Frantz on May 12, 2015 at 7:46 am
Paul – Who are you?
Seniors can go elsewhere? It appears the reason you remain anonymous is so you can say anything you want about anyone.
Given this level of open disregard for longtime residents in the community, I think it's time to revisit the policy about posting anonymously.
The seniors comment was poor word choice. I'm not looking to kick anyone out. I'm just not interested in adding high density housing. Seniors are welcome to stay in the community as long they want.
Greg Reibman on May 12, 2015 at 8:07 am
Nice one. Maybe you should print it up and put it on a bumper sticker.
I think it's wrong-headed to pursue affordable housing in one of the most expensive places in the country.
So people who can't meet your standard of living (including, I presume seniors) should all be shipped off to where? Montana? Let's demand that the developer pay for their relocation too!
I'm willing to compromise. How about you?
Sure I want something twice as big. But Jerry is right, you're not really willing.
Our comments crossed. But it's comforting to know that you're now willing to compromise and let older folks stay in Newton. Very generous of you Paul.
Paul – I'm so glad to hear that I can stay. That was more than a poor choice of words. You let your true feelings show through. I'm speculating on that, but I heard it from a credible source. A very credible source.
You want a 9 story building on Austin St? Is that a real comment?
You want nothing. I want nine. I'll compromise at four, which meets you more than in the middle. But you'll have to allow seniors to live there. That's my final offer.
Blueprintbill on May 12, 2015 at 9:52 am
Why exactly should the citizen taxpayers of this city be compelled to build housing for seniors ? City government should not be a charitable organization. The last place this senior would chose to live in would be a nursing home and the second to last place would be an expensive project like Austin Street, with wonderful views of traffic jambs on the turnpike, air conditioning units on surrounding single story commercial roof tops, dark smelly corridors to my room ( oops Apartment ), and noisy neighbors playing music I might not care for.
It was with great effort I was able to escape just that sortof urban life to come to Newton, to my own little tenth of an acre and to the extent I am able to age in place here so much the the better.
@Blueprintbill – Huh?
Austin St is not a senior housing project. As far as I know, the only way senior housing and Austin St intersect is that the project would build some new housing that appeals to SOME portion of seniors (no yard, snow shoveling, stairs, etc), and that we don't have a lot of presently. If seniors do choose to move to Austin St, they're as likely to move to the market rate apartments as the the subsidized ones.
Don't worry, nobody's going to make you move to Austin St if that doesn't appeal to you.
Greg Reibman on May 12, 2015 at 10:24 am
Why exactly should the citizen taxpayers of this city be compelled to build housing for seniors ? City government should not be a charitable organization.
NativeNewtonian on May 12, 2015 at 10:56 am
Wow, indeed, Greg. This thread has taken an ugly turn.
As a member of this City's Council On aging, I, frankly, am embarrased by some of these comments. I certainly hope that Blueprintbill is able to happily age in place in his current house; however, a needs assessment completed in 9/14 shows that most seniors, while they want to stay in Newton, want a condo that is on one floor, and do not want to or are unable to remain in a larger house. Seniors do not have children to overburden the schools. They do not want handouts, blueprint. They should not be forced out of Newton because Newton does not have appropriate dwelling space. They do, however, want to live somewhere safe with walkability and access to stores, banks, transportation, etc. That sounds an awful lot like…Austin Street.
Joshua Norman on May 12, 2015 at 1:17 pm
What happens if the people proposing the Austin Street are wrong about who ends up moving there. What happens if Austin Street ends up getting young families with school age children instead of senior citizens whose children have grown up?
Avalon Bay costs Newton taxpayers over $800,000 annually. What safeguards are there to ensure that Austin Street is not an Avalon Bay Redux?
Chris Steele on May 12, 2015 at 1:24 pm
I've been following the discussion a little passively, but something was just said here which I believe deserves a full and robust answer.
Clearly, it's time to remind ourselves of the reasons why it is not only right-headed, but crucial to pursue affordable housing in a community – and region – like ours.
