Envision Medford: Strategies to Address Local Affordable Housing Needs

Envision Medford.

Strategies to address local affordable housing needs

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

Acknowledgements

Contents

Faculty Advisor

04

Jeffrey Levine

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP)

Executive Summary

06

City of Medford

Breanna Lungo-Koehn

Planning Context

Mayor

13

Danielle Evans, Viktor Schrader, Alicia Hunt, Stephen Morse, Amanda Centrellla Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability

Zoning Scan

Medford Housing Authority, Medford Community Development Board Partners

15

Team

Zoning Strategies and Affordable Housing Case Studies:

16

Expand Transit-Oriented Development

Maira Acosta

Nicholette Cameron

MIT DUSP

MIT DUSP

Lauren Craik MIT DUSP

20

Meital Hoffman

Extend Housing Opportunities Citywide

MIT DUSP

25

Build Affordable Housing Partnerships

30

Plan for the Future Idélcia Mapure

Andrey Prigov

MIT DUSP

MIT DUSP

Asher Simon MIT DUSP

Conclusion

Collaborators

Marie Law Adams

Jeffrey Rosenblum

Jesse Kanson-Benanav

Viktorija Abolina

MIT DUSP

Abundant Housing MA, Director

2

33

Envision Medford

Toole Design Group, Planning Director

Associate Vice President of Campus Planning & Real Estate, Northeastern University

Introduction

Zoning Recommendations

In September 2021, a team of seven students from MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning began a semester-long study of the City of Medford, examining opportunities to produce mixed-income housing and exploring ways to implement the City’s Housing Production Plan (HPP). This report summarizes our analysis of the current state of housing and zoning in Medford, five development opportunities, and zoning recommendations that could support Medford in meeting its housing goals today and in the future.

The body of the report focuses on our analysis of five potential development sites in various neighborhoods. Each case study describes the existing conditions of the site, design recommendations, financing and business models, and zoning recommendations. The case studies are structured under the following four key themes:

The report is structured in several sections. We begin with an introduction that first outlines the goals and strategies that were noted in the Housing Production Plan. For our analysis, we focused on the strategies that are related to zoning, infill development, and strengthening partnerships. The introduction then provides a current housing and zoning scan of Medford, which situates the context for our analysis of development opportunities and ultimately our zoning recommendations. The zoning scan identifies that: • • • •

Single-family zoning continues to be dominant and is constraining development potential.

Most of the existing housing stock can’t be built by-right today.

Exclusionary zoning continues to segregate communities across income and race.

Housing around rail stations largely does not meet industry standards for transit-oriented development.

Guiding principles

Expand Transit-Oriented Development

Recommendations

• •

Leverage MUZ or Overlay Zones near rail stations Lower parking requirements

•

Update zoning to match built form (reduce min lot size, lot coverage ratios, building heights) Consider adding form-based elements Add flexibility by allowing for ADUs, increased density on larger lots, increased density by special permit with clear criteria Add an Affordable Housing Overlay option

Refers to strategies focused on building new dense and affordable housing near transit stations.

Extend Housing Opportunities Citywide Refers to strategies aiming to bring affordable housing to all neighborhoods.

Build Affordable Housing Partnerships Refers to strategies building up city capacity to work with partners on affordable housing projects.

Plans for the Future Refers to strategies directed toward pre-emptively addressing the housing and climate crises.

• • •

• • •

Use capacity-building grants for local organizations Support MHA in current and future developments Encourage a collaborative approach across organizations

•

Proactively designate new overlay zones ahead of infrastructure projects for value capture Consider environmental risks and mitigation strategies Build a robust Affordable Housing Trust Fund

• •

Envisioning Medford presentation: 12/06/21

4

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

5

Abbreviations & Common Terms ACS: US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey Affordable Housing: Per HUD, Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which a household is paying no more than 30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities.

Common Definitions of Affordability: • Extremely Low-Income: Up to 30% of AMI • Very Low Income: Up to 50% AMI • Low Income: Up to 80% of AMI • Workforce Housing: typically 80-100% of AMI AMI: Area Median Income (the median gross income for a person or family based on the median income for the Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro Fair Market Rent (FMR) Area Income Limits (FY 2021): 1-Person Household

2-Person Household

3-Person Household

4-Person Household

Extremely Low Income Limit (≤ 30% AMI)

$28,200

$32,200

$36,250

$40,250

Very Low Income Limit (30% – 50% AMI)

$47,000

$53,700

$60,400

$67,100

Low Income Limit (50% – 80% AMI)

$70,750

$80,850

$90,950

$101,050

CDBG: US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey CPA: Community Preservation Act DU: Dwelling Unit HPP: City of Medford Housing Production Plan (Draft, 2021) HUD: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit MGL: Massachusetts General Law

Planning Context.

MUZ: Mixed Use Zone 40B: Comprehensive Permit, per MGL Chapter 40B 40R: The Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act, per MGL Chapter 40R

6

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

7

Single-Family and Multifamily Housing Proportions for Select Comparison Communities Source: Medford HPP (2021)

Situating Medford The City of Medford, through its Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, invited graduate students from MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP) to conduct a housing and zoning study of the city. As the culmination of a semester-long course titled Community Growth and Land Use Planning, this document presents student findings developed through conversations with city officials and the Community Development Board, site visits, and additional quantitative and qualitative research.

The housing and zoning study of the city was conducted to explore ways to implement the City of Medford’s draft Housing Production Plan, which was developed under GL c. 40B. Under Massachusetts Chapter 40B, municipalities are required to have at least 10% of their housing stock included on the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), which is used to measure the community’s stock of low and moderate housing units. As of February 2020, the City would need to create 671 more units to reach the 10% SHI target. Housing Production Plans are a state-recognized planning tool that act as a community's proactive strategy for planning and developing affordable housing in a manner consistent with the Chapter 40B statute and regulation. As outlined in the HPP, Medford’s housing needs are greatly impacted by rising costs and static incomes; the constrained housing supply; the need for smaller households; geographic inequity and, development concerns such as preserving open space and community character.

In developing this document, we have sought to leverage the HPP to explore zoning strategies, analyze development opportunities and provide recommendations to assist the City of Medford with meeting their 5-year housing goals. We have sought to explore what changes may be required to meet the housing needs of the Medford community while respecting the distinct residential character that the city values.

% Single-family of Total Housing Stock

% Multi-family of Total Housing Stock

Somerville

10%

90%

Everett

18%

82%

Watertown

23%

77%

Malden

26%

74%

Salem

27%

73%

Medford

33%

67%

Middlesex County

48%

52%

Massachusetts

52%

48%

Medford has relatively fewer multi-family units than many of its peer communities

Affordable Housing Profile

671 Number of units Medford needs to create to reach 10% SHI target

21% of Medford households are cost-burdened

53% of Salem's residential building permits issued between 2010 and 2019 went to singlefamily homes

Housing Production Plan The HPP identifies the below seven goals as Medford’s 5-Year Housing Goals: 1. Address local housing needs and meet production goals. Work to meet the 40B goals and then continue to promote initiatives to address local housing needs.

2. Promote a welcoming, diverse, intragenerational, and inclusive city with an ideal mix of housing choices that offer diverse options to residents with varying needs and preferences.

3. Foster safe, well-designed, and sustainable housing. Ensure new homes of all types are sensitive and compatible in scale, siting, and design to neighborhood context.

4. Integrate affordable and diverse housing options throughout the city at a scale that is compatible with the built environment.

5. Preserve the affordability of existing affordable homes.

6. Expand local capacity to implement housing initiatives.

7. Promote transparency and engagement and increase awareness of fair housing issues.

Strategies The HPP outlined 18 specific strategies within three categories (Planning and Zoning Strategies; Local Initiatives and Programmatic Strategies; Capacity, Education and Coordination). For our report, we have focused on the following strategies: • • • •

Amend existing zoning to make it easier to create new multi-family, mixed-use, and affordable development; Adopt affordable infill zoning provisions; Foster affordable infill on City-owned vacant lots; Support the Medford Housing Authority to rehabilitate and redevelop existing properties.

Medford's average median rent increased by 28% between 2010 and 2019

8

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

9

Population & housing supply trends As of April 1, 2020, Medford’s population was 59,659, up 6.2% from its 2010 population.[52] Based on the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s projections, Medford’s population could remain steady under the Status Quo scenario or could increase by 4.3% to 62,236 in 2030 under their Stronger Region scenario.[26] An adequate supply of housing is needed to ensure that the Medford housing market keeps pace with this population growth, especially since Medford’s vacancy rates are significantly lower than thresholds considered “healthy” for a stable market. Medford’s ownership and rental vacancy rates are 0.2% and 3.2%, respectively, lower than the 2% and 7% that are assumed to be healthy by some economists.[26] Between 2009 and 2020, there were 54.5 new housing units approved per 1,000 residents in Medford, which while lower than Watertown, is a stronger housing production than most surrounding cities, indicating that Medford is on the right track but there is still work to be done. For example, when this production is analyzed as a percent change between 2009 and 2019, the percent change in the number of housing units in Medford was 3.6%, when compared to other cities, this puts Medford in the middle of the group, however, more importantly, this indicates that Medford’s housing production is not keeping pace with historic or projected population growth.

Not captured in these numbers are the housing developments in Medford’s pipeline. These projects include: • • •

4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, a 380-unit multifamily rental development proposed on a three-acre site in an Industrial zone 970 Fellsway, a 289 unit mixed-income multifamily rental development (including 73 affordable units), with one main apartment building and 11 townhouse structures 280 Mystic Avenue is a 378-unit multifamily rental complex (including 96 affordable units)

Number of New Housing Units Approved per 1,000 Residents, Medford and Surrounding Cities (2009–2020) Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database

Throughout the state, rising housing prices are exacerbated by a systematically constrained housing supply. Despite new recent development, Medford has had low overall housing growth in recent decades and vacancy rates are significantly lower than the thresholds considered “healthy” for a stable housing market. Although Medford’s housing stock is significantly more diverse— notably its mix of duplexes and multifamily—compared to the County and state, current zoning regulations hamper multi-family and mixed-use development.

-Medford HPP

Percent Change in Number of Housing Units, Medford and Surrounding Cities (2009–2019)

Source: American Community Survey (2006–2010, 2015-2019)

Net Change in Number of Housing Units per Block Group, 2010 - 2019 Source: American Community Survey (2006–2010, 2015-2019) Net Loss of Units 0–10 Units 10–50 Units 50–100 Units 100+ Units

Most new housing units concentrated around Wellington station.

During this period, housing development in Medford has been concentrated in Southeast Medford, particularly near the Wellington MBTA station.

Other high-supply neighborhoods were parts of West Medford just south of Middlesex Fells. The majority (53%) of permits between 2010 and 2019 were for single-family units, 30% were for two and three- family units, and 14% were multifamily units ranging from five to 350 units.[26] A large number of these new housing units came from a singular development near Wellington station. This 350-unit development, see right, is the Windsor Mystic River development, which replaced a strip mall and parking on the same site.

In addition to housing typology, the unit mix of Medford’s housing stock is also important and represents an area of concern that Medford has identified in its Housing Production Plan. While 66% of Medford households consist of one or two people, only 16% of housing units are studios or one-bedroom units. An estimated 84% of housing units in Medford have two or more bedrooms, while 35% of Medford households consist of three or more people. This creates a mismatch between the size of Medford’s housing units and the size of households and should be taken into consideration as the City approved building permits for future development.

While the main focus of this report is on new development, Medford also has a need for housing rehabilitation & redevelopment. The City has an older housing stock than the rest of the county and state, with 54% of housing units built before 1940 and just 9% built since 1990. So while new construction is needed to meet housing supply and affordability goals, there is also a need to ensure that residents aren’t additionally cost burdened by the increased repairs and maintenance needed to upkeep older homes.

10

Envision Medford

Windsor Mystic River (before)

Windsor Mystic River (after)

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

11

Zoning Scan The current zoning environment in Medford creates challenges for sufficiently expanding the stock of housing options for residents. Upon review of existing land use patterns, the following trends, in particular, were identified as serving as barriers to growing the city’s housing stock: • • • •

Single-family zoning continues to be dominant; Most of the existing housing stock can’t be built by-right today; Exclusionary zoning continues to segregate communities; Most housing around rail stations is not transit-oriented.

