A new “group” calling itself Newton Villages Alliance had an op-ed in the TAB this week (it does not appear to be online yet) and has just launched a rather impressive looking website. I haven’t had much time to review it, although I think its fair to say the philosophy seems to be: anti-development, preserve Newton as it is.
The individual or individuals behind the website don’t seem to list his/her/their names on the site, always unfortunate in my view.
Check it out and report back. And if you’re part of the NVA please share more about your goals, objectives and the size of your organization.
I’d be interested in knowing how they determined this: “most residents chose Newton precisely for its suburban qualities, not because they hope to see it grow ever more urban.”
I’d be willing to agree that many who live in Chestnut Hill would agree with that statement, but not those who chose to live in Newton Centre. We choose Newton Centre because we could walk to shops, our kids’ school and the T. If we’d wanted to live in a suburb, we wouldn’t have chosen Newton.
Many of Newton’s villages don’t strike me as suburbs, which I see as a residential community. “1. a district lying immediately outside a city or town, especially a smaller residential community.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suburb
At least one supporter can be clearly identified by the domain name registration, using GoDaddy or a similar service.
@Greg, thank you for posting this so I don’t have to! I was both debating whether it would be a little self-serving, and hoping the column in the Tab would go up online to link to. (It still hasn’t.)
I’m one of the people involved, as anyone who reads the West Newton and Trees & Open Space pages should be able to figure out from the subject matter. I’ll let the others identify themselves as they wish, but will just say they’re from all the villages of Newton, and there are some impressive researchers and dedicated meeting-goers among them!
I wasn’t looking for another activity to get involved in, as trees and blogging and my sort-of-paying job in journalism take up a lot of time. The main reason I decided to squeeze one more activity into days that are too short is this: It occurred to me that if a tornado wiped out all the trees in Newton, we could eventually replant them. But the smaller and medium size houses that are being replaced with bigger houses will be gone forever; we’ll never get them back. If noone does anything, we’ll become a city of 3,500 s.f. houses and the people who can afford them, instead of the diverse and even eclectic people I’ve met in the course of tree planting. There wouldn’t be any small houses left for people like me.
And the public land we lose will be gone forever. I think the historical experience has been that we’re a lot better off when the city retains it public land and buildings, or the right to reclaim them (e.g. Carr, Bigelow), than when we give them up (Warren Junior High). Overlooked in the debate over Austin Street, for example, is that the city wants to ‘surplus’ much of the Crescent Street property, in a part of the city that could really use more public open space. The Parks & Rec Commission I believe wants to keep it open space. The Newton Conservators want to keep it open space; it was a topic at their recent annual dinner. Personally, I’d like to see a community garden there for the north side of the city.
There is a lot to keep track of, and I hope NVA will be an information resource for the people I’ve met who aren’t happy about the teardowns and mega-developments, but feel helpless to do anything about it. And you don’t have to agree with everything on the website to want to know what’s going on.
Julia: Thanks for the comment. Knowing that you’re involved raises the group’s credibility significantly since I know you aren’t just an armchair critic; you actively volunteer for the issues your passionate about.
All of which makes me wonder why there is no membership list here. In this age of super PACS and soft money we see too many anonymous political web sites and lobby groups on the state and national level. That’s certainly not something we want to encourage locally. I’m not suggesting there are devious motives here but this is a well designed and thoughtfully assembled site. I can only imagine not including names was intentional and not an oversight.
I’m all for preserving trees and parks and opposing ugly McMansion architecture.
But I don’t agree with NVA’s critical stance against, for example, the Riverside and Wells Ave. developments, which would replace 1) an underutilized parking lot next to an eight-lane interstate highway, and 2) a fitness club in a god-awful asphalt desert (it’s a great place to learn to drive on the weekends, though!).
I’m also disappointed at the website’s lack of advocacy for public transit. The “Traffic Impacts” page just seems to throw up one’s arms and say that everyone’s always going to always drive their cars 5 times a day, so the only hope is to prevent the number of people in town. Oufff; depressing! Although I grew up here, I’ve lived in Canada, Germany, and France and when I’m walking or cycling past the traffic jams on Centre St., or Parker Rd., or Nahanton St., I really can’t fathom how the people of this town find it acceptable or enjoyable to spend their days sitting in their gas-guzzlers crawling along at 5 mph.
To that end, I propose reliable public transport to every village, every 30 minutes from 6am to 12pm, including Saturdays and Sundays. Is NVA with me on this one?
