High Density Nobscot Development Will Damage the Framingham Schools
Data from the US Census shows that the planned development will rapidly flood the schools with 400 students or more.
​One of the numbers floating around in the Nobscot high density development discussion is the number of students the proposed 620 units would add to the Framingham Public Schools. A memo from Lincoln Lynch, the FPS Executive Director of Finance & Operations, notes that the number of students generated by existing large apartment buildings in Framingham is about 0.15 per unit. See:
Planning Board Projects - Apartment Analysis​​
That would suggest that the 620 units would generate only about 93 students. However, the existing large apartment buildings in Framingham, included by Lincoln Lynch, have only 1-2BR per unit.Â
<< The Nobscot development will have a much higher bedroom count per unit. >>
The proposed Nobscot units will be designed for families with children, per the intent of the MBTA Communities Law: MGL Ch 40A, Section 3A​, which specifically states:
"Section 3A.  (a)(1)An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. ..."Â
Thus, the proposed Nobscot residential complex will likely be dominantly 3BR units to comport with the new state law and to maximize developer profits.
That makes a huge difference.
US Census data shows that a 1BR unit generates 0.06 school age children, a 2BR generates 0.24 and a 3BR generates 0.63. Applying that information to the Nobscot case, 390 students would be generated, not the 93 Lincoln Lynch's memo would suggest.
Here is a chart taken from a report done by the Town of Hopkinton, which shows the US Census data on p.12:
Note that the US Census data shows that if apartment complexes have typically 1-2BR units, the average number of school age children per unit comes to (0.24 + 0.06)/2 = 0.15. That’s exactly Lincoln Lynch’s number.
Lincoln Lynch’s Data
Here are some of the data he used:
266 Waverly St: 270 1-2BR apartments
50 Concord St: 196 1-2BR apartments
The Buckley: 68 1-2BR apartments
59 Fountain St: 160 1-2BR apartments
61 Fountain St:98 1-2BR apartments
The Green at 9 & 90: 1000 1-2BR apartments
Waterview Terrace at 1400 Worcester Rd: 300 1-2BR apartments
1550 and 1500 Worcester Rd, large condo complexes which are dominated by 1-2BR units
[Note: There are small numbers of 3BR units in these buildings, but the data are dominated by 1-2BR units.]
All of these numbers can be checked by using the city’s GIS Mapping Tool.
Bottom Line
The Framingham Public Schools input from Lincoln Lynch simply does not apply to the residential developments enabled by the MBTA Communities Law. 3BR units will be dominant, not 1-2BR units.
That spells big trouble for the Framingham Public School if the high density development plans for Nobscot come to fruition. That parcel is shovel ready and the impact of almost 400 added new students will be felt in the next 2 years.
The Flood of Students Could Be More Than 400
It could also be worse than 400 students, as the US Census data is an average for 3BR units.
Most families raise their kids for about 20 years, stay on in their house for maybe 15-20 years more and then possibly downsize when the parents retire. Young families will have 1-2 children in the house. Empty nester families will have none. The US Census data shows the average at 0.63 school age children per unit, which includes a good portion of empty nester units. The actual average for families who buy into Nobscot will be higher, as there will likely be no empty nester families. That could boost the 400 estimate to 600 or more.
Action
If parents across the city want to slow down the influx of children the MBTA Communities Law will bring into the Framingham Public Schools, so there is time to absorb the increasing numbers in a more gradual way and not overwhelm the school district, they should join the movement to remove the Nobscot parcel from the city’s plan to comply with the MBTA Communities Law.
The high density Nobscot development will adversely affect all Framingham students if it is allowed to proceed.
<< There is a City Council meeting on Monday, November 25, 2024, at 7pm, which will be devoted entirely to this issue. Everyone should turn up, especially parents with children in the schools, or whose children are headed that way. >>
Sorry, but respectfully, the privilege is so thick in this op-ed.
The median household income in Framingham is approximately 100k. The median home price is approximately 618k.