Single-family zoning continues to be dominant Single-family zoning,or zoning that prohibits the development of any uses beyond detached single-family homes, is widespread in many American communities. Medford is no exception; 53% of its parcels fall under SF1 or SF2 zoning, which allows only for detached single-family dwellings. Although there are pockets of the city that allow for two or more family dwellings, as can be seen in the map on the following page, single-family use restrictions are largely dominant in the existing zoning environment. This is especially true in North Medford, where almost all of the available land zoned for housing is exclusively set aside for single-family homes. As is the case elsewhere, the ubiquity of this housing form precludes density, encourages sprawl, and impedes the development of denser, more affordable housing for residents of lesser means. In short, zoning primarily for single-family uses restricts the potential overall supply of housing in Medford and, thus, will likely contribute to worsening housing affordability over time for new and existing residents.

Land Use Profile (Housing Only) Source: Medford GIS Single-family Two-family Multi-family (3+ Units)

Zoning Scan.

Less than 10% of Medford's land use is dedicated to multi-family buildings.

12

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

13

Most of the existing housing stock can’t be built by-right today Residents of growing communities, in New England and beyond, often cite their affection for the existing character of their community in opposition to new development. However, per review of the zoning in Medford, the existing character is largely illegal under the current zoning regime. In fact, nearly two-thirds of Medford’s existing housing stock can’t be built by-right today (either because of minimum lot sizes, lot coverage ratios, or height restrictions). This does not take into account setbacks or yard dimensions which would likely increase this number by a significant amount.

Conformity is determined by a number of factors, both in terms of use (i.e.

Single vs. Multiple Family Housing) and dimensions (such as lot coverage, lot size, and height). Traditionally, the architecture of housing in Medford has included diverse forms, many of which include more density, height, and cover more of the lot than is currently allowed. Over the years, as is seen all over the United States, the code has been modified to freeze the existing stock and prevent any more of these diverse housing options from cropping up in the future. This myopic land use policy ensures that future residents cannot enjoy the same housing options as past and current residents of Medford. Additionally, this means that as the current stock of housing depreciates, the new housing that replaces it will be far less dense and will actually diverge from the community character that the existing zoning has supposedly tried to protect. Looking at just land zoned for SF1 and SF2 use, the sum of total non-confirming parcels represents just over 40% of all land.

Updating zoning in residential zones to match existing dimensions could drastically improve infill opportunities and housing stock across the city.

Does the residential lot conform to existing lot coverage, lot size, and height restrictions?*` Single-family Two-family

*Basic proxies for general zoning conformity.

There are particularly large clusters of non-conforming parcels in South Medford along the soon to be open Green Line Extension.

Taking into account only height restrictions, maximum lot coverages, and minimum lot sizes, nearly 66% of Medford's residential area is currently non-conforming.

These buildings represent common forms that make up the neighborhood character of Medford, yet are unable to be replicated by new development due to restrictive zoning.

14

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

15

Exclusionary zoning continues to segregate communities The land-use restrictions in Medford previously discussed – widespread single-family zoning, along with overly restrictive lot coverage, lot size, and height requirements – ultimately create an environment of exclusionary zoning in the city. This means that the current code effectively excludes certain groups from living in Medford, by limiting or prohibiting the kinds of housing that they can access. In particular, exclusionary zoning policies tend to affect lower-income families and people of color. This is apparent in Medford, where the median household income is $96,455 and only 29% of the community is non-white.[31] These demographic trends are heavily influenced by the available housing in the community. In fact, there is an apparent spatial relationship between the distribution of higher incomes and the proportion of white residents with the proportion of residential area allotted to single-family detached homes. Inclusivity in Medford requires a set of housing options at various levels of density, affordability, and form.

Source: Medford GIS, American Community Survey (2006–2010, 2015–2019)

Most housing around all rail stations is not transit-oriented The Green Line Extension (GLX) project promises to bring increased transit access to Medford and complement the existing bus, bike, and train connections that currently serve the city. However, even as more transit options continue to crop up, Medford’s housing form is not presently compatible with the kind of walkable, dense development that is best suited for transit-rich neighborhoods. Once again, this is correlated with the proliferation of detached single-family uses within the community, which are, by design, less dense, more spread apart, and effectively tailor-made for access by automobiles.

Median Adjusted Income

Percentage of White Residents

(in 2019 Inflation Adjusted Dollars)

Percentage of Residential Area Alloted to Single-family Homes

(2019 American Community Survey)

< $75,000

< 50%

< 25%

$75,000 – $90,000

50% – 60%

25% – 40%

$90,000 – $105,000

60% – 70%

40% – 50%

$105,000 – $120,000

70% – 80%

55% – 70%

> $120,000

> 80%

> 70%

Wellington

Ball Square

Medford/Tufts

Route 16*

West Medford

Land use pattern within 15minute walkshed around station (percentage of total residential area) Single-family Two-family Multi-family (3+ Units)

16

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

17

When reviewing the in-progress and proposed sites of the GLX MBTA stations, along with the West Medford Commuter Rail station and the Wellington Orange Line station, this becomes noticeably apparent. While the Wellington station, which is in the heart of a uniquely dense district due to intentional zoning decisions, includes 60% of multi-family housing uses within a 15-minute walkshed, the Ball Square GLX station, Tufts/College Ave. GLX station, West Medford commuter rail stop, and proposed Route 16 GLX station,[28] include only 23%, 15%, 11%, and 6%, respectively. The West Medford station is an especially egregious example, as 78% of the uses within a 15-minute walk is reserved for single-family. This is a missed opportunity, reducing the potential ridership of the nearby transit. As transit connections continue to proliferate, Medford has the potential to become more walkable, without losing connections to the greater Boston metro region, if only more dense forms of housing are allowed in the zoning code.

Land use profile within 15-minute walkshed around West Medford Station Source: Medford GIS Single-family Two-family Multi-family (3+ Units) West Medford Station 15-Minute Walkshed

18

Envision Medford

Zoning Strategies.

Expand Transit-Oriented Development Refers to strategies focused on building new dense and affordable housing near transit stations.

Housing is so much more than just shelter. It also represents access to jobs, schools, local parks, and amenities. For those with more constrained budgets, the added transportation costs to get to work, school or appointments can be prohibitive. Therefore it is crucial that local amenities and transportation are factored into where affordable housing is built. This framework is often called the “H+T Index''[47] and measures the total housing and transportation costs relative to low incomes. In Massachusetts, this housing strategy is often called Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and there are a number of programs, such as the Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program (CATNHP), that specifically provide funding for affordable housing production. Additionally, new legislation, such as the Housing Choice and MBTA Communities Legislation, actually requires that all MBTA Communities (including Medford) must have at least one zoning district near a transit node in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right.

A number of cities have adopted their own TOD strategies to unlock more housing, in particular affordable housing, near transit. This includes reducing or eliminating parking minimums, providing density bonuses for residential development near transit, or streamlining the approval process.

Canal Street West Medford Square is an area with a lot of potential for future transit and amenity-oriented affordable development. It is right beside the West Medford rail station, contains a healthy density of local businesses, and has nearby schools. Relative to the richness of access provided by this location, many parcels are underutilized. 72% of the surrounding area is zoned for single-family homes alone.

One potential site of interest is 7 Canal Street. The proposed site consists of four city-owned parcels currently functioning as a parking lot behind High St, one privately owned parcel currently operated as an auto-body site, and one parcel owned by the Medford Housing Authority (MHA). On top of being two minutes away from a Zone 1A Commuter Rail station, this site is also along two bus lines (94, 95) with access to the Red and Orange subway lines. In fact, this area has one of the lowest (best) H+T Index scores in Medford.[47] Since West Medford falls into Zone 1A, it is slated for headway improvements as part of the MBTA’s Rail Vision, meaning the transit access of this area will only grow.[37] This area is a mix of residential and commercial uses with an above-average density of 11,800 people per square mile. The median age in the census tract is 38 years old. Just over 50% of the population is white, 32% is Black, and 8.5% is Asian. The median income for the census tract is $85,000 but for the smaller census block group containing the site, the median income drops to $33,000.[40] Additionally, Canal street falls into an “Environmental Justice'' community as defined by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[18]

Aerial view of site context

Medford has an Orange Line station, Commuter Rail, upcoming Green Line stations, and a number of high-frequency bus routes, often running through dense commercial strips. The existing Mixed Use (MUZ) district alongside Wellington Station is a great example of an existing policy to encourage transit-oriented development. As Medford continues to grow, making the most of these transit amenities and focusing development, particularly affordable development, near transit stops will be critical for building up high quality, sustainable housing supply.

20

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

21

Across from the proposed site is a four-story apartment building. The majority of surrounding houses on Canal are also multi-family. This site represents a really exciting opportunity for Medford to build housing alongside transit and near local amenities, whilst also bolstering support for the local West Medford businesses. Additionally, development on this site could act as a proof of concept to other parcel owners in the area, as there are a number of other low-density commercial buildings along Canal Street that could potentially be redeveloped into a higher use.

Site plan This proposed site consists of a total of 45,000 sq ft and we would propose to focus the housing development on the 30,000 sq ft of the autobody shop and MHA parcels to leave the city-owned parking lot open to the public. The proposed site has a building footprint of roughly 16,000 sq ft. As shown in the site plan on the following page, the development plan is focused within the footprint of the existing buildings. The proposal actually regains some space at the front of the autobody shop. This newfound space could be used to add some greenery and landscaping to the area and fit in bike parking (or a bike-share dock station). Parking for the development is maximized by using an overhang-style garage on the ground floor of the building and some surface parking at the back of the building to fit around 49 parking spots.

Assuming a five-story building (first floor as parking as shared space in the front, four floors of residential), this site could provide 73 new housing units (see unit mix breakdown in next section). As seen in the site plan following, this proposal would leave the existing city-owned parking lot intact, leveraging it as an entrance to the back garage of the building to reduce the need to build a new egress. This ensures there is great circulation around the building for residents or deliveries to access.

One potential aesthetic inclusion in the site design would be to reuse some of the existing facades of the autobody shop on the facade of the new development. The autobody shop is currently listed as a “Historically Inventoried Site” on the Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System, thus finding a way to bring some of that history into the new design could be a nice nod to the past and help streamline approvals for this site. There are several great local precedents for a building like this. The Neighborhood Developers built 571 Revere Street in Revere as a transitoriented, rental development with 51 units of 100% affordable family-sized housing for a range of income limits.[4] The St. Aidan in Brookline was on a smaller site and delivered 36 affordable units split between ownership and rental in a four-story brick building.[48]

22

Envision Medford

Aerial view of the site with existing conditions

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

23

This site would help to further a number of important housing goals. Firstly, the mixed-income targeting with a mix of sizes and units set aside for the elderly or disabled matches Medford’s goal to promote a welcoming, diverse, intergenerational, and inclusive city. The proposed development helps to integrate current MHA residents into a broader community and will better serve elderly and disabled populations with updated amenities such as elevators and more common spaces. Pushing the building line forward where the autobody shop is to be in line with the current MHA building leaves more room open for landscaping and the addition of permeable surfaces to help with runoff. The use of upper floor stepbacks and hiding the parking behind the building keeps the streetscape active and welcoming, bringing density that feels in context with the existing built environment. Lastly, by locating new housing units near a commercial strip and transit stop, the development brings new customers to businesses along High Street, which can facilitate more transit usage, and increase low-income households' access to jobs and amenities.

Site plan with design precedents [16][17]

In terms of programming, we would recommend having the entirety of this development as regulated affordable housing at a mix of income levels. In particular, it could be helpful to target an average affordability level of below 60% AMI (area median income, as defined by HUD) to take advantage of the new State LIHTC rules which allow for low-income tax credits now for developments that include income levels up to 80% AMI so long as the average regulated unit is still targeted at below 60% of AMI. The site would replace the 15 MHA units for Elderly and Disabled persons at 30% AMI, likely making use of project-based vouchers. The building could also contain a healthy mix of unit sizes, primarily focusing on studios and 1-beds to address the need for smaller housing in Medford, but would also include family-sized units. At five stories with an elevator, the new building will actually be better able to serve Elderly/Disabled populations than the existing walkup owned

by MHA. It is advisable to target more low and extremely low incomes at this site for a couple of reasons. First, the median household income in Medford is lower than the median household income of the greater Boston area, which is what is used by the HUD to define “Area Median Income”. This means that in order to target the affordability gap in Medford, more aggressive AMI targets are needed. Secondly, the reduced land costs from the MHA parcels and leveraging the city-owned parking lot make this a more financially feasible site for affordable housing. Lastly, as shown in the following Funding figure, this income mix (30%, 60%, and 80% AMI) is eligible for a number of subsidy programs that increase the feasibility of this site.

