There are two types of people in the world: those who think that the Riverside Station site should be exploited with fairly intense development and those who think just about any development is too much. Both groups were disappointed last night at the first Land Use Committee public hearing on the BH Normandy/MBTA special permit application.
Those who think the site should be used for a significant mixed-use, transit-oriented development that will generate significant property-tax revenue continue to be disappointed by the proposal. But, the biggest disappointment might have come when the economic impact numbers were revealed. The developer is forecasting $778K in net revenue to the city (property taxes minus cost of services), which you’ve got to figure is optimistic. Meh.
Those who think the site should not generate any more traffic on Grove Street or create other local impacts are likewise disappointed. While the site is significantly scaled back from earlier proposals, neighbors feel it’s still too big. And, with the relatively paltry revenue to be gained, why should they put up with the impacts?
It’s a challenging site, made more challenging by the state’s inexplicable refusal to budge on requirements that prevent a top-quality development. The maintenance yard stays. They’re going to build a massive parking garage on the key part of the parcel. Newton, your Alewife awaits.
As Alderman Amy Sangiolo said (echoing Kay Khan and others), it’s inexplicable that the state is not an active participant in discussions with the city. It’s time for the city to say to the state: call us when you’re ready to do something great here.
40B? I’m coming to the conclusion that apartments would be just fine. When the MBTA gets religion on the real value of the site, they can develop the maintenance yard into commercial and retail space.
Sean: I’m not sure how you viewed my statements last night as “echoing” Kay Khan. Kay did not speak last night , I believe she left before I got to the podium, and I have not heard her voice similar opinions about the state’s lack of participation in this development publicly. I am aware that she has been vocal on opening access to the river, but not heard her comments about the current development proposal before the board. As always, i look forward to her thoughtful comments about this proposal and hope she will bring both the mbta and the dot to the next session of the continued land use public hearing and will encourage them to share their proposals with the community and rethink the use of the remaining parcel that is not part of this special permit.
Amy,
I’ve had a lot of conversations with Kay (as with you and Jay and Bill and others) over the years about Riverside. She shares your and my view that the state (principally the MBTA) has created an unworkable situation with the requirements that the maintenance yard remain and that a big commuter parking garage be built in the prime location. And, she has tried to get the state more directly involved in the process.
I expect that she will speak at the next public hearing and expect that she will echo what you said. (I’m was not and am not crediting anyone with being the first to draw the conclusion. As far as I can tell, if you care about the site and think about it long enough, it’s an inevitable conclusion.)
You and Kay are two excellent public servants coming to the same conclusion about an unfortunately compromised plan.
If we can’t look to our State Representatives to be bringing the State to the table on this project, who ought we to look to?
I think that the key problem with the Riverside project has been that the state has been allowed to be absent in these conversations. In any other Land Use special permit discussion, the property owner is involved on behalf of their tenant. In this case, BH Normandy are the tenants, but the owners are the MBTA and one of the biggest issues has to do with Rte128, again, state property.
The Needham business park managed to get the state to the table, and the former Polaroid Site in Waltham managed to get the state to the table. In speaking with those towns, it was made clear to me that their legislators played a major role in bringing the State to the table.
As you know, these discussions have been going on for a while and BH Normandy has expended quite a bit of time and resources in working with what they have in their control. It is time the State stepped up to the plate and took some responsibility too.
I’m not a Newton resident, but as someone who works next door to Riverside and makes use of the station regularly, I’m surprised this project hasn’t generated more coverage, given the number of people that would be affected. (Not a criticism of the city’s hearing process, just that the project hasn’t generated relatively much attention.)
Looking over the filings on the city website, I’m curious why more isn’t being done to get traffic off of Grove Street, which would presumably be a relief to both neighbors and MBTA riders. Is it unworkable to have some kind of dedicated entrance/exit from 128 or Recreation Road? Because when I see that rotary, all I can picture is that rotary of traffic doom that sits in downtown Framingham.
personally, I hope that the development can create really safe and pleasant crossing of 128 for cyclists and kids going to Williams–its a shame that Lower Falls has no “walk to” school.