Curtis Kemeny
Title: President and CEO, Boston Residential Group
Age: 51
Experience: 11 years
A former project manager and consultant, Kemeny founded Boston Residential Group in 2003, helping to build and manage residential developments in some of Boston’s most prominent locations, including the Navy Yard, Newbury Street and, most recently, a 48-unit loft-style development currently underway in the Fort Point neighborhood. A veteran of many a lengthy permitting battle, he spoke with Banker & Tradesman about what it will take for the city to achieve its ambitious housing development goals over the coming decade.
Q: It seems like building middle-class housing in the Boston area is a subject that’s getting a lot of attention recently. Both recent mayors have come out with plans to build more considerably more housing in Boston over the next decade, one of which you helped contribute to. Do you feel like policymakers are finally waking up to this issue?
A: We’re starting to recognize that we have a problem, and the problem is that we really don’t have a mechanism in the market for creating housing that’s targeted to the middle class. I think the fact that we’re starting to have a conversation about that is a very important thing. I think we’re starting to get our arms around the scope of the problem – it’s important that people recognize why they should care. And when you have a city that’s experiencing this growth level that we haven’t seen since the 1950s, there’s a demand for all types of housing, but especially middle-class housing. If we can only create that on an exceptional basis, that means that there’s a whole category of people who might want to live in our city that are being potentially priced out, and I think that’s not a winning formula for any world-class city.
Q: One reform that’s been suggested is revamping Boston’s antiquated zoning laws in order to get projects moving quicker. But some developers don’t seem all that excited about the prospect. What’s your take?
A: It’s a very interesting issue, but I think you have to put it in context … What would be helpful would be if every project were not just a one-off negotiation with the community. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of a zoning framework that changes the conversation with the neighborhood during the project. Anything that invites more transparency and less risk for developers would be a good thing. Because it lowers the cost, and it also lowers the time associated with getting things permitted.
I don’t think wholesale zoning reform is required; I do think to the extent that [policymakers] want to encourage developers to focus on certain neighborhoods, or want focus on certain areas, near public transportation for example, if [they] want to work with neighborhood advocates to support those efforts, to me that’s helpful. Because then you’re not having developers proposing things that the neighborhood with never go for, and having these long, drawn-out conversations about how to scope projects that, frankly, just make sense, like middle-class housing close to public transportation.
Q: You mentioned scope there. Sometimes it’s the financing environment that ends up determining what the scope of the project will be, because of what types of projects people are willing to fund – and that can change quite rapidly. How does that tie into this?
A: Well, when I say framework, I don’t think it should be proscriptive, something that limits a developer’s ability to negotiate with the neighborhood. But if we have a basic framework in place, so that we can say, in Dorchester, near public transportation, in this zone, we have a basic starting point that developing five-story housing with low parking ratios is welcome, and the neighborhood will support those kinds of concepts, the specifics of how you execute those concepts on that site is [to be determined]. But the basic framework is there, so that if a developer comes in and proposes a project, the neighborhood’s starting position isn’t, “You’re not going to do anything there other than a single-family house.” Because if that’s the starting point, it’s a long, long road to get to a point where you [can get neighbors to accept] the kind of middle-income housing that could make a lot of sense, for the city and for that neighborhood.
Q: What are some other issue you think are an obstacle to building more middle-income housing?
A: [I think a big concern is] can we get the construction industry to be a partner in this? By giving developers a more advantaged rate for labor and materials if they’re working on certain types of projects? For example, if you’re doing low-rise, stick-built housing … instead of high-rise steel, is there a different formula the construction trade could use to calculate some of the costs? That to me is a much more important driver of the construction cost issue than infrastructure.
Top Four Constraints On Building Middle-Class Housing Near Boston:
- Expensive land
- Lengthy permitting process
- Construction costs
- Financing costs