24

Envision Medford

Financial feasibility This site shows strong financial and practical feasibility. It is a fairly level and standard-sized site, and both the autobody shop owner and MHA have expressed interest in development occurring there. Hard costs for the site would range from an estimated $350,000 to $400,000 per DU and soft costs from an estimated $75 to $105 per DU. This accounts for the costs of acquiring the autobody shop, demolishing the existing structures, and some site clean-up contingency. This does not account for the funds needed if a full brownfield clean-up of the site is required. However, if this was the case, state funding would be available to offset these costs. With the current programming, the site qualifies for both federal and state LIHTC, as well as several State DHCD programs (see the Funding sidebar for a more complete list of programs). The capital stack and financials for this site are quite similar to 571 Revere, the precedent mentioned above.

Affordability of Units

Distribution of Units

30% AMI (16 units, 22%)

Studio (12 units, 28%)

60% AMI (33 units, 45%)

1 Bedroom (25 units, 34%)

80% AMI (24 units, 33%)

2 Bedroom (16 units, 22%) 3 Bedroom (12 units, 16%)

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

25

Sources & uses Canal Street Uses Total

Sources Per Unit

Hard Costs

Total

Per Unit

MassHousing Permanent Loan

$11,490,070

$157,398

Acquisition, demolition, and site clean-up

$1,300,000

$17,808

Construction Costs

$22,134,240

$303,209

Federal LIHTC

$9,702,000

$132,904

Contingency

$1,217,383

$16,676

State LIHTC

$2,712,000

$37,151

Total Hard Costs

$24,151,623

$330,844

DHCD Funds (HSF, CBH, AHT, HIF, CATNHP, Regional HOME)

$5,750,000

$78,767

Design, Survey, Legal, Fees, Inspection, Studies, Accounting, etc...

Local Funds (CPA + CDBG + AHTF)

$500,000

$6,849

Total Soft Costs

$6,558,653

$89,845

Workforce Housing

$1,056,206

$14,469

Total Development Cost

$31,210,277

$427,538

Total Sources

$31,210,277

$ 27,538

Soft Costs

Funding sidebar Guide to Common State Subsidies for Affordable Rental Development Affordability Requirements

Max Allocation

Best for….

20% units at 50% AMI or 40% units at 60% AMI + 10% units at 30% AMI or all units income restricted with average 60% AMI

"$1,000,000 in credits per year for 10 years; Up to 70% subsidy"

New affordable housing construction. 100% affordable housing with a max of 80% AMI.

Federal LIHTC (4%)

20% units at 50% AMI or 40% units at 60% AMI + 10% units at 30% AMI or all units income restricted with average 60% AMI

"$1,000,000 in credits per year for 10 years; Up to 30% subsidy"

Acquisitions and rehab

Regional HOME

60% AMI with at least 20% of HOME units @ 50% AMI

$750,000

New affordable rental, 20 year affordable requirement

Housing Stabilization Funds (HSF)

At or below 80% AMI for first 40 years, up to 100% AMI for years 41-50

$1,000,000

Affordable rental housing production and rehabilitation with 50 year deed restrictions

Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHT)

At or below 110% of AMI

$1,000,000

Affordable rental developments

Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program (CATHNP)

51% units targeted at below 80% AMI

$1,000,000

Transit oriented rental projects

Community Based Housing Fund (CBH)

Integrated housing for people with disabilities, including elders.

Income capped at 80% of AMI.

$750,000

Integrated projects for elderly/disabled units

Housing Innovations Fund (HIF)

50% of units for individuals or families below 80% AMI: within this %, at least half of the units (25% of the total number of units) for those households below 30% AMI

$500,000

Rental housing for special needs populations(veterans, elderly, formerly homeless)

Federal LIHTC (9%)

26

Envision Medford

Additional considerations There are a couple of important considerations to keep in mind with this site. MHA would have to find temporary housing, ideally close by, for their residents during the construction period. Ideally, this could be coordinated with the expansion of Elderly/Disabled units at the MHA site across the river, Walkling Court (discussed later in this report). There also might need to be some preservation work or investigation done, as the autobody shop is currently listed as a “Historically Inventoried'' site. While the site is not on the National Register, it was built in 1930 and thus qualifies under current Medford zoning Sec. 48-78 for an additional review prior to any demolition. Lastly, there is always a risk when converting an industrial site, like an auto body shop, into residential use that remediation will be needed.

During a site visit by the MIT team, monitoring wells were found in the city parking lot adjoining 7 Canal Street, suggesting some possibility of an existing hazard. Site clean up was accounted for in the financial projections and environmental testing of the site should be completed early on in the development process. State tax credits can likely be used to offset any additional costs for remediation.

Beyond brownfield clean up, the environmental concerns of this site are minimal. The current parcels are all impermeable surfaces and thus the site proposal will actually be a net increase to the green space and improve stormwater drainage. The site does not fall under any MassDEP protection zones, nor does it feature any irregular topography. A final concern could be both sound and air pollution from the rail corridor but these concerns can be mitigated during the construction process, through the use of double-paned glass and air filters for the HVAC system.

Zoning The West Medford Square area is zoned Commercial 1, Apartment 1, General Residence, and Single Family 1. The parcels this site sits on are specifically zoned C1 and APT1 which both currently allow for multifamily housing of up to 3-stories (APT1) or 6-stories (C1) by-right. Parking minimums with multifamily dwellings are 2 spots per dwelling unit (DU), 0.5 per subsidized elderly or handicapped DU, and 1.5 per affordable DU. For this site to make both financial and practical sense, a height of five stories is needed. In order to leave as much of the existing public parking lot available to the businesses on High Street, a parking minimum reduction is also needed to a minimum of one spot per DU for nonelderly or handicapped housing units. Considering the site’s proximity to transit, a further reduction is encouraged and will be discussed in the recommendations section of this theme. Without cutting into any of the public parking, this site can deliver a ratio of 0.7 parking spaces per DU, or 49 spots for 73 units. Additionally, the new development will follow the footprint of the old buildings and thus should be able to continue any nonconformity in setbacks, lot coverage and yard space that pre-existed.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

27

One method to efficiently deliver these zoning changes and enable more future developments in this area would be to designate West Medford a “Mixed Use zone” or add a transit overlay, making use of 40R best practices. Due to the proximity to transit and local businesses, this area is well set up to support more density than the zoning currently allows for.

Recommendations to enable developments similar to Canal Street across Medford will be discussed at the end of this theme’s report section.

St. Clement Ball Square in South Medford is another area with great potential for transit and amenity-oriented affordable development. The area is mostly inhabited by smaller households and residents aged between 18 to 34. It is considered an Environment Justice community with an average of 56% AMI, but there are outliers at both ends.

The Saint Clement School is one potential, and strategic, site of interest to promote housing density and affordability. It is located at 579 Boston Avenue within two parcels owned by the Archdiocese of Boston with an approximate area of 45,000 sq ft. It is important to note that the site is included as a potential historical site in the South Medford Survey Plan, an assessment proposed in 2017 by the city’s Historical Commission to document buildings to be included in the Historical Assets of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[20] Saint Clement is just 0.3 miles from the new Green Line Ball Square Station, right across the border with Somerville. Also, within a half-mile radius, there are several frequent bus lines (101, 96, 94, 93, 89, 80) with both local connections and connections to other transit hubs. There is a Red Line stop (Davis Square) within a fourteen-minute walk. While the larger neighborhood is mostly two-family, with a large footprint of Tufts-owned buildings, with the addition of the train station and the corridor along Boston Ave zoned as Industrial, the area is also a perfect candidate to encourage mixed-use development.

Aerial view of site context

Left Map: Current zoning designations around the Canal Street site, the current development would fall under APT1 which only allows for multi-family dwellings up to 3 stories.

Right Map: Potential to designate current C1 and APT1 zones plus part of High Street a new Mixed Use Zone to take advantage of the preferential dimensional and use allowances for MUZ areas.

SF1 GR

APT1 C1 MUZ

28

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

29

Site overview This proposed site currently consists of two buildings and a parking lot with 34 spots. The main building (Building 1) was previously used for school classrooms and has a gross floor area of 22,200 sq ft, distributed across two floors. The building also has a basement/ground floor with an area of 11,000 sq ft, but its previous use is unspecified. The second building (Building 2) has a single double-height floor with 7,137 sq ft in floor area and a basement/ ground floor with the same area. It has previously been used as a community multi-use space, but it is unknown if it is still being used for this purpose.

The buildings are part of the whole church development and as part of the site there is a religious memorial further north in the intersection between Boston Avenue and Saint Clement Road. The Parish also sits in a third lot right beside the other buildings.

Site plan In order to leverage as much of the site as possible for affordable housing and sustain a healthy transit system with a cost-effective service under Chapter 40R, the proposed intervention focuses not only on readapting the existing buildings but also on adding more floors. The top of the existing buildings can accommodate two more floors for an additional area of 27,140 sq ft for housing. Moreover, parking at the site should be reduced to make space for an additional building (Building 3) with the same height, where three floors are dedicated to housing and one dedicated to community spaces (see table below for detailed areas). The final redeveloped four-story buildings would match the height of existing buildings along Boston Ave. One of the driving forces that impacts Medford’s current housing needs, is the need for smaller housing for corresponding smaller households. While two-thirds (66%) of Medford’s households include one or two people, only 16% of housing units are studios or one-bedroom units.[26] Creating 80 new studio and 1-bedroom units would allow current smaller Medford households, such as young professionals, couples, and empty-nesters the opportunity to move into a home that better fits their needs and could free up larger units for families and larger households.

Distribution of Units

Studio (40 units, 44%) 1 Bedroom (40 units, 44%)

2 Bedroom (10 units, 12%)

Summary of additional proposed areas Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Height (ft)

20

20

61

Size (length x width) (ft)

185 x 46

110 x 46

Irregular

Floors (unit)

2

2

4

FA (adequate for housing) (sq ft)

8,510

5,60

4,500

18,070

GFA (adequate for housing) (sq ft)

17,020

10,120

13,500

40,640

Basement area (sq ft)

0

0

0

0

Lobby/Community spaces

0

0

4,500

4,500

Parking spots (unit)

Summary of existing areas Building 1

Building 2

Height (ft)

41

41

Size (length x width) (ft)

185 x 60

117 x 60

Floors (unit)

2

1

FA (adequate for housing) (sq ft)

11,100

0

11,100

GFA (adequate for housing) (sq ft)

22,200

0

22,200

Basement area (sq ft)

11,100

7,137

18,237

Lobby/Community spaces

0

7,137

7,137

34

34

30

Envision Medford

0

Summary of final proposal areas

Aerial view with existing conditions

Parking spots (unit)

0

Total

Total 302 x 60

Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Height (ft)

61

61

61

Floors (unit)

4

4

4

GFA (adequate for housing) (sq ft)

39,220

10,120

13,500

62,840

Basement area (sq ft)

11,100

7,137

0

18,137

Lobby/Community spaces

0

7,137

4,500

11,637

Parking spots (unit)

12

Total

12

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

31

The final development would consist of three 61 foot tall buildings with four floors and a total residential area of 62,840 sq ft. The basement area of 18,237 sq ft would be utilized for shared facilities such as bicycle rooms, laundry, storage, and a gym. A total of 11,637 sq ft on the ground floor is dedicated to community spaces, with 7,137 sq ft being an existing multi-use space where the school formerly hosted sports and other community events.

On-site parking is reduced to 12 shared spots located in the back of the lot, with access through St. Clement Road. The lot is surrounded on 3 sides with on-street parking that can respond to some additional demand. Boston Avenue has 24 spots shared with Tufts, Saint Clement Road has 24 spots, and Warner Street has 7 spots. Currently, only 38% of households in this Census Block Group use a car as their primary mode of transportation to work and 11% of households have no access to a car at all.[40] With the addition of two Green Line stops within walking distance, it is expected that car ownership rates will further decrease in the area and alternative or shared options, such as Zipcar, can quickly respond to one-off demands.

