Michael Hoban — a real estate writer for the Urban Land Institute and the Real Reporter and a former reporter at the Boston Business Journal — offered a perspective on the Austin Street project that hasn’t received much focus in a TAB Op-Ed column from last week.
While opponents of the proposed Austin Street project have managed to groundlessly demonize Austin Street Partners as “for-profit, luxury housing” developers, perhaps it would be wise to take a closer look at the track record of the entity that is responsible for the design of the project – Oaktree Development.
Read the whole thing here.
Is this the 30 Haven project referred to in the article?
http://www.apartments.com/30-haven-reading-ma/s13wz87/
What’s your point, Amy?
Is Oaktree the developer of the project or is it dinosaur capital partners? They seem to be the designer, not the developer.
I think some of the broadsides against Emily Norton have been way over the top. Can’t it be acknowledged that she probably feels she is doing the right thing. There are valid reasons to be for or against the Austin Street and I just don’t see how we get anywhere by impugning the motives of people on either side of this issue. Nor do I think Emily will get all the blame or all of the credit if this goes down on December 8th. A lot of factors have been rolled into this outcome whatever it is.
That said, I have also been a close friend of Mike Hoban (the author of this TAB article) for many many years. Mike is one of the most thoughtful and principled writers on business and civic affairs in New England and it helps our relationship that we agree on a lot of things politically and economically. He knows first hand the good and the bad of this State’s business community and I just don’t think he’s constitutionally capable of writing a false or overstated puff piece for any developer working on a project of this magnitude and public import.
Mike and I often quip that the only thing that public officials and journalists really have going for them is their credibility. He and I are very stubborn about things like that. So when Mike lauds Oaktree’s record as a project designer, this comes from conviction, research and observation; it’s not a fashioned PR stunt.
Oaktree and Dinosaur are equal partners in Austin Street Partners, developer of the Austin Street Municipal Parking Lot.
The architect is Stantec (formerly ADDinc.)
First of all Bob, thank you for the comment regarding the author. I didn’t know his name, so your comment was very helpful in terms of evaluating his article.
Bob: You also wrote:
“I think some of the broadsides against Emily Norton have been way over the top. Can’t it be acknowledged that she probably feels she is doing the right thing. There are valid reasons to be for or against the Austin Street and I just don’t see how we get anywhere by impugning the motives of people on either side of this issue. Nor do I think Emily will get all the blame or all of the credit if this goes down on December 8th. A lot of factors have been rolled into this outcome whatever it is.”
I gotta say, I strongly disagree with any of the comments here regarding Emily Norton being “over the top”. Please review the comments again and point out where any of us were “over the top”. I’m sure she feels she is doing the right thing. Lots of us have commented on that we like Emily personally. But isn’t it part of our responsibility as residents of our city to call and question our leaders when we don’t agree with them? As the Tab editorial shows, I think a lot of folks view Emily as the leader of the anti-Austin Street side. How is it over the top for us to point out her actual view? I realize she is taking heat that other opponents are not, but that is part and parcel because this is her ward, her predecessor was a strong proponent, and this is a really big vote for Newtonville. I’m not “impuning her motives” at all. I’m questioning her judgement and her view of what is right for Newtonville. If she could tell me she has a plan to install lighting and plantings and benches, that she wants to close down 20 spaces in the parking lot and put in a park, and that she has the money and team and city support to do so, heck, I’d call her a hero and be her biggest cheerleader.
I’ve said before that it isn’t bullying to call people out on their bull. This is even more obvious in my view. It isn’t being mean or over the top or impuning the motives of our city representative to criticize her for an important vote in her capacity as an aldercritter. Folks who like Emily or voted for her may not particularly like the criticism. But if we can’t voice our opinions about the issues of the day because it would be “mean” to our representatives, how does our political system work?
I’ll also say that considering the kid gloves folks have used in this process to criticize Emily in comparison to the maligning of the character of the proponents as being in the pocket of the developer, I think folks who think this is over the top should really look in the mirror and go back and review some of the comments from the anti-Austin Street crowd.
Don’t want to jump on you Bob, as I’ve always found your comments to be terrific. I just strongly disagree with your insinuation.
Jane, you are being facetious I think? It’s pretty obvious what Amy’s point is.
Yes, I was. On another thread, there was a discussion about where various aldermen stand on Austin St. and that some aren’t being explaining clearly why they’re opposed to it. If Amy’s opposed to it, she should just say it and explain why. I like and respect Amy – and we’ve kept one another on our toes over various issues for years.