Related articles
by Rebecca Gruber
On the evening of Wednesday, June 12th, Equitable Arlington co-hosted with the Town’s Department of Planning and Community Development and Envision Arlington, a ninety-minute webinar entitled “What’s an ADU and How Do I Build One?”
The webinar was designed for anyone interested in learning more about what defines an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and the ins and outs of constructing one in Arlington on their property. Topics included: the history and rationale behind Arlington’s ADU zoning article; the applicable zoning regulations to understand when building an ADU; considerations and cost estimates for three different types of ADUs; guidance on the permitting process with the Town’s Inspectional Services Department; and two case studies–one by a local homeowner, and a second, by the Housing Corporation of Arlington detailing their experience constructing a 100% electric, 2-bedroom Affordable Housing ADU at 40-42 Dorothy Road.
The webinar was recorded and is available on demand (registration required).
The Town website also has answers to some FAQs: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/departments/inspectional-services/accessory-dwelling-units-adus
A portion of Envision Arlington’s town day booth was designed to spark a community conversation about housing. Envision set up a display with six poster boards, each representing a housing-related topic. Participants were given three dots and asked to place them on the topics they felt were most important. There were also pens and post-it notes on hand to capture additional comments. This post is a summary of the results. You could think of it as a straw-poll or temperature check on the opinions of town day attendees.
Social Justice Issues
Aiming for a diverse population by income and race; and being vigilant about identifying and neutralizing barriers to this goal.
197 dots, plus a post-it note that reads “Increasing housing while preserving open space” (with three dots).
Lifestyle Options
Providing for different lifestyles: empty nesters, single millenials, young parents, families, walkable neighborhoods.
149 dots and four post-it notes:
- No more new 5-story buildings with no setbacks. Ugly. (3 dots)
- Why must we maintain our high carbon footprint with single family homes and cars?
- I want to live in a wofati (eco building) (Woodland Oehler Freak-Cheap Annualized Thermal Intertia). Not so legal, one day the norm. Thank you Arlington.
- Connect to transit. Less single family housing with dedicated parking.
Housing Affordability
Affordable housing from subsidies, from construction of smaller units, or from building more housing to reduce the bidding price on current Arlington homes.
308 dots, with 10 post-it notes
- We don’t need more housing. People need to be able to afford to stay in their homes.
- Get Arlington out from the clutches of real estate lobby. (1 dot)
- Wrong categories. Includes affordable housing and development which displaces low and moderate income housing
- Restrictions on teardowns of small homes
- Keep older apartment buildings. They are cheap and affordable.
- Rent control and oversight. “I can only afford to stay because I live in a place that is not secure and in disrepair.”
- Rent control. Please reinstate so that rent is affordable.
- “Affordable” subsidized housing invades your privacy. Every year need all bank stubs, 401(k), like a criminal.
- Build more housing. Build more duplexes, triplexes, etc. Upzone neighborhoods. More transit corridors. Renew calls for a red line stop. Build up the downtown to encourage more density and housing in the same buildings as businesses. More housing + transit = a better society.
- Protect neighborhoods
This was clearly the topic that drew the most response. Arlington housing is expensive.
Maximizing Flexibility of Home Space
Providing for aging parents or childcare providers with a place in your home or getting help paying the mortgage by having a rentable space.
81 dots, and three post-it notes:
- Change zoning to allow accessory dwelling apartments (aka ADUs, granny flats, in-law apartments) (1 dot)
- Want nearby widowed mom to live in own house.
- Accessible rentals, not up 3 flights of stairs.
Doing more with Existing Resources
Examining current Arlington Housing Authority, Housing Corporation of Arlington, and aging apartment buildings for addressing new housing needs.
143 dots, and five post-it notes:
- Fix transportation infrastructure. Peope can live farther out and still get to work. (4 dots)
- Extend red line to Arlington center and heights. (7 dots)
- None of the above. Keep taxes low. (1 dot)
- Accessible for aging residents. Age in place.
- Do something about empty store fronts.
Setting a ten-year goal for new housing
Determining what Arlington’s housing goals should be, and setting about following through on the necessary zoning and incentives to get what we want.
119 dots, and three sticky notes:
- Why is America low-density? Why is this country slave to the auto? More housing near transit!
- Who is “we”?
- There is too much housing density now. Need business area to attract business.
Observations
As noted earlier, the cost of housing seemed to be the main issue of concern. This is understandable: housing prices in Arlington (and the region in general) have been on an escalator ride up since about 2000 or so. That’s led to our current high cost of housing, and also to a form of gradual gentrification. When housing is more expensive than it was last year, a new resident in town has to make more money (or be willing to spend more on housing) than last year’s new resident.