Aerial view of the site with existing conditions

32

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

33

Design strategy We recommend incorporating a setback for the additional floors on top of existing buildings to both avoid an abrupt disruption to the building facade and preserve the building envelope. Literature shows that setting the addition back from the wall plane in old buildings makes it more structurally stable. Setbacks will also reduce the street-level sense of change with a mid-rise building. With St. Clement being a potential historical building, a contemporary architectural style using materials like steel, glass, and wood is recommended to visually distinguish the new addition from the historic character. The material choice can also be used to match the surrounding character and make the space more welcome to both tenants and the overall community. A transparent double-height ground floor in the new building, for instance, would highlight the idea of an open-shared space with close relation to the street. For the exterior areas, we recommend preserving the existing religious memorial showing respect for community values and building a sense of belonging, and further activating the place by adding greenery, trees, benches, and improving sidewalks.

Potential design for St. Clement

Site plan with design precedents

Design precedents Adaptive reuse is a trending option in housing development around the world used to convert underutilized buildings as an alternative to bring more residents into already built-up areas. The Rye Mill in Poland is a former industrial facility converted into apartments, with a modern steel structure standing out from the brick façade.[34] In San Francisco's Historic District, 4 floors and 94 lofts were added in the former Arc Light Company Station B building, an electricity company.[3] In Medford, there are also several examples. One of them is St Clare. Residences, a condo in a renovated former school with 18 flats, of which 10% targeted affordable first-time homeownership.[6]

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

35

Financial feasibility This site shows strong financial and practical feasibility, largely attributed to the fact that we assumed no land acquisition costs. The Archdiocese of Boston currently owns the site and it is likely that they would transfer the land to the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POUA). POUA was established by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston as a non-profit social justice ministry that strives to create vibrant communities through the development of high-quality affordable and mixed-income housing. POUA has nearly 3,000 units of affordable and mixed-income housing, providing homes for more than 11,000 people.

Another important piece to note: we learned from Medford’s interactive map for participation that there is notable public support for redeveloping Ball Square as a mixed-use area and particularly for St. Clement as an adaptive reuse site.

Zoning The Ball Square area is predominantly zoned as General Residence and Industrial, with some Commercial 1 and Apartment 1 areas. St. Clement School sits on a parcel specifically zoned as GR, which currently only allows detached and attached single-family and detached two-family units up to 2.5 stories by right, and a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Residential units are required to have 2 parking spots per dwelling unit and it can be reduced to 1.5 for affordable or subsidized housing or to 0.5 for subsidized elderly or disabled dwellers. For multifamily residences, an additional 1 parking spot is required for every 10 apartments.

Development costs would range from $400,000 to 450,000 per DU. In addition to little to no land acquisition costs, since this is an adaptive reuse project, there are no demolition costs and additional cost savings from adapting the existing structure. We assume the development would serve households at affordability levels between 30% and 80% AMI, with an overall average of 56% AMI. With the current programming, the site qualifies for both 4% federal and state LIHTC, as well as several State DHCD programs.

More detail is included in the table below: Sources & uses St. Clement Uses

Sources

Total

Per Unit

Total

Per Unit

$28,041,742

$311,575

MassHousing Permanent Loan

$11,490,070

$157,398

Federal LIHTC

$8,731,800

$97,020

State LIHTC

$2,712,000

$30,133

DHCD Funds (HSF, CBH, AHT, HIF, CATNHP, Regional HOME)

$3,750,000

$41,667

Design, Survey, Legal, Fees, Inspection, Studies, Accounting, etc...

Local Funds (CPA + CDBG + AHTF)

$250,000

$2,778

Total Soft Costs

$10,369,474

$115,216

Workforce Housing

$500,000

$5,555

Total Development Cost

$38,411,216

$426,791

Total Sources

$38,411,216

$426,791

Hard Costs Acquisition, demolition, and site clean-up

Total Hard Costs

$28,041,742

$311,575

Soft Costs

With great proximity to transit, Ball Square can be considered a “smart growth” location, ideal for the creation of a zoning overlay district to allow for more density and mixed-use development. The area is already changing, with several 3 to 5 multi-family developments built or approved recently. While Chapter 40R requires densities of at least 20 units per acre in multifamily development, St. Clement can offer 90 units in half of an acre. But for that, at least 20%, which means 18 units, are required to be at or below 80% AMI. For effective smart growth in Ball Square, parking requirements should be reduced. Proximity to transit, age of tenants, bike parking, and shared parking have been used as effective strategies to advocate for parking reduction across New England cities.

GR I MUZ

Left Map: Current zoning designations around St. Clement, the current development would fall under GR, which does not allow for multi-family housing.

Right Map: Potential to designate current C1 & GR a new Mixed Use Zone to take advantage of the preferential dimensional and use allowances for MUZ areas.

Additional considerations Adaptive reuse is a sustainable strategy for improving the affordable housing supply in Medford, with many advantages compared to new construction.

While preserving the neighborhood character, it revitalizes underutilized properties in an environmentally sustainable way by reducing construction or demolition works, time, waste, and costs. Readapting an existing building reduces the quantity of building materials, water, energy, transportation, labor, and other resources used in construction. It generally requires less time when compared to a similar new construction. Adding floors on top of St. Clement, for instance, will not involve groundworks or foundations.

Depending on the previous use of the building, additional utilities may have to be installed or upgraded for comfort or energy efficiency.

36

Envision Medford

37

Recommendations Both these sites showcase the potential to add density and expand the affordable housing stock throughout targeted spots in Medford. In order to maximize this opportunity, Medford will need to update the zoning to allow for this scale and type of development. Zoning and land use regulations should not only legalize this type of development but also reduce barriers to allow for affordable sites to pencil out financially. ` Expand the use of mixed-use zones Many municipalities have made use of mixed-use and transit-oriented overlay zones to strategically build density and efficiently deliver zoning changes needed to make developments like Canal and St. Clement possible.

Medford’s existing MUZ district around the MBTA Wellington station is a great example of this and a similar strategy could be used around the MBTA Ball Square. We recommend repurposing much of the existing MUZ zoning ordinance and creating a tiered system of MUZs that can be designated around transit stops (including Commuter Rail) and commercial areas. All tiers would focus on encouraging the mixes of land uses and dense residential development outlined in the current MUZ zoning, with the first tier focusing on mid-level density (5-6 stories) that would be in context for sites such as Ball Square or West Medford and the second tier focusing more on larger developments such as Wellington (which currently allows for 7-12 story heights). These zones could be implemented near West Medford and near the upcoming Ball Square and Medford/Tufts stations (along Boston Avenue).

On top of allowing for mixed uses, higher density multifamily dwellings, and adjusted design standards, the overlay zones should additionally include a reduced parking standard for residential uses to factor in proximity to transit (beyond the 5% reduction included currently). Many cities eliminate parking minimums in transit-oriented developments or establish maximums.

Somerville repealed minimum parking requirements for the vast majority of the city and moved to parking maximums in areas within walking distance to the MBTA rapid transit stations.[41] We are in support of the draft HPP’s recommendation to reduce parking minimums to 0.5 per DU around MBTA stations at a minimum and this could be incorporated into the MUZ ordinance. Parking minimums will be discussed further in the third recommendation.

Consider transit overlay zones &Massachusetts Chapter 40R overlay zones Another option to allow for specialized zoning in targeted areas is the use of 40R to create Smart Growth districts. Cities and towns may establish special zoning overlay districts that allow densities of 8 units per acre for single-family homes, 12 units per acre for townhouses, and 20 units per acre for condominiums and apartments. The zoning must require that 20% of the district be affordable homes (at or below 80% AMI), and it should allow for mixed uses. The location of 40R districts helps consolidate growth and cut down on dispersal such as in town centers, downtowns, near a transit station, on unused industrial land. In return for adopting the zoning and streamlining the development process for 40R districts, cities and towns can get between $10,000 and $600,000 in state funding, plus an additional $3,000 for every new home created,[10] which would help the financial feasibility of developments, especially those with affordable and workforce housing. As of May 2019, 42 municipalities have created 51 40R districts

38

Envision Medford

across the Commonwealth. 13 of these districts were transit-oriented districts ranging in size from 0.5 acres in Northampton to 127 acres in Brockton.[2] The use of 40R can be complementary to and streamlined with the expansion of MUZ districts. The proposed overlay zone locations and zoning ordinances (including the existing MUZ around Wellington Station) can be submitted to DHCD for approval. Having a 40R approved overlay zone, as opposed to a locally driven overlay zone opens up the community to state incentives and bonus payments. The downside of 40R is that the zoning ordinances must comply with state regulations. There are a number of resources online to check the compliance of zoning ordinances, and even if not using 40R these resources can act as helpful guides for best practices in smart growth zoning.

Relevant resources include Smart Growth Toolkit, Chapter 40R Sample Zoning Bylaw, and MAPC 40R Report.[10][15][54] Parking minimum reductions High parking minimums are an oft-cited barrier to affordable housing production as parking spots can increase the cost of development and can detract from land available for the housing itself. According to a 2020 study completed by WGI Engineering, the median cost of above-ground podium parking in Metro Boston was $25,752 per space. The standard assumption of 1.5 to 2 spots per dwelling unit should not apply for locations with transit and local amenity access, and for housing targeting extremely low incomes, as such spots often sit empty. Surface parking lots can also detract from the streetscape. Many municipalities do include parking minimum reductions for transit-oriented or affordable housing (such as the 1.5 minimum in Medford) but these can still overstate the need for parking and inflate housing costs.

Many cities are switching to much lower minimums or even moving towards maximums in particularly transit rich areas. Below we’ve provided examples of how certain cities are approaching parking: • •

•

Cambridge, MA under its Affordable Housing Overlay, removed off-street parking requirements for developments that are made permanently affordable for households earning up to 100% of area median income.[11] Buffalo, NY was the first U.S. city to completely remove minimum parking requirements citywide for developments of less than 5,000 sq ft. Larger developments will require a parking analysis that factors in alternative transportation options in the area.[9] Portland, OR eliminated minimum parking requirements for developments with 30 or fewer units within 500 feet of transit.[12] Number of dwelling units

Minimum required parking stalls per dwelling unit

30 or fewer

No parking required

31–40

0.2

41–50

0.25

More than 50

0.33

Example of Portland’s tiered requirements for development size

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

39

An important consideration when reducing parking minimums is to not to treat all units the same. The likelihood that a family in a three-bedroom unit will need a parking space is greater than the likelihood that a single person in a studio will need one. Many cities are switching to tiered parking minimums (or maximums) to better target the requirements. For instance in Medford, 25% of 1-person households have no access to a car, compared to only 6% for 2-person households, 5% for three person households and 4% for four person households.[40] Tiered parking requirements could replace the existing parking minimums requirements for all residential zoning or could be added as a reduced minimum or new maximum as a part of MUZ or overlay zones. Developers should be encouraged to set aside an area instead for shared car services and bicycle parking. A final option the city could consider when negotiating with developers is getting Blue Bike Stations added as part of the development.

The cost to host a station is typically $75,000 for a 6-year term (based on a 19 dock station) and could be added as part of any open space near a street on a new development.[8] Proposed Brookline, MA [50]

Proposed Toronto, ON [49]

Studio

0.8

0.3

1-Bedroom

0.8

0.5

2-Bedroom

1.2

0.8

3-Bedroom

1.4

1

Examples of minimum parking requirements set by unit type

40

Envision Medford

Extend Housing Opportunities Citywide Refers to strategies aiming to bring affordable housing to all neighborhoods.

One of the goals of the Housing Production Plan is to integrate affordable and diverse housing options throughout the city. As shown in the zoning scan, many neighborhoods in Medford are predominately white, have a high median income, and are zoned for single-family homes. Zoning interventions aimed at allowing for more multi-family and affordable housing can counter the effects of exclusionary zoning practice. Zoning changes should explore opportunities to allow for more dense and affordable housing units in these neighborhoods to increase housing diversity and choice.

North Medford is one of the areas that is characterized by widespread singlefamily residential housing. This part of the city is more wealthy and less diverse than other, more dense sections of Medford. Incentivizing affordable and multi-unit housing in this area will help bring a more economically and racially diverse population to North Medford. Additionally, building more small and affordable housing units can help ensure that seniors in Medford can afford to age-in-place and remain in their communities.

Some states and cities, notably Portland, OR, have banned single-family zones and instead allow for duplexes and other kinds of more dense middle housing in all residential areas.[55] This strategy can be politically fraught and has yet to be proven as an effective, but shows that many other cities and towns are adopting zoning strategies to increase housing diversity.

We discuss several zoning strategies in the recommendations section of this theme that can incentivize a variety of housing typologies in singlefamily neighborhoods, including more dense developments and multi-family buildings that conform to existing community character.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

41

Fulton Street One potential development site is a group of city-owned parcels along Fulton Street. Fulton Street is a residential street running through North Medford.

