If you’re building more multi-family housing in Newton (which we should absolutely do), where would you want it? Near transit, commercial amenities, and schools, right? Because people want to live in walkable neighborhoods and walkable neighborhoods are greener, right?
Where is the next big (334-unit) apartment building going? Not within a reasonable stroll of a village center, which would provide a revitalizing boost to such a lucky center, but, according to yesterday’s TAB, Wells Avenue. Mind-boggingly, Wells Avenue. The fifties called, they’d like their urban planning back.
Residents are going to have to drive to everything. Work. Shopping. Schools (except for Schechter families). It’s almost a 1.5 mile round trip just to get out of the office park and back!
This is the future we’ve built for ourselves. There are a variety of circumstances that contribute to a 334-unit apartment building in an office park. Boiled down, the market wants more housing in Newton, Newton doesn’t want more housing, so what housing we get is going to be away from our village centers, stuffed out by the borders, where the available lot sizes are bigger and the zoning less restrictive. (And, yes, there’s 40B on top of it all.) Three big apartment buildings (and some smaller neighbors) in Chestnut Hill, with another coming. Avalon on Needham Street, with more housing likely coming. An existing apartment building just up Nahantan from Wells Ave. Apartment buildings out by West Roxbury. All car-centric development, though Needham Street might just be redeemed with smart development.
This is a pity.
I was on Wells Ave last weekend to see a friend’s son play soccer and had no idea that anything was back there. I agree with Sean that housing would not support a walkable community but is there another approach where we can consider adding another village? (Would need to be the 15th Village of course). We don’t have the land to add multifamily housing at existing village centers so what would it take to add a village center in the middle of a large development?
@Groot: Interesting idea, but – coupled with all of Sean’s very, very good points above – we also need to remember that Wells Ave is one of the last remaining “good” places for us to support commercial office and R&D employment. I’m concerned that if we develop it for housing, we may be giving away an opportunity to have the commercial property tax base help fund our financial future.
@Chris: Good point. I guess I was thinking more broadly since adding housing to village centers has come up before.
I did see mostly commercial building as I was looking for the Soccer field last week so one would think that adding to that stock would improve the tax base to support the city. What is the value of a “Village Center” to commercial property. My office in Pasadena, CA is close to restaurants for lunch and other services that we can walk to but my office in Marlboro needs a car to get a sandwich. I would hope that my company would consider walk-ability if we need to move an office but not sure if this is a consideration (provided the office space is comparable in price).
@ Groot: There’s tremendous value a village center could bring to a commercial development, both to the tenants and to us, the City. Many employers are looking for pleasant, integrated workplaces where their staff can walk, eat, and get services taken care of without having to leave “campus.” In addition to further tax revenue, having a village center also minimizes the lunchtime exodus from the park, may spread out the evening rush, and provides shopping, dining, and services to Newton residents.
Chris Steele also wrote about this project on Patch and I ended up agreeing with ~95% of what he said.
http://newton.patch.com/groups/chris-steeles-blog/p/residential-or-commercial
I don’t think I understand Chris Steele’s point about giving away an opportunity. A developer is maximizing their opportunity and using 40B. What say does the City have in this? (I guess the City could have made the area more attractive to business w tax breaks, but it is what it is – no?)
@Hoss – At the end of the day, yes it is the developer’s land. However, the City laid out a vision for development patterns across the city in the 2007 comprehensive plan, and also in the existing zoning. Both call for commercial development in that area of the City. The comprehensive plan in particular notes Wells Ave as a future commercial cluster.
The primary thing that the commercial development was lacking – access – is now about to be solved in part by the Kendrick Ave exit from 128.
That the developer has the option of working through 40B points to the inadequacy of our ability to encourage development of enough affordable/attainable housing through other means and can circumvent that comprehensive plan and zoning.
Chris Steele — Thank you. This is a massive development and it’s interesting that the demand for 1/2 bdrm rented units is there at that level. This is a big change for the area but we need to welcome it now that it’s a plan otherwise failure at any level could effect area rental rates (meaning, if they can’t attract renters at or above the Newton rate, the reduced rate will effect all other landlords)
To clarify the relationship of 40B to this (and other developments). 40B is a state statute that says, in so many words, in a municipality that has not attained a certain level of affordable housing, a developer creating a residential development may essentially ignore the city’s zoning, as long as the development has a certain percentage of affordable units.
Newton would like to limit Wells Avenue development to commercial/light manufacturing through zoning, because, among other things, commercial/light manufacturing pays at a higher tax rate with less demand for services (particularly school). But, the city is under the 40B affordability housing threshold. Until Newton hits that threshold, zoning is impotent to shape large-scale housing if the developer is willing to use (or threaten) a 40B development.
“[T]he city is under the 40B affordability housing threshold. Until Newton hits that threshold, zoning is impotent to shape large-scale housing if the developer is willing to use (or threaten) a 40B development.”
A point worth repeating.
Yes. Yes it is.
