With all the shakeups in Lowell city government in the last couple of months, there is an opportunity to shift the debate about the direction of the city. We have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of our residents, and it’s about damn time, too. If we want sustainable growth, the retention of our heritage and culture, the incorporation of new blood, and a solid base of private enterprise, we can’t expect that to happen with an economic plan of “develop everything into condos!” and new overpriced parking garages.
It’s time to start talking again about affordable housing in this city. A city official once said to me, “Why should Lowell have any more affordable housing? We’re at 14% here, more than the recommended 10% minimum the state says we should have. Let Chelmsford or Westford do their share for once.” I will tell you why this attitude is both suicide for this city’s vibrant culture, and patently false and even immoral. And bad for business.
To jump into an anecdote, last night I attended a group meeting with Western Ave Studio’s building owner, Karl. At issue is the long-term plans for the artist community here. I won’t go into specifics, as they are being worked out, but Karl believes in the project very much. His plans include contingencies for keeping the space affordable “indefinitely” as he says. When I say Western Ave is affordable, I mean, really affordable. Artists from Somerville and points much further are renting studios here. When you ask them why, they say it’s because studio space around Boston is so much more expensive and out of their range.
Long-term affordablity was not taken into account in some of the artist live-work spaces in downtown Lowell. There were no stipulations to protect the affordability of Ayer Lofts. As a result, many artists sold their spaces when the real estate went up (I would have too, if I’d had that much appreciation and it was legal for me to do so) and their property taxes went through the roof. At last year’s Lowell Open Studios, there were hardly any artists left downtown to open their doors in the live-work spaces originally created for them.
Why is this important? Because this is the flip side of gentrification. When a gentrification process is successful and the neighborhood improved, the very people who were relied upon to increase the values no longer can afford to live there. It’s already happening to downtown Lowell and it will happen elsewhere.
I take a look at house prices in my neighborhood in the Highlands, where we rent a small apartment. I’d like to buy a house here here. I’d love to buy one of the many houses on sale in my area, but my god, I doubt we can afford it. Now, my husband and I would never qualify for any sort of government assistance, nor should we. We have a decent family salary even if we still struggle with the cost of living in Massachusetts. But if we’re unable to move ahead, where does that put a family making half or a quarter of our salary, with one or two kids? Or where does that put my friend, an entry-level teacher, and her boyfriend, an artist? They hoofed it right the hell out of the state because they couldn’t afford to stay. Ergo, population loss in Massachusetts.
Follow me past the fold to continue this conversation.
So why do we need more affordable housing, when we’re supposedly above the minimum the state recommends? There are several reasons. I’ve talked about the effect of affordable housing on artistic culture.
But Lowell also has a rich heritage of immigrant cultures, first attracted here by mill jobs, then as a self-sustaining process as immigrant waves sought a place which could and would support them. Affordability played the largest role in bringing them here out of Boston. The city touts its immigrant culture as an asset when it wants to market the city to future affluent residents, but doesn’t seem interested in keeping that heritage going into the future. We will soon be living in the past if we do not change course. Do we want the city to cease being a first home for those who have left their native countries for a better life? We love their culture and food, but god forbid we include their future in our plans to economically enhance the city. But in cutting off the flow of immigration, we will sever the life blood of this amazing melting pot where many people have come to live together peaceably. If you want a practical statement, we’ll lose our biggest selling point.
Lowell is also a city, albeit a small one. As such, it boasts density, jobs, and public transportation (even if limited and unaccommodating at times) for those who can’t afford vehicles. It has a train to Boston (saves all sorts of gas mileage on our family car, I tell you). Towns, even as affluent as Chelmsford and Westford, cannot have the infrastructure a city has. The cost per person on public transit goes up when density goes down, and it’s not as viable or frequently used. Lowell needs more affordable housing because the demand is higher here, as well as for use of those amenities of modern life which are necessary and easier to come by in a city.
Anyway, we shouldn’t be worrying about Westford or Chelmsford. Let them run their towns. Stop comparing apples and oranges when developing economic public policy.
