--from "Enough" by Linda Marks
I wrote the song "Enough" (which was released in November 2018 in anticipation of my 2019 In Grace album) in response to the teardown epidemic which is running rampant in Newton, Waltham and many other cities in the greater Boston area. The Newtonville house I practice therapy in located in "teardown central." Just down the street from my house, the Orr Block featured mom and pop businesses so many of us loved, before a commercial developer took over several literal blocks in the town center for a huge teardown project.
Instead of picturesque old buildings with first floor storefronts and a second floor with offices, a gigantic 5 story complex is being constructed. The mom and pop businesses were either forced out of business or displaced. And the cost of both retail and residential space in the new complex, once completed, will be many times the cost in the old buildings.
I was invited to share "Enough" at a meeting of the Ward 6 Democratic Committee in Newton last week, and what I learned about the costs of teardowns both deeply saddened me and sent my head and heart spinning in a kind of psychospiritual crisis.
The costs of the teardown epidemic include:
1. Displacement of current residents
2. Environmental costs of a larger construction footprint
3. A breakdown in the fabric of the existing community
4. Affordability challenges for seniors in the community
Let me address each of these costs:
DISPLACEMENT OF CURRENT RESIDENTS
When people sell their homes to developers, rather than families, the cost of housing in a community is driven up. Developers generally use the formula of 2.5 to 1. This means if they purchase a modest home for $500K, after tearing it down and building a larger home, they plan to sell it for $1.25 million. The kind of person who can afford a $500K home and the kind of person who can afford a $1.25 million home is very different.
Teachers, police officers and firemen who wish to live in the town they work in, human service workers and many other middle class residents cannot afford to purchase another property in a city that is tearing down modest homes and replacing them with much bigger and more expensive homes. This results in displacing middle class residents, who must move to other cities with more affordable housing prices.
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF A LARGER CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT
While developers sell teardowns as a way to use more environmentally efficient technologies, the reality is that the new properties are actually costly to the environment in many ways:
1. It takes resources to tear down the old property and dispose of the refuse.
2. Even if there is a more environmentally efficient way to heat a new property, the fact that it is 2.5 to 3 times larger than the more modest property means that it takes much more energy to heat the new property.
3. If takes a lot of energy and environmental resources to make the construction materials used in the new larger home.
4. The new larger home will hold lots of "stuff" (including furniture, fixtures, rugs, other possessions), and it takes energy and resources to make all this "stuff."
When you add up all of these "hidden costs," the reality is that the new larger structure is far more taxing on the environment than the older smaller structure.
A BREAKDOWN IN THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY
A community may have been known for its neighborhoods, including relationships amongst the people who live in the neighborhoods. When developers tear down modest or older homes and build new, larger houses in their place, the people who have comprised the neighborhood, are forced to leave. They can't afford the new homes. And they may want to downsize rather than upsize.
The density of the neighborhood can change if two large houses are built on a lot that once hosted one smaller house. Many of the new properties feature fences, where before there was open space. Fences suggest privacy and "keep away". messages to others in the neighborhood. A city councilor at the meeting I attended noted that many of the newer residents did not really care about the interests of the displaced people in the neighborhood. They were more focused on their own individual lives, with more investment in their own new home than in the history of the neighborhood.
In order to earn the money it takes to buy the expensive new houses, the new residents to the neighborhood very likely need to work long hours at high paying jobs. Even if families move in, the way of life of these contemporary families may be very different than the way of life the families in the pre-teardown neighborhood lived.
AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES FOR SENIORS IN THE COMMUNITY
I was quite struck by the comments of an 82 year-old man at the meeting I attended. He was living in the house he was born in, having been away for a couple of decades and having returned. As property taxes were climbing, staying in his house was becoming more difficult. Living on a fixed income, there is not the budget space to absorb increasing property taxes and other related costs of home ownership. And yet, if this man were to sell his home, he would not be able to afford a smaller space in the community. Smaller residences are hard to find, and very highly priced. New construction of smaller residences such as condos are premium priced.
Even "affordable housing" that may be included in some of the new big construction projects, is costly. And the other residents must subside the costs with their already high rents. Too, the mix of people in these large new construction complexes may not offer the lifestyle that seniors seek if they wish to downsize.
In the face of all these issues, many seniors feel trapped in their longstanding residences, with increasing costs squeezing them, but nowhere else to go.
I was also struck at how easily pieces of a town's history could be torn down and forgotten. In Newton, the majority of the housing stock was built before the year 2000. And much of it is historical and beautiful. A lot is lost when these homes are torn down. Lots that once included lovely yards and gardens are turned into multi-dwelling structures with high rise homes. Yards are minimal. Sight lines are more limited. Older architectural styles can become extinct.
As more larger structures occupy a fixed amount of land, more people and cars crowd sidewalks and roads. A suburb starts to have a more citified feel. And this is not always good.
The teardown epidemic is very sneaky yet pervasive. In a matter of years, it is possible that all modest homes could be destroyed and replaced. The image of the frogs in a pot of boiling water very much comes to mind.
We need to realize we are in the pot of boiling water, and work together to see if there are ways we can get out before we boil to death. The same goes for the environment and the fabric of our communities.
Posts
