Gentrification

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Paul McMorrow writes about gentrification in Union Square. He notes that with the arrival of the Green Line, it will be much more desirable to live in. This will cause an increase in demand for housing there, and that there are two choices: Allow enough additional housing to be built to prevent prices from rising insanely, or preserve its "character" (appearance) at the cost of pricing out just about everybody who already lives there.

"Desirable, inexpensive, low-density -- choose any two!"

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

This being the Boston area, I can guess which one they'll pick. "No new housing, anywhere, ever!"

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

They actually did get approval to build some new housing in Union Square. The fight over that is what precipitated McMorrow's article.

And I was amused that ex-mayor Menino put through approval of something like 10,000 new units in Boston ... just before he retired from office!

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

The whole thing will be tied up in the courts so long that today's recent college grads will be old and gray by the time the things are built, and by the time the court challenges are done, they'll only have allowed something like 1/4 of the units that were originally proposed.

[ceo]

Contrary to what one might ordinarily expect, the comments are well worth reading on this one.

[pixelsand.livejournal.com]

Some of the comments were interesting, but to be honest I have a hard time empathizing because they are not very specific about their concerns.

" The residents are not opposed to development, but they want development that fits in with the current atmosphere of the neighborhood. "

"They want to see good development, and will continue to challenge poorly considered, arrogant proposals which ignore the concerns and goals of those who care about Union Square and fall short of the vision of this community, including that outlined in the 'Somervision' comprehensive plan."

"The bottom line is that the new zoning is terrible and should be completely redrawn or repealed by the residents of Somerville."

What does all of this mean? I get that they don't like the zoning, but from what I can tell the only thing they don't like is that it allows the area to densify and let more people live and work there. That means change, which is "out of character" for the neighborhood. Except that this is a city, and neighborhoods change. The GLX into Union has been known about for a very long time, and one of the most obvious effects of it would be more desirability, density, and urbanity. The city zoning seems to have been developed to work with and embrace this, and the residents of the area who do not want to see it change seem to be opposing it for the sake of delaying the transformation of the neighborhood into something more urban.

If these people had more specific examples about how their lives would be negatively effected by development - like for example the Crossfit gym owner who after spending a lot of money renovating the place learned his property is on a list to be taken up by eminent domain from a "master developer" - I think I'd be more willing to empathize. Without that though, it's hard not to side with the author of the article. That's not to say I think development should go ahead unchecked - these people may well have legitimate concerns, it's just that I've yet to hear any specific examples of what they might be.

[somervilleguy.livejournal.com]

One solution that I think is being tried in Philly is to keep the taxes for longer term residents lower. Taxes are a significant reason those on fixed incomes leave. A city is very unlikely to leave money on the table however, so it doesn't gain much traction at a city government level.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I just ran into this article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/cities-helping-residents-resist-the-new-gentry.html?hp&_r=1

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that Mass.'s Proposition 2-1/2 limits the rate that the tax bill on an individual residential property can rise, so it may have the effect of "keep the taxes for longer term residents lower".

Of course, city governments hate to leave money on the table, but it seems that in some places the wave of gentrification has been so fast that the tax take is rising fast enough that the government is willing to forego some of the increase. Of course, it helps motivate the government that long-term and elderly residents generally have a high voting turnout...

Normally I'm strongly anti-NIMBY and believe in a relentlessly level playing field, but I do feel some sympathy for people who are getting priced out like this. OTOH, it's worth checking how much money they could get by selling out. There were cases like this in the 1950s, when the farmland on the outskirts of cities was forcibly turned into subdivisions because the farmers couldn't pay the property tax on the hugely increased value of their land. But the farmers made millions selling their land, so they really weren't damaged overall. In gentrification, it's the long-term renters that are most likely to take a hit.

