With so much of the discussion here and elsewhere regarding the project at Austin Street focused on parking, this rendering of the proposed project (in red and yellow, click on the image for a larger view) relative to the existing lot and surroundings may help illustrate the most recent plans for project.
The most recent proposal calls for a minimum of 100 public parking spaces (with modern meters which will accept credit cards) at street level and additional parking underground for the all of the building’s residents.
UPDATE: The image below shows the full foot print of the building (without showing all the public street level parking which lies under part of the building)
So what do you think? Does this plan take up too much of the Austin Street parking lot?
The parking below is for all of the residents, meaning that if 3 licensed drivers live in a unit they get 3 parking spots? How does that work, exactly?
Strikes me as a lot of pavement and a relatively small footprint. Makes one wonder why the structure can’t be built over the parking lot and have less height. Also, can’t help but notice all the underutilized private parking in all directions (Shaw’s, Rockland, Bram Way)
My understanding is that resident parking spaces don’t automatically come with each unit; residents would have to pay more for parking. I’m assuming overnight parking would be banned in the public lot to keep residents from using the spaces?
This post is very misleading, Greg. Yes, there are supposed to be 100 parking spaces on grade on the lot, 85 owned by Newton and that seems like plenty. But to say the proposed building footprint is in red and yellow makes it appear much smaller than it will be if built. It will cover most of the lot and still have parking for Newtonville. Why not be up front about the size?
Bram Way is labeled as “Plaza” but is actually just a re paved Bram Way that has the same curb cut and is the entrance to the lot just as it is now. A “living road” that is for cars, bikes and pedestrians.
Lassy, in this proposal the parking for the residents is underground, yes. There are a proposed 80 parking spaces underground that will be divided between residents, who can purchase a space, and employees of the retail establishments. It does not say how the division will be made. The driveway entrance to the 80 proposed underground parking spaces is marked on the left of the rendering.
Adam, actually it covers most of the lot. It appears that the proposed development has a small footprint because of its being labeled as red and yellow. This is a rendering of the upper floors which not only include the part that is red and yellow, but also include the vague black dashed lines that extend toward the back of the lot and to the side of the lot on the border of Rockland Trust. The cars within the black dashed lines parked on the lot are under the buildings upper floors but are still on grade.
I don’t know what parking owned by Rockland Trust, Shaws and the building that encompasses Bram Way’s lot have to do with this.
@Marti: If I’m misrepresenting the illustration, it’s not intentional. I assumed that was the footprint, still do given I’m pretty sure the retail, restaurants and lobby are on the first floor and that’s what’s labeled. Maybe someone with the developer team can clarify.
see p. 47 for the birds eye view I didn’t realize the dashed line extended all the way to Rockland Trust. A lot of the building mass is there. True, it does cover a lot of the parking lot.
But when different businesses have their own private lots with different peak usage times, the inefficiency is clear. Long-term planning should seek to improve on this. In the short-term, pricing the parking resource properly can help fix the problem.
Still, that’s an awful lot of pavement. Parking lot lovers ought to be pleased.
Greg, it is very hard for me to believe that you support a development you know so little about that you need someone from the developer’s team to clarify. I would think the president of the chamber would have been quite involved.
In fact, I think you know you are correct about the (literal footprint) proposed retail, restaurant and lobby being on the ground floor and that you know the next three floors “hang over” most of the rest of the parking lot creating quite a mass. The developer himself, Scot Oran, has already been quite clear.
As Adam links above pages 47 and 51 of the presentation give a much clearer rendering of what the perceived footprint will be.
I think a development about half that size would be nice.
And yes there is still plenty of parking.
@Marti: I support a development at that location because I believe it will bring vitality to Newtonville and fills an important housing need, but have yet to weigh in on this specific project. Like many others, I’m still learning about it.
I’ve added a second image.
Thanks for the update, Greg.
I too support a mixed use development there for retail and affordable housing for all ages and types of families.
Not sure this is the right one, but the lot certainly needs something.
It’s hard for me to completely visualize without seeing it for real, in 3D … but from the drawings, it doesn’t seem to0 out of line with its surroundings.
It looks to be only about 1/2 as wide as the just-about-continuous block of retail buildings in front of it on Walnut St
Without 3D there’s no visual of its height. Look at the mass and think 2 times taller than Shaws. When I walk down Austin Street, as I often do, I won’t see anything but Shaws and a 4/5 story building. No Plaza. No Starbucks. Of course with a 12 ft sidewalk, stores, flowers and trees, it might be just fine.
Jerry,
The retail space on Walnut St is one story high, this proposal is four stories high. The depth of the building is 2-3x fold the Walnut St buildings, and that depth will be fully visible as the height of the building will tower over the Walnut St stores.
