To the editor,
The letter that appeared in the Swellesley Report last week (“Wellesley’s identity is not negotiable,” 6/5/26) sows an objectionable narrative about what makes Wellesley desirable as a place to live. It speculates, completely without evidence, that young families would overlook Wellesley as a place to live if “out-of-character” multifamily housing is built here. It also bills single-family homes as the key to sustaining “property values, school funding, and civic life.”
Census data show that, between 2020 and 2025, Wellesley issued building permits for at least 482 multifamily units, certainly a fast pace by historical standards. Over that time, the median value of a single-family home in town increased by 52% and the public school district budget increased by 29%. As for civic life? A quick search on EventBrite turns up wine tastings and networking events hosted at The Nines.
These new multifamily buildings are incredibly desirable places to live, full of modern amenities and services. Terrazza has a golf simulator and a pet spa. Most of Wellesley’s new multifamily homes have leased up or sold quickly, attracting not only young new families but also downsizing seniors who lived elsewhere in Wellesley previously.
Nor are single-family homes the secret sauce that makes a community desirable. Niche.com ranks Brookline as the “#1 best suburb to live in in Massachusetts” (Wellesley is #10). About 18% of Brookline’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes, compared to 82% in Wellesley. Brookline also has higher-ranked public schools than Wellesley and shares our designation as a Tree City USA.
Moreover, Wellesley has a long history of building multifamily housing dating back more than 100 years, from mixed-use buildings on Grove Street to duplexes on Walnut Street. Wellesley is no more a “single-family town” than the United States is a “Christian nation”—our people and our housing stock have long been defined by plurality.
Incredibly, last week’s letter also advocates for Wellesley to fight against the planned 180 homes at 40 Oakland Street in the same breath as it applauds Town Meeting’s support for negotiating with the state over the same project. Its author ignores the will of Town Meeting while using its vote as preemptive cover for accusations of NIMBYism.
I understand that many Wellesley residents find the state’s leverage over the MassBay project daunting. But we need to lead with what is best for our community, not spite for the “state’s agenda” or speculative fear over “the next mandate.”
The author of last week’s letter may think that building the MassBay project would make Wellesley less desirable, but it’s far from clear that the “on-the-margin” home buyers he writes about would agree. And for the vast majority of families who can’t afford to buy a $2 million single-family home, projects like MassBay could be the only thing making it possible to live in Wellesley.
In my opinion, the strength of Wellesley’s character lies in her people, not in a certain type of building. Refusing to build multifamily housing locks out many people who would bolster our community’s identity as welcoming, inclusive, and a great place to raise a family.
Sincerely,
Andrew Mikula
