Interesting discussion but the reality for many doesn't fit in with this discussion in some ways. Here in fringe Chicago, annexations have been a way of life since the 70's only until lulls in the overall housing market. Sprawl, sprawl, sprawl, with people yes, struggling for more living space, quality schools, and in my opinion, separation from other people space, has pitted cities against each other, coveting the retail craters that are at the epicenter of the Target-you-name-it mandated 5-mile customer radius. Now cost considerations are driving townhouses, which could be a denser type of housing, but when you add the mandatory 2 car garages, mandatory room on a driveway for another car or town (because who uses a garage for cars?), and mandatory storm water storage and open space, the density plummets and being at the fringe of the towns, doesn't contribute to a walkable area for much of life, except Big Wheels, and doesn't support mass transit.
The Supreme Court upheld a city's (Village of Belle Terre) values of "quiet" and "peace" to uphold bans against the number of unrelated people when a fraternity had the audacity to use a house in a single-family area in the 20's. But my understanding is that that has gone by the wayside, but few really want to challenge it. I know an attorney representing an HOA who received a threatening letter from the DOJ when the association tried to stop a corporate -visiting-professional home from being in a "single-family" project. It makes total sense to me as blood relationships don't limit boorishness, cleanliness, loudness, or criminal behavior.
Lastly, for many, I think American autonomy is equated with privacy. That's why many of these single-family areas have streets empty of residents, but full of landscaping service trucks and trailers and Amazon trucks.
Good idea to move the housing debate from local to regional and/or statewide but statewide electorates tend to be made up of people with vested interests in their localities. look at California. It's as blue as they come and rationalizing real estate development is barely making any progress. Maybe JD Vance is on to something where families get more voting power than DINKs?
I lived in Cambridge, just 3 houses away from Somerville, and yes the two certainly blend into each other. But did you say something about Masa having good govt? Sometimes your irony is so subtle that I miss it.
Also this about state overrides of local rules: When you take away local control, you are going to increase anxiety among homeowners, even those who aren't immediately seeing development near them...I'm just saying this is true, not defending it. And they will not like this loss of control. So you can pass the new state law, as was done in CA, but I'm really interested to see what the effect of that is on the next statehouse election there. People are heavily invested in their houses, emotionally and financially. Kids and houses.
I'm part of the problem-- I live alone in a Somerville apartment that probably had a family of 4 a few decades ago. The single-family house next to my building is scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a 12-unit apartment building (a half mile from the Green Line extension) but it's been vacant and still standing for many months now, and I think the developer said they weren't expecting to finish building until 2023. I would like to be a literal YIMBY but I don't know what can be done to streamline the process!
I often share the stories of two proposed multi-family buildings in places I’ve lived
One was in Somerville where I used to live. Some modest twelve unit apartment building if I recall correctly. The community got extremely up in arms about it. It’s gonna block our view it’s gonna clog our streets wah wah wah.
The other was in Houston, where I live now (the proposed Houston building was much bigger — a true midrise, probably 200 units). Community got up in arms about it. It’s gonna block our view it’s gonna clog our streets waahhh.
The difference, of course, is that in Somerville the community opposition killed the project and in Houston no one gave a shit and the midrise went up anyway.
And that in a nutshell is why in Somerville I lived in a creaky old two bedroom house built in 1940, and in Houston I live in a gleaming new three-bedroom townhome with a rooftop balcony and downtown views
My understanding is that Somerville has taken some steps to try to increase the housing stock and keep it affordable. Any major renovation of a property that adds more than one unit of housing has to include some affordable housing. The problem that's created is that in the past a developer would tear down a small single family house and build a 3 unit(or more) triple decker, yay more housing. That same developer now tears down the single family and builds a luxury two unit building, because at only two units they dodge having to provide any affordable units. There's lots of this happening now near the green line expansion. I'd like to see some sort of policy that incentivizes denser building specifically near public transit. I'm also curious what other cities have done to both encourage additional density and keep things affordable?