I know it's difficult to walk in someone else's shoes, but try to understand what it's like for other younger generations. We're faced with financial crisis after crisis and a housing market where homes are 4x to 6x median income. The rental and condo market is kept to mostly 1 or 2 bedrooms putting millennials and younger who have families into serious conflict with their landlords when they have kids.
We personally faced being kicked out of our apartment when our lease renewal came up in 2016 because we were pregnant and going to exceed the maximum occupancy for our Natick apartment. Renting 3br units was nearly impossible within 1+ hr commute to Boston. They are a tiny fraction of the inventory and landlords discriminate against families due to the lead mitigation laws. We wouldn't be permitted to renew our lease with another baby on the way so had to desperately try to find a house for far over asking price with all contingencies waved and that was back in 2016/17. I thought we were being insane to do so. But it's only gotten worse since.
I refuse to pull the ladder up behind me like so many others have done with this nimbyism. If people in Framingham don't like the growth they are free to put their home on the market and move somewhere else. Younger families desperately need homes in this area to purchase. There are plenty of dead and dying towns with no growth and no potential. I know... I grew up in one and yes we have issues and growth will have pain points but stagnation and watching your town slowly die is IMO far worse.
I work with plenty of people my age in their 30's and 40's and it's sad how many can't start a family because of how unstable their housing is. These are college educated professionals in what used to be good careers, and the housing shortage is like a boot on our neck. We need more housing for families, and we need it yesterday. Yes there will be consequences and difficult problems but we need to deal with those problems instead of continuing to push them off to save pennies now. My generation has inherited a world where our prospects are worse than our parents because of the decisions and policies they supported. It's time for a change and time for my generation to have a chance to fix this crap.
I appreciate the work you put into this newsletter, but I disagree with you on the Nobscot development/zoning change. Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. Based on the back-of-the-envelope math from your last newsletter about this development, the census numbers you mention here suggest that this development would net bring revenue to the city. If units are priced at $500k on average, cost of student is $9.5k, there are 390 new students, and property taxes remain at 1.246%, this development would net $151,900 in property tax revenue above education costs (per year).
2. You discuss the risk that this development has more children than the average from the census data (0.63/HH for 3BR) because it's a new building and will attract younger families/fewer empty nesters. I'm not so sure about that. There will probably be some empty nesters who move in because they want to downsize (yes, to a 2-3BR) and not have to deal with yardwork. And there will be other household types moving in (married without kids, adults with roommates, maybe even a few FSU students). And the above math is based on assuming all 620 units are 3 BR. I bet there will be other sized units in any development (likely 2BR), so I already think that's a conservative estimate. Also there is risk the condo prices are higher/lower than the $500k we're assuming.
3. What this all gets at is that cheaper family housing is a net drain on the city's resources. I think it's good to keep our eye on the city's revenue and expenses (hence I read your newsletter). But should we just make it illegal to build cheap family housing? Wouldn't this logic prohibit any new developments to reach MBTA Communities Act compliance elsewhere in the city? Housing costs in the commonwealth are very high, and we need to build more housing to relieve the pressure.
4. But I also think that this is the type of scrutiny that so often gets applied to multifamily housing only, and not to new single family developments. Multifamily housing typically requires a lot less infrastructure/future maintenance costs per household for the city than the equivalent single family housing development.
5. A development here would be walking distance to an elementary school (and playground), library, restaurants, and other shopping. It's one of the few areas in north Framingham where that's possible. It's good to develop near amenities where people can easily/comfortably walk.
6. I grew up in NW Framingham in a neighborhood that was all large lot single family houses. My elementary school was full of kids from similar neighborhoods. It was in middle school when I met and became friends with kids who lived in apartment buildings. I think it would be great if there were more options for housing type/size in Framingham in general, and also not just clustered along route 9 or in downtown.
7. Finally, addressing a point from the prior post on this: I agree that it seems a little out of the way from the commuter rail station that is the basis for Framingham's MBTA Communities inclusion. I would point out that your idea for the Staples property is also not really transit accessible (yes it's by the highway, but as far as I'm aware there is no MBTA on the Mass Pike). Developing there might attract more people who commute to Boston by car rather than transit. Both locations are served by MWRTA though.