Teardowns City of Lexington

1. Mansionization
Lexington's Experience

2. Mansionization
 In 1987, TM inserted a requirement for increased
setbacks for houses greater than 2,500 SF
– Setbacks set in 1953, when new houses ~ 1,200 – 1,800 SF
– By 1987, new homes were ~ 3,000 – 4,000 SF
– In 2008, new homes exceeded 7,000 SF
– 2010 average for Northeast 2,613 SF (Census Bureau)
 1992, Town staff starts tracking teardowns
 1994, PB develops, but pulls “Jumbo House” Bylaw
 1997, PB publishes New, Larger Houses in Existing
Neighborhoods
 2002, PB’s “House Impact Review” Bylaw defeated

3. Single-Family Development
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Net New Teardowns

4. Conflict & Resentment
 Character (Scale & Aesthetics)
 Diminished Economic Diversity
 Loss of affordable housing
 Anti-development

5. Potential Positive Effects
 Increased property values
 Encourages and increases viability of
further development
 Increases consumer purchasing power
at local businesses
 Invisible to MGL 40B denominator

6. Unclear Effects
 Reduction of suburban sprawl
elsewhere in the region
 Increased/decreased incentive to
invest in existing housing stock
 Costs/changes to local services
 Population increased/decreased
 Increased/decreased diversity

7. Conclusion
 Fiscally beneficial
 Driven by high property values
 Related to our proximity to build out
– This magnifies character issues, because
it’s happening in developed areas
 Town Meeting has been ambivalent, but
 Stirs up enough interest to keep it on a
slow boil
– Focus now turning to Residential FARs