Requiring affordable housing, counter intuitively, *makes housing more expensive than it would otherwise be*. It results in less total housing being built. When it comes to taking down the price of housing generally, it does not matter whether the housing is expensive or not - building luxury apartments soaks up people who would have gone elsewhere, in much the same way that more mercedes would soak up people who’d buy (I dunno my car brands real well - say a honda) pushing the price of Hondas down.
Very delighted to see this pop up just as I'm sitting in the Davis Square Starbucks! Matt, I agree with you as usual and think some fresh new red-line adjacent development would be a great thing in this town. I'm a recent transplant so not totally plugged into the local politics yet, but if I stay long enough I can see getting involved in the debate on the pro-building side. So keep the Somerville posts coming, I'm sure to need them!
Isn’t Somerville an inner suburb if not just de fact apart of Boston? Beginning in the 50s, cars allowed you to move further out and cities/inner suburbs lost population. Then as suburbs were fully developed, the move back occurred. All this stuff happened first in more established cities like Boston.
I suggest all those on Matt's site whining about the ills of America move to France, where my wife is from and still owns a country house. The housing outside central Paris and the Cote d-Azur is incredibly cheap. You can own a chateau with your own vineyards for the price of a 2BR in Brooklyn, the country has an amazing number of beautiful cities with cheap housing, and good restaurants and shops walkable from your front door. I'd recommend LeMans, where my wife is from, a 55-minute fast rail ride to Paris, Nantes, St Malo, Caen, Rennes, Deauville, Bordeaux, Lyons, Nimes, Avignon, Aix-en-Provence, Albi, La Rochelle, Toulouse and Montpelier. These are just those I've visited in recent years; I'm sure there are many others, Dijon and Dole which I visited 50 years ago come to mind. Of course you'll have to learn French, a bug to most Americans, but a feature to me. The upside is you'll get cheap housing, a great rail network, the best medical care in the world, a longer life, much better food and wine, free child care, all the things Matt pontificates about. Move now. You won't regret it. Of course, when we've all moved to a better life, it won't promote Matt's goal of a billion Americans. But, hey, there are costs and benefits to millions of people making decisions about what's best for them.
Staggering levels of taxation? I'm sure there are Germans and French who find any tax staggering, but I can tell you my wife pays a pittance in tax on her country property compared to what she'd pay in the US.
How do you get work authorization? If the 2020 elections had gone bad, I was looking at Portugal -- green card-like status if you spend $400k on a house. Ireland requires 1m euros in an investment fund.
No idea about France. Helps having a French spouse. My understanding is though if you get green-card-like status in Portugal or Malta, you can live and work pretty much anywhere in the EU. Don't take this as legal advice, may just be an urban legend.
Moving zoning authority up to the state may be a good step toward increasing density, but it's only a first step. If the localities continue to resist state law, then actually accomplishing more building will require dogged persistence at the state level, with possible attendant political costs.
Here in California, state law (via SB 9 and 10) now allows duplexes or even fourplexes in all SFH zones. That's great! But prior to its passing, the Los Angeles City Council -- no doubt reflecting the views of their most engaged voters -- adamantly opposed these bills (my City Council member introduced the resolution). Despite upzoning now being the law of the state, all the details (setbacks, parking requirements, floor to area ratio etc etc) will be in the hands of the Department of City Planning, controlled by the City Council.
Will the city go along and dutifully follow state requirements for more density, or will it throw enough sand in the gears to make a mockery of the new law? Obviously, the state can fight back, and has. Early in his tenure, Newsom sued the city of Huntington Beach for not implementing state requirements for affordable housing (and threatened to sue other localities). After negotiation, the city caved, in part under the threat of losing state funds for homeless support (https://www.ocregister.com/2020/01/13/huntington-beach-and-state-reach-tentative-settlement-of-housing-suit/). That's great! But Huntington Beach's population is 1/20th that of Los Angeles city (and 1/50th that of LA County). Would a governor sue Los Angeles? Would he or she win?
So it's tough -- politics with all that slow boring stuff usually is. But how do you win in the end? State laws are just a start. Somehow or other you have to work with the localities to work out reasonable solutions, even if compromises, that move us toward the goal of increased housing opportunities at reasonable prices.
