Dear Editor,
Wednesday evening, May 7th the Eye on Watertown Podcast had the pleasure to have as our guests Josh Rosmarin and Jacky van Leeuwen, Members of the Steering Committee of Housing For All Watertown.
Housing for All Watertown’s mission is to build a broad coalition of residents to advance local policies and projects in order to expand housing options. My understanding is their focus is on finding solutions to current housing challenges for both current and future community members.
Advance in the mission statement for Housing for All Watertown is used in the context of pushing forward policies and projects that expand housing options.
The group has also been involved in efforts to combat ethnic – and income-based discrimination in Watertown’s housing market.
We found that Expanding Affordable Housing has been in the forefront of their efforts and has pushed for more affordable housing units as part of the MBTA Communities Act Plan which aims to increase housing near transit hubs.
The Housing for All Watertown’s group and its approach has been deemed by many as one of the most ambitious housing advocates in the state.
Our first question to our guests related to the MBTA Act and Watertown’s proactive actions toward meeting the state’s overall housing needs and the 4,000 plus units discussed.
We did not discuss Governor Maura Healey’s administration statement that there is a need for increased housing production and has set a goal of 222,000 new housing units by 2035 to help lower costs statewide.
We asked our guests about the number of Multi-Unit dwellings in Watertown and their percent of occupancy. It was explained that Watertown’s occupancy rate is consistently high.
Their studies have found that vacancies are 1% or lower. Housing is tight in Watertown. However, the primary concern that Chris Chapron and I expressed was how much density and the height they are pushing for. It is also apparent they are influencing policy decisions in the City; fore Developers are being allowed significant heights over former restrictions.
My personal belief is the incentive to allow additional heights for affordable units is non-existent and is creating Pent House Units for those willing to pay more. It would be interesting to see what they are seeking in rents or condo listings for these units’ vis a vis the top floor. In addition, do we have the capability or capacity of monitoring the Developers activities. That is, what follow-up are we doing?
Furthermore, economically speaking about development in the Square and how it is going to assist existing businesses in the Square; we never hear anything about how the people are going to get to the Square. Is it by bus or automobile and if by automobile where are they going to park?
New food and beverage and retail businesses are going to be of first interest over existing, established businesses in the Square.
I don’t think our Contractual Planners has set down and given any solid numbers as to what percent they can expect in comp sales over the previous year. So economically, the positive influence on local is unknown and should not have as much weight as given.
Chris and I both said that growth is important; however, our concern centered on the type and height of the buildings especially looking at the elevator tower for 104-106 Main Street. We know that without growth or development a community dies.
All of the new development in the city has not led to lower housing costs or any moderation in cost. In Business and Real Estate, it is location, location, Location. And Watertown is in a perfect location.
When I first came to Boston, fellow workers in the clinic told me to live either North or West of Boston because the commute was horrible from the South on the Southeast Expressway. I don’t know how I got in touch with Dick McBride but he stewarded me to Watertown.
Four thousand new units in Watertown would comprise about 1.8% of Massachusetts’ goal of 222,000 new units by 2035. Watertown has been cited alongside Boston and Cambridge as a leader in multifamily housing approvals, contributing significantly to regional housing supply.
However, if the 222,000 new housing units were evenly distributed across 177 cities and towns subject to the MBTA Communities Law Zoning, each town or city would need to add about 1,254 housing units to collectively meet the state’s goal.
Chris and I believe Watertown should be recognized for its proactive development and given flexibility infuture obligations, rather than continuously carrying more than its share of new units. Arguably one can say Watertown may have already fulfilled or exceeded its obligations under this law, given its prior development efforts.
We asked what the group is doing regarding regional cooperation. Regional coordinationor poolingwould allow municipalities to coordinate housing efforts, ensuring growth is more evenly distributed rather than concentrated in a few areas.
Chris and I feel that since Watertown has already developed substantial multi-unit housing, the City should receive credit toward future obligations, while towns with restrictive zoning should be expected to accommodate more housing.
Clyde Younger
Co-Host, Eye on Watertown
View the Eye on Watertown Podcast episode with Housing for All Watertown by clicking here.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr. Younger. As closely as I could follow, I think I share some of your concerns. High rents and high vacancy rates go hand in hand. Both argue for more housing, not only here in Town, but elsewhere within 128 and even 495.
Many of the decisions on the Town’s future have already been made: in accordance with the MBTA Act, at least 1,701 units will be added to the area in and around the Square, likely significantly more, capped at 3,133 units; building heights from 3-5 stories have already been zoned for new developments; Mt Auburn Street is set for a “road diet” like the ones Cambridge has imposed on its busy arteries. Big changes all. Watertown is already the 8th most densely populated city in Mass, but nothing yet like Somerville or Cambridge. We’ll rise further up the ranks after these projects, but the density will be largely confined to the Square because that’s where the transit is.
Such transit as we have, that is: no T stop (Cambridge and Somerville have five each), and a few bus lines, some of which are already inadequate, to judge from anecdotes shared here. In keeping with our “climate crisis” policies, additional cars will be strictly limited. I’m not sure how the equation of thousands more housing units in one small area balances with few new cars, aided only by the wheezing No. 71 bus, but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised. I sure better be: the alternative would be the fiasco of all fiascos. Concentrating housing developments near transit hubs was the MBTA’s idea, after all. (Again, if you can call Watertown’s bus yard a “hub”.)
