As fignewtonville said on a previous thread, Austin Street really needs new thread. As someone tangentially affected by what happens in Newtonville, since I drive through it often and occasionally shop there –if I can park easily, I’ve been wanting to read the proposals in detail, which you can do on the city website, but I just haven’t had time.
Have other people delved into the details? Aside from one person’s reaction that I read, that they’re all just too big, what do people in Newtonville, or elsewhere, see as the pros and cons of each? Does anyone have a clear favorite? Or least favorite? Which ones should be the leading candidates? Are there issues you see that didn’t come up at the June 27 community meeting? And what did you learn at the meeting?
The underlying assumption in the city’s RFP is that there will be need for only one parking space per residential unit. This is based on the fact that there is a lot of public transportation at Newtonville square and the assumption that residents will avail themselves of this or else use bicycles or short term car rental like Zip Car. This proposition will not stand up to careful analysis. There is commuter rail, six inbound trains a day going to Back Bay and South Station. There are three bus routes on Washington Street that go local to Waltham in one direction and express downtown to the financial district on weekdays plus one local bus route that runs between Watertown Square and Needham every half hour and provides connection to the Green Line at Newton Highlands. The local bus route, No. 59, connects in Watertown square to buses that go local to Harvard Square and Central Square, Cambridge. The assumption of the need for only one car rests on the proposition that all the residences will be occupied by couples of whom at least one works downtown or in Cambridge and is committed to commuting by T. The two bedroom units can very well have a third adult in residence who also cannot have a car – at least not one that is parked on the premises. This is a tough restriction but apparently the administration is willing to impose and stick by it. To argue that there is an alternative to the car by bicycle or short term rental is to beg the question. Very few people will commit to a daily commute by bicycle in all kinds of weather and daily short term car rental is prohibitive at a quoted rate of $75.60 per day. People can and do change jobs so that, even if the initial condition is satisfied, a change of job for the person working downtown will mean either a sudden need to relocate or a frantic search for a place to park another car. There will inevitably be pressure on the developer to provide more space for residents, which will reflect as pressure on the public parking spaces.
Maybe part of the idea of the restriction is to attract retired singles or couples who don’t need to do a daily commute and therefore only need one car?
Aside from the difficulty of getting to many workplaces by public transit, or the time it would take by the time you do a couple of transfers or mode changes (T/bus, bus/T), not everyone’s work hours fit the transit schedule — if you work a night shift at a hospital in Boston, you may not want to take the T in the early hours of the morning even if it’s running. And I wonder how many people need to drive during the workday as part of their job, without having a “company car”; I certainly do as a newspaper photographer. Anyone with clients in multiple locations, from visiting nurses to real estate appraisers to dog walkers, or anyone with equipment to carry or products to demonstrate.
In my neighborhood where there are some multiunit houses, there are cars that park overnight on the street that disappear during the winter parking ban months. I don’t know what that means — whether they tandem park in their own driveways in winter, or what, but I’m not sure how a one-car rule would be enforced. What if people make side deals with people in Newtonville with extra driveway space? (Like people in Foxboro have been renting out driveway space during Patriots games, but the town wants to crack down on , I recently read.)
Julia,
Why isn’t this specifically being built as a 55+ development? Aren’t they doing that is Waban at the corner of Beacon and Chestnut streets?
Something’s getting built at Beacon and Chestnut? Is that the church property? I don’t know anything about that.
I think Ted said somewhere earlier that developers don’t really like to do 55+ because it will be a more limited market?
Over 55 might result in fewer kids, but I’m not sure there’d be fewer cars. How many 55+ people can afford to retire?
The important thing is to limit any prospective project to two bedroom units. It doesn’t require a 55 and older restriction to do that.
It’s amazing this is so controversial. There are families in Newton that survive on one car, you know. We do, and we have space for two more cars in our driveway. Other houses on our street only have space for a single car. Today, zoning requires two full spaces for a single residence home, and that’s just behind the setback.
Build housing with parking for multiple cars and there will be more cars and more traffic congestion. Reducing parking is smart development and good for our city. There is a market for transit-oriented development. Not only can people make use of public transit, more and more people are working from their homes. Boston is even looking at building apartments with no parking in Allston.
What Adam said.
Hey, I’m famous! Julia, thanks for the new thread.