[cos]

No, Prop 2 1/2 places limits on the total *levy* - the aggregate amount the city raises in taxes for the year. It does not place restrictions on how they tax individual properties, as long as the final sum doesn't exceed the limits.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

I'm not comfortable giving tax breaks to wealthy people (at the expense of people just starting out who are moving to the area) just because they have a liquidity problem. Rent out a room, get a HELOC, move to a smaller place. Personal choice has to come into play. Also the idea of the government favoring a certain class of people over others is a little disconcerting.

[somervilleguy.livejournal.com]

The government favors a certain class of people all the time. Low income housing comes to mind. Do you wan to do something about gentrification or not? You will need to give some people more help than others, no way around that.

I have no problem with limiting taxes on longer term owners.

Rent out a room? How about my couch? Maybe the closet? Fuck that.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

At least with subsidized housing there is some attempt to means test it. Lower taxes depending on how long you live there gives tax breaks to wealthy people. People with large equity, and also people with equity plus other assets.

It also feels a little bit like "England for the English" Just replace England with Somerville. I'm just not comfortable with that kind of exclusive attitude. The government shouldn't be choosing who gets to live where and who is not welcome. We make our individual life choices.

[somervilleguy.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know how long you lived there but say it was 1980 when you moved there, you would deserve to pay less in taxes then the people that moved there after say 2000 or what ever year there that assements skyrocketed in that area. If you owned a multi family house that would be different since you could raise rents but some us don't have that option. I've lived here since 1969 and I put up with so much bullshit it would make your head spin and now I'm being rewarded with high taxes. it's not my fault I'm house rich. Yes one day my family will sell the house and make a lot of money and if you want to charge them back taxes have at it. But I put up with a Somerville that would make most people here piss down there leg and run away and now I get to reap the rewards of $3 doughnuts and yoga classes and a tax rate that just went up 20%. Oh and I don't care what you're comfortable with.

[ron_newman]

Unlike other parts of Somerville, Union Square has a fair amount of land now occupied by junkyards, auto repair garages, and parking lots. That can all be replaced by housing without tearing down any of the buildings that give the area real character.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

The article shows that selfish NIMBYs will sue over the act of building, itself.

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

I'm always surprised by people who think that constructing more units of housing is not the answer to a shortage of housing units.

[pixelsand.livejournal.com]

building more housing is the answer to getting more housing. It's not necessarily the answer to more affordable prices for said housing. Density has a way of creating it's own demand - in cases like Manhattan or San Francisco demand is more or less infinite, so no matter how much you build the rent will be excessive. I don't think Boston is at that stage yet, but there is no real way to know. That said I'm always in favor of building more housing wherever possible because it allows more people to live in and enjoy and contribute to the city, which makes it a better place for everybody.

[secretlyironic.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. (And that is why we have taxes and subsidies and set-asides).

Anyway: Hooray for density.

I'd love to see more moderately-priced housing being built.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I really don't think Union Square - or most of Somerville, really - needs more NEW! FABULOUS! EXPENSIVE! LUXURY! CONDOS! I'd love to see more moderately priced stuff happening.

I also hope the gentrification doesn't drive out all of the smaller businesses around there that aren't retail or restaurants. We need more than retail and restaurants for our local employment base.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, the harder a developer has to fight to get the right to build, the more they're going to be biased toward expensive housing, because it's a lot easier to mark up the price of a quasi-luxury condo by 20% (to pay for the zoning fight) and still get it to sell.

