New Zoning Revives Old Debates on Density
A version of this story was published in the Somerville Journal on March 8.
On April 3, the City of Somerville will hold a public hearing on the citywide zoning overhaul that is currently before the Board of Alderman. Clocking in at 602-pages, the new zoning shifts away from use-based code (what we have right now) to a form-based code, establishing much tighter standards for what buildings look like and how development can proceed.
If it passes, the new code will downzone residential districts city-wide, sharply limiting the number of new units that can be built in the neighborhoods.
Existing uses will be grandfathered in, but for all new construction, the proposed zoning places a hard limit of 2 units max for districts zoned “neighborhood residential.” A single-family housing could be converted to two-family via special permit, but a brand new three-family could not be built anywhere in the neighborhood districts, period.
The result is a map that looks strikingly different in 20 years.
What’s the upside of downzoning entire neighborhoods?
Limiting the total number of units in the neighborhoods will mean there is more parking for people who currently live there. It also provides an satisfying way for local residents to stick it to small-scale developers. Many residents are tired of seeing luxury developers moving into the neighborhood, chopping up a single-family home or combining lots to make a tidy profit.
The downside?
Downzoning the neighborhoods means quite simply that new housing must be built elsewhere. A hard cap of 2 units will continue to push the development of all new housing — including affordable housing — to the transformational districts (Assembly, Union, and Inner Belt).
If the City of Somerville hopes build 6,000 new units by 2030, this proposal will make it harder to do that.
This tension was on display in a recent Ward 2 meeting, where attendees were split down the middle on whether they wanted a 2-unit or 3-unit cap in the residential districts. “Ultimately it [gets] to concern not about what your neighbor might do, but what a developer might do,” noted Ward 2 Alderman JT Scott. At a follow-up meeting, residents voiced concerns about the visibility of luxury conversions in residential neighborhoods. “Somerville is a cash cow for these people. Somerville is for sale,” says Peter Galeno, Ward 2 resident, echoing the sentiments of many who have voiced similar concerns.
To protect or to grow?
It’s worth stating the obvious: if passed as-is, the proposed zoning will put a hard cap on luxury development. It will also significantly reduce the amount of affordable housing in residential neighborhoods going forward.
Part of this is due to wider changes: the prohibition on lot consolidations, which strictly building types and effectively bans apartment-style buildings in the neighborhoods. The hard-won 2016 Inclusionary Zoning ordinance applies to any building 6 units and up, but the current proposal bans 6-unit buildings in the neighborhoods entirely, pushing apartment-style buildings to the “urban residential” districts at the edges of city neighborhoods.
Is this a reasonable trade? Potentially. The restriction on building types is an admirable thing that the planning department is attempting to do to protect neighborhoods from large-scale projects. The gradual change in density is softer, less noticeable, and will have a much greater long-term impact.
A hard maximum of 2 units vs. 3 means that for every tear-down or conversion, we are more likely to be losing a unit rather than gaining one in the neighborhoods, with that unit migrated at some future point in time to be redeveloped in a transformational district.
Notably, 3-unit conversions are forbidden even if there are no cosmetic changes to the building, meaning that it really is about density rather than the character of the neighborhood. Given that 80% of the city is residential, this is a small change that could have major consequences for urban density.
Why does it matter? Because Somerville is in the middle of a housing crisis. We don’t just need more affordable housing. We need more housing period.
Critics might argue that Somerville is already too dense, and that we need to grow the commercial tax base before adding new residents who add to the city’s municipal costs. But downzoning the residential neighborhoods doesn’t impact commercial development, and it will do little to lift the tax burden on current residents, except insofar as it prevents new people from moving in.
Others will argue that even with a 3-unit cap, the additional housing will do little to mitigate the affordability crisis in Somerville. That’s certainly true, but a 3-unit cap would make it possible for benevolent landlords to use two units to discount a third, which is currently an informal strategy that many use to keep their rents low. Do we really want to take this option off the table?
Lastly, critics will point out that preserving the neighborhoods — and building up in places like Assembly Square, Union Square, and Inner Belt — is in line with the goals of Somervision, which states that 85% of new development should take place in the transformational districts. In pushing development out of these districts, we are merely acting on the plan laid out in SomerVision and making good on our promises to the city.
This last point is undeniably true. The question is, is that still what we want?
What do you want your block to look like in 20 years?
The decision to downzone the neighborhoods is a result of community feedback from 2015, when the specter of triple-deckers everywhere forced a hard revision of what had been a much more density-friendly plan.
Three years later, many are now questioning whether that’s the right way to go. Many of the affordable housing strategies that currently exist — such as the condo conversion ordinance and the 100 Homes Initiative — rely on diversifying affordable housing within the neighborhoods rather than clustering it in the new transformational districts. And experience has shown how hard it can be to get affordable units into large developments like Assembly Square. Last year’s fight with Federal Realty resulted in a 50% drop in the number of affordable units in a transformational district (30 units out of a 500 unit building) precisely the opposite of what SomerVision imagines.
While many still oppose large-scale development on their own streets, homeowners have also stepped up to call for more density, advocating for large-scale projects like Clarendon Hill and the 100 Homes Initiative which are meant to integrate density into the fabric of existing neighborhoods.
A three-unit vs. a two-unit max won’t magically make housing more affordable, but it will create a trickle-up effect for density, making housing available and creating opportunities to maximize affordability where we can. We can choose to regulate this — allowing density by special permit while limiting facade and height changes, or exploring options for deed-restricted housing — but that option is off the table if we decide not to allow it at all.
As we go into the public hearing, it’s important for people to weigh these competing concerns. Is a new unit on your block worth a few extra minutes looking for a parking spot? Does an apartment building that’s a luxury eyesore become worth it if it includes a contribution toward affordable housing? Or are there other solutions, not yet explored, which the Board of Alderman can pursue to incentivize affordable development while limiting luxury growth?
With 100 people applying for every unit of affordable housing that comes on the market, it’s no joke to say that every unit matters. The decisions we make today will impact our neighborhoods for years to come. On zoning, it’s important to get it right.
Katie Gradowski is an educator in Somerville. She works for Parts and Crafts and co-manages the Somerville Fab Lab. In her spare time, she follows local politics and runs tool trainings for the City of Somerville.