Perhaps a 3D visual would help you, but based on dimensions it clear that it’s highly out of character for the village. A simple version would be imagining two Shaws stacked on top of each other.
The cheap 1-story construction that dominates our village centers was not the original style and arguably is not the ideal goal.
I’m still concerned about parking and the schools. For example, in the one bedrooms, if a couple is living there, it will be two cars. I know people who live in the Avalon who live in a one bedroom and have a kid! I know, it’s squishy, but that way they could send their kid to Newton schools. This seems like a lot more people, cars and kids to add to this area without enough parking and what is the impact on our already crowded schools?
Lassy, there will only be 1 parking space available per unit. It is located near public transportation in a village center. I am hoping perhaps Zipcar will establish a location here or near here. Why would someone have more than one car if they want to live here?
As for the number of school children, the 1 and 2 bedroom units are not ideal for families with school age kids. The developer will nevertheless provide projections for the number of children this could add to the schools during the special permit review process. But I would suggest to you that, based on past experience, the growth in enrollment is affected more by empty nesters moving out of single family residences. Horace Mann, where my kids went to elementary school, grew from 275 to 425 over a period of 15 years. It wasn’t because 150 units of housing were added to the district–it was the usual turnover of empty nesters selling to young couples and families.
This is the perfect situation for ZipCar – what can be done to encourage/invite them to establish a presence there and to encourage the developer to make space for them?
mgwa, maybe if we build it, they will come. 😉
I just took a quick look. There’s a few (8) Zip cars in Newton but none in Newtonville
Paul, based on the provided presentation, looking at the proposed building from the bird’s eye perspective – southern facade, the building is 4 stories of a building on top of ground level parking. I would say that is the height of 5 stories, not a 4 story building. The retail space appears to be double height.
My older daughter would be a regular customer. Hubway too.
Thanks, Ted. I do try to shop in the local villages, but I want to be able to park my car and, especially after buying items, a car is good to have to get back home again. I know people are all about the biking, but I’m not the type to use a bike in the cold weather.
Patrick, their presentation says “The proposed 4 and 5-story Newtonville Square building … ” that is 54′ high. Different areas are different heights. They’ve been pretty upfront with that part, I think.
Lassy, ground level parking will be there for you. It’s not going anywhere.
Lassy, the surface parking lot will have 100+ public parking spaces. Just sayin’.
Again, thanks for the information about parking – I do support our local businesses when I know I can park in a lot. Circling to find a spot or biking aren’t my things.
If you have an apartment building where spaces are expensive and provide ZipCar, I can assure you that residents will use it – if nothing else, instead of having a 2nd car. The question I was asking is what we can do to encourage the developer to devote a few spaces to ZipCar and make the arrangements with them to set up there.
Austin Street Partners mentioned ZipCar in its RFP (RTFRFP?) It’s the ideal ZipCar location for many reasons. I believe ZipCar prefers sheltered parking. It might have even been a requirement when ZipCar started out.
Marti, I will check, but I believe the developers have already said they would be willing to work with Zipcar to provide a location at Austin Street. We live in West Newton and already have a couple of Zipcars in the commuter parking lot across from The Local. Hubway needs to have multiple locations nearby in order to make it work. But eventually I anticipate we will also see Hubway linking across Newton all the way to Riverside.
Ted, yes they did and I agree with you. I think you are replying to mgwa.
Adam–
The original style really isn’t relevant. Its a questions about today’s village, and whether this building, multiple times the size of Shaw’s, fits the character.
You can argue that the overall village center feel should be different, that’s an entirely different discussion. Perhaps we should put this project on hold until we have a clear understanding what the village vision should be in the future, once aligned as a community, we can then determine if this project fits that vision.
Hey folks let’s not forget that the problem with the Shaw’s building isn’t just that it’s big, it’s that it’s big and unattractive.
and also let’s not forget that we also alreadu have two other tall and somewhat big buildings in Newtonville that are beloved by most – the Masons building and the church across the street.
Paul, that’s exactly the discussion that should be taking place. Right now — not as an excuse to put off the project. What should the future plan be for the village and how does the Austin Street project act as a catalyst to move away from cheap, one-story structures with private parking along Walnut Street.
Adam–
I don’t think everyone’s aligned with your village vision. The Austin St project is a catalyst away from what some people want.
It just further demonstrates how poorly this planning process has been to date.
Greg,
The Austin St project is big and unattractive. The external decor doesn’t match anything in the village.
Paul, it’s not my village vision. I believe increased density in the village centers is part of the comprehensive plan, and this Austin Street project is very much a part of that larger vision. That doesn’t mean 5 story buildings throughout, but it does mean improving those one-story structures rather than trying to match them in scale.
FWIW, I don’t like the aesthetics of the GreenStaxx proposal either.