As for the business mix, basically forget it. A certain sort of business exists in a certain place because there are customers willing to buy from them and they can afford the rent. The rent is generally determined by what alternative commercial tenants are willing to pay. The type of customers depends a great deal on the income level of the neighborhood and whether people have autos (and hence can drive to the malls). The result is that a low-end and a middling neighborhood are going to have tremendously different business mixes; the businesses of one neighborhood can't survive in the other neighborhood.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

Adding density can make a specific area more desirable if the additional people make the area more lively, create customers for local businesses, etc. But overall it is a matter of supply/demand, economics 101. The catch is that it can't be just Somerville increasing density, it needs to be other places too At the rate we're going it is pretty much a guarantee that restricting supply will increase increase prices.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

in cases like Manhattan or San Francisco demand is more or less infinite

I don't know if either of those cases is true. Certainly in SF, housing construction is very tightly controlled, so we've never tested whether there is a practical limit to demand. And by limit to demand, let me quote a observation I read somewhere: "Downtown Chicago would be more scenic without all those 60-story residential towers, but living there would probably be a lot more expensive." Manhattan is a messier case. I don't know if there are restrictions on building housing in practice, but the rent control system tends to constrict the landlord's ability to make money off the building, which is going to prevent the demand for rental units as provided by tenants from being seen as demand for buildings by landlords. The real test case is when, in practice, a landlord can buy a city block, flatten it, and build a residential tower that is as tall as he likes -- at that point, does demand still saturate supply to cause insane rents?

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

I think sensible up-zoning is a good idea.

But I don't like the city's plans to take large amounts of land by eminent domain, and turn it over to a single developer to build sterile uniform glass boxes.

[gruene.livejournal.com]

It's been "upzoned" for years. Look at the city's zoning maps, there's a special TOD zone around Union Square in anticipation of the Green Line: http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/ZoningMapColor2010-03_0.pdf

(TOD = Transit Oriented Development)

To get the definitions of the abbreviations on the map read article 6 of the Somerville Zoning Ordinance: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=14682&stateId=21&stateName=Massachusetts

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

sterile uniform glass boxes

That problem can be eliminated by setting zoning rules that tell what the buildings have to look like. For example, the beautiful Back Bay architecture was the result of the zoning rules that were imposed. The cost is that Back Bay-like architecture costs significantly more to build, and that will show up in the price.

[ron_newman]

One good way to promote more housing development is to eliminate all requirements that housing developers provide parking.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

Because we love the endless round of battles between people desperate to find parking and the Somerville DTP so much that we're willing to perpetuate it onto an unknown number of new Somerville residents?

How about tearing down all the houses that are built on 1/2 lane streets (you know the ones I mean -- barely-legal one-way roads with no parking on one side of the street and come February there's only half a lane to drive on due to indifferent snowplowing) and making that land available to developers for high-rise apartments?

[ron_newman]

People who rent or buy in buildings without parking (such as mine, a 48-unit apartment building from 1929) know what they are renting or buying. If there isn't enough demand for more such buildings, not many will be built. But the market can determine that better than the zoning board can.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting point, but assuming that you mean about the same thing as I do when you say "good", it requires (1) housing units without parking sell nearly as well as units with parking, and (2) NIMBYs will resist units without parking less fiercely than units with parking. I've no idea whether either of those is true.

[ron_newman]

"Good" meaning that the developer can either create the same number of units for less cost, or can create more units since no land or structure need be devoted to parking. The result could be less expensive condos or apartments.

[nathanjw]

(2) NIMBYs will resist units without parking less fiercely than units with parking.
Ha. Ha ha ha. Hah hah ha no. Attempting to build units with less parking causes NIMBYs to freak out about how all the new residents' cars will make the on-street parking situation worse (as seen in a small development near me, for example, when the developer tried to propose - as suggested by the city! - having only one parking space per unit). Unfortunately, even in a walk-to-mass-transit kind of neighborhood, cars are assumed.

(Now I'm wondering if the city could do something really weird, like agree that the residents of a particular building wouldn't get city parking permits, so that any cars they did own would have to be privately garaged in the city).

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

residents of a particular building wouldn't get city parking permits

It would be an interesting experiment. I wonder if it has been tried elsewhere? (Though the NIMBYs would be terrified that the rules would be changed later.) The difficulty would be that the value of the units would be diminished, since buyers would not be able to access nearly as many jobs in the metro area.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

Those people who are lucky enough to live in Davis Square and only in the last decade or so, may not know what it is like to live in a less desirable non gentrified neighborhood. After picking up the umpteenth Burger King bag litter from the street, hearing loud car noises go by, worrying about my family's safety etc, I started to think gentrification is an OK thing. Your outlook changes when things are no longer theoretical.

