Bercuvitz response to Carolyn Misch 12 10 20“The zoning modifications that were adopted by City Council in 2012/13 did result in changes to the frontage and lot size within the Baystate neighborhood and in other core neighborhoods
to reflect the lot sizes historically that exist in these neighborhoods. This was done purposefully to allow opportunities for new lots to be created from some of the larger lots, knowing
that a sprinkling of new lots within neighborhoods would 1) allow for new housing to be built organically that reflected the building patterns in neighborhoods over time where there
are pockets of larger structures from the early 1900's, next to 1920's homes next to single story ranch homes built in the 1950's /60's etc. Viewing the variety of homes along Warner
or Norwood or Hinckley reveals there is quite a variety of single story, two and three story homes mixed together and next to each other throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Hanzdel's proposed
houses similarly contribute to this mix. “
The current development in such a concentrated manner in Bay State, along with the very active current solicitation by Mr. Handzel to purchase additional properties, does not and will
not result in a “sprinkling of new lots within neighborhoods.” If that is one of the goals of the zoning modifications, then it seems incumbent upon the city to take responsibility for
assessing how many lots might be created in each neighborhood. Bay State Village, with its historically lower income residents, and lower cost and less valuable housing stock is disproportionately
vulnerable to these zoning changes, and will result in an avalanche rather than a sprinkling of new lots. This is an economic justice issue. The Smith College area for example will not
experience the same effects of the zoning changes that Bay State will. So I, and other residents, will be requesting that such an assessment be done.
There are probably not that many residents of Northampton or Bay State Village who are more familiar with the architecture and architectural history of Bay State then I am. I say this
because I completely disagree with your characterization of Nu Way Home projects in Bay State organically reflecting the building patterns in this neighborhood. Bay State Village was
laid out as a mill village primarily for people working in the mills. Some tracts of land, lots, and houses were owned by mill owners, and some by local residents. Not so different from
today, except that people who worked in the mills were able to purchase their own houses, unlike what is occurring today in Northampton. With few exceptions, the lots were large, and
had one family houses on them, with the occasional multi-family. And perhaps most importantly, the housing that was here was affordable to people with modest incomes. Yes, houses were
added throughout the last almost 200 years. But in a scale with the layout of the neighborhood.
Organic building projects are ones which appear as though they have always been there, with seamless transition to what already exists. I will again suggest that a visit to 170 Federal
St. and to 61 Warner St (where you can envision 3 houses just like the ones at the other end of the block) could not remotely be described as “new, organic housing.” One of the key
differences between what has been built to date and Nu Way’s tactics is the densityand scale of his housing. Bay State was able to accommodate housing from different eras because of
the lot sizes. Houses that were built almost never dwarfed or significantly impacted and infringed upon the neighboring houses. There was enough space between them. We do not have lots
that have multiple large houses where one small house stood, except at Hinckley Trace, which is so low profile that it is below the street level. And, the scale of Nu Way Homes’ houses
is entirely inconsistent with neighboring homes. The design of each house, while questionable in my opinion (especially as the same house is now identifiably throughout Northampton trading
neighborhood aesthetics and responsiveness for expediency and profit) is not really the issue. It is the tremendous incongruity within the neighborhood, and the impact on the neighboring
houses of his projects, that in fact does not exist elsewhere in this neighborhood.
There is no positive “contribution to the mix” that neighbors here are experiencing. The only positive contributions appear to be to Nu Way Homes’ bottom line, the few homeowners who
can afford a $600,000 house, and the taxbase of Northampton.
2) allowing new lots provides for potentially lower cost housing when land acquisition can be spread across more than one structure, also allowing homeowners to recoup equity out of
their own homes;
I supported the infill changes in hopes that it would provide lower cost housing, and allow people to stay in their homes or more easily support multigenerational housing. If “allowing
new lots provides for potentially lower cost housing” than shame on the city for not standing with those of us concerned about what is occurring. Nu Way Homes is removing existing, affordable,
lower cost housing from the market in exchange for housing that costs well over half a million dollars. The owner has been able to secure lots for no money given the resale of the existing
house, or for $60-$80,000 per lot with these tear-down or subdividing projects. If this is a goal for the regulation changes, then the city should provide protections to ensure affordable
housing is being created through the subdivision of lots. Or, create a different set of regulations for owner occupied properties than for developer owned properties to ensure that these
changes will “allowing [sic] homeowners to recoup equity out of their own homes.” Every single person with whom I have spoken in the last weeks supported the infill legislation thinking
that it would help homeowners who lived at their properties, not developers. Now that we are seeing the effects of the regulation changes, it is time to revisit with city residents whether
the infill goals are consistent with what is occurring, and gauge support for what residents want from here moving forward.
3) This addresses the demand for single family detached homes that is still quite high as compared to demand for multifamily structures. Though detached housing creates a larger carbon
footprint, allowing such housing within our neighborhoods where there is walkable and bikeable access to resources, schools etc is far better than pushing such housing further out or
to other communities.
The only way that Northampton housing is affordable for many people is through the purchase of multifamily structures. They aren’t available. I personally would rather have affordable,
well-designed and constructed, neighborhood responsive, truly “green” multi-family structures added to our neighborhood than single family, carbon intensive, vinyl-sided, fossil-fuel
dependent $600,000 houses. Just because there is a demand for single family detached homes does not mean that Northampton has to or can meet that demand. Gentrification across the county
often occurs due to demand for housing, and due to profit-driven developers. And Baystate for the most part is not walkable or bikeable to resources and schools. Yes technically, but
if you survey the neighborhood, and the new owners of Nu Way homes, and try to accurately assess what travel distance people actually give up their cars for, my guess is that construction
here doesn’t hugely minimize car use.
I have been a huge advocate for this city that I have lived in and loved for 20 years. And I have felt especially proud of our Planning Department and the efforts to leave a legacy of
thoughtful growth and land protection. I understand that these issues are complex, and that there are competing demands. But I am deeply worried about the direction that Northampton
is heading in. Maintaining open space in outlying areas should not take precedence at all costs over maintaining the historical, cultural, open space, and human landscapes that exists
within our neighborhoods.
I hope that city officials really listen and respond to the concerns being raised by city residents. We have an opportunity to revisit and revision a Northampton of the future that protects
and reflects much of what brought many of us here or contributed to our staying here.
Sincerely, Debra Bercuvitz