Anyone who drives the Pike has seen the New Balance building that now fills the landscape. Clearly the rebuilding of that area of Brighton is vastly different from what is happening in the Newton villages, especially around Austin Street. The scale, scope and need for development are hardly comparable. But there are some lessons for us.
In today’s architectural review by the Globe’s Robert Campbell, he calls out several factors that make the New Balance building (and subsequent, in process construction) a success. I was struck by how much this mimics what can qualify as success factors when considering local development.
About the building he notes:
- It’s part of the larger city. It’s not an attempt at a private nirvana, as are so many office parks and residential enclaves. Jim Davis, the owner of New Balance, emphasizes that he didn’t want anything you could call a “campus,” a green escape from the busy world. Instead, old streets are being reopened to connect with the Brighton surroundings.
- Lots of different things happen close together. People will be able to live, work, and play in the same neighborhood. That kind of diversity of uses is the essence of city life. I’d like to see much more housing, but at least there’s some.
- There’s diversity, too, in the size and height of buildings and in their colors and materials. All have been designed by architect Manfredi, whose firm is the largest in town. He’s created an apparent diversity, but I’d rather have seen some of the work shared with talented younger architects, of whom Boston has a plethora.
- There’s an appreciation of streets. Streets are more than traffic sewers, they’re the heart of public life. Guest Street, which is now little more than a service alley that runs the length of the site, is conceived to become a village Main Street over time. It’s rumored, too, that New Balance may seek to buy up more of the adjacent properties.
- Finally, there’s the commuter line, an essential ingredient.
Translated to Newtonville, right now we have a parking lot that effectively separates the village from the bank and other homes on the others side of it. A park would do the same thing. It also makes the walk from the “village” to the Star Market feel longer than it should. While other proposals focused on a single use, this current proposal has multiple uses, which adds life to the street. The village already has diversity in its heights, though much of the main village is a single height. The current proposal helps. It also pays attention to the street through the retail frontage and outdoor seating area, all bringing life to Austin Street.
And, of course, Newtonville is on the same commuter line. Improving that would be a big help.
Two side notes. I believe that Jim Davis is a Newton resident. Also, Robert Campbell knows his stuff, he’s one of the leading architecture critics in the nation. I’ve always loved his “Cityscapes” columns (also in book form) which compare new images of Boston with older images taken at the same location. They all contain lessons in what makes for great, livable cities.
Great, when a developer, ASP or whomever, spends millions building a MBTA Commuter Rail Station along with it’s project, I doubt there will be many detractors. Otherwise the comparison of this huge (ugly) glass sneaker, it’s hockey rink and the rest of its 15 acres of apartments, parking lots and amenities to a project on a parking lot in Newtonville is a real stretch.
Marti,
I couldn’t agree more,.. Except as a piece of architecture I’d have to agree with Bob Campbell, it is successful. And a key to its success is Campbell’s iteration that it’s built for the plutocrat, and his agandizment or self pride. That is the motive in its existence. The motive in the Building ofAustin Street is not as lofty,.. If self agandizment can be considered so. ASP’s motive is solely to turn a profit. And expressions of greed generally don’t turn out to be very handsome. After all the builder really doesn’t care what it looks like as long as it can be sold. If making it uglier were to make it more profitable , by all means do so. The quality of its construction, it longevity, it’s acoustical properties, whether it leaks 10 years from now , etc is not important. It will be sold and the then owners will have to deal with any problems. Individuals and institutions build for posterity , developers build for the almighty dollar.
I think you’re both missing the point. The elements I called out were around how a building fits into the landscape and what it does to improve the basics of a city.
Scale, build quality and aesthetics are, in this case, irrelevant.
Chuck, how a building “fits into the landscape” is determined by many factors. Two key factors are scale and aesthetics. They are not irrelevant in the ASP discussion. JMO.
@Patrick, yes, they are relevant to the overall discussion. But dismissing the general points as “not relevant” because the scale of the Brighton project is different isn’t the point I was trying to make.
I was saying that urbanization lessons pointed out in this particular article applied to Newtonville, albeit on a smaller scale.
Take the example of the appreciation of streets “Streets are more than traffic sewers, they’re the heart of public life.” Right now Austin Street can be seen as “traffic sewer” that funnels car traffic into parking lots. But if we view it as a “heart of public life” that is effectively an extension of the village, then the scale proposed, with its retail frontage and outdoor seating, is entirely appropriate.