This is where politics goes back to being local. Matt's right that we have to do the work at the state level. But when we get state successes, as we have in California, then we have to go back to the cities, and make sure the laws are followed, with the housing element and also project by project. Slow boring.
Good luck getting SB-9 style legislation through the black box that is the MA State House of Representatives. Erika Uyterhoeven, the Sommerville rep (acutely aware of what you write about here) is working hard to change the House rules in favor of more transparency but it's not happening anytime soon. Even Danielle Allen, who is running for governor, seems afraid of upsetting the "Don't Blame Us"/Robert Reich-like constituents. I don't even think we're getting new development at Suffolk Downs which seems like a slam dunk for more housing. In better news, the Cambridge City Council is likely to soon get more say over who sits on the planning board and board of zoning appeals (currently appointed by the unelected city manager).
I know this is off point - and I am speaking from a distance of 1977 - but no discussion of Somerville should fail to mention the "free for all" driving conditions in Porter Square. Boston drivers are bad enough but Porter Square takes driving to the realm of the public carnival ride. Hold on to your steering wheel! I wonder if anything has been done to change traffic flows in Porter Sq as the town has moved up the economic food chain.
If you mean reducing Porter and Davis Square traffic by filling the streets with outdoor dining spaces, definitely. Upper Mass Ave and Central Square are also unrecognizable to someone who last lived here 15 and then 30 years ago. A big improvement.
I don't think that's a new building in the photo, though. I think it's the Frank Manning apartments which were recently refurbished: https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/showcase-projects/cambridge-housing-authority-frank-j-manning-apartments
Some of those populations drops on that map are insane. Flint used to have almost 200k people?
Interesting discussion but the reality for many doesn't fit in with this discussion in some ways. Here in fringe Chicago, annexations have been a way of life since the 70's only until lulls in the overall housing market. Sprawl, sprawl, sprawl, with people yes, struggling for more living space, quality schools, and in my opinion, separation from other people space, has pitted cities against each other, coveting the retail craters that are at the epicenter of the Target-you-name-it mandated 5-mile customer radius. Now cost considerations are driving townhouses, which could be a denser type of housing, but when you add the mandatory 2 car garages, mandatory room on a driveway for another car or town (because who uses a garage for cars?), and mandatory storm water storage and open space, the density plummets and being at the fringe of the towns, doesn't contribute to a walkable area for much of life, except Big Wheels, and doesn't support mass transit.
The Supreme Court upheld a city's (Village of Belle Terre) values of "quiet" and "peace" to uphold bans against the number of unrelated people when a fraternity had the audacity to use a house in a single-family area in the 20's. But my understanding is that that has gone by the wayside, but few really want to challenge it. I know an attorney representing an HOA who received a threatening letter from the DOJ when the association tried to stop a corporate -visiting-professional home from being in a "single-family" project. It makes total sense to me as blood relationships don't limit boorishness, cleanliness, loudness, or criminal behavior.
Lastly, for many, I think American autonomy is equated with privacy. That's why many of these single-family areas have streets empty of residents, but full of landscaping service trucks and trailers and Amazon trucks.
Good idea to move the housing debate from local to regional and/or statewide but statewide electorates tend to be made up of people with vested interests in their localities. look at California. It's as blue as they come and rationalizing real estate development is barely making any progress. Maybe JD Vance is on to something where families get more voting power than DINKs?
I lived in Cambridge, just 3 houses away from Somerville, and yes the two certainly blend into each other. But did you say something about Masa having good govt? Sometimes your irony is so subtle that I miss it.
Also this about state overrides of local rules: When you take away local control, you are going to increase anxiety among homeowners, even those who aren't immediately seeing development near them...I'm just saying this is true, not defending it. And they will not like this loss of control. So you can pass the new state law, as was done in CA, but I'm really interested to see what the effect of that is on the next statehouse election there. People are heavily invested in their houses, emotionally and financially. Kids and houses.