This site consists of nine city-owned parcels that cover a combined 48,500 sq ft. Currently, the site contains vegetation and granite rockface. While the bus that ran directly down Fulton street (route 710) has been suspended, route 100, which connects to Wellington Station, is accessible within a five minute walk. This site is directly next to a former school building which has been converted into 11 condos, including several affordable units. Given the proximity to other multi-family housing within a zoned single-family area and the large lot size, this site has great potential for bringing more affordable units and multi-family housing to North Medford.

Site plan We propose developing this site into low rise apartments with affordable units aimed at seniors. This development would cover 8,400 sq ft and have three stories with a total of 20 units. Since this building is aimed at seniors, we recommend adding an elevator to make the units accessible. This is a modest proposal, and the number of units could be increased by adding a fourth floor, also making the elevator more cost effective. Because of Medford’s demonstrated need for additional small units and the target residents of seniors, we propose a unit mix of studio, one, and two bedroom apartments.

We also explored a townhome design, but recommend the apartment scheme since it allows for many more units, is more financially feasible, and retains more of the site’s existing vegetation compared to townhomes.

Hudson Vistas Senior Housing in Ossining, NY has 25 affordable units for seniors and is one example of a similarly sized and programmed development.[23] We propose this apartment building includes parking on the first floor that is built into the natural slope of the site, thus reducing development costs associated with blasting granite. One precedent for this kind of natural slope parking is in the Stuart Street Apartments from MUE Architecture in Denver, CO.[45] There is space for 20 parking spots, corresponding to one per unit. This is less than the required 1.5 parking spots per affordable unit but exceeds Medford’s parking minimum of 0.5 spot per affordable senior housing unit. Reducing the number of parking spots further could allow for more community space, which would occupy the first floor area not dedicated to parking.

Distribution of Units

Studio (5 units, 25%) 1 Bedroom (10 units, 50%)

2 Bedroom (5 units, 25%)

To further reduce blasting costs, we recommend vehicular site access through Theresa Street and the parking lot behind the neighboring condos. This street is technically a public right-of-way, and utilizing it would avoid a costly traffic study needed by adding access via Fulton St and Foss St. We recommend building the apartment significantly setback from the street edge. Given this setback and the steep granite cliff face facing Fulton St, the apartment would not be very visible from the street thus maintaining the scale of the existing streetscape. Additionally, we recommend the city or site developer develop the remaining green space into publicly accessible passive and active recreation areas. This new managed greenspace would provide extra value for residents and neighbors while preserving over 80% of the ecological resources on the site.

Aerial view of existing conditions

42

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

43

Close-up of the site

Aerial view of the site with existing conditions

44

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

45

Sources & uses Fulton Street Uses

Sources

Total

Per Unit

Total

Per Unit

$6,871,518

$343,575

MassHousing Permanent Loan

$3,920,134

$196,006

Federal LIHTC

$3,213,302

$160,665

State LIHTC

$1,251,522

$62,578

DHCD Funds (HSF, CBH, AHT, HIF, CATNHP, Regional HOME)

#1,350,000

$67,500

Design, Survey, Legal, Fees, Inspection, Studies, Accounting, etc...

Local Funds (CPA + CDBG + AHTF)

$250,000

$12,500

Total Soft Costs

$3,313,471

$165,673

Workforce Housing

$200,000

$10,000

Total Development Cost

$10,184,989

$509,249

Total Sources

$10,184,989

$509,249

Hard Costs Acquisition, demolition, and site clean-up

Total Hard Costs

$6,871,518

$343,575

Soft Costs

Site plan with design precedents

Financial feasibility Given the topography of this site, the cost to blast the granite during site preparation could add significant costs to this development. Additionally, creating a parking structure for 20 spots adds costs for a non-income generating space. If this was going to be a market rate development, a monthly charge for parking could be added to the operating budget.

However, since we are assuming this housing would be reserved for seniors, mainly under 80% AMI, we are assuming free parking. To recoup some of these costs, we assumed that the land purchase cost is $0, with the City giving the land to a non-profit developer in exchange for creating permanently affordable units.

Development costs for this project would be approximately $510,000 per dwelling unit. Assuming that the development includes 90% affordable units (under 80% AMI) and 10% workforce housing units (between 80% and 100% AMI), the development would qualify for both federal and state LIHTC, and several DHCD programs, including Community Based Housing Funds (CBH) and Housing Innovations Funds (HIF) since it is elderly housing.

Additionally, the development would qualify for MassHousings’s Workforce Housing Initiative funding for the eligible units. Below is a sample of what the development budget and capital stack for this project could be:

46

Envision Medford

Additional considerations This site is topographically challenging, as it includes granite cliffs. In order to build any housing on the site, some blasting will be required. While this blasting may contribute to development costs, reducing the building footprint and incorporating the natural site topography into the design, as is suggested in the parking proposal, can mitigate these costs. Developers should intentionally choose the site area that requires the least amount of pre-work to reduce costs.

Besides steep granite, we noticed a pool of standing water towards the back of the Fulton parcels during our site visit. To help with drainage and potential flooding, we recommend developers add water absorbing landscaping and permeable paved surfaces.

One way of framing this kind of infill development is to consider the total development potential of all city-owned vacant lots and do an internal “transfer” of those rights to add denser developments on the larger lots. The smaller lots can be kept as green space or turned into pocket parks. This allows for an efficient use of the city owned land to maximize higher quality, more affordable development (cost reductions from building at scale) whilst preserving green space and extracting value from all city owned parcels.

Finally, introducing more density to the neighborhood may face some community opposition. Developers should try to get buy-in from the neighbors in the condos next door to build more community support for the project, as they are direct beneficiaries of multi-family housing in the area.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

47

Zoning The Fulton Street site is currently zoned as Single Family 2 (SF2). This zoning allows for detached single dwellings on a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft. SF2 districts limit the lot coverage to 40% and allow for a maximum of 2.5 stories. The apartment development proposal described above would require a one-off zoning relief or more systemic zoning changes that allow for dense affordable development in Single Family zones. While areas zoned for General Residence allow for attached single-family dwellings, such as townhomes, they do not allow for more than two units on a lot. Under the existing zoning code, this site would need to be zoned as APT2 or APT3 to build the proposed apartments. These categories allow for multiple dwelling units and a building with over three stories in height.

One way to allow this specific project to move forward is to grant this site zoning relief. A more impactful change, however, would be to update the zoning code to allow for more density and affordability in all SF2 (and/or residential) districts in Medford either through a special affordable housing overlay or by allowing higher densities by-right on larger lots.

Recommendations Update residential zoning dimensions to match built form As mentioned prior in the report, most of the buildings in Medford do not comply with current zoning standards. One strategy to allow for more development is to update the zoning to reflect the neighborhood's character.

In the case of SF2 zoning, the current average lot size is 5,664 sq ft, but this average is overly stated by the larger lot sizes of the 48% of parcels that meet the minimum lot size requirement. Over 2,011 parcels, or 52% of all SF2 parcels, do not meet this minimum size requirement of 5,000 sq ft. As seen in the table below, this is common finding across all residential zoning districts.

Only APT1 and GR see the average lot size of parcels fall below the regulated minimum lot size. Setbacks are another important zoning dimensions are often major drivers of non-conformity as well, however existing spatial data makes them more difficult to analyze. We would recommend updating all residential zoning dimensions (lot size, height and setbacks) to match what already exists to reduce the barriers to development and incentivize more housing production that is consistent with neighborhood design. In particular, opening up smaller parcels for residential development could unlock a lot of currently vacant land. Of the vacant lots zoned for SF1, the average lot size is around 6,500 sq ft and for vacant lots zoned for SF2, around 4,000 sq ft.

Mandated Minimum Lot Size per Zoning Code (sq ft)

Average Lot Size (sq ft)

Smallest Lot Size (sq ft)

Largest Lot Size (sq ft)

# of Parcels

SF1

7,000

7,718

1,713

144,909

3,263

SF2

5,000

5,589

1,476

67,581

3,881

GR

6,000

5,079

1,254

114,806

5,457

C1

10,000

14,978

2,057

191,182

64

C2

10,000

15,845

2,832

143,435

19

APT1

10,000

9,506

1,457

414,629

366

APT2

10,000

15,089

1,824

427,629

238

Exploratory table of residential parcels and minimum lot sizes in each zoning code

Current zoning designations around Fulton Street, the current development would fall under SF2 which does not allow for multi-family housing.

SF1 SF2

48

Envision Medford

Another more comprehensive way to update the residential zoning dimensions across Medford is to add Form-Based Code (FBC) elements to the code. FBCs focus on defining physical forms and often incorporate different standards for different types of buildings. This methodology allows for diversity of housing stock whilst still controlling community character.

Somerville has recently amended their zoning code to a FBC. Their code specifies the typologies of residential buildings in Somerville and creates dimension requirements based on the distinct building type.[42] As a consequence, their residential zoning is more flexible and allows for a greater variety of housing while preserving local heritage related to the built form. This kind of zoning code requires a comprehensive review of the existing physical assets and considerable public outreach,[39] thus we recommend starting this process as soon as possible.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

49

Incorporate flexibility Another way to promote more affordable and diverse housing options in existing single-family districts is to allow for flexibility within the zoning code.

We recommend several zoning changes that could accomplish this goal.

The Housing Production Plan suggests amending the zoning code to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right in all residential districts. This provision could create small rental units throughout Medford, which would supplement homeowners’ income, increase housing choice and diversity across the city, help older residents age-in-place, among other benefits.[26] Another approach to incorporating flexibility is allowing certain developments by special permit. For instance, Lowell, MA had designated certain areas as Traditional Neighborhood Residential Districts to maintain the character of the historic residential areas within Lowell. Within this broader category there are three sub-groupings: Traditional Neighborhood Single Family (TSF), Traditional Neighborhood Two Family (TTF), and Traditional Neighborhood Multi-Family (TMF). TMF districts allow threefamily homes and up to six-unit developments with a special permit.[57] We suggest Medford incorporate more nuance into residential zoning categories and allow for greater density by special permit which will promote more diverse housing options throughout the city while retaining neighborhood character.

Building in extra flexibility to the zoning code may also include different provisions for different lot sizes. In the Fulton Street case study, the group of city-owned lots is almost nine times larger than the minimum lot requirement in SF2 districts. Consider amending the zoning code to allow for more height and more units on larger lots in order to increase housing choice in singlefamily districts. Also consider requiring design elements such as set-backs in order to preserve the neighborhood scale and existing built form.

Consider affordable housing bonuses or affordable housing overlay One of Medford’s main housing needs is to create more affordable housing across the city. There are several policy solutions which can incentivize developers to build more affordable units. Currently Medford uses Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) to promote and ensure affordable units. The IZ policy requires 10-15% of units to be deed-restricted affordable units and applies to projects with a creation of ten or more units. A more expansive policy that can be implemented in conjunction with IZ is to create an affordable housing overlay. We recommend adopting this overlay, which is also suggested in the Housing Production Plan, to allow more density for affordable developments.

The overlay can also focus on a specific population, such as seniors, which will help create intergenerational neighborhoods.

Build Affordable Housing Partnerships Refers to strategies building up city capacity to work with partners on affordable housing projects.

Developing affordable housing is an often arduous and expensive process in hot markets like the Boston metropolitan area. Affordable housing developments need to balance steep hard costs, including land acquisition, construction materials, and labor (typically at prevailing wages[36]), and soft costs, including site design, legal and accounting fees, taxes, insurance, and loan fees, with a complex web of public and private debt and equity financing sources. This requires finding partners who have capacity on both the development and financing fronts. These partners, who can be private developers (for-profit or non-profit), community development corporations (CDCs), or public entities like public housing authorities, are typically responsible for managing the entire development process from start to finish.

In seeking out opportunities to expand the stock of affordable housing options, cities need to create partnerships with organizations that have the capacity to pull together these difficult projects. These partnerships can come in many forms. Some cities work with proven organizations from neighboring communities. This has recently occurred in Everett, MA, as the Neighborhood Developers (TND), a proven CDC, has expanded its activities from neighboring Chelsea and Revere.[43] There are also federal grants available from HUD, under the Section 4 program, to build capacity at local non-profit developers/CDCs.[38] Section 4 provides competitive grants to national intermediary community development organizations, which then provide training, education, financial support and development assistance to local CDCs.[24] Finally, public entities, like the Medford Housing Authority (MHA) currently operating in Medford, have affordable housing projects already in the pipeline and can be supported by the municipality, either through grants or zoning relief, to achieve their goals. Supporting expanded capacity at local actors, like MHA, ensures that there are partnerships available in the future with organizations already deeply invested in the community.

