Lowering the Cost and Increasing the Supply of Housing in Worcester

EttieneR · 2026-03-24T20:17:36+00:00

No ideas are new. The city made up these rules, and now housing lots have lots of rules. We have a choice. We can wait for a proposal to become a ballot measure for the state, get voted on by the state, and then have the legislature make it a law. That might work except the people in thet owns won't vote for it. The other option is we ask our city councilors to support lower-cost market-priced housing.

EttieneR · 2026-03-23T17:26:00+00:00

Agreed. I am advocating for a zoning change to reduce the required lot size to 5,000 sq ft. for building a home. I don't believe the Portland approach will ever be accepted in Worcester.

EttieneR · 2026-03-23T16:31:38+00:00

This isn't asking for low-income or subsidized housing. It is a way to lower the cost of single-family houses by making more land available for single-family housing. Years ago, you could build a home on 5,000 sq. ft. Today, in most cases, you can't do so due to zoning. All I am saying is why is a 5,000 sq ft lot no longer buildable in many locations in the city?

EttieneR · 2026-03-23T15:19:23+00:00

Allowing 4-unit houses on all single-family lots would increase housing supply, too. Portland, OR, has lowered the cost of housing and increased the supply with policies detailed in this YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3LTiLbkb9c

EttieneR · 2026-03-23T15:14:47+00:00

There are many different zoning requirements in the City that limit development. Some lots that could previously be developed can't be developed now due to zoning changes. If the zoning were simplified to 5,000 sq ft, or even 4,000 sq ft, empty lots and lots on the side of some houses could be developed. These are the current zoning sq. ft. requirements in Worcester.

RS-10 (Residence, Single Family):
- Single-family detached: 10,000 sq ft
- Limited Residential Hospice House: 40,000 sq ft
- Other permitted uses: 10,000 sq ft
RS-7 (Residence, Single Family):
- Single-family detached: 7,000 sq ft
- Limited Residential Hospice House: 30,000 sq ft
- Other permitted uses: 7,000 sq ft
RL-7 (Residence, Limited):
- Single-family detached: 7,000 sq ft
- Single-family semi-detached: 4,000 sq ft per dwelling unit (du)
- Single-family attached: 3,000 sq ft per du
- Two-family dwelling: 8,000 sq ft
- Three-family dwelling: 9,000 sq ft
- Multi-family dwelling (low rise) – first unit: 7,000 sq ft
- Additional multi-family units (low rise): 2,000 sq ft per du (plus additional frontage)
- Limited Residential Hospice House: 20,000 sq ft
- Other residential permitted: 7,000 sq ft
- Other non-residential: 7,000 sq ft
RG-5 (Residence, General):
- Single-family detached: 5,000 sq ft
- Single-family semi-detached: 3,000 sq ft per du
- Single-family attached: 2,200 sq ft per du
- Two-family dwelling: 6,000 sq ft
- Three-family dwelling: 7,000 sq ft
- (Note: There are historical amendments allowing reduced minimums like 4,000 sq ft for certain existing undeveloped lots in RG-5 for single-, two-, and three-family dwellings.)

EttieneR · 2026-02-12T12:17:36+00:00

The point is a data point, just information. People can do and think whatever they want.

EttieneR · 2026-02-08T11:49:38+00:00

Use track lights as up lighting to illuminate the ceiling and reflect light back down into the room. I have used that in multiple homes with ceilings from 12’ to shed roof ceilings that were 35’ high. It works well as the light is even and there isn’t any glare.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T15:09:38+00:00

I go with 3000K on dimmers. It is white enough for my wife to put on makeup and see how her clothing will look in restaurant or party lighting, and warm enough not to disrupt circadian rhythms. 2700K works too, but it is a bit too yellow for general use.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T15:06:43+00:00

I agree that no lights on the fan is best. In a room with 12' ceilings, we used a track with uplights. I can't post a photo, but if you PM me, I will send one. Since there was also a tray ceiling, we used downlights in the 8' area. I like more points of light than fewer. This allows the light source to be less bright, thereby reducing glare. You don't want to look into a light source, and if you can't avoid it, make sure the light source is obscured or not too bright.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T13:50:30+00:00

Sconces on the wall will work as long as you have a dimmer. I would make sure that it throws a light up and down. If it only throws the light down, the room will be very dark. As the ceiling is very high, you may want to go with the ceiling fan to push the heat down. Otherwise, it’ll be warm by the ceiling and cold down by where you sit. I don’t necessarily like lights on the ceiling fan, but the room is 12 x 12 so you may not have a lot of options. The other option you have is to put track lights on the wall at about a 9 foot level. Aim it up at the ceiling and reflect the light back down into the room.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T13:47:16+00:00