Projects like Willow Park will help spread the responsibility (as the Town sees it) of affordable housing to other areas. But that development, too, falls on the No. 71 line. Good luck getting a seat in the morning. You’ll be lucky to get on at all.
The new housing and the road diets are well underway. It remains to be seen how good or bad that news is. We still have time.
For clarification, the MBTA Communities Law does not require a number of housing units to be built (1701 was Watertown’s target), it is to put in the zoning that would allow that number of units to be built by right. There may never be that many units added or it may go beyond that.
“. . .the wheezing 71 bus. . .”
Actually I remember a time when our surface transportation worked fairly well. That’s why I moved here.
Watertown has a strong history of transit use. We are considered a classic street car suburb. The Watertown we know began when the trolleys running up and down were electrified in 1912.
Our problem is one of resources and management. We need more buses on existing routes and we need new service in parts of town that are not presently served.
Management is a problem on a micro and a macro level. There used to be adequate real time supervision of our routes. “Starters” could make adjustments to service to fix problems. In the big picture, gross mismanagement and corruption have kept the system from providing more service and resources that are sorely needed. This sad story has many authors.
We should not be asked to build more housing without the promise and delivery of more and better transit service. Full stop.
It is puzzling that HAW seems to be Big Real Estate’s main local proponent of trickle-down housing affordability. HAW’s emphasis in public meetings on projects such as the Beast Devouring Main Street (104-106 Main St.) is focused on the higher-end of the housing crisis. That is to say homes, apartments and condos where affordability is defined as more like a percentage of units below the market median average rent. The problem with trickle-down affordability is that it is market-driven and is about adding inventory. HAW’s rationale is that we need to build more homes and apartments, and the private market is the solution. By building more houses, apartments, and condos, the market will naturally shift to become more competitive, driving prices down and increasing affordability. The thinking is that as this happens pressure will come off all segments of the market, and savings will “trickle down” to even the “low end,” and we will return to a market affordable for everyone.
Solutions pitched by HAW and other so-called affordable housing advocates focus on providing some level of profit margin because, without the margin, developers like O’Connor Capital Partners (104-106 Main St.) will not build, owners will not own, and property managers will not manage. Most affordable housing advocates understand that housing initiatives must focus on the deeply affordable segment of the housing market and not the costly middle or upper tier segments such as those in the Main St. project. HAW’s idea of solving the housing crisis is by the construction of units at the upper-and middle-end of the market, but that will continue to shut out families and low-income people in the most desperate need of housing.
We hear from HAW and other flacks for Big Real Estate that the fundamental issue is supply and demand. If only we built more homes, meeting demand, then prices would fall. Big Real Estate and so-called affordable housing proponents are all for doing what ever you can to increase supply (eliminate a post office and demolish two turn-of-the century store fronts potential affordable new business incubators) here in Watertown, for example. Build more. Reduce standards. Reduce environmental protections. Degrade the soul and spirit of a municipality. However, like many simplistic theories, it is more fiction than truth. Many new high-end multi-unit projects have come on line in Watertown and neighboring cities and towns, and my rent in a 20-year-old apartment complex has not been reduced one nickel in 15 years. Why? Because you cannot trickle down housing affordability as HAW asserts.
The theory is that when you build new housing, people move, and then, the other housing is potentially left as more affordable. What happens in practice is that the increased supply is absorbed by a new growth which can always outbid others, and the cycle continues, never really providing more affordable housing. It is observable that Watertown’s and other municipalities’ planning and development professionals have woeful disrespect for real affordable housing planning. Markets are not designed to provide products to service all spectrums of demand. That is in the purview of the public and common good, which is increasingly being abandoned to the priorities of economic interest, short-sighted public officials, and growth-dominated politics.
I can’t agree with Ms. Gritter’s comments more. However well intentioned, the advocates for private housing development as a solution to the affordability crisis oversimplify the problem. At best, building high end housing pell mell will only impact cost in the upper segments of the market.
Simple supply and demand mechanics would have predominated when Watertown was a fairly isolated market insulated from external forces as it once was. That is no longer the case. Influx of national capital and demographic shift have changed all that.
At this moment there is an opportunity for our city to get more zealous about building affordable housing. We should be using Community Preservation funds to purchase land while the lab market is weak and then initiating affordable projects. Only the introduction of more AFFORDABLE housing will impact prices on the lower segments.
I live in a house that was built to provide housing for the workers in the Hood Rubber plant. (In fact, I found a Hood Rubber coal shovel in my garage. On the handle it warns that theft will be prosecuted.) The market once provided housing that was affordable to families existing on a modest income. We must untangle the reasons why it no longer does. In the interim, government must build affordable housing or the crisis will only deepen.
Allowing developers to build badly designed projects will not make our community more attractive and healthy. In fact, it will only add to the burgeoning dehumanization of our built environment. Many architects and engineers will privately lament that what is being built presently will not wear well over time.
We must not only build more housing, we must find ways to build quality housing that is affordable and has quality of life and community as central design considerations.
Many of the garden apartments of the early twentieth century serve as a worthy example of density with humanity. They were designed in reaction to the horrible tenements that preceded them. Today we seem hell bent on building modern tenements for the well heeled. Not exactly progress in my view.