Now for the moral issue. Is it our intention that by increasing the value of our city’s property, we want any family making less than $20-$30,000 to be forced out of the city? This is the end result of the current development path. Are we so heartless as to not take into account those people who have lived in this city, some for their entire lives? Are you facing the fact that rising property values and gentrification is throwing families out into the cold? I know there are some people out there willing to admit they want to exclude “undesirables” from staying in Lowell, but what is upsetting are those city leaders who not talking about this issue at all - after all, poor people don’t vote as much, right? Better to keep quiet and let the policy do its dirty work and not make waves about those people no one cares too much about.
As I said, a moral issue. The moral fiber of our leaders leaves a lot to be desired, frankly. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So to conclude, choking off housing affordability is killing the cultural contributions of both immigrants and artists (except for a few good souls creating spaces affordably indefinitely, like the Coalition for a Better Acre’s development of affordable units, or Karl’s Western Ave Studios). It is causing upheaval in the poorest parts of town where our most vulnerable families live, and even middle income households, squeezed by both rising prices and stagnant wages, are finding living here difficult. I am not against bettering neighborhoods and increasing property values, but we must have a plan in place to retain that which has given us so much in the way of history, culture, and art. We need to help existing residents thrive in this city even as we market expensive condos to Boston’s elite.
So this is why we need to have a conversation about affordable housing. In my next essay on this issue hopefully in the next few days, I’ll go into some ways we can creatively innovate solutions to achieve affordable housing while still giving private enterprise a place to flourish.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Wow! What a great piece.
I am a relatively new resident and I love Lowell. What makes Lowell special is its diversity, culture and the fact that Lowell is a city with city-resources such as public transportation and the promise of jobs. I would hate to live here if Lowell became a place where only residents are those that can afford luxury condos and where the entire workforce commutes into Boston.
I am very skeptical of Lowell’s marketing campaigns (especially Mills to Martinis) that are directed to yuppie Bostonians and that promise “cheap” condos and an easy commute. These people aren’t the future of Lowell. Yes, they are a part of it but if everyone in the city is commuting into Boston for work and fun, Lowell will become a ghost-town bedroom community.
Artist and immigrants are vital to the future of Lowell and on some level, it seems that the powers-that-be understand that but it also seems that they also like the *idea* of artists and immigrants more than the reality of them. “Affordable” housing should not be focused on young Boston professionals priced out of the Boston real estate market. It should be affordable for the current residents.
Gentrification should not be the goal of city planning, instead we should be focusing on creating a vibrant city that encompasses all types of residents and that offers services and jobs to those residents. A mix of residents (by age, income, family status, cultural background, skills, etc.) along with a plan that makes it feasible to live, work and shop within your own neighborhood; a strong public transportation system; strong community involvement (and the idea that all members of the community are welcome to be involved); and value placed on art, culture and diversity contribute to a vibrant and livable city. Yuppies in downtown condos and the ghettoization of the poor do not.
Lowell needs to use its assets in a meaningful way in order to complete its renaissance. If it doesn’t we’ll end up just another condo park on the outskirts of Boston.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
People have this fear that affordable means welfare. My husband and I are modest a people, we don’t desire the 750K colonial with granite counter tops and one two many bathrooms to clean. 35 years ago many couples did well, easily buying a home even before the age of 25. Homes back then were 1600sq/ft 3 bedroom ranches with one full bath. Many of these couples also didn’t have student loans adding up to over 50k combined or the costs of technology, people are stunned that we don’t have cable.
The Sunday’s Sun had a front-page article about how we are placed in market classifications. I might not be able to afford Crate & Barrel or afford a high tax bill, but we do make an income and for others to make some profit. Those smaller ranches are now marketed as tiny, when many families raised three or four children in them two decades ago. Now a bath and a half apparently isn’t enough for a family with one child.
As a parent I see the marketing directed towards me with real estate, with the number one issue being the school system and a rich tax base to support them. My children in all honestly don’t need the “best”. They need a clean, safe, adequate, school system free of distractions where they can focus on their education and access to tools and information. In true costs how much should it cost a local government?
We don’t need all the bells and whistles, but many suburbs go nuts with bigger and better buildings to keep the property up and out of reach. This is actually one of my fears with the creation of a new high school in Lowell. Is it to help the needs of the community, or to attract more wealthy home buyers?
May 9th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Great discussion, but unfortunately affordable housing has no easy answers. Affordable housing is perceived as a net cost to a city, as the property taxes realized won’t cover the public service costs for the residents.