So my take on the site, after review and a lot of thought, is that it is appropriate for redevelopment. This is my personal opinion only, based on the following observations:
1) The vast majority of the time, the Austin street parking lot is less than 3/4 full. It seems to get used more than in the past, which I attribute to some extent to the very successful Yoga studio next to CVS. But there are empty spaces on Washington Street and on the side streets. The additional walk from the back of the Austin Street parking lot compared to side streets/Washington St. is less than 15 seconds. And while I’m sympathetic to the Yoga studio’s complaints about changes to parking, I find it myself thinking that we restrict seats in restaurants based to some extent on parking, but the yogo studio is a huge user of this resource. I want them to be successful, but their need for parking can’t drive the future of Newtonville.
2) I would be open to dynamic pricing models to parking, especially is they combine that with credit card acceptance. Perhaps when Walnut gets redone we can upgrade our parking meters.
3) Speaking of the Walnut Street repaying/reconstruction, these two projects go hand in hand in my mind. The money from the Austin Street redevelopment can be dedicated to redoing Newtonville’s central corridor, and really remaking the village as a whole. I don’t think you get one without the other.
4) Turnover in the side lots. I think folks are abusing the side lots and the Shaw’s parking lot. I don’t see the turnover in either set I’d expect. I wonder if there can be employee spaces on Lowell or Washington St. set up to make more convenience parking for shoppers. Also, perhaps the city can enter into a parking meter partnership with the owners of the lots.
5) Construction of the Austin project: I think this is the most difficult aspect. For at least 12 months, parking in Newtonville will be at a premium. I’m not sure the best way to deal with that issue. I will note that the city should do a exhaustive search for places to put new meters and change parking rules during the construction. I believe folks will adjust, especially if the city highlights the new meters.
6) Post-construction parking: I’m less worried about this aspect. 85 spaces (assuming they are metered) keeps a huge portion of the parking, and should satisfy the parking needs for most portions of the day.
I know some folks feel nothing should be done with the property at all. I’ve come to disagree with that approach, based on the fact that I think the parking issue can be managed and the additional retail space and development will be good for the village long term, especially if we can use the funds to redevelop the look and feel of the village.
I think long long term, Shaws will redevelop their property as well, and perhaps we will have development over the Pike as well. But that is far into the future. And I’d support any develop that make the village center more vibrant.
As for the various proposals, I need to process them a bit more and I’ll leave that analyis to others. But there is potential here for a terrific project. We shouldn’t let fear of the unknown or change prevent us from realizing Newtonville’s potential.
Ted Hess Mahan said it well elsewhere: tenants who prefer clean transportation will self-select a development that favors transit, biking, walking, and car-sharing; and as Adam mentioned, there are plenty of these congestion reducers, young and old, who would jump at the great transit options Ernest enumerates.
Fig, a rising tide lifts all ships. Since Down Under Yoga’s arrival, shops throughout Newtonville report an uptick in business…. with many visitors carrying yoga mats. Accommodating the yoga studio’s parking needs goes hand in hand with the success of other Newtonville businesses.
(Full disclosure: My wife is affiliated with the studio)
@Steve and fignewtonville: At the public meeting last week, I was a little taken aback because I recall that the Board of Aldermen granted Down Under Yoga a special permit waiving parking requirements for 8 spaces because it has no on site parking. If anyone has a right to complain I suppose it would be Shaw’s, where customers of other businesses and even commuters sometimes park.
fignewtonville, you’re too modest, I think on the Newton blogs at least, you were already famous!
That’s an interesting point about the walking times from Washington St. vs the Austin lot. I guess I either do stuff on one side or the other but not both, so I don’t walk the bridge much. Is the 15 second differential a big or small percent of the total walking time? It seems like maybe a psychological barrier, though, especially in extreme weather (hot or cold). Is this one of the bridges that is not plowed/shoveled very well, or only done on one side? It would be nice to make the bridge more inviting, for example with planters or dare I say trees somehow, but all that takes maintenance.
My actual stops in Newtonville Square are not that frequent (unless you count Cabot’s) — mainly CVS or the bank, and usually I’ll stop in at Great Harvest Bread if I’m there for something else. I miss the Asian market where I used to get frozen Peking ravioli, and I really, really miss Newtonville Fabrics — that was so handy. As was Ken Kaye Krafts on the other side. But when I get more senior (and retired) I expect to make use of the Senior Center, which I’ve already been to for community meeting-type events.