Likewise, I’m concerned when several causes I care deeply about — preserving historic architecture, open space, and trees — are lumped in with blanket opposition to smart development and preserving parking lots. I feel like good causes have been co-opted by Austin Street opponents here. We can all agree to disagree about what smart development is, but what’s to love about this picture and what does parking lot preservation mean to the villages we love so much? Is there any development NVA would support? How about taking a position on the Comprehensive Plan used to drive such developments? Yea or nay?
I agree with Michael that NVA’s stance on transportation seems ignorant — no mention of Complete Streets, parking management, public transportation, Safe Routes to Schools, etc. as solutions — and that a gym on Wells Ave isn’t something to preserve. The 40B proposed to replace it would be a disaster for the city, for reasons already discussed, but I thought that project was DOA, so why is it even there? See also the discussion on Needham profiting from business development… shouldn’t Newton do the same by increasing commercial density on Wells Ave?
First of all, unless I know who “we” are, I can’t take group seriously, even if it addresses one of my greatest concerns-replacing modest size houses with mega-houses. Julie, it’s admirable that you’ve come forward and identified yourself, but until the others in the group do the same, it will go nowhere. The concern isn’t who the individual members are, but their reluctance to include their names as part of an organization.
I’m always concerned when assumptions are made about why people move to Newton. In truth, I moved here because it is a city, with urban amenities: subway and commuter rail access, major museums and the theatre district nearby, economic diversity, and a willingness to grow and change with the times. I would never have been happy in a suburb.
Adam, I loved that picture of the parking lot because I don’t like circling around and around to find a space, and I also have trouble carrying a lot of things while walking, so I only shop places where I know I can safely find a place to park.
Adam, the Wells Avenue project is very much alive. The developer is preparing to file for a deed restriction amendment to allow residential development. I believe that the right kind of residential development at that site would be a good thing for Wells Avenue and the city. But it is the wrong place for a 40B and affordable housing, since it is nowhere near public transit or a village center with amenities like schools, a post office, grocery store, pharmacy, etc.. I would like to see the developer build affordable units somewhere else in the city that is more suitable, but it is not clear whether that is possible with a 40B.
Lassy, can’t you also park in a garage or a lot under a building, sheltered from the elements?
Ted, would a deed restriction amendment be at the discretion of the city, or is this part of a 40B a developer could force on us? As an office park it’s an awkward place for residential development of any sort… why the deed restriction makes so much sense in the first place. Why do the transportation limitations you list apply only to low-income residents? Wells Avenue is one of few places we have to bring in commercial tax revenue. Why wouldn’t Newton want to profit from the new add-a-lane exit, the way Needham is?
I love the “How your Alderman are voting” feature.
There’s always much confusion about the who, what, where of Newton activities and any clarity brought to the table is welcome whether we agree wholeheartedly with the organization’s mission or not.
But transparency is key. Post the board and/or founders and spokesman.
It’s reassuring knowing that Julia is involved, but why the secrecy?
I agree with Adam above in that the group looks aimed to address a lot of issues I care about, including preserving existing affordable housing, reducing teardowns/conversion to McMansions, historic architecture, open space, and trees, but may be lumping in some of the solutions to those issues as problems.
There’s also another item – The name Newton Villages is already in use by another group that I helped start, active since 2009 and (I believe) still a registered 501c3. I suspect that the choice of the name Newton Villages Alliance will likely cause quite a bit of confusion.
I second Chris’s point about some common goals around many good things in the Garden City, but also as a founding member of Newton Villages, I think the NVA should reconsider it’s name. Our two groups ought not to be confused due to such a similar name. The goals seem similar, but the means to those goals are quite different. Neither group will benefit from the name confusion. Perhaps the two groups can hammer out what we’ve got in common and work from there!
Maybe they should rename themselves CAVE? Citizens Against Virtually Everything? 🙂 And this could be their theme song!
Yes, I’m being flip. But the more I think about it, the more annoyed I’m becoming with this group’s anonymity. It’s easy to criticize from behind a curtain and more than a little disingenuous to ask people to join a steering committee without divulging who’s on it.
Andrea & Chris, maybe Newton Villages should consider changing its name so as not to be confused with the newtonvillages.org home improvement website. 😉 Anyone want to rent a dumpster? There’s a link!
Julia- Newton Villages, as we still call ourselves, let that url domain go without realizing it was up. We had a great website! Our Board and Steering Committee is comprised of people who’s names are attached to it, totally transparent. We are a filed 501c3 under that name, many years ago. We still go by that name; as recently as this late winter co-sponsored a forum on Austin Street at the Union Church in Waban as Newton Villages. When we write letters to elected officials, the City staff, the TAB, etc. we go by Newton Villages. Though Greg, CAVE sounds like it may be a fit for the alliance!?