Instead, let’s make jobs the goal. With the right mix of employment opportunities, the affordability of housing will follow. We wouldn’t have to worry about the economic payback of the housing itself, but rather its contribution to the overall economic development. In the past, look at the range of housing that ressulted from the mill jobs, ranging from the mansions on Belvedere Hill for the owners, to the flats in teh area surrounding downtown for the workers who walked to their jobs. The JAM area is an opportunity for modern day mixed opportunity employment. However, an expensive parking garage does not serve that purpose well.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Affordable housing should be a net cost, if that’s what it takes. Unfortunately, the debate over the “right mix of jobs” can’t include an increase in minimum wage, the institution of a manditory living wage, or any other jobs-based boost to what people can apply to their cost of living, because the city doesn’t have control over any of that. The basic jobs that many at the lower income brackets can take will pay crap, and losing those jobs from the city doesn’t help those people who work at those. Do you think they can make the leap from a minimum wage job to a white-collar position? So obviously, this solves nothing for the most vulnerable populations of Lowell, but will only drive them out of the city. Which I guess some people want, but I don’t. I’d like to find a solution that includes everyone.
Getting better jobs in Lowell will also only serve to increase the cost of living as the housing becomes more in demand, so even on that level a jobs-based plan doesn’t work without some sort of way to keep the cost of living down artificially for those who are at the bottom pay scales. After all, that’s one of government’s biggest jobs, isn’t it? To offset the negative impacts of a market-based economy?
If we middle class are being squeezed out of our comfortable lifestyles with the price of gas, college, food, and essential services, imagine raising raising a family of four in eastern Massachusetts on an income of $25,000 or less.
There’s also resources at the city’s disposal to help with the cost of creating affordable housing. Like the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act. We should be working to pass this in Lowell; once approved by a city or town, the state will match funds for use to create open space, preserve historic places, or create affordable housing. We’re stupid if we don’t take the state up on this offer. It’s a flexible funds-matching plan from the state as well - allowing the city to spend it on anything within the perview of those three areas.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I think a concern for Lowell, isn’t that the Lower class will be squeezed out of Lowell they will just end up living on the streets of Lowell. People who do have skills and educations will afford to move, if you make that little you can’t even do that.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
“can afford to move” not “will afford to move”
May 9th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Lynne writes:
> Unfortunately, the debate over the “right mix of jobs” can’t
> include an increase in minimum wage, the institution of a
> manditory living wage, or any other jobs-based boost to
> what people can apply to their cost of living, because
> the city doesn’t have control over any of that
Actually there is at least one city with minimum wage laws. It has made a big difference to people I know.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Regardless of our fears, affordable housing will continue to draw savy homebuyers out of Boston to places more within their reach. If Lowell wants to keep from becoming a bedroom community, the focus on developing cultural, sporting and seasonal attractions that can compete with those in Boston and elsewhere. Steps the City has taken in recent years have gone a long way to keeping folks at home, spending time and money within the
City. Another great lure will be in the development of superior educational programs within the public schools. A great first step there would be the complete revocation of the dictates of the “No Child Left Behind” provisions. As we have watched mass exodus out of metropolitian areas in the wake of rising property costs, we will begin to see similar migration out of public schools systems. As an educator, I have seen significant decrease in the student aptitudes in complex thinking, writing and independence–less emphasis in critical thinking and process and more on quantifiable fact-based learning. A curricula that is focused on test results will eventually teach exculusively to the test, leaving the study of the arts, foreign language and history behind. If Lowell, could develop an educational paradigm that departed from the teaching to the
test model currenlty in practice, we would definitely see a marked increase in resident
investment within the City. The City has already proved itself willing to part company with
conventional wisdom as it regards supporting the arts, education provides a new and exciting frontier
for further innovation and development.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 am
I came across this blog while researching my own blog http://artistsspacenetwork.blogspot.com/. Som e sWhat you say rings true to the problems faced everywhere, and as a professional artist who has had the distinction of being priced out of both New York and San Francisco, I think artists have to become organized on the subject, or the vitality of most urban arts will continue to erode. It is ironic in Tucson, Arizona where I live that although developers are building and trying to sell expensive “live work” condos in downtown Tucson to Californians fleeing the cost of living there, downtown Tucson has never, ever looked so bad. Where there was once a lively alternative arts scene, now empty storefronts sit one after another. The attempt at gentrification has, in my opinion, blighted the once ingteresting downtown.