I see at least two broad responses to this: one is to keep the status quo, perhaps returning to the inexpensive housing of decades past. The other is for more multi-family housing, and more transit-oriented development. It will be interesting to see how these dynamics play out in the future.
There’s also recognition of the importance of older “naturally affordable” apartment buildings. Arlington was very pro-growth in the 1950s and 1960s; that’s fortunate, because it allowed these apartments to be built in the first place. On the downside, we haven’t done a good job of allowing new construction into the pipeline during recent decades. Buildings depreciate, so a new building is worth more than one that’s ten years old, which is worth more than one that’s twenty years old, and so on. At some point, the old apartments are likely to be refurbished/upgraded, and they’ll become more expensive as a result.
This is only the beginning of the conversation, but at least we’re getting it going.
In the 1930’s the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation of America (HOLC) created actuarial maps of the United states. These maps were color coded — Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red — to reflect the amount of “risk” associated with home loans in those areas. The colors corresponded to “Best” (green), “Still Desirable” (blue), “Definitely Declining” (yellow), and “Hazardous” (red). Being in a green area made you likely to secure a federally-insured home mortgage, something that was effectively unavailable to red areas. Red areas were often associated with black populations, and these maps are where the term “redlining” comes from.
Here’s an HOLC map of Arlington, courtesy of the University of Richmond’s mapping inequality project.
Note that Arlington does not have any “Hazardous” (red) areas; 68% of the town fell into the top two grades, meaning that we were generally a safe bet as far as federal mortgage insurers were concerned. To the extent that the HOLC preferred white communities, Arlington seems to have fit the bill. According to US census data.
- 1930: population 36,094. No breakdown by race.
- 1940: population 40,013. 99.8% white.
- 1950: population 44,353. No breakdown by race.
- 1960: population 49,953. 99.7% white.
- 1970: population 53,524. 99.0% white.
- 1980: population 48,219. 97.3% white.
Today, Arlington is about 84% white. But during the time that mortgage approvals were based on the HOLC maps — the mid 1930’s through the mid 1960’s — we certainly qualified as an overwhelmingly (> 99%) white community.
Arlington had four yellow-lined (“definitely declining”) areas; about 32% of the town. C1 (on the western edge of town) was noted for an “infiltration of Jews”, a “heavy concentration of relief families”, and hilly terrain which was “not conducive to good development”. But it had good schools and a nice area along Appleton St. C2 (along Mass Ave and Mill Brook) was noted for “obsolescence” with “business and housing mixed together” and “railroad tracks through [the] neighborhood”. There was an infiltration of lower-class people, a moderate number of relief families, and “little possibility of conversion of properties to business use”.
C3 (East Arlington, around the present location Thompson School and Menotomy Manor) was noted for “Obsolescence, poor reputations” and “foreign concentration”. There was an “infiltration of foreign [residents]” and a “heavy concentration of relief families”. On the positive side, there were “a few small farms in this section of high grade development of the ground [which] may be anticipated in the early future with modest houses”.
Finally, C4 (around Spy Pond, and near the Alewife T station) was “obsolescent”, with an infiltration of foreign families, and a moderately heavy concentration of relief families. The HOLC noted that “Houses East of Varnum Street [and] south of Herbert Road are built on low ground and many have damp basements which makes them difficult to keep occupied”.
That’s what the HOLC saw as the declining side of Arlington: Jews, foreigners (mostly Italian), relief families, obsolescence, damp basements, and proximity to the Boston-Maine railroad.
Exercise for the reader. Arlington has five public housing projects: Drake Village, Winslow Towers, Chestnut Manor, Cusack Terrace, and Menotomy Manor. What HOLC colors are associated with our public housing?
Buildings last for decades, and effects of the HOLC’s underwriting policies are still with us today — sometimes in unexpected ways. A 2020 paper called “The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas” examined 108 communities, and tried to determine if there was a relationship between redlined areas and urban heat islands. Nationwide, this is what they found:
LST stands for “land surface temperature” and shows how different HOLC risk categories compare to the overall temperature of a region. Green areas tend to be cooler, with less paved surface, more extensive tree canopies, and buildings with reflective exteriors. Red areas are warmer with more paved surfaces, less tree canopy, and building exteriors that absorb and release heat (e.g., brick and cinderblocks). While the degree varies across different parts of the country, the general trend is the same: as one goes from green to red, the surface temperature goes up. Formerly-redlined areas are far more likely to contain heat islands.
Exercise for the reader. Are there heat islands in Arlington? What (HOLC) color are they?