I'm part of the problem-- I live alone in a Somerville apartment that probably had a family of 4 a few decades ago. The single-family house next to my building is scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a 12-unit apartment building (a half mile from the Green Line extension) but it's been vacant and still standing for many months now, and I think the developer said they weren't expecting to finish building until 2023. I would like to be a literal YIMBY but I don't know what can be done to streamline the process!
I often share the stories of two proposed multi-family buildings in places I’ve lived
One was in Somerville where I used to live. Some modest twelve unit apartment building if I recall correctly. The community got extremely up in arms about it. It’s gonna block our view it’s gonna clog our streets wah wah wah.
The other was in Houston, where I live now (the proposed Houston building was much bigger — a true midrise, probably 200 units). Community got up in arms about it. It’s gonna block our view it’s gonna clog our streets waahhh.
The difference, of course, is that in Somerville the community opposition killed the project and in Houston no one gave a shit and the midrise went up anyway.
And that in a nutshell is why in Somerville I lived in a creaky old two bedroom house built in 1940, and in Houston I live in a gleaming new three-bedroom townhome with a rooftop balcony and downtown views
Clearly there should be some happy middle-ground here. It's not clear to me that Houston's anything-goes approach is ideal for sustainable growth: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/harvey-urban-planning/
In case you want to make a series based on the same map, Duluth actually has many of the same problems of good livability translating to higher housing prices instead of population growth. https://m.startribune.com/why-does-duluth-have-a-housing-shortage-if-the-population-is-barely-growing/600089706/
My understanding is that Somerville has taken some steps to try to increase the housing stock and keep it affordable. Any major renovation of a property that adds more than one unit of housing has to include some affordable housing. The problem that's created is that in the past a developer would tear down a small single family house and build a 3 unit(or more) triple decker, yay more housing. That same developer now tears down the single family and builds a luxury two unit building, because at only two units they dodge having to provide any affordable units. There's lots of this happening now near the green line expansion. I'd like to see some sort of policy that incentivizes denser building specifically near public transit. I'm also curious what other cities have done to both encourage additional density and keep things affordable?
Requiring affordable housing, counter intuitively, *makes housing more expensive than it would otherwise be*. It results in less total housing being built. When it comes to taking down the price of housing generally, it does not matter whether the housing is expensive or not - building luxury apartments soaks up people who would have gone elsewhere, in much the same way that more mercedes would soak up people who’d buy (I dunno my car brands real well - say a honda) pushing the price of Hondas down.
Very delighted to see this pop up just as I'm sitting in the Davis Square Starbucks! Matt, I agree with you as usual and think some fresh new red-line adjacent development would be a great thing in this town. I'm a recent transplant so not totally plugged into the local politics yet, but if I stay long enough I can see getting involved in the debate on the pro-building side. So keep the Somerville posts coming, I'm sure to need them!
Isn’t Somerville an inner suburb if not just de fact apart of Boston? Beginning in the 50s, cars allowed you to move further out and cities/inner suburbs lost population. Then as suburbs were fully developed, the move back occurred. All this stuff happened first in more established cities like Boston.
You can’t produce a great column everyday, Matt. Hang in there. Reconciliation is about hit the fan.
I suggest all those on Matt's site whining about the ills of America move to France, where my wife is from and still owns a country house. The housing outside central Paris and the Cote d-Azur is incredibly cheap. You can own a chateau with your own vineyards for the price of a 2BR in Brooklyn, the country has an amazing number of beautiful cities with cheap housing, and good restaurants and shops walkable from your front door. I'd recommend LeMans, where my wife is from, a 55-minute fast rail ride to Paris, Nantes, St Malo, Caen, Rennes, Deauville, Bordeaux, Lyons, Nimes, Avignon, Aix-en-Provence, Albi, La Rochelle, Toulouse and Montpelier. These are just those I've visited in recent years; I'm sure there are many others, Dijon and Dole which I visited 50 years ago come to mind. Of course you'll have to learn French, a bug to most Americans, but a feature to me. The upside is you'll get cheap housing, a great rail network, the best medical care in the world, a longer life, much better food and wine, free child care, all the things Matt pontificates about. Move now. You won't regret it. Of course, when we've all moved to a better life, it won't promote Matt's goal of a billion Americans. But, hey, there are costs and benefits to millions of people making decisions about what's best for them.