If someone dropped 800 units of Affordable Housing in Newton tomorrow, and then we blocked all other housing development, the 40B would be ours (and the resulting community impact would be ours as well). The point about the 40B aspect worth repeating is it will take many decades to achieve, if we ever get there. That’s because the goal is a ratio to total housing — not a static number of units. We should be more welcoming to landlords that do their part by allowing the silent low income aspect — voucher recipients. (Inserting a residential exemption, for example, is a deterrent to serving low income families)
@Hoss: Would you explain your comment, “(Inserting a residential exemption, for example, is a deterrent to serving low income families),”? Also, how are voucher recipients silent?
I am concerned by the notion that we are, as an older, built-up community, under the one-size-fits-all-communities threat of the State’s 40Bs. I hear voices on this blog and elsewhere saying we will never achieve the 10% affordable housing we are charged to obtain. If that is so, and we remain at the 7.5% level at which we are told we currently sit, the developers of this housing will continue to pursue end-runs around our planning/zoning visions. Why can’t we 1) figure out how to achieve the mandate and plan for it with the entire community’s participation, or 2) tell the State we can’t do it and force them in a major campaign to back down on fully developed communities. I personally prefer the former choice. By the way, I understand the moving target of affordable housing units held out to be our share…but I’d like to know who is watching the counts and verifying them? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
To echo Chris’ point, and as I stated on the other thread, Needham was extremely aggressive (and successful) in getting the state to put in an exit at Kendrick Street in order to create huge commercial development opportunities in their adjacent business parks. This goes back a decade or more. Newton did not seem to put up much of a fight. Needham will increase its tax base at the expense of Newton, which will see nothing but traffic… A disaster for us, EXCEPT for opportunities at the Wells Avenue office park. If we’re going to capitalize on this at all, it ought to be by beefing up commercial development at Wells Ave, close to the highway.
With a 40B proposal, is this decision already be out of our hands? Is a residential development in an unnatural location like this really more profitable than office space?
Sallee Lipshutz — I’ll try to answer, and keep to the point of the thread. The economics of renting is as sensitive to local policy as any other business case. Newton’s rents compete with Waltham, Watertown, Allston, West Roxbury, etc. Inserting a residential exemption shifts tax from a certain group of about 15,000 homes/units to another group of similar size. That other group includes rental units, and the economics of renting changes, potentially reducing the pool.
The recent discussion of Affordable Housing brought up the apparent fact that voucher rentals are not counted in 40B stats unless something else happens. (I think that something else is committing the property to Section 8 permanently, but I’m not sure) As I say, I got this impression from reading the discussions and I don’t know the specifics.
My overall point is this massive development is not something I’d like and not something the writer Sean of this post would like. But is now is what it is and we must make this work or it will effect other things like rental rates. Making this work likely includes allowing franchises like McDonalds, CVS, Dunkin Donuts in the area. We need that planning to start working or ten years out this will be a depressing development, lost and forgotten
Adam — I think what makes this more profitable is the height. What they lose on a per sq foot rate is made up in upward volume.
Hoss, I don’t know what the current height limits are, but if that’s what’s holding things back, maybe it’s time to reconsider the zoning there, or issue a special permit?
In other words, if the developer were offered a more profitable business-oriented option, would that get us out of this jam?
Adam, until recently, Newton didn’t let their buildings exceed 2.5 stories without a special permit.
When Jack Leader from the Economic Development Commission announced his run for Ward 2 Alderman in May, I chatted briefly with him about economic development issues and he told me that Newton had recently doubled the height (from 2.5 stories to 5) that buildings could go without a special permit.
As for offering a more profitable business-oriented development to the developer, all things being equal I would encourage the EDC to help facilitate the recruitment of high quality innovative industries to that location instead.
Hoss, instead of having franchises and retail chain stores, I would prefer to see high-quality commercial development geared towards attracting and retaining innovative industries that will provide good jobs at good salaries.
800 new units to further cripple our traffic and school problems. I just don’t understand how any regulation can dictate how we run our city. We need a change.
There’s only one proper response to the developers of this proposed massive apartment building…
SHOVE IT!!!
That’s the message they should hear, loud and clear from every City official. The City of Newton will fight you at every turn. We will make the permitting and development process so miserable, time consuming, and costly that you’ll wish you never came up with this stupid idea in the first place.
“I would prefer to see high-quality commercial development geared towards attracting and retaining innovative industries that will provide good jobs at good salaries.”
It would be nice if Newton developed a strategy to encourage our little industrial and commercial base (companies like HC stark), rather than opening up yet another restaurant for hipsters.
People forget this, but at one time Newton was quite the industrial city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saco-Pettee_Machine_Shops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_Paper_Mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bemis_Mill
Industrial and commercial jobs are “sticky” in way in which office jobs and low end retail and food service are not. We should encourage zoning for flex industrial space, and work to enhance connectivity across Newton to major roadways and rail service.
As for the affordable housing situation, we deserve it. The city should have had a comprehensive plan for encouraging more affordable housing that is suitable for working families. If we insist on trying to have affordable housing without adequate parking and family sized units, we will end up with projects for the chronically homeless and other folks not participating in the labor force. These will get rejected by the neighbors, and finally a developer will force the issue upon us. This NIMBY’ism is exactly what the 40B law is supposed to counteract.