Steve, I love the Yoga studio. My family loves it as well. I think it is a great addition. But it is also very true that the studio uses up as much parking as a restaurant, and since most of the restaurant traffic is multiple people in one vehicle, I’d say that they are now the biggest “consumer” of parking in the village. And I agree that a rising tide lifts all boats, but I think that if the yoga studio’s use of parking swamps other smaller uses (do you think Diva or the bakery or bread & chocolate use even a 1/10th of the yoga studio’s parking?) than that rising tide metaphor doesn’t exactly apply.
I just feel it is ironic that Down Under Yoga is leading the charge to keep the parking as is, but using a huge amount of the same resource after getting a variance. I don’t think I’m the only one that noticed that they are a huge user of parking, and it is a bit frustrating to other uses in the village (and I’m not as sure as you that the yoga customers are visiting much else besides CVS from my limited observation, not too many yoga mats in the pizza/restaurant/coffee shop/bakery scene/pet store. But I’m sure the banks and the drug store and starbucks are happy for the additional customers… 😉 ) And I’m ok with that customer base, but some of the rhetoric on parking seemed a bit overheated considering their use of the resource.
Anyway, my main point still holds, there is adequate parking in Newtonville if we maintain the 85 spots. And if there is not adequate parking for the demand, increase meter rates until there is during peak hours.
Julia:
thanks, I kinda like the idea of being blog famous 😉
My hope is that with a redesigned walnut street folks might linger a bit longer in Newtonville, with more outdoor street dining.
And you make a great point about the bridge NOT being plowed, which is horrible in the winter. A disgrace really, since if you fall you slide down an incline, and the bridges should be cleared very early. I’ve seen a few nasty falls after folks exit the commuter rail especially. It was better for one year, then last winter was horrible again.
But there is potential for side street parking as well, not just across the bridge (austin street, Newtonville ave, etc). And businesses like the yoga studio could encourage customers to park on Washington Street (no waiting, a little walk to warm up before practicing yoga).
Folks just need to think a bit outside the [parking] box.
Julia, I have looked through all of the proposals and I am not finding the “Goldilocks” design (e.g., not too big, not too small, just the right mix of residential and commercial). I blame the proposal selection process, which has been mostly shrouded in secrecy and has included only a single meeting to solicit public comment.
The Mayor had put together a Mixed Use Task Force to “consider ways to create developments that will balance economic benefits with the impacts on surroundings and create places for people of all ages and interests.” After many months of work, the task force issued a report with key findings and recommendations regarding the process of developing mixed use projects in village centers:
That is not going to happen here. I long ago urged the planning department to issue a request for qualifications and select a developer based on its qualification, rather than a request for proposals to select a developer based on a particular design, which would engage the public and work collaboratively with residents and merchants representing both neighborhood and citywide interests as well as the planning department and the Board of Aldermen (which must ultimately approve a special permit for any mixed use development at Austin Street) in developing a proposal that would achieve the vision articulated by the Mayor’s Mixed-Use Task Force.
As I have noted before, half of the proposals do not even satisfy the basic dimensional and other zoning requirements. In my opinion, none of the rest satisfactorily “balance economic benefits with the impacts on surroundings and create places for people of all ages and interests.” I strongly urge the Mayor to start this process over and follow the recommendations of his own task force for ensuring public engagement in the process. Getting buy in from the community at the beginning of the process is the only way to ensure that the city and the village residents and merchants will end up with a development that is beneficial for everyone.
What about the NNHS students that park in this lot during the school year – how will that be affected?
I suppose the rationale for requesting proposals was that they came with $$ amounts of what the developer would pay for the land? So that can be considered in weighing the proposals. If you pick a developer first, I guess no one has any idea what that developer will be willing to pay for the land until the developer knows what they’re able to build.
But under the current scenario, if we pick one proposal of the six, how firm is the $$ amount if the proposal is going to be adjusted in the negotiation process with the city/community? Does every change become an excuse for the developer to lower their bid?
I’d already heard that not all six proposals meet the requirements, and Ted, you say it’s half of them. Does that mean those three are off the table and neighbors don’t need to worry about them and I don’t have to read them? (If so, I wish someone would tell us which ones they are). Or could one of those still be picked by the committee/selected by the mayor and then wrestled into compliance with the requirements?
Julia, I do not know the answer to your question regarding whether nonconforming proposals are still eligible to be selected, and there lies a big part of the problem.