As the global temperature warms, Arlington (like many other communities) will have to contend with heat islands. The treatment is likely to be area-specific, following patterns laid out in the HOLC’s maps from the early-20th century.
Does Arlington need more housing? If yes, will more housing result in higher school costs? There is a perception that more housing means more school age children and more school age children will strain the capacity and expand the budget of the Arlington Public Schools.
Prelimary reviews suggest that more housing would not strain the APS capacity for a variety of complex reasons. These reasons include: school age children do not always go to APS; by the time new housing came on line, the school enrollment, now growing, will have begun to decline; Arlington needs more diverse kinds of housing, not just family housing; the 283 units of housing that came on line through Brigham Square and 360 contributed more in property tax revenue than they cost in school enrollment costs…. by over $980K in 2019. Read this for more information.
More analysis is needed. More discussion is needed. These are complicated and nuanced issues. Readers with additional comments should send them to info@equitable-arlington.org.
(published June, 2019)
Overview
To solve the extraordinarily large deficit in housing for the greater Boston region, over 180,000 units of new housing should come on line in the next few years. This deficit is the result of a rapid expansion in in-migration due to new job creation, with no commensurate increase in housing production for the people taking those new jobs.
The report concludes that zoning is a primary culprit in restricting the development of an adequate housing supply, creating a “PAPER WALL” keeping out newcomers. The cost of this inadequate supply is a huge demand for housing which, in turn, bids up the price for available housing. The following “culprits” are considered: inadequate land area zoned for multi-family housing; low density zoning; age restrictions and bedroom restrictions; excessive parking requirements; mixed use requirements and approval processes. Alternative zoning models are suggested.
Elements such as “Approval Process”, “Mixed Use”, “Village Centers vs Isolated Parcels” and “Building Up or Building Out” are considered.
Researcher Amy Dain reports on two years of research into the regulations, plans and permits in the 100 cities and towns surrounding Boston. The research was commissioned by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance and funded collaboratively with: Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Association of Realtors, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, MassHousing, and Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
For the full report see: https://ma-smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03/FINAL_Multi-Family_Housing_Report.pdf
For a power point slide presentation see: https://ma-smartgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/04/DainZoningMFPresentationShare2019.pdf
For the Executive Summary see: https://equitable-arlington.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/June-2019-Multi-Family-Housing-Report_Executive-Summary.pdf
by Arthur Prokosch
New research from the Urban Institute shows that rent control and rent stabilization policies in 27 metro areas increased the supply of rental units with prices affordable to extremely low-income residents. However, this came at the cost of less overall housing supply, and especially fewer rentals with prices affordable to higher-income residents. If subsidization proposals return to Boston and Massachusetts again next year, they will not be a silver bullet for affordability, but could be one ingredient in a successful strategy alongside more housing construction.
As detailed in an in-depth Boston Globe article, rent control in Massachusetts was last repealed statewide, 51-49%, by an initiative petition in 1994. A year ago, as the Globe also reported, Boston and Massachusetts saw a number of “rent stabilization” proposals to reinstitute some components of rent-control policies. None of these proposals included income-specific provisions like limits on higher-income tenants occupying rent-stabilized apartments. Discussions are likely to restart next year.
The new research gives stronger evidence that achieving the goal of affordable housing at all income levels requires multiple complementary strategies, because each affordable housing strategy has its own tradeoffs. Rent control may increase the number of very-low-priced rentals across an entire region, at least in the short run, with the tradeoff of reducing housing supply and affordability at higher income levels. Thus, at best, rent control would need to be paired with greater amounts of new housing production–even more than is already needed today–to be able to give a net benefit for low-income, moderate-income, and every other income band above very-low-income residents.
Other affordable-housing strategies have their own tradeoffs. Arlington’s inclusionary zoning requirements set aside some units for lower- and moderate-income residents, with a tradeoff of increasing the prices of the remaining units, or reducing their number. Meanwhile, nonprofit organizations like the Housing Corporation of Arlington and government agencies like the Arlington Housing Authority ensure that some lower-income residents can afford housing, with the tradeoff that their limited funding only allows them to serve a small fraction of the demand.
In contrast, reducing barriers to the construction of new housing decreases housing costs across a metro area. See another recent article for a description of how housing construction has a “filter effect”, slowing rent growth at all income levels. Even so, a range of strategies would help ensure that affordable housing arrives as quickly as it is needed, at every income level, and in every neighborhood where it is needed.
In summary, rent control can be a useful tool, one that’s most effective when combined with other strategies. Our housing problems are multi-faceted, and the responses have to be multi-faceted too.