Those speaking during a public hearing Tuesday were overwhelming opposed to a mixed-use development at the Riverside MBTA. In addition to the understandable concerns about traffic, safety, construction and noise, a common theme was concern from neighbors about losing the character of their wonderful Lower Falls neighborhood.
This quote from Ashley Studley’s story in the TAB was fairly typical…
“It’s going to be a nightmare for Lower Falls and it’ll change the neighborhood’s quality of life substantially,” said Robert Sklar, a Grove Street resident.
Only Anatol Zuckerman spoke in favor of the project.
He said neighbors would have to bear the brunt of construction, but that it’ll be worth the hassle.
“I believe their lives will improve as a result of this project,” Zuckerman said, noting it’ll bring restaurants, gardens and an improved community environment to the area.
@Greg: It’s unfair to characterize the choice as all or nothing.
This reminds me of the Newton North debate – if you questioned the wisdom of moving forward with the new high school then you were labeled “anti-education/anti-children” and you were branded as someone who wanted nothing to be done to “fix” the school. Obviously – that made any discussion divisive and was a gross mischaracterization of the concerns expressed over “minor” details like the need for a sound financing plan that would not result in the associated burden it has placed on our operating budget and our ability to move forward with other projects.
Residents have real concerns over the impact this development – the largest this City has ever had – will have on the character of their neighborhoods and quality of life. Instead of criticizing them, try putting yourself in their shoes, understand their concerns, work towards alleviating or mitigating their concerns and make this a project as close to being one that most people, especially the ones that will bear the brunt of any impacts, can support.
Alderman Sangiolo, thanks for the comment.
Please notice I wrote that attendees had “understandable concerns about traffic, safety, construction and noise.”*
But the T parking lot does not contribute positivity to that character in any meaningful way and I was struck by the fact that only Anatol seemed to acknowledge that. Developing the right project there would be an improvement over all that asphalt, yes?
*On the other hand I could never understand why Lower Falls folks we’re opposed to replacing a broken down, dangerous foot bridge –but that’s a different story.
@Greg: You wrote: “In addition to the understandable concerns about traffic, safety, construction and noise, a common theme was concern from neighbors about losing the character of their wonderful Upper Falls neighborhood.” I guess you meant, Lower Falls.
Whoops. I did. Fixed.
I think part of the reason that you don’t really get it, Greg, is that you don’t get the neighborhoods involved. Riverside is basically a big space between the nice cozy villages of Lower Falls and Auburndale. The T station already produces a lot of traffic on a small road (which can become a hella lot of traffic, like when there’s a day game at Fenway.) Now we’re talking about replacing that big space (granted, it’s asphalt, not greenery) with what would essentially be a little village of its own, with a significant impact on traffic and on local schools. I don’t live in either of these villages, but I can understand why a project might not seem better than asphalt to people living in Lower Falls and Auburndale.
Everything that Amy and Tricia said.
The zoning amendment for the Riverside Station mixed-use/transit oriented development requires that, prior to submittal of an application for a special permit, the developer must present conceptual plans for review by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen at a public meeting. At this meeting, which was held on Tuesday night, the Land Use Committee provided a forum for a public presentation whereby the Committee and public had an opportunity to ask questions, gain an understanding of the project proposal, and provide feedback that can inform further development of the project.
At the meeting, the developer gave a lengthy presentation on the project itself, as well as the traffic impact on the neighborhood and region surrounding the site. The city has also hired a consultant to conduct a peer review of the traffic study, at the developer’s expense, who will prepare a report critiquing the traffic study and submit it to the city. The conceptual plans as well as additional information on the Riverside Station project can be found here. I encourage anyone who is interested in this proposed development to submit their comments to the planning department by email at [email protected] or by mail at Planning and Development Department, Newton City Hall, 1000 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton, MA 02459.
The planning department will consolidate all of the questions and comments received on or before July 10, 2012, and prepare a report that includes responses, comments and analysis from the developer, peer review consultant and the planning department. This report, along with the peer review report, will be posted on the city website on the Riverside Station Project Information page. This report is intended to provide feedback to the developer for possible modifications of the proposed project to address questions and comments raised at the conceptual review meeting.
You can also follow the Land Use Committee on Twitter now for updates and information on the Riverside Station project as well as other matters that come before the Land Use committee.
Ted Hess-Mahan, Chairman of the Land Use Committee
This photo in no way reflects the character of Lower Falls. Remember the village concept doesn’t include strict boundaries.
First of all, I was not the only one who said that any development of the Riverside would be an improvement of the existing conditions – Nasir Khan also said that at the hearing. He’s quoted in today’s Globe West.
Secondly, the scale and character of the neighborhood has been changing for a long time (see Jordan Marsh office building and many expanding LaSalle buildings right in the heart of the village). This is happening despite many years of the local resistance because it’s inevitable: single-family home owners must share the space with the young who can’t afford houses and the old who can’t take care of their houses anymore.
Thirdly, the local aldermen have been exploiting the abutters’ fear of change by making sweet deals with developers. The Riverside is only the latest example of that. The problem is: those deals always lead to the worst possible designs (see Chestnut Hill Square, Marshall Plaza, Covenant House and other).
At the Riverside they cut the potential tax revenues to the city, reduced the developer’s profit, and angered the neighborhood! How did they manage all that in one fell swoop? I don’t know, but that’s what happens when politicians play urban design and architecture.
As I said at the hearing, any development on that site would be better than the existing heat island, but the latest design is a missed opportunity to create an exemplary transit-oriented development (I hope nobody would argue its benefits).