One local example of an affordable housing overlay is Cambridge’s 100% Affordable Housing Overlay District Zoning. In October 2020, Cambridge City Council adopted the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) as a way to help affordable housing developers create new, permanently affordable units. The AHO allows for incremental increases in density, limited increases in height, and creates a new review process through which new affordable housing can be approved more efficiently. Additionally, the AHO removes the requirement to prove any of-street parking, reducing the development costs of AHO developments.[11]

50

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

51

MHA Walkling Court Adapted from the MHA Final Report[30], dated July 22, 2020. The report was prepared by the Cambridge Housing Authority, in the role of consultant to MHA, along with architect Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. The report was generously provided to the MIT team on request by MHA. Walking Court, both owned and managed by the Medford Housing Authority (MHA), is a state-funded public housing development nestled within a residential neighborhood along Route 16 in the western edge of the city.

Built in 1963, the 3.7-acre development consists of 9 two-story buildings housing 144 units for senior and disabled residents.

The site is immediately adjacent to an existing grocery store, walking distance from another smaller business district, and just blocks from the Mystic River, including its greenway bike paths, community gardens, and other recreational amenities. The surrounding area is already currently well-served by bus service, but promises to become even more transit-rich in the future, should the MBTA Green Line Extension or GLX expand to include the additional station at Route 16 / Mystic Valley Parkway within only 1⁄4-mile of the site.

Although currently meeting a vital need for affordable housing for an aging population in Medford, Walkling Court faces significant challenges to its continued operation. The original design choices made for the site, configuring the buildings into two-story walk-up garden flats, means that there is an inherent lack of accessibility for the targeted demographic. In fact, without retrofitting, these buildings are functionally obsolete in terms of accessibility for elderly and disabled residents. The existing structures are also in relative disrepair, given their age, requiring substantial capital improvements and repairs. These include a complete modernization or replacement of kitchens, baths, plumbing and water lines, electrical panels and distribution lines, ventilation systems, concrete landings and stairs, as well as significant structural repairs to the community center.

As a result of these existing challenges, MHA determined that the appropriate path forward is a complete redevelopment of Walkling Court. As a result, a feasibility report was completed, which included preliminary design proposals that suggest an opportunity to provide even more affordable elderly and disabled housing at the site, as well as additional affordable units for families.

52

Envision Medford

Site plan The recommended design option per the MHA final report has the potential of providing between 228 and 238 new senior and family units on the site – an increase of between 84 and 94 additional units. Of these units, 198 would be set aside as senior/disabled units, while 30 to 40 units would be designated as affordable family units. The existing senior units are replaced by two podium mid-rise buildings – one with five stories and the other with six stories – at the back end of the site parallel to the rail lines. These buildings are connected through a shared community space and management office on the ground floor. The family units, designed as townhouses, would be located in the front of the site, where the surrounding neighborhood is lower-rise in form. Parking is provided via covered parking in the new structures and surface lots. A large open, community space would also be created in the corner of the site, as an additional amenity for the residents.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

53

Existing Conditions

Option 1A

9x 2-story buildings

5-story + 4-story

Total Units

144

228

# Accessible Senior Units

72

198

# Non-accessible Senior Units

72

0

# Mid-rise Family Units

0

0

# Townhome Family Units

0

30

41

164

Parking Total # of Parking Spaces Senior Parking (0.5 per unit) Mid-rise Family Parking (1.5 per unit)

99 0.28 spaces per unit

0

Townhome Family Parking (1.5 per unit)

45

Visitor Parking

20

Type IIIB Construction

—

Max. # Stories

2

6

Approx. 20'

60'

0

29,600

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

89,704

218,680

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

0.47

1.15

Lot Coverage %

24%

28%

Family Units

Open Space %

125%

41%

Community Space

Community Space & Residential Amenities

2,300

5,000

Height Final Calculations Garage Area

Design Option 1A: 5-story + podium, 4-story + podium, 228 total units (198 senior units) Senior Units

Financial feasibility In order to redevelop Walkling Court, as is the case with any deeply affordable housing development, MHA has projected leveraging a complex web of financing sources in order to cover relatively exorbitant costs. The projected per unit total development costs are $582,000-$598,000 for the senior housing and $670,000-$690,000 for family units, which is extremely high, even in an expensive housing market like Medford. Operating costs are also expected to be high, although MHA would have access to various operating subsidies available to public housing authorities, including Section 8 Project Based Vouchers or Faircloth subsidies. The preliminary sources & uses for the project, as projected by the feasibility report are shown in the following table[30]:

54

Envision Medford

Sources & uses Fulton Street Senior Mid-rise

Per Unit (198)

Family rental

Per Unit (30)

Senior Mid-rise

Per Unit (198)

Family rental

Per Unit (30)

4% LIHTC ($0.95/credit)

$44,017,612

$222,311

$7,556,397

$251,880

Construction

$90,265,140

$455,885

$14,721,000

$490,700

Permanent loan

$44,830,000

$226,414

$7,729,000

$257,633

State LIHTC ($0.85/credit + brownfield tax credits)

$8,784,284

$44,365

Financing Fees

$4,969,822

$25,100

$1,055,161

$35,172

Soft Costs

$10,713,399

$54,108

$2,773,117

$92,437

Reserves

$942,117

$4,758

$192,485

DHCD Funds (Capital grant, CATNHP, FCF, CBH, AHDF)

$13,000,000

$65,658

$3,500,000

$6,416

$116,666

Dev Fee

$8,521,127

$43,036

$1,966,196

$65,540

Local Funds (CDBG, CPA, AHTF)

$3,800,000

$19,192

$1,922,561

$64,085

TOTAL

Deferred Developer Fee

$979,708

$4,948

$115,411,605

$582,887

$20,707,959

$690,265

TOTAL

$115,411,605

$582,887

Sources

Uses

—

— $20,707,959

—

— $690,265

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

55

Additional considerations Phasing and relocation: The redevelopment of Walkling Court will likely necessitate two distinct phases, in order to lessen the impact on the existing residents who will need to be relocated due to the construction activity. In Phase 1, the mid-rise senior housing will be constructed. This will require the demolition of five of the existing buildings, as well as the current community building. These activities will require the temporary relocation of 80 households to other MHA properties (or other suitable short-term arrangements). In Phase 2, the low-rise family townhouses will be constructed in the front of the site, requiring the demolition of four existing buildings and the relocation of 64 residents. However, the residents relocating during Phase 2 will have the option to move to one of the newly constructed senior buildings now available on the site after Phase 1.

Environmental concerns This site has a handful of environmental concerns that should be noted during redevelopment. In particular, the site’s proximity to Commuter Rail lines (which may also include the proposed GLX), Route 16, a supermarket, and the Mystic River need to be considered. The proximity to rail, the Route 16 parkway, and the neighboring Whole Foods market means that there is potential sound and particulate pollution, due to cars, trucks, and trains passing by the site. The Mystic River, only a few blocks away, suggests an elevated risk of flooding, as well. To mitigate this risk, MHA could include permeable surfaces or other flood-proofing design techniques, such as elevated structures. Overall, the architecture and amenities of the site will need to integrate solutions to these environmental challenges, in order to ensure that the homes being built provide the best possible experience for the primarily elderly or disabled residents.

Zoning The Walkling Court site is currently zoned as APT1. The requirements of the underlying zoning are summarized in the table below: Lot coverage: Maximum of 30% of lot may be covered by structures.

Landscape open space: 10% of gross floor area must be landscaped open space, and an additional 25% must be usable open space. Does not include parking and driveways.

Building height: Maximum of 3 stories and 35' in height.

Parking required: 0.5 parking spaces required per handicapped or elderly unit. 1.5 spaces required per unit for other subsidized housing.

Given the zoning restrictions in place and their mismatch with the proposed design for the future Walkling Court, relief from zoning will be required in some form. This could be accomplished through a variance, updating the code, or, most likely, through the 40B process.

As Medford currently has not met its 10% Chapter 40B requirement, MHA has identified this process as the most likely avenue to achieving the necessary zoning relief to redevelop the property. If the city does meet this minimum threshold in the future, a “friendly 40B” could be pursued. In this case, the developer (MHA) and city would cooperate to minimize design

56

Envision Medford

elements distasteful to the community (i.e. density, heights, etc.), while providing the needed variances to complete the project.

In sum, the proposed design by MHA would create significantly more affordable housing options for vulnerable populations in Medford, while remediating the declining quality of the existing public housing. The proposal adds additional senior/disabled units to the stock, which are still deedrestricted to be affordable at 30% of AMI per the project based subsidies, as well as creates affordable options (at most 60% of AMI) for families that did not previously exist there. This would have a significant impact for lowincome seniors and families in Medford. Additionally, the design is well-suited to the surrounding neighborhood, thoughtfully blending in with surrounding heights and architecture. However, the financing presents a challenge, as MHA will need to leverage various federal, local, and state programs in order to fund the relatively expensive development costs of $582,000-$690,000 per unit. Ideally, the development team can find a way to lower the per-door costs of construction. However, even with these exorbitant figures, the resulting effect on Medford's housing stock is worthwhile.

Recommendations The Walkling Court redevelopment represents a fantastic opportunity to partner with a local entity to bring more affordable housing to the stock in Medford. MHA already maintains a significant portfolio of affordable and public housing in the city, which consists of 840 public housing units in 8 developments, 987 Housing Choice Vouchers, 15 Massachusetts Rental Vouchers, and a Special Needs Housing development.[29] The agency is deeply embedded and committed to the community and is therefore an ideal partner on this and future developments. Additionally, as part of the proposed Housing Production Plan, Medford has identified the following goal: “Support the MHA to rehabilitate and redevelop existing properties”.[26] Walkling Court, as an existing property in desperate need of rehabilitation, fits this priority well and could be the first of many potential redevelopments.

If Medford wants to meet this goal, as well as to pursue strategies that best support the expansion of housing options for low-income and vulnerable residents in the city, it should support this and future MHA redevelopment plans. This support can take the form of grants or funding (for example, Community Preservation Act or Community Development Block Grant funds) or zoning relief, potentially in the form of a “friendly 40B”. Additionally, each project pursued by the Authority will inherently allow the organization to build experience, expertise, and capacity moving forward.

This site also represents the potential power of partnerships with other proven organizations from other communities. MHA, in preparing their report and design feasibility, leveraged consulting by the Cambridge Housing Authority, one of the premier housing authorities in New England and beyond. Additionally, the city could also partner with organizations like the Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) on future projects, should local developers be unable to meet the need. Finally, the city can support local actors, such as Medford Community Housing, . This support can be in the form of assisting with applications for local, state, or federal funds (including Section 4). An all-hands-on-deck approach to developing housing in Medford is needed—any potential partner who has development capacity should be considered.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

57

Plan for the Future Refers to strategies directed toward pre-emptively addressing the housing and climate crises.

As the Boston region, and Medford along with it, continues to grow, so will demand for homes and apartments, especially those priced at affordable levels. This is especially true as transit access from the GLX expands in the city, which integrates Medford more deeply into the metro area. City government, developers, and community organizations will need to think proactively and put in place long-term strategies for creating new housing to meet the growing need. A burgeoning Boston metro area and improved access to transit both necessitate larger-scale housing development, which is currently difficult to generate in the city given the current zoning. In order to avoid the pitfalls of surging demand growth running up against lagging housing supply, the city will need to create plans that anticipate infrastructural, market, and demographic change. The best way to accomplish this will be to identify sites with potential and begin visioning now how they can be developed through creation of prospective or preliminary plans. By identifying these sites, while maintaining awareness of possible future events or trends, the city can also determine which zoning practices, including those discussed in this report, are best-suited to the Medford of the future.

58

Envision Medford

Whole Foods (Mystic River Parkway) In the parcel directly adjacent to Walking Court, there is currently an existing Whole Foods supermarket with a large parking lot along the Mystic Valley Parkway aka Route 16. Again, like Walking Court, the Whole Foods lot is walking distance from another smaller business district and across the parkway from the Mystic River, including its greenway bike paths, community gardens, and other recreational amenities. The surrounding area is wellserved by bus service and biking distance to the MBTA Red Line. However, the opportunity at this site for housing becomes fully realized should the Green Line Extension to Mystic Valley Parkway come to fruition.