@Chuck,
I’m intrigued, and I hope you can clarify. Of recent you invested a sizable chunk of time on this blog devoted to Marketing Austin St. Is it because you love the concept, or that you have been hired?
@Simon: Chuck does not work for ASP but if they were smart they’d hire him.
Chuck ,
Wrong ! The sort of thinking that leads to “Scale, build quality and aesthetics are irrelevant ” is exactly the problem with proponents of ASP’s housing project, and would allow it to be built. In fact ‘aesthetics’ in the broadest sense is what should be the determining measure in evaluating the proposal. Urbanization in a Sub Urban environment qualifies as a powerful aesthetic measure . It is ‘Sub Urbia ‘ that attracts and keeps people living here, and to allow or attempt to change this in so radical a fashion is a grave mistake.
I agree Austin Street is currently a “traffic sewer”, but a 4-1/2 story outsized housing project with a few token commercial crumbs thrown into it does not alleviate that aesthetic issue. The utilities poles and wiring, a few trees , a buried parkelet and a series of Romeo and Juliet balconies will not either. The automobile will still be necessary to access this behemoth and that access becoming even more difficult than currently exists will only plug up and clog the sewer further.
The scale of the New Balance project relates uniquely to the Urban scale and density of Brighton and the turnpike at 70 miles per hour. It bears no relationship to the village scale of Newtonville, and attempts to draw parallels are fallacious. Sub Urban Newtonville should remain suburban, walkable, attractive, accessible and human. Improvements toward those ends no doubt could , and should be made, but to attempt to import Brighton, Cambridge, Somerville or even Brookline to Newton should not in my estimation be encouraged.
There “Visions” ( hallucinations ?) that we hear about re what our village centers should become need be recognized for what they are.
Agenda based political narcissism intent on leaving a monument(s) to their tenure.
“These” Visions,..
Simon, I’ve got no idea if Chuck works for ASP, but man, it is tiring that every proponent of the project has been at one time or another accused of working for the developer. Or in the pocket of the developer, etc.etc.
It is so strange to you that many of us support this project (with caveats for most of us) that in order to square the circle we must be receiving payment for that support?
Normally I wouldn’t comment on a comment like yours, but it is obviously a way to discount the opinions of those who support the project as being bought and paid for. That seems a bit insulting, doesn’t it?
I support the development, with caveats. But it’s ridiculous attempts either to draw parallels like this one or, on the other side, to espouse scare tactics that I find tiring.
I mostly think the opposition has buried itself with its lack of integrity.
So why try to find incredible ways to show support? As to its architecture, I agree that it fulfills the architect’s dream and I get its sleek, windowed exterior as an extension of flying down the highway. I think this type of building has been a bit overdone and to me, it’s not a beautiful sight, but it carries the whole area and fits in Brighton.
I’m also tired of supporters relating ASP’s project to what’s being done in urban, truly transit oriented areas. Newtonville is not urban and “urbanization” is one of the oppositions buzz words to gain support. I don’t know many who would be happy to apply all urban strategies to our sub urban town.
@Simon, I simply believe that this is the best project for the site.
As for the suburban vs. urban concept, I grew up in a very different kind of “suburbia” in which houses were each on an acre of land, set back from the road. Cars were the only way to access anything and very little was “walkable.”
The places I go in the world that are most interesting have a blend of walkable downtowns, apartment living, commercial space, retail space and single family homes. What I see is an opportunity to continue to grow that fabric here, especially in places like Newtonville which were ripped apart by the Mass Pike so many years ago.
The Boston area is changing around us and we need to adjust along with it. That doesn’t mean changing our character, but it does mean taking advantage of opportunities, like this, that will bring life to our downtown areas.
If this same building were being proposed for a residential portion of Comm Ave I wouldn’t support it, it doesn’t fit there. It’s not appropriate in that setting. But here, in this spot, it makes complete sense.
If you don’t think it’s pretty, that’s fine. If you think the retail space should be upped because it’s too small, that’s a valid criticism, but all throughout this process people have complained about just about everything on it, not because it’s bad but because it exists at all.
What I realized a few weeks ago when I started writing on this was something quite simple: if we blow this we’re not getting a new project any time soon and we’ll be stuck with a parking lot.
That’s not progress.