As someone who lived in Belgium for a while, I remember French people and Germans moving in to avoid staggering levels of taxation.
Staggering levels of taxation? I'm sure there are Germans and French who find any tax staggering, but I can tell you my wife pays a pittance in tax on her country property compared to what she'd pay in the US.
How do you get work authorization? If the 2020 elections had gone bad, I was looking at Portugal -- green card-like status if you spend $400k on a house. Ireland requires 1m euros in an investment fund.
No idea about France. Helps having a French spouse. My understanding is though if you get green-card-like status in Portugal or Malta, you can live and work pretty much anywhere in the EU. Don't take this as legal advice, may just be an urban legend.
One Billion Americans (Living in France)
Okay
Moving zoning authority up to the state may be a good step toward increasing density, but it's only a first step. If the localities continue to resist state law, then actually accomplishing more building will require dogged persistence at the state level, with possible attendant political costs.
Here in California, state law (via SB 9 and 10) now allows duplexes or even fourplexes in all SFH zones. That's great! But prior to its passing, the Los Angeles City Council -- no doubt reflecting the views of their most engaged voters -- adamantly opposed these bills (my City Council member introduced the resolution). Despite upzoning now being the law of the state, all the details (setbacks, parking requirements, floor to area ratio etc etc) will be in the hands of the Department of City Planning, controlled by the City Council.
Will the city go along and dutifully follow state requirements for more density, or will it throw enough sand in the gears to make a mockery of the new law? Obviously, the state can fight back, and has. Early in his tenure, Newsom sued the city of Huntington Beach for not implementing state requirements for affordable housing (and threatened to sue other localities). After negotiation, the city caved, in part under the threat of losing state funds for homeless support (https://www.ocregister.com/2020/01/13/huntington-beach-and-state-reach-tentative-settlement-of-housing-suit/). That's great! But Huntington Beach's population is 1/20th that of Los Angeles city (and 1/50th that of LA County). Would a governor sue Los Angeles? Would he or she win?
So it's tough -- politics with all that slow boring stuff usually is. But how do you win in the end? State laws are just a start. Somehow or other you have to work with the localities to work out reasonable solutions, even if compromises, that move us toward the goal of increased housing opportunities at reasonable prices.
That city council resolution is the big reason I won't be supporting de Leon for mayor. What a farce.
This is where politics goes back to being local. Matt's right that we have to do the work at the state level. But when we get state successes, as we have in California, then we have to go back to the cities, and make sure the laws are followed, with the housing element and also project by project. Slow boring.
LA seems to be taking the housing element process pretty seriously thus far.
The real chance for fireworks will be Cupertino.
Not just Cupertino. Palo Alto says hi.
Absolutely agree.
Good luck getting SB-9 style legislation through the black box that is the MA State House of Representatives. Erika Uyterhoeven, the Sommerville rep (acutely aware of what you write about here) is working hard to change the House rules in favor of more transparency but it's not happening anytime soon. Even Danielle Allen, who is running for governor, seems afraid of upsetting the "Don't Blame Us"/Robert Reich-like constituents. I don't even think we're getting new development at Suffolk Downs which seems like a slam dunk for more housing. In better news, the Cambridge City Council is likely to soon get more say over who sits on the planning board and board of zoning appeals (currently appointed by the unelected city manager).
I know this is off point - and I am speaking from a distance of 1977 - but no discussion of Somerville should fail to mention the "free for all" driving conditions in Porter Square. Boston drivers are bad enough but Porter Square takes driving to the realm of the public carnival ride. Hold on to your steering wheel! I wonder if anything has been done to change traffic flows in Porter Sq as the town has moved up the economic food chain.
Yes.
If you mean reducing Porter and Davis Square traffic by filling the streets with outdoor dining spaces, definitely. Upper Mass Ave and Central Square are also unrecognizable to someone who last lived here 15 and then 30 years ago. A big improvement.
Democracy inaction!