Moral – Everyone should be able to afford a decent place to live. It's a simple statement and open to a lot of interpretation, but still valid. And for a lot of people, it's reason enough. However, let me give you a few more
Economic – Businesses only come to and thrive in an area where their workforce can afford to live. This is true at all levels from the corner store or pub up through the large corporate facility. Companies are increasingly wary about expanding in the greater Boston area (e.g. Fidelity) due to the fact that they cannot recruit people to the area and have them live a reasonable commuting distance from the office. Even our own local Newton stores and restaurants have difficulty finding good staff because they can't afford to live close enough to make the commute make sense.
Lifespan and Family – As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, data shows that many seniors want to stay in Newton, but may have become priced out of the market when they feel it is no longer appropriate for them to stay in a larger, multi-floor home. This does not apply to everyone of course, but it does apply to many. Likewise, many of us would like to have the opportunity to have next, younger generation live near us. We have lived through having family members move many states away due to cost of living and housing issues. This is an issue we can act upon to provide a pipeline for new and diverse community members to live in Newton and become an part of the fabric of our community.
Social – While not exclusively true, providing a robust mix of housing types and affordability levels means that we avoid becoming a monolithic community. Put another way, we maintain a connection with those who have different experiences, thoughts and ideas from us. We gain exposure to new culture. And we avoid becoming intellectually inbred.
Others will have other reasons to add to my list, I'm sure. The reasons are multifaceted and result in a more responsible, livable, and frankly more pleasant community. Certainly, this is why I believe working to provide affordable housing is a worthwhile endeavor.
Gail Spector on May 12, 2015 at 1:34 pm
What the vice chair of the Newton Economic Development Commission said.
tomsheff on May 12, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Are you wishing for the good ole days, yet?
Newton's leaders have taken the posture that affordable housing is a worthy objective for us, and I believe this is not just of recent vintage.
While blueprint and paul [and some others I'm sure see this differently [see their comments] and they are entitled to their opinions, I believe they don't reflect anywhere near the majority opinion in the city. For that I'm grateful.
I like the way Chris Steele formulates his take on this, which in part is there are a number of reasons, not just economic, that inform the city's stance on affordable housing.
I find it ironic that Chris Steele on one hand is talking the need for affordable housing in Newton, yet he and his wife made housing more unaffordable by supporting David Cohen's 2008 override proposal and Setti Warren's 2013 override proposal.
Lassy on May 12, 2015 at 5:17 pm
People will move there with kids and squeeze into small living quarters to go to our schools. I volunteer in the schools and in my classroom there were kids whose parents lived in a one bedroom in the Avalon in order to come to Newton schools. Not saying if this is good or bad, just commenting in response to a post above where someone asked how do you know people with school-age kids won't move in there, and I'm saying from experience that there will be some.
mgwa on May 12, 2015 at 5:46 pm
Thank you Chris for you thoughtful, sensible post.
As to Austin St., the main thing it lacks for seniors is handicapped-accessible transit. It's shameful that the commuter rail is so inaccessible through Newton. If it weren't for that, Newtonville would be very appealing for those of us looking for one-level living that would allow us to stay here.
Thoughtful post. However, I think we are suffering from insufficient analysis of the experiences in other cities. If you look at New York, San Francisco, London, Tokyo– none have achieved anything more than "token affordability" i.e. a small percentage of the cities' housing stock is affordable, and most people needing affordable housing need to live further from the cities themselves.
Adding a couple thousand units of housing doesn't meaningfully change our percentage of housing stock that is affordable. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of our housing stock continues to appreciate at a growth rate than exceeds our regional/national economic growth rate. Newton will continue to becoming increasingly less affordable to the general population.
Adding affordable housing may make people feel good along the thoughtfully laid out dimensions you cite, but the actual numbers of those impacted– both changes in our city composition and the % of population able to live in Newton– will be minimal. A real solution, as is seen across Europe, is development of reliable, rapid mass transit, allowing regions to grow in size, yet remain interconnected to its core, in our case, Boston.