Greg, I stole CAVE people first! How about the BANANAs (“Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”)?
Seriously, when folks get up and tell the BOA that they want to save their village and that they would love more parking rather than more people, I am startled by the irony. First of all, they don’t seem to know that this is what our villages used to look like. And secondly, they just don’t seem to understand that what is actually ruining our villages is too many automobiles, not too many human beings.
Adam, the developer wants to do a 40B at Wells Avenue, which trumps local zoning restrictions, but there is a legal question whether a deed restriction, which is not a zoning restriction, trumps 40B. So my understanding is that the developer is going to apply for the deed restriction from the BOA and a 40B comprehensive permit from the ZBA.
Take a look at what this same developer did in Cambridge with Atmark. In Newton, the developer wants to attract the “talented young innovative workforce” as residents, who would work within walking distance of the innovative companies that Wells Avenue needs and wants to attract to survive. (Not for nothing, but Wells Avenue is almost half vacant.) This alone would eliminate a lot of vehicle trips to and from the site.
My problem with the 40B route is that for the most part, families that are looking for affordable housing in Newton (under a 40B 25% of the units would have to be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income) are not going to be part of the “talented young innovative workforce” who would be likely to walk to work at the Wells Avenue Office Park, and more likely than not will have to get into their cars to get to work since there is little or no public transit nearby.
No disrespect, but the “Snoop Dog Makes Mashed Potatoes with Martha Stewart” video on newtonvillages.org is amazing!
Chris & Andrea,
Your organization, Newton Villages, Inc. was formed in August of 2010. According to the Dept. of Corporations you have not submitted any filings or updated annual reports since then. As a neutral observer with no dog in the fight, I’d suggest that you might want to confirm that your charter hasn’t been revoked or determine whether there is an issue with your filings. I believe that the Secretary of State may revoke a non-profit’s charter for failure to file for 2 consecutive years.
As for confusion, the term “Newton villages” is used so widely that I don’t think anyone can stake any proprietary claim to it. Each of your organizations has an interest in making sure you are not confused with the other.
Folks, here’s the link to the column.
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20140523/NEWS/140527895
Please feel free to email me if you want TAB content posted, and it’s not yet appeared. I’ll do my best to help out.
@Emily thanks. So we now know that “John Koot, a resident of Newton Highlands, and Isabelle Albeck, a resident of Waban, are members of the Newton Villages Alliance.” Still puzzled as to why that’s a secret on their website.
Ted, you should have chosen a different picture for your example. The picture of West Newton from 100 years ago shows 3 buildings that have all been replaced. The 4-story Odd Fellows Hall now has a single story commercial building. The old City Hall is now a park. And the 3-story 2nd Congregational Church (with a 6-story steeple) is now the 2-story police station.
Someone in a leadership position back then decided that Newton would not become another urban, high-rise place like Cambridge, at least in that small part of our city.
On the other hand, I find your observations about the potential dynamics of a 40B at Wells Avenue very interesting. I agree with your theory about who may, or may not, live there. If there is to be a residential aspect to any development at Wells Avenue, maybe someone will think to build an elementary school within the development to address the growing student population in the southern part of Newton. JMO.
Patrick, that’s one theory. Another is that cheap, one-story structures appeared in our village centers over time because of economics and the sprawl encouraged by automobiles, not because of some master city plan.
Patrick, I could also have used this or this photo.
I think your assumptions about the changes to West Newton are not necessarily correct. The City Hall was demolished after the new one was built in Newton Centre. The Congregational Church was demolished after the beautiful Second Church designed by Ralph Cram (who also designed the First Unitarian Society in Newton’s church building across from the old City Hall) was constructed on Highland Avenue on the other side of the railroad tracks.
The Odd Fellows Block was demolished and replaced in 1910, but it is not clear to me that city leadership had anything to do with it, since there was no planning department let alone any zoning ordinances until decades later. In addition, there is a 3-story apartment building on Elm Street built that same year just behind the single story commercial building on the corner of Washington Street that is similar in scale to the Odd Fellows Block. Likewise, the multi-story commercial building on the corner of Waltham and Washington Streets, which is also similar in scale to the Odd Fellows Block, was built ten years later in 1920. And that wonderful old 3-1/2 story Federal style building standing on the corner of Washington and Watertown Streets was built in the early 1800s.
But in any event, in my opinion, the streetscape was far more vibrant and appealing then than it is now, with the rather utilitarian and unremarkable single story buildings and government buildings in West Newton (i.e., the Police Station and the District Court). The older photo shows West Newton in its heyday. While I am looking forward to the addition of multi-story mixed used buldings on Elm and Cherry Street, a number of the tired old buildings in West Newton could seriously use an upgrade.