On October 17, 2017, the MBTA filed a Notice of Project Change (NPC)[28] for the Green Line Extension Project with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to initiate additional environmental review for the extension to Mystic Valley Parkway and seek public input on proposed station design changes for the station. In its current form, the extension proposes a one-level station to be built just east of the intersection of Boston Avenue and Route 16, near the Somerville and Medford city line—directly adjacent to the existing Whole Foods. Should this station be constructed, the surrounding neighborhood, including the supermarket, becomes prime real estate for dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented housing. This large parcel would be ideally sited within walking distance of frequent-stop train access to much of the Boston area. Therefore, as Medford considers the future of housing development in the city, such parcels with contingent potential should be identified in order to vision preliminary plans and get ahead of the curve.

Aerial view of site context

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

59

Site plan In the future, this site could be leveraged to create a new transit-oriented neighborhood with 6 new six-story, mixed-use buildings. The first floor of each building could be dedicated to retail space and/or parking. Notably, the parking ratio would need to be relaxed to at least 0.5, likely through a transit overlay zone. Each building could include approximately 60 units, which would likely be primarily studio and one-bedroom apartments. The new Whole Foods mixed-use building would include fewer units, but the entire scattered site development could deliver about 300 new units of housing for the neighborhood.

Another advisable feature that could be included in the design would be to extend the street grid through the parking lot, thereby integrating the site with the Walkling Court redesign next door. This would also more than double the open space accessible to Walkling Court and would create new open streets (i.e. streets that are closed for through traffic) to better facilitate a walkable, pedestrian-friendly community. Additionally, the construction of multiple residential structures allows for phased development that would keep the current Whole Foods in operation until replacement building is built, which is undoubtedly preferred by the existing tenant.

Finally, some mitigating design features could be considered in order to address possible neighbor concerns or environmental externalities. Heights (and thus number of units) could be reduced for those buildings bordering the adjacent single-family neighborhood (e.g. through multi-unit walkups). Trees and other natural interventions could also be added along the commuter rail line to insulate the newly created neighborhood from noise and particulate pollution.

Aerial view of the site with existing conditions Proposed view: Accounts for Walkling Court reconstruction

60

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

61

•

Site plan with design precedents

Design precedents The prospective site plan presented above is inspired by other mixed-use developments throughout the Boston region. These designs also incorporate a shared site for a grocery store or pharmacy, along with dense residential development.

•

•

The first example is located near the Wellington MBTA Station in Medford. Station Landing is a 16.32 acre, transit-oriented, mixed-use development “designed in the model of New Urbanism” according to the developer.[44] The project bills itself as a model of Smart Growth development, through its inclusion of a live-work-play environment with an active main street. The project, which consists of 650 housing units, 100,000 SF of retail space, a 160-room hotel and a parking garage, was made possible through the creation of an MUZ in the surrounding neighborhood, as previously discussed.

The next inspiration for the design is the Ink Block mixed-use development in Boston’s South End.[51] This development has incredibly similar site features to the design proposed above and is even integrated with another Whole Foods Market in the mixed-use retail space. In fact, the store below the apartment units is one of the nation’s highest grossing Whole Foods, suggesting a possibly persuasive selling point for the existing tenant in Medford. The project is also near a T Station (Broadway), just as the Route 16 site could be given the potential GLX.

62

Envision Medford

Another precedent is the in-progress Allston Yards redevelopment in the intersection of Allston, Brighton, and the new Boston Landing district.

The approximately 10.6-acre site is being constructed as a mixeduse, transit-oriented development with residential, office, restaurant, fitness, public open space, and retail uses. Again, there will be a grocery store integrated – in this case: a Stop & Shop.[7] The project is being undertaken by the Boston Planning and Development authority and, once again, benefits from nearby transit access in the form of the Boston Landing MBTA commuter rail station. These precedents reflect the diverse possibilities presented by leveraging untapped potential of transit-rich sites to build mixed-use residential complexes. Medford would benefit greatly from applying these design concepts to sites with similar potential, like the Mystic Valley Parkway location.

Financial feasibility Due to the potentially prime location that the housing constructed on the Whole Foods site would benefit from, the financing of such a project could be relatively straightforward when compared to other developments including affordable housing. As the project would be primarily market-rate, the rents from those units would in turn offset or subsidize the rents for any included income-restricted units (including those constructed to meet IZ requirements). Additionally, the rents from the commercial space (Whole Foods) would also factor into this calculus. Mixed-income developments are ideally self-sustaining due to the mix of rent levels, especially in markets in which fair market rents come at a premium, like the Boston metro area.

However, due to the highly prospective nature of this site, given the lack of clarity currently around the GLX expansion to Route 16, this report does not present a more robust financial analysis of this design.

Additional considerations Prospective Green Line extension: The feasibility of mixed-use, mixed-income housing development on this site is highly dependent on the future of the proposed GLX stop at Route 16. This is because, without such a readily accessible transit option, the pedestrian-focused, dense design becomes suboptimal for the location.

The ability to walk one block after shopping at the Whole Foods or on the way to work from the apartments each morning drives much of the desirability of constructing apartment units there. Additionally, the additional transportation option allows for a reduction in needed parking at the site, which is a major factor in the financial feasibility of construction. If the site were to be automobile-centric rather than transit-oriented, significant additional investment into constructing more parking, whether above or below ground, would be required.

Somerville city border: Another important factor for developing housing at the site is its proximity to Somerville, Medford's neighbor to the south. Part of the parcel is within each municipality and therefore any construction plan would need to consider cooperation between two separate governments, which have differing zoning, administrative, taxation, and legal requirements. However, as the pressure on housing needs exerted by the growth of the metro region affects all nearby communities, the hope would be that the interests of the two communities would be relatively aligned in considering this site for housing.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

63

Environmental concerns: This site also has a handful of environmental concerns that should be noted.

Like Walkling Court next door, discussed previously, proximity to rail, the parkway, and the Whole Foods, which will share the site, means potential sound and particulate pollution. Again, elevated flood risk from the nearby Mystic River exists as well. Importantly, the site is next door to an industrial use and is currently a commercial property, which means that some clean up and remediation will also need to be considered during development, in addition to the adaptive design elements that should be incorporated to deal with the other environmental factors, including permeable surfaces or flood-proofing architectural features. Finally, any mixed-use development will need to be thoughtful about how the mix of uses will affect the residents.

Care must be taken to adequately segregate the commercial and residential portions of the property.

Zoning The Whole Foods parcel is currently zoned as C1 or Commercial. The adjacent parcels are zoned as either APT1 (Apartment 1) or I (Industrial).

Although the property is currently zoned for commercial use, under the Medford zoning code, C1 allows for multiple dwelling residential of up to six stories (or 75 feet). This suggests that even under current zoning, there is some potential for development of multifamily housing at the site. The primary zoning challenge to creating a dense, mixed-use development at the Whole Foods site is related to parking requirements. Currently, for each dwelling unit, two parking spaces would be required. In combination with the significant number of parking spaces needed for the operation of a supermarket, especially one that is located along a major parkway and serves as a grocery delivery hub, as well, this requirement quickly becomes prohibitive to a feasible development plan. Assuming the increased transit access from the GLX, relaxing this requirement at this site, and other transitoriented sites, is highly encouraged.

The site, although most likely ideally suited for market-rate residential development, also represents another opportunity to bring new affordable units to Medford in the future. The city currently has an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (also known as Inclusionary Zoning or IZ), which requires the provision of affordable units for most new multifamily developments of over 10 units. These covered projects by default require a special permit that, as a mandatory condition of approval, ensures that applicants provide the following number of affordable units within their projects: • • •

Left Map: Current zoning designations around the Whole Foods site, the current development would fall under C1 which allows for multi-family dwellings up to 6 stories.

Right Map: Potential to designate current C1 and I zones a new Mixed Use Zone to take advantage of the preferential dimensional and use allowances for MUZ areas.

SF1 GR C1 I MUZ

10 to 24 lots or units—Ten percent affordable units.

25 to 49 lots or units—Thirteen percent affordable units.

50 or more lots or units—Fifteen percent affordable units.

This requirement reflects that Medford has already begun to implement forward-looking policy to ensure future affordability in the city. Prospective developments, like one at this site, will, by design, include affordable options for future residents. Assuming that development at this site would produce a total of 300 units, the IZ requirement would deliver at least 45 additional affordable units for the city.

64

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

65

Recommendations Proactively zone and anticipate future infrastructure The City should make use of MUZ and/or 40R Overlay zones to capitalize on development near any upcoming infrastructure projects. Even if the Route 16 Extension to the Green Line is not immediately forthcoming the area around Mystic Valley could still hold a lot of future development potential due to the proximity to the parkway, buses along Boston Ave with Green Line access and the continued expansion of Tufts University. This site in particular is rare due to its size and relative underutilization. Proactively drafting an overly zone could serve as two functions: firstly to signal and organize investment if the parcel becomes available and second to act as a form of value capture, via heightened inclusionary zoning clauses on any development.

The Route 16 is one of the many large infrastructure projects that could impact Medford in the coming years, the switch to more “urban rail” on the MBTA Commuter Rail is another. Being able to use zoning to get ahead of these trends to institute value capture in the form of affordable housing requirements can help secure local stability and prevent displacement.''

Build a robust housing trust fund A local affordable housing trust fund is a key component of a robust housing strategy. A housing trust fund would allow for Medford to help subsidize, support and produce targeted affordable housing locally. This could remove some pressure on affordable housing producers who are often competing for limited state funding to fill funding gaps in affordable housing development plans. According to Housing Trust Fund Project’s 2016 Housing Trust Fund Survey Report, the average amount of public and private funds leveraged for every dollar invested in affordable housing by city housing trust funds is $6.00.[21] CPA funds are the most common funding source, with many cities appropriating any funds to their trusts in excess of the 10% minimum required for other uses. A portion of linkage fees could be diverted into the fund (Somerville diverts all linkages from commercial development into their Trust Fund). Other cities have used cell tower lease payments, IZ fees, sale of city owned land or private donations to fund their Trust Funds. In terms of building capacity, depending on the structure of the Housing Trust, Section 4 funding as described in the theme above could be leveraged to build local capacity to manage affordable housing.

Consider environmental factors & mitigation strategies A big part of planning for the future also includes addressing uncertainty and planning for high level risks such as climate change. The environmental concerns for Medford are similar to those across the Boston Metro area, coastal hazards, winter storm and flood risks, particularly along the Mystic River. Many cities have begun to promote sustainability development and address/mitigate risks of climate change via updates to their zoning code.

The Journal of the American Planning Association summarizes the zoning ordinances from 32 US cities who address sustainability.[25] Key themes include expanding density, encouraging mixed-use, preserving green space and protecting natural resources.

The biggest way zoning can address environmental risks and climate change is by encouraging denser, more walkable and transit-oriented development as discussed in the previous themes. However, smaller adjustments such as increasing permeable surfaces on new developments can also be important and help address the risks of stormwater flooding. Permeable parking lots are growing in popularity as a way to mix both green and grey infrastructure, though many zoning ordinances often disallow these non-standard materials.

The current requirement that "all parking and loading spaces and their access shall be graded, surfaced with asphalt or other suitable material” could be expanded to include and/or encourage the use of permeable parking and driveway technologies. Allowing rain gardens, kitchen gardens, or other forms of conservation landscaping to fulfill open space/landscaping requirements is another way that future housing developments will be able to double as mitigation strategies.

Left Image: Permeable pavers, porous asphalt, and bioretention cells at the Silver Lake beach parking lot, Wilmington MA (photo: GeoSyntec).

Right Image: Rain garden in action in New York City (photo: NYC Department of Environmental Protection)

66

Envision Medford

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

67

Conclusion As the greater metro region grows and transit access continues to improve throughout, Medford will continue to be a highly desirable community for both current and future residents. This desirability can be a mixed blessing: creating both benefits and challenges for the city. In particular, the housing stock of Medford, especially affordable options, will become increasingly insufficient if population growth continues to outstrip the provision of new units. Despite this fact, there remain a significant number of opportunities for new and infill development within Medford. This report aims to provide recommendations on specific implementation strategies, case studies showcasing potential sites of development that can expand the stock of affordable and market-rate housing in Medford. The goal is to address local housing needs and meet 40B production goals, while also focusing on building a housing supply that is inclusive, diverse, sustainable and compatible with the existing built environment. The recommendations we made to achieve these goals are summarized below:

Expand Transit-Oriented Development

Medford has a number of great transit connections and local commercial nodes that are well-suited to support thriving mixed-use neighborhoods.