We need to focus on real solutions that solve the challenges of affordability for the full region, not the just the lucky few who happen to get a housing unit in Newton. Its easy to say we should have both, but the political reality is that their is only so much attention to be paid to this issue, and by focusing on providing local affordable housing, it comes at the cost of insufficient attention to a world-class transportation system. You need to have priorities on housing policy, and unfortunately Massachusetts has focused on the wrong one. Experiences in major cities around the world bear that out.
Greg Reibman on May 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Adding a couple thousand units of housing doesn't meaningfully change our percentage of housing stock that is affordable.
@Paul: If you weren't already on record as disliking every aspect of the Austin Street project and indifferent as to whether or not seniors who may have spent their lives raising families here can continue to live here, one might mistaken your comment above as being misguided but sincere. But no one need make that mistake.
Basically what you are saying is that if we can't solve the entire affordable housing problem we shouldn't strive to create housing for anyone. Are you also opposed to feeding any hungry person unless we can solve world hunger?
I was joking when I suggested you wanted seniors and others who can't meet your standard of living to move to Montana. But OMG, you really mean that!
There are so many untrue and misrepresented elements in your response that it doesn't merit a response.
It's a non-serious response to a substantive criticism.
Address the substance, enough with the personal attacks.
Sam S on May 12, 2015 at 9:20 pm
@Chris – I will give you the Lifespan and Health. Data there is irrefutable. Other than that, all your other points are your opinions (that you pass as facts) or completely inaccurate.
Fidelity is leaving Mass because of its high tax rates, not access to talent. Ned Johnson has said so – ask anyone in Fidelity. On contrary they have expanded presence in NH and RI (as you can guess not for talent).
"Businesses only come to and thrive in an area where their workforce can afford to live". Really? I know many restaurants, pubs etc. that hire people living far away and doing just fine. The statement does not make common sense, but may you have data to support it.
Moral – someone making 80% of Median Income, can most likely own a housing in many cities including parts of Newton. One just has to look at the MLS.
Social – Again your opinion, not fact.
@Dan – "I believe they don't reflect anywhere near the majority opinion in the city" – On the contrary, I believe majority of the residents want to ONLY meet the 40B obligations (which we have), and no more. Don't believe me – put it to vote. During last poll, 2/3rd residents did not want the city to impose affordable housing on them. And guessing by the local opposition – they just want everyone to get in the same way – using fair and open market.
The bigger problem is this will lead to adding children to the school system. There is no provision that prioritizes seniors here over anyone else.
Simon on May 12, 2015 at 10:48 pm
@Lassy,
It's great you volunteer to help out.
I have been wondering about the school aspect for a while.
I think it is fair to say Newtons schools are struggling to keep up with demand, but are trying to deal with it.
I struggle with the affordable housing and especially 40B. It makes no sense economically to purchase and tear down million dollar homes in the name of affordable housing, If affordable housings in Newton is about getting kids into our school syteem, would it not make more sense for Newton to explore providing school services to kids outside of Newton.
Probably very controversial – but for me personally it would make more sense taxing me more tax dollars rather than growing our villages. And maybe the state could subsidize it too !
Lassy on May 13, 2015 at 10:23 am
Simon, thank you. I have been a volunteer for many years. Newton does provide school services to kids outside of Newton. We have the METCO program where African American students are bussed in from Boston to go to our schools.
ellen on June 1, 2015 at 2:34 pm
I agree with the lack of ADA access to transportation. And there has been no mention of whether any of the units would be designed to be ADA compliant or universally designed which is necessary for almost anyone wanting to age in place.
As for single level living, let's go back to the slow as molasses zoning reform, demo moratorium, wrong headed FAR etc etc etc which is allowing the demolition of many small, single level homes with minimal acreage perfect for aging in place.
The housing strategies and policies are disorganized and at cross purposes at best.
I agree ; why not all units affordable or just scrap it and find another strategy to achieve the objective?