[ron_newman]

As far as I can tell, litter is a universal problem, caused mostly by uncovered trash bins combined with wind. I see it just as much in gentrified areas as in low-income neighborhoods.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

In my experience in East Somerville, it was caused by human beings choosing to litter, and it ended when a few buildings were sold and the bad actors were "forced out" So gentrification helped us. Which is not to say that all low income people litter or have bad behavior (I don't) but there is a stronger correlation in lower income neighborhoods. If there was a way to surgically reform the bad actors, I'd be for that. But I absolutely am relieved that I don't have to spend my Saturdays anymore filling up literally 7 of those black contractor trash bags full of the litter on my street.

[sjcap.livejournal.com]

A few years ago, we did an informal trash barrel census on Lower Broadway and in Union Square. Not only total numbers, but also average step distance to a barrel. Basically, how far do you have to walk with that popsicle stick in your hand to drop it into a barrel? The results were staggering. I don't have all of that data at hand right now. But barrels that were steps away in Union, would be 2 blocks away on Lower Broadway. So it was somewhat of a Eureka! moment re the East Somerville trash problems. If you map it out, you will see that there are simply very few barrels to deposit trash in East Somerville relative to other districts. Alderman Roche got several added, but still a lot were held back due to the Broadway reconstruction in progress. When that is finished Lower Broadway is supposed to be on par with everywhere else.

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

I'm always astonished at how few trash bins there are in Somerville in general. When I was in NYC I didn't walk more than a block without the chance to throw away my trash, but here I have to plan ahead and keep track of where the bins are.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Well, Somerville is a lot poorer than NYC, and if you're visiting NYC, you're spending a lot more of your time in business and tourist areas.

But there's a subtle class effect, too. "that popsicle stick" -- above a certain class level, you're not allowed to eat things on the street. Indeed, as you get richer, you live less of your life on the street, and so you generate less trash on the street. If you're rich enough, you exit the building's door, cross the side walk, and enter the chauffeured vehicle... not much opportunity to litter there!

And homeowners are generally a lot more sensitive to the appearance of their property and their neighbors' properties than are renters, because it directly affects the value of their most valuable asset.

[riverrealm.livejournal.com]

e.g. "Since I'm not rich enough to go inside anywhere to eat this hyper-packaged food, and I don't have a chaffeur, I will throw all the packaging and leftover food in the gutter. But, since I'm not rich enough, my choice should be condoned, or else you're a classist who probably has a chaffeur, because that's the only way a responsible adult can avoid choosing to litter."

Or, "I don't care about the condition of my neighborhood because I'm a renter, therefore my littering should be condoned, or else you're a classist."

[littlecitynames.livejournal.com]

I lived in NYC and even the non-business-and-tourist areas had trash cans every block or two. I remember being annoyed when I moved somewhere in Brooklyn where I had to walk four whole blocks between trash cans. In Somerville, even Broadway has very few trash cans, let alone the smaller streets. Only the squares and parks have any real presence of trash cans.

[freetobeme18.livejournal.com]

Well the first option sounds good to me!

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I was here in the 1970's, and Somerville was a hole that people lived in only because they couldn't afford to live elsewhere.

[aynatt.livejournal.com]

Even if new housing is built, you know this new housing will be overpriced condos, taking over what was one of the few really neighborhood places left in Boston. Having the green line come in, is going to drive rents up, whether these are existing buildings or new ones being built.

It's already insanely expensive, this upcoming MBTA coming in will turn Union Square into another Davis quickly, with mom and pop stores being kicked out and Snobby overpriced Bistros settling in its place.