Since the price a developer is willing to pay is inextricably linked to the square footage, density and number of units in the project, I imagine that if a particular design is selected and a price is negotiated, it will be difficult to get the developer to reduce the size or density of its proposal. There is also a question as to how much a developer will be willing to pay for mitigation of the impact of the project on the neighborhood, which is generally a condition of a special permit involving a mixed use development of this size. All the more reason for a collaborative process that involves the developer, the city and the public.
Julia, I really think the high school parking is a “bad” use for the village parking and should be eliminated. Alternatively, they can be shifted to Washington Street, which is a short walk away. But there are plenty of parking spaces for high school students within a mile of the school, they just have to choose to walk a bit.
Ted, I’m not opposed to starting over, but I’m not quite sure what you are looking for. It is a unique site and the five proposal are very different. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I wasn’t a big fan of the other projects you use as reference points as an example of the “right” type of process. I think the main choice is big or small, and then we can work with the developer on the design (or the city can).
As for the village businesses, I’m somewhat surprised they aren’t pushing for bigger projects, especially if the parking can be worked out. More customers within a very short walk is a strong positive.
Has anyone heard anything from Shaw’s about possible redevelopment on their site? I keep hearing rumors but nothing substantial.
All,
With regards to commercial development in Newton, I’d like to see more development relating to attracting and retaining innovative industries that offer high paying jobs in Newton.
Instead, Newton seems to be focused on ground floor retail stores and high-density apartments.
Newton lost BNY Mellon’s Eagle Investment Systems division to Wellesley and it is losing TripAdvisor to Needham. Newton used to be the headquarters of EMC but its been in Hopkinton since 1987.
fignewtonville, Newton has never used the “right” type of process. The Mayor’s Mixed Use Task Force was assembled to deal with Chestnut Hill Square but was too late to have any influence over that process, which began back in 2002. The same is true for Riverside, which has been in the works for five years. At the other night’s meeting at the Senior Center, I did not hear much consensus at all about what the residents and merchants in the neighborhood would like to see, who are after all the people who will be most directly affected and adversely impacted by the project before, during and after construction.
There are a number of examples of successful transit oriented, mixed use developments that resulted from a collaborative process public and private partners working with a community or a neighborhood to bring about a project that was able to generate broad support. One such example is the Fruitvale Transit Village Project in Oakland, California. After meeting substantial community resistance, BART withdrew its original plans for building a parking garage and worked with the community to revitalize the area around the transit station through a mixed use development that While the challenges are very different, I believe that the process used in Fruitvale could serve as a model for community engagement that would result in a truly excellent project that has broad based support.
By the way, after the meeting I stuck around for a while and spoke with several merchants who did not have the opportunity to speak, and some of them would, indeed, support a bigger project because it would mean more business for everyone. The downside of a single public meeting to get community feedback is that there were probably many people in the Senior Center that night who had something constructive to say but there was neither the time nor the opportunity for them to participate. Hence my suggestions for a different process.
I went door to door in the businesses of Newtonville and out of the people I spoke with they were concerned about prolonged parking issues a larger project would bring.
Tom: During construction or after construction?
All the Austin Street proposals place the buildings at the sidewalk and the parking behind the buildings. Only one of the proposals retains the entrance to the parking across from the Star Market. All the others rely solely on access via Brahm Way. The present lot has easy access and egress with good sight lines. Once the buildings are constructed drivers accessing the public parking will have to make two turns with poorer sight lines and there will be competition with pedestrians crossing Brahm Way. This inevitably slows down traffic, implying backups onto Austin Street and, in heavy traffic times, onto Walnut Street. The intersection of Walnut St./Austin St./Newtonville Ave is already difficult. This project will make it worse.
Before any plan is approved it is incumbent on the city to hire a traffic consultant (one who has no connection with any of the developers) to evaluate the potential congestion resulting from this project.
Anyone know if post-implementation reviews are done on traffic studies to see how accurate the predictions turned out to be? And who are the best consultants? I guess on Centre/Cypress it may be too early to judge, but what about completed changes like the no-left-turn area by NNHS, or the effect of the Teddy Bear Club pre-school on Comm Ave traffic that people were worried about. I realize neither of those are on the scale of Austin Street or Chestnut Hill Square or Riverside. But what about Needham Street after Avalon, or Grove Street after the big office building replaced – what was it, a Jordan Marsh warehouse? Boy, that seems a long time ago.