O.M.G.! Michael, thank you for that! I didn’t scroll that far down. Tears streaming down my face laughing so hard.
Ted, I was commenting on the example you offered for consideration. Given the three examples you have now presented, I would question the need for any buildings given the paucity of people in the photos.
I am not an experienced suburban planner. I agree with you that West Newton would benefit from an upgrade to the commercial buildings. I would hope the upgrades would be kept within the same scale and scope as that of the police and court buildings. I like the image they present. To me they create an image of a vibrant and fiscally responsible village that is not trying to overbuild.
I am not a member of Newton Villages Alliance and have not been approached by anyone to become a member; but I was in the West Roxbury Roche Brothers store this morning and ran into a friend from Oak Hill who was present at an actual meeting the organization held this past week.
She thinks that concerns about the group’s anonymity, or fears that a secret cabal is festering in our villages are greatly overblown. It seems, there are no secret passwords, special handshakes, or hidden agenda; just a lot of people (some of them prominent) from all parts of Newton who don’t like what’s happening with development in their neighborhoods and villages.
What propels this opposition is bad feelings from what they have personally experienced from several specific development projects in Newton. This is coupled with the feeling that developers can do pretty much as they want to maximize their profits regardless of the harm or disruption that this causes to entire streets and neighborhoods.
I live next to a new 7,000 sq. foot house that replaced an 1,800 square foot house on a 14,000 square foot piece of land. There are no villains in this story. The developer made a special effort to make certain that nothing he was doing would unduly disrupt our daily life. I also can understand why the Mayor and anyone else at City Hall tasked with balancing and enhancing Newton’s budget processes would welcome something like this new house onto the City’s tax rolls, particularly since the new residents send their kids to private schools. This is obviously a financial win-win for the City.
For us, however, it’s a mixed blessing at best. Sure, the value of our property has gone up, partially as a result of having this new house right next to us; but it’s likely our tax bill will also go up which, as retirees, will ironically hit us with the same kind of budget pressures the City complains about. The new house also came with a huge 8 foot tall fence around the back of the property and a 12 foot high hedge in the middle of the two driveways that separate our properties. For 70 plus years, we had constant interaction and real friendships with the families that lived in the now demolished 1,800 square foot house. Over the years, we shared birthdays, anniversaries, lawn mowers, snow blowers and a range of other things, and we also shared magnificent views of the Sudbury Aqueduct that ran right next to the other house. Those interactions and views are now completely gone and there’s a profound sense of being isolated from neighbors on the rest of the street. The new neighbors are very nice and responsive and one of them actually told me they would have preferred something smaller, but took this because of it’s location in the Highlands next to the aqueduct. The fact, though is that we live in vastly different worlds and the fence and hedge make it difficult even to say hello to each other.
I bring up our particular experience not to complain; quite the opposite. This is nothing compared to a neighborhood of smaller homes that suddenly gets hit with a huge McMansion type house on a small lot with a large fence. The common assumption was that almost everyone in these neighborhoods would welcome this new development because of the increases it would cause to property values. It turns out that this is not, at all, true. You see, a lot of these people, particularly older folks like me, want to stay in these homes as long as they can. Higher and higher property taxes, water bills and utility costs may make that impossible for many of those that would like to stay. And there’s the dislocation and isolation that dramatic change in the form of much larger and walled off structures causes to a neighborhood’s cohesiveness, openness and, yes, feelings of pride and self worth.
If you think that what I’m writing is not accurate or reflective of what a whole lot of people in these areas are really thinking, it probably means you don’t live on a street or in a neighborhood where these changes are taking place. It also probably means you will have difficulty understanding where the depth of the impetus for the Newton Villages Alliance comes from and how deep the roots of this organization may ultimately go.
We need clear guidelines, a regulatory framework and strong inspections and oversight so that development projects can take place that don’t dismember or isolate whole streets and neighborhoods but still provide a reasonable return to developers.
Credibility is the real issue at stake here. We listened with interest to the hearing about Austin Street on Newton Television the other evening. I heard people that I genuinely like and respect, give passionate and persuasive testimony on both sides of the issue. I was particularly moved by the testimony that was given on behalf of Justine Cohen, the owner of Down Under Yoga on Walnut Street. She and several other merchants are firmly convinced that parking restrictions during construction are going to hurt their businesses badly, maybe even drive them out of business. The City and the prospective contractor have insured them that this will not be the case. I think there was a time when these assurances would have been taken as gospel. This is no longer the case and the bulk of this skepticism can be traced right back to the experiences that many residents have had how their neighborhoods and streets have been impacted by development projects in recent years.