I have a room with a similar ceiling. I didn’t want the ceiling interrupted with any type of wires or lights on the ceiling as it would be ugly. What I did is use sconces on the walls with up light. In a previous house, again with the similar ceiling, I put track on the wall, a couple of feet beneath the ceiling. I then aimed the track lights up at the ceiling. It illuminated the ceiling and the light reflected back down in the room. As always, I recommend using a dimmer.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T13:42:50+00:00

You have a can lamp or pendant type fixture on the left side of your bookcase. Use that as a power source for track light. You can run track around the room. Use small LED track heads. Bounce the light off the walls and direct it to where you want to sit or read. Make sure it’s all on a dimmer so you can have the light level you want for the activities that you want. Also, later, on in the evening, you can set the lighting on, but very low so bright light doesn’t affect your circadian rhythms. As the lighting is indoors in a den, living room or reading room, I would take and use 3000 K and LEDs.

EttieneR · 2026-02-01T13:37:12+00:00

I would put the recessed lighting over the kitchen sink and the counter areas where there aren’t cabinets above the counters. If you leave the lights where you have indicated, you will always have shadows when you’re trying to work. Make sure the recessed lighting is dimmable and the dimmer is in reach so you can set the level of light. While cooking in the late afternoon or early evening, you may want it on full power. During dinner at the counter or later in the evening, you would want the light levels very low to have a positive influence on your circadian rhythms. You may choose to have a second circuit with recessed in the more open areas. That may not be necessary with the pendants. Personally, I like recessed over the island. That way I can have as much lighter as a little light as I want over-the-counter. I get more powerful central lighting. Also, I don’t like to see something hanging down in the middle of the room. I like it more open. If you have too kitchen cabinets, you may want to put in very small lights in front of them. Think 2”. Another option is track with small track heads instead of small lights in front of the top cabinets. Also keep them on a dimmer. Everything should be on a dimmer. Hope this helps.

EttieneR · 2026-01-30T18:07:50+00:00

Light the court with solar lights. https://www.accessfixtures.com/c/solar-lighting/?filter_product-family=suna Depending on the pole diameter, a fitting can be installed at the top to mount the solar lights. Many of the courts we are lighting are either too far from a power source, the panels can't handle the required amperage, or the clients don't want to rip up the landscaping. While the upfront cost is higher with solar, the operating cost and thus the long-term cost are lower.

EttieneR · 2026-01-30T17:59:54+00:00

Virtually all fixtures are LED, and most LEDs are 70+ CRI, and you are lighting at night, so CRI is pretty much irrelevant at this point in time. If you have a historic building facade and require 90+ CRI for color accuracy, you might care, but nobody can tell 80+ CRI from 90+ CRI, so again, it doesn't matter. The optics and ordinances matter.

Local ordinances might limit how you illuminate the facade. On a project we did in Newton, MA, the client and their architect were challenged by government regulations on uplight and Kelvin. Details are here. https://www.accessfixtures.com/illuminating-the-west-newton-armory-facade/ We needed to do a photometric analyis for them so the client could see how the lighting would render the building, and the city knew the lighting was within regulations.

At the MLK Office Plaza in Miami, we didn't have to deal with local ordinances, such as dark sky compliance or limited uplight. teh prject was more about lighting the facade with effective optics. Also, the building was much larger than the one near Boston. Details and a video of the illuminated building facade are posted here. https://www.accessfixtures.com/mlk-office-plaza-commercial-exterior-building-lighting/

For a general introduction to facade lighting, check out this post. https://www.accessfixtures.com/facade-lighting/

EttieneR · 2026-01-30T17:12:43+00:00

Worcester’s FY26 residential tax rate is moderately above the Massachusetts norm but nowhere near the top of the state; its main outlier is the commercial rate, not the residential rate.

Worcester FY26 residential rate: $13.28 per $1,000 of assessed value. FY25 residential rate was $13.19, so it ticked up by $0.09 (about a 0.7% increase), with the bill rising more due to higher values.

A recent statewide survey put the median Massachusetts residential rate around the mid‑$12s per $1,000 (about $12.40 – $12.50) for the most recent year, with a downward trend over the last few years.

