This Home Is Illegal

99% of Boston’s homes violate Boston’s zoning code. They are not illegal to live in, buy, or sell. But if Boston burned down tomorrow, it would be illegal to rebuild 99% of its homes the way they are today. When 99% of homes break the law, the problem is the law, not the homes. (1/8)

17h

This is why 99% of existing homes in Boston are illegal according to the city's own zoning code. Making it impossible to build anything - even the type of homes that already exist - strengthens the city's leverage in these negotiations.

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈@maxdubler.com

Boston’s chief planner is a true believer in the San Francisco model, in which you make it impossible to profitably build apartments by-right so developers are forced into a politicized discretionary negotiation with the city, which relaxes the rules in exchange for below-market units.

17h

Thread:

This Home Is Illegal@illegalhomes.bsky.social

17h

And an example:

This Home Is Illegal@illegalhomes.bsky.social

Over to 24 Seaverns Ave in Jamaica Plain today. It's a classic triple-decker built in 1905, and like 99% of Boston homes, it's illegal under Boston's zoning code.

Another handsome triple-decker today: 49 King St in Dorchester. Like 99% of Boston homes, this home is illegal under Boston's zoning code.

Lastly, 49 King St is another huge FAR (floor area ratio) violator. FAR is the total floor space divided by the lot size. This lot has a maximum FAR of 0.5, but 49 King St has an FAR of 1.7! It's over triple the size Boston requires it to be.

This is a perfectly good home for three families! It shouldn't be illegal. Yet Boston's zoning says it is.

Another handsome triple-decker today: 49 King St in Dorchester. Like 99% of Boston homes, this home is illegal under Boston's zoning code.

Boston says this home is far too big for its lot. 49 King St is on a 3,200 sq ft lot, but Boston mandates a minimum 5,000 sq ft lot for a triplex like this. 49 King St's lot is also only 40 feet wide, where Boston requires a minimum 50 ft lot width here.

boston.govMonument Square Landmark District Community MeetingThe public is encouraged to attend to hear about: What designation would mean for the neighborhood and property owners Potential boundaries of the proposed Landmark District and Protection Area The ti...

49 King St also violates the zoned height maximum of 2.5 stories. A half story would be a sloping roof with dormers - basically an attic. This house has a full third story.

This Home Is Illegal reposted

miscforma.bsky.social

@miscforma.bsky.social

Replying to @kevinkoppes.bsky.social

They’re holding an in person meeting tomorrow on this, I’m a nobody, someone should really do something about this www.boston.gov/public-notic...

Over to 24 Seaverns Ave in Jamaica Plain today. It's a classic triple-decker built in 1905, and like 99% of Boston homes, it's illegal under Boston's zoning code.

Lastly, and you probably guessed: 24 Seaverns Ave is a massive FAR violation. FAR (floor area ratio) is the total floor area divided by the lot size. This lot has a maximum FAR of 0.6, but this home has an FAR of 2.02. Boston's zoning says this home should be less than a third of its size!

24 Seaverns Ave is a perfectly fine home. But Boston's zoning code says it should be illegal. What do you think?

Over to 24 Seaverns Ave in Jamaica Plain today. It's a classic triple-decker built in 1905, and like 99% of Boston homes, it's illegal under Boston's zoning code.

First, Boston says a triplex like this must have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet - far above the 3,320 sq ft this home occupies. In effect, Boston's zoning says this house is unacceptably large for its lot. Looks fine to me!

Next, 24 Seaverns Ave doesn't appear to have side yards (the pickup truck is in the driveway of the house next door). Yet its zoning requires the "aggregate width of two side yards shall be not less than seventeen (17) feet." Very specific, and very illegal!

56 Green St in Charlestown is a charming duplex, built in 1890. Unfortunately, it's illegal under Boston's zoning code. (1/4)

Once again, the worst offender is the floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR is the total floor space divided by the lot size. 56 Green St has an FAR of 2.98, way beyond the maximum 2.0 allowed here. In effect, the City of Boston would want to lop off one story of this house. (3/4)

56 Green St is a nice house in a nice neighborhood! It shouldn't be illegal. But the City of Boston says it is. What do you think? (4/4)

56 Green St in Charlestown is a charming duplex, built in 1890. Unfortunately, it's illegal under Boston's zoning code. (1/4)

56 Green St sits on a 1,100 sq ft lot. But the City of Boston mandates a minimum 2,000 sq ft lot for 2-unit homes in this area. Boston also mandates a 4 ft minimum front yard and 2.5 ft minimum side yard, which this house doesn't appear to have. (2/4)

Sources (7/8): Boston's planning department admitting 99% of homes violate zoning: www.bostonplans.org/getattachmen... Boston's zoning code is likely the longest in the country: www.bostonplans.org/getattachmen... Boston's reliance on variances: commonwealthbeacon.org/opinion/zoni...

Sources (8/8): Boston's racist origins of zoning: www.bostonindicators.org/reports/repo... Uniquely restrictive nature of US zoning: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Planners invented zoning to keep Black, Chinese, and lower-income people out of nice neighborhoods. Only America practices zoning this way. It is not the only way to organize our cities. (5/8)

Boston is beautiful! Most of its homes are just fine. We should legalize old homes, and legalize more new ones too. (6/8)

When 99% of homes are illegal, it becomes difficult to build more homes. We need more homes, but Boston’s zoning code mandates fewer stories, fewer units, and fewer homes than even exist today. This is why Boston has some of the worst housing affordability in the nation. (3/8)

When 99% of homes are illegal, it incentivizes corruption and destroys faith in government. Did a new building get a variance for good reasons, or because the developer paid a bribe? When everything is a one-off exception to the law, it’s impossible to know. (4/8)

When 99% of homes are illegal, the only way to build new homes is a zoning variance, or a one-off exception to the law. This is an open admission that the law has failed. A law that is never followed – not for old homes, not for new homes – is no law. (2/8)

Going next door to 61 Royal St in Allston. It's a little newer, built in 1920. But it's also illegal under Boston's zoning code. (1/3)

61 Royal St has three dwelling units, over the maximum two allowed on the lot. It violates the height limit, with three stories instead of the maximum 2.5. It also has an egregiously illegal FAR: 1.75 instead of the maximum 0.6. (2/3)

This is a fine home! It provides housing to three families. But Boston law says it should be illegal. What do you think? (3/3)

57 Royal St in Allston is a pretty, three-story home built in 1895. But like 99% of Boston homes, it is illegal under Boston's zoning code. (1/4)

Worst of all, its floor-area ratio (FAR), or the total floor space divided by the total lot size, is 1.82 - over triple the maximum 0.6 FAR allowed. In other words, Boston's zoning would mandate a home three times smaller on this lot. (3/4)

57 Royal St is a perfectly fine house! It doesn't harm the neighborhood, and its residents clearly care about its upkeep. But Boston's laws say it should be illegal. What do you think? (4/4)

57 Royal St in Allston is a pretty, three-story home built in 1895. But like 99% of Boston homes, it is illegal under Boston's zoning code. (1/4)