I’m with Michael. Another thoughtful, well-presented comment from Bob Burke.
I agree with many here (including Julia, who acknowledged here that she’s part of this group) who’ve said they agree with some but not all of the stands articulated on NVA’s website and the TAB column. And I absolutely agree with NVA’s overall philosophy that this needs to be city-wide conversation, not a series of village by village skirmishes.
But Bob did this person you spoke with explain the anonymity?
That’s the part I still don’t get. How can you have a productive conversation with someone or a group who aren’t willing to step forward?
Oh and for everyone’s convenience here’s that video that appears on NewtonVillages.org web site.
@Bob Burke – That’s a very thoughtful post. It’s difficult to disagree with anything that you’ve said. I’m generally supportive of development (and averse to ugly old parking lots), but it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the primary goal of most new projects is to maximize the profits of the developers, not societal improvement. And our elected officials, though usually well-intentioned, get the balance wrong sometimes.
The secret handshakes come in election years. Then we all wonder why the endorsements look like a copy and paste.
@Greg. No she didn’t. I don’t think it dawned on her until I raised the question in the fruit and vegetable section while scoffing up a huge clump of bananas.
@Hoss. It’s not the secret handshakes or passwords I wonder about. It’s when any group gets so set in its beliefs that it sends up white smoke through a chimney at the end of a meeting.
Bob Burke, very well stated; thank you. You do speak for a quiet, yet concerned, group of long time Newton residents, who do care about our future here. We speak through our votes.
Newton’s uniqueness is not because we are more affluent than other surrounding communities, nor because our schools are better, nor because our citizens are more intelligent or generous with our money and volunteer time. Newton’s uniqueness comes from the situation that while we are the aggregate size of a good size city, which provides many of the positive attributes and resources of such, we are still able to experience the village concept of community. Newton’s proximity to urban Boston, while offering a village community life experience is what has made Newton attractive. Let’s continue to improve that image.
We have already lost the village library infrastructure, and the SC seems bound to oppose the village grade school concept in favor of larger, centralized buildings. There also seems to be a growing number of vocal people, who see Newton as becoming an urban extension of Boston, Brookline and Cambridge (from which we separated 325 years ago). While I do not oppose suburban development in general, I, for one, do not want to see Newton evolve into any of those above mentioned cities.
Mega commercial and mixed use developments should not be the primary answer offered by our elected officials for solving the incorrect financial decisions made by prior administrations.
And Michael, your amendment to Bob’s comment is spot on.
While clearly I do not require anonymity (and currently have none), I sympathize with those who feel the need. Stories of cars getting keyed, tires getting slashed and lawns getting TP-ed or worse. Children who carry the burden of their parents’ reputation and have no hope of staying under the radar because their name is recognized.
No matter how popular the view one may represent, in a city as large and diverse as Newton, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees and isn’t afraid to say so or demonstrate so … and not always in peaceful ways.
It seems absurd in a city as well educated as ours. We pride ourselves for our open mindedness and tolerance. But these stories are true and recent.
I have been speaking with many people about running for office lately. And this aversion to public attacks has rated high … even more so than before.
I came across this article that prompted me to do a little more research and post my recent thread. I wonder how much of this has fed into the need for many members of this group to remain anonymous.
What Greer said. Politics at our local level can be extremely mean-spirited. Sometimes people just disagree, that doesn’t necessarily make one side moral and the other immoral.
As for this group forming, I’m not surprised at all. During my campaign last year I heard many people complain about overdevelopment and the feeling that our elected officials aren’t doing enough to preserve open space or prevent teardowns of affordable houses. There are well established groups promoting density and development, but until now there had been nothing to represent an alternative viewpoint, so this group has stepped in to fill the void.
It’s Democracy 101.
The group isn’t entirely shrouded in secrecy. A five second google search will disclose the registrant of the site, and as individuals feel comfortable I suspect they will self identify. I’m frankly more interested in the value of the position than the individual who holds it.
Greg Reibman writes ” Maybe they should rename themselves CAVE? Citizens Against Virtually Everything? 🙂 And this could be their theme song! Yes, I’m being flip.”
Whoa there, Greg! In another post you castigated me for a comment you considered immature. You wrote “Hey Bob. How about if we all agree now to have a mature conversation about this.”
It appears you don’t believe that you have to live by the same rules. That tells me something about your standards. Thanks for the enlightenment.