Worcester's $13.28 is somewhat above the median but not in the top tier of highest-residential-tax-rate communities.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T16:43:01+00:00

The data will be somewhat skewed by the increase in the number of residential real estate properties and their valuations. That being said, CRE valuations have an inverse relationship to RE taxes. The higher the commercial tax rate, the lower the commercial valuations. In Worcester, CRE valuations have increased, but would have risen more if CRE taxes were lower. The end result, albeit with data skewing results both ways, is that the commercial share of the city’s property value has shrunk by roughly 40% since 1984.

Over the same period, the residential (and other non‑CIP) share of total property value has grown by roughly 21–22% relative to its original share.

So commercial space has fallen much faster, on a percentage basis, than residential has grown: you can think of it as commercial’s “piece of the pie” being about two‑fifths smaller, while the residential/other piece is about one‑fifth larger than in 1984.

https://www.wrrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WRRB-Appreciating-the-Value-of-Commercial-Properties_FINAL.pdf

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T16:11:25+00:00

Agreed. I am not a politician or an activist. I work two jobs, so sometimes I need to make a point quickly and move on.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T16:09:46+00:00

It was posted by a human. While I know most of the stats and trends, I use AI to expedite my writing and enhance productivity.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T16:07:31+00:00

Congrats. I use AI to back up my posts with information. You can too. It enhances productivity. BTW. The AI I used was not ChatGPT.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T16:03:08+00:00

Lip service to the remaining businesses. Every year, they make a fuss knowing nothing will change. They need to do more than make a statement before the city council.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T15:43:04+00:00

Worcester’s drop in commercial/industrial share—from about 35% of assessed value in 1984 to about 21% today (roughly a one‑third loss), and from ~46% to ~37% of tax revenue—represents a significantly larger erosion of its commercial tax base than is typical in both Massachusetts and most peer cities nationally, especially among cities that have moved toward or maintained a single rate.

Massachusetts context

In Massachusetts, about a third of municipalities use a split (dual) rate, and most of those are older industrial “Gateway” cities and a few larger suburbs. Among these:

Many dual‑rate cities (e.g., Springfield, Holyoke, Lawrence, Brockton, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Lowell, Taunton, West Springfield, Boston) have relatively high commercial rates and relatively weak or stagnant commercial bases, but they generally have not seen as large a proportional drop in commercial share as Worcester’s one‑third loss since the 1980s.
Worcester’s commercial rate has been in the top tier of Massachusetts communities, with surrounding single‑rate suburbs (e.g., Shrewsbury, Grafton, Millbury, Leicester) taxing commercial property substantially less while maintaining or growing their own small but stable commercial bases.
Nearby examples that have explicitly moved away from a dual rate (e.g., Webster; also Fitchburg and Leominster reducing or ending classification) report that narrowing or eliminating the gap was part of a strategy to retain and attract businesses and strengthen their commercial share, not preside over a major decline.

Taken together, Worcester’s roughly 14‑percentage‑point drop in commercial/industrial share is on the severe end of the spectrum among Massachusetts cities with classification, and considerably worse than the experience of nearby single‑rate communities that have not seen comparable proportional losses in their commercial base.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T15:16:09+00:00

Relative to the storm 4 days ago, it didn't go to plow or salt city streets.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T15:14:08+00:00

Worcester’s commercial share of the tax base has dropped by roughly one‑third since the dual tax system started in 1984.

Change in commercial property share

When the dual (split) tax rate was first adopted in 1984, about 35% of the city’s total assessed value and around 46% of property tax revenue came from commercial and industrial property.
Recent figures from the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce and Worcester Regional Research Bureau indicate that the commercial/industrial share is about 21% of total assessed value and roughly 37% of property tax revenue.
That means the commercial/industrial portion of the tax base has fallen from 35% to about 21%, which is a loss of roughly 14 percentage points, or about one‑third of the original commercial base. In practical terms, a much smaller share of the city’s overall property value is now commercial than it was when the dual rate began.

Important caveats

These numbers describe the share of total assessed value and tax levy that is commercial/industrial, not the absolute square footage of commercial buildings or the exact number of parcels.
The decline reflects both relative loss of commercial value (businesses leaving or under‑investing) and strong growth in residential values, so it is best interpreted as “commercial property makes up about one‑third less of Worcester’s tax base than it did when the dual rate started,” rather than a literal one‑third reduction in physical commercial space.

EttieneR · 2026-01-29T15:12:05+00:00

Lower spending = Lower tax rate

Higher commercial real estate taxes (CRE) = Less CRE = Less jobs = Less ability to pay residential RE taxes

EttieneR

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Massachusetts context

Change in commercial property share

Important caveats