Zoning changes to density needed to encourage development could be efficiently delivered by either designating new overlay zones (and taking advantage of 40R benefits) or expanding the use of the existing MUZ district to new areas. High parking requirements are a large barrier to affordable housing production, as they increase development costs and the need for land. This barrier could be lessened near transit nodes by reconsidering parking minimums, both by reducing overall ratios and by opting in favor of alternative options like minimums tiered by unit size or transit-proximate maximums. Transit-oriented development has the benefit of not only supporting environmentally-conscious planning but also delivers higher quality housing with built-in access to opportunities. Lastly, transit-oriented development that focuses on allowing for denser multi-family buildings near key transit nodes will help the City comply with the new state Housing Choice legislation.

Extend Housing Opportunities Citywide

One of the HPP’s goals was to “integrate affordable and diverse housing options throughout the city at a scale that is compatible with the built environment” and infill development is crucial in order to achieve this goal.

Medford has a number of fantastic neighborhoods each boasting their own advantages and often diverse mixes of existing housing stock. However, many of these developments are unable to be replicated and, thus, these neighborhoods have become out of reach for many. By updating the existing zoning code to match the built form, in particular decreasing minimum lot sizes and allowing for flexible density such as ADUs, Medford can add new units that seamlessly fit into the existing character without putting too much development pressure on any one area. The use of an Affordable Housing Overlay zone can offer more zoning relief for projects that deliver a high number of affordable units, helping to create a diverse, inclusive city for all.

68

Envision Medford

Build Affordable Housing Partnerships

Building affordable housing is not an easy feat. It can be complex, expensive, and require significant organizational capacity. In order to deal with these challenges and expand housing choice for low-income residents, the city needs to seek out willing and able partners who can assist. Luckily, there are numerous such actors already existing in either Medford or surrounding communities in the Boston area, including the Medford Housing Authority, Medford Community Housing, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and Somerville Community Corporation, among others. Medford can support these organizations through capacity-building grants, assistance with accessing state or federal funds, or simply by prioritizing them when choosing developers for projects, so that they can build experience for the future. As identified in the HPP, the MHA represents a key partner for housing the city’s most vulnerable families and individuals. Medford should ensure that MHA receives adequate support for the thoughtfully planned redevelopment of Walkling Court and other such projects moving forward.

Ensuring the presence of a housing authority in the city that has ample capacity and expertise to generate housing for those at the low end of the income spectrum is vital to protect against rising inequality.

Plan for the Future

Medford will continue to be an appealing community for residents throughout the coming years and decades. In fact, the community will only draw more interest as transit expansion projects integrate it more deeply into the surrounding metro area. The growth that can be generated from this desirability presents significant opportunity for the city, but also threatens existing residents with displacement and brings with it possible harmful environmental impacts. As the city envisions how it will respond to these future changes, it is crucial that the decisions city leaders make in terms of zoning and housing development reflect adequate foresight. Prudent decision-making requires proactively employing zoning as a tool to get ahead of coming infrastructure projects, while considering environmental risks and the housing needs of a growing population. Tools like a more density-friendly zoning code, Mixed-Use Zones, 40R Overlays, or a well-resourced Affordable Housing Trust Fund could all be helpful for ensuring that Medford continues to thrive.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

69

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

“FEMA.Gov.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/.

“40R DISTRICTS/ACTIVITY: Approved Districts (Received DHCD Final/Conditional Approval),” May 22, 2019. https://www.mass.gov/doc/40r-districts-activity-summary/ download.

Interface Engineering. “178 Townsend.” Accessed November 13, 2021. https:// interfaceengineering.com/work/178-townsend.

The Neighborhood Developers. “571 Revere St.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https:// theneighborhooddevelopers.org/portfolio/2018/3/20/571-revere-st.

“About St. Clement Elementary School,” October 11, 2008. https://web.archive.org/ web/20081011165711/http:/saintclementschool.org/GS/General/About.aspx.

The City of Medford, MA. “Affordable Homeownership Opportunities: The Residences at One St. Clare,” August 6, 2015. https://www.medfordma.org/2015/08/05/ affordable-homeownership-opportunities-the-residences-at-one-st-clare/.

“Allston Yards | Boston Planning & Development Agency.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/allston-yards.

“Bluebikes Bike Share - CDD - City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/gettingaroundcambridge/ bikesincambridge/bikeshare.

“Buffalo Becomes First City to Bid Minimum Parking Goodbye.” Bloomberg.Com, January 9, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/buffalo-isthe-first-to-abandon-minimum-parking-requirements-citywide.

“Chapter 40R | Mass.Gov.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/ service-details/chapter-40r.

City of Cambridge. “100% Affordable Housing Overlay District Zoning Ordinance Cambridge, Massachusetts,” 2020. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ Housing/Overlay/adoptedahoordinance.pdf.

City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. “City of Portland Off-Street Parking Management & Guiding Policies,” n.d., 19. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/ transportation/article/547704 “Code of Ordinances | Medford, MA | Municode Library.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ma/medford/codes/code_of_ordinances.

“Demonstration 3: Permeable Paving Materials and Bioretention in a Parking Lot | Mass.Gov.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/ demonstration-3-permeable-paving-materials-and-bioretention-in-a-parking-lot.

Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). “Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit 40R Model Bylaw.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www. housingtoolbox.org/writable/files/resources/40R-Bylaw.pdf.

Richmond BizSense. “Developer Lined up for $34M Apartment Project near VUU,” July 22, 2020. https://richmondbizsense.com/2020/07/22/developer-lined-up-for-34mapartment-project-near-vuu/.

Dobbins, Kyle. “Two Adaptive Reuse Projects Bring Needed Housing to Capitol Hill.” DenverUrbanism Blog. Accessed December 10, 2021. https://denverurbanism. com/2017/05/two-adaptive-reuse-projects-bring-needed-housing-to-capitol-hill.html.

“Environmental Justice Populations in Massachusetts | Mass.Gov.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/environmental-justice-populations-inmassachusetts.

Formica, Amanda. “From Vulnerable to Resilient: A Climate Vulnerability Analysis of Medford, Massachusetts.” Tufts University, May 1, 2019.

Hayward, Ryan D, Doug Carr, Benjamin Johnson, Abigail Salerno, Richard T Northrup, Jennifer Keenan, and Edward Wiest. “Medford Historical Commission South Medford

70

Envision Medford

Survey Plan,” n.d., 42.

21. Housing Trust Fund Project. “City Housing Trust Funds |.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://housingtrustfundproject.org/housing-trust-funds/city-housing-trust-funds/.

22. “How Vacancy Traumatizes Cities.” Bloomberg.Com, July 27, 2018. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/the-disturbing-rise-of-housing-vacancy-inu-s-cities.

23. “Hudson Vistas.” Accessed December 10, 2021. http://portfolio.aufgang.com/hudson_ vistas_.html.

24. Local Initiatives Support Corporation. “Intro to Section 4, Capacity Building for Community Development & Affordable Housing.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.lisc.org/our-resources/resource/section-4-capacity-building-communitydevelopment-affordable-housing/.

25. Jepson, Edward J., and Anna L. Haines. “Zoning for Sustainability: A Review and Analysis of the Zoning Ordinances of 32 Cities in the United States.” Journal of the American Planning Association 80, no. 3 (July 3, 2014): 239–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/019443 63.2014.981200.

26. JM Goldson LLC for City of Medford Department of Community Development. “City of Medford Housing Production Plan FY2021-2024 [DRAFT],” March 3, 2021. https:// www.medfordma.org/storage/2021/04/Medford-HPP-Draft-030121.pdf.

27. March 04, and 2019 Melissa Denchak. “Green Infrastructure: How to Manage Water in a Sustainable Way.” NRDC. Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.nrdc.org/ stories/green-infrastructure-how-manage-water-sustainable-way.

28. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. “Notice of Project Change - MBTA Green Line Extension to Mystic Valley Parkway,” October 2017. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ notice-of-project-change-0/download.

29. “Medford Housing Authority Agency Overview.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https:// www.medfordhousing.org/about_mha/agency_overview/index.php.

30. Medford Housing Authority (MHA), Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA), and Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype (BH+A). “Redevelopment of Walkling Court Final Report,” July 22, 2020.

31. “Medford, MA | Data USA.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/ medford-ma/#demographics.

32. “Medford’s Go Green Initiative!” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://medfordenergy. org/gogreen/.

33. Metropolitan Area Planning Coucil (MAPC), Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), and Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). “City of Medford Hazard Mitigation Plan,” June 2013. https://www.medfordma. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Medford_DRAFT_06-12-13.pdf.

34. “Młyn Żytni. Lofty na każdą kieszeń [ZDJĘCIA PRZED I PO] - Bryła polska architektura.” Accessed November 3, 2021. https://www.bryla.pl/ bryla/1,85301,17700398,Mlyn_Zytni__Lofty_na_kazda_kieszen__ZDJECIA_PRZED. html.

35. “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” Accessed December 10, 2021. http://www.noaa.gov/.

36. “Prevailing Wage: For Awarding Authorities | Mass.Gov.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/prevailing-wage-for-awarding-authorities.

37. “Rail Vision | Projects | MBTA.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.mbta.com/ projects/rail-vision.

38. “Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/

section-4-capacity-building.

39. “Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit Modules - Form-Based Codes (FBCs) | Mass.

Gov.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/smartgrowth-smart-energy-toolkit-modules-form-based-codes-fbcs.

40. Social Explorer. “Maps - Social Explorer,” 2019. https://www.socialexplorer.com/ explore-maps.

41. “Somerville City Council, Administration Pass City’s First Zoning Overhaul in 30 Years | City of Somerville.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.somervillema.gov/news/ somerville-city-council-administration-pass-citys-first-zoning-overhaul-30-years.

42. “Somerville Zoning Ordinance – Somerville Zoning Ordinance.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.somervillezoning.com/.

43. The Neighborhood Developers. “St. Therese.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https:// theneighborhooddevelopers.org/st-therese.

44. National Development. “Station Landing.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://natdev. com/project/station-landing/.

45. MUES architecture. “Stuart Street Apartments,” November 5, 2019. https://www.mues. us/portfolio/stuart-street-apartments/.

46. “The Disturbing Rise of Housing Vacancy in U.S. Cities - Bloomberg.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/thedisturbing-rise-of-housing-vacancy-in-u-s-cities.

47. H+T Affordability Index. “The H+T Index Provides a More Complete Measure of Affordability.” Accessed December 9, 2021. http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/.

48. “The St. Aidan.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.peabodyproperties.com/ communities/component/jea/130-the-st-aidan-pleasant-st.html.

49. Toronto Planning and Housing Committee. “Recommended Parking Requirements for New Development,” November 25, 2021. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/ viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.PH29.3.

50. Town of Brookline Massachusetts Planning Board. “Article 10 Planning Board Report and Recommendation,” November 16, 2010. https://www.brooklinema. gov/DocumentCenter/View/4569/November-16-2010-Special-Town-Meeting--Planning-Board-Report-on-Article-10-PDF#:~:text=The%20current%20parking%20 regulations%20under,or%20more%20bedrooms%20and%20multi%2D. 51. Underground Ink Block. “Underground Ink Block Neighborhood.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://undergroundinkblock.com/neighborhood.

52. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Medford City, Massachusetts.” Accessed December 9, 2021. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/medfordcitymassachusetts/ PST120219.

53. “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | US EPA.” Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/.

54. Verrilli, Ann, and Jennifer Raitt. “The Use of Chapter 40R in Massachusetts as a Tool for Smart Growth and Affordable Housing Production.” Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association and Metropolitan Area Planning Council, October 2009. http://www.mapc. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Chapter_40R_Report.pdf.

55. Wamsley, Laurel. “Oregon Legislature Votes To Essentially Ban Single-Family Zoning.”

NPR, July 1, 2019, sec. National. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/ oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning.

56. “West Medford, MA Environmental Watch - USA.ComTM.” Accessed December 10, 2021. http://www.usa.com/west-medford-ma-environmental-watch.htm.

57. “Zoning Book City of Lowell, Massachusetts,” May 22, 2018. https://www.lowellma.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/1007/Zoning-Code-PDF?bidId=.

MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

71

Prepared for City of Medford, Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability