An article in the New York Times last week discussed the challenges suburban communities face as suburban communities get grayer and “suburban youngsters” move to urban areas.
Demographers and politicians are scratching their heads over the change and have come up with conflicting theories. And some suburban towns are trying to make themselves more alluring to young residents, building apartment complexes, concert venues, bicycle lanes and more exotic restaurants.
And, no they’re not just moving away from the suburbs because housing is too expensive.
….prices in some Manhattan and Brooklyn neighborhoods are even higher than those in the more expensive suburbs. But, he continued, the city is safer and more energized than it was a generation ago, and its allure has grown. Cities like Baltimore, Washington and Boston have also revitalized rundown or desolate neighborhoods.
One of the reasons may be the cost of owning a car–and with cell phone technology, car ownership and freedom are no longer equated as strongly.
see slide 11 in the LWVN’s presentation on transportation April 3: http://lwvnewton.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/April-3-Transportation-in-Newton.pdf
@Andrea: Exactly. And that’s a point that gets lost among those who assume that every unit of housing automatically means 1-2 additional cars looking for a place to park. Times are changing. Not everyone wants to live in a house with a yard and a two car garage.
@Andreae: “Car ownership and freedom are no longer equated so strongly.”
Maybe, by some.
My husband and I were at a convention in San Francisco in October, 1989, staying in the Hyatt Embarcadero. It was the first (and only) time we chose not to rent a car when travelling. So, at 5:05pm, when the Loma Prieta quake struck, we were stuck in the hotel with 1000’s of other travelers who couldn’t get a taxi; who couldn’t take the damaged BART; and who couldn’t return to their abandoned rooms. When we finally got out of S.F. to our friends’ house in Palo Alto, and managed to get a plane ticket home two days later, we had spent two nights in the hotel’s ballroom, sleeping with 1000 snoring transients, all covered with tablecloths. The experience was shockingly akin to being a refugee, disenfranchised from communications (no newspapers; no electricity; non-functional toilets; new cell phone technology was down, too.).
Some of us don’t want to give up our cars and that freedom too easily! Be careful what you wish for!!!!!!!
Of Course there is an exhodus of young people to the city. What 25 – 30, year old wants to live with a bunch of kids, wealthy senior citizens, and their successful peers, just buying their starter home and making babies. they have little in common.
The construction of a massive housing block, 25% of which would be set aside as affordable housing, and the rest of which was supposed to be aimed at wealthy seniors, would not do anything to brighten the lights of Newtonville.
Given their potential neighbors what 25 -30 year old single person(s) with an ounce of fresh blood in his / her body would choose to live here. It would be avoided like the plague.
Newton / Newtonville need not “make” itself “more alluring”. We are already too much so. Do you see real estate slumping here ? The primary problem Newton is having is the derogation of it’s inviting basic character, which if allowed to continue in the long term, will make us much less “alluring”, and will make us much less interesting to those intent on finding here greener pastures not available in urban settings.
We are a ‘sub’ urban community, that is what drew us here, that is what continues to draw folks here, and that is what we should be trying to maintain and enhance. Density is the Problem, not the solution.
Greg,
“,… not everyone wants to live in a house with a yard and a two car garage . ”
I couldn’t agree more ! They are moving to the city – where they are not necessary.
@Bill: Employers aren’t going to want to operate here (and contribute to our tax base) if we can’t attract younger workers.
I think Newton needs transit oriented development, but I’m not too worried about the long term future of our real estate. Is anyone going to the BoA meeting tonight who can report back in on the Austin Street matters. I noticed that they compiled emails from folks for and against the project for the meeting. This is really unfair to folks who support the project, since the city didn’t request such feedback. There are many of us, myself included, who would have written into the city if such email feedback was being taken into account. But since the process is already in place to move the Austin Street process forward, was I supposed to write in and say “keep up the good work?”
Anyway, I would appreciate if folks could post their thoughts after tonight’s meeting.
Fignewtonville,
And just Why does Newton “need” transit oriented development. To brighten the lights for seniors? Yes e-mails were compiled and the overwhelming majority were against this project.
So now we are not supposed to provide feedback ? I thought that the Mayor was telling all that we were to have an input.
Every team needs cheerleaders. It seems the team with home field advantage is being heard.
My impression is that developments like Austin street are not geared towards the 25 to 35 year olds highlighted in the NYT article as desiring city living. The more likely buyer are downsizing empty nesters.
City living may be more appealing now than it was in the last few decades, but as the milleniums have children of school age, there will be a desire for many of them for good schools, playgrounds, less traffic and less crime. They’ll buy Newton’s housing stock.
@Terry: That’s what I thought. But just returned from Portland, OR, where they’ve invested in the transit, the transit-oriented development (and of course the bike lanes, public spaces, etc), but where the public schools still, to put it mildly, aren’t as good as those in Newton.
When I first visited, about 4 years ago–saw lots of young folks and lots of bicyclists. No kids.
This visit, a few weeks ago–lots of young folks, with kids on the bikes. Go figure. Will they all move out in a few years as the kids hit Kindergarten, spring for private school, or work like heck to improve the public schools? It’ll be interesting to see, that’s for sure.
Personally, I’d like it if my kids could move to Newton after they’re done exploring the wide world.
Those 25-30 year olds will be looking to move back to the burbs after the birth of kid #2. Assuming its schools stay strong, Newton will have no problem attracting lawyers, doctors, and finance types willing to shell out $3M+ on a nice house and plot of land. They’ll also have at least two cars and have only minor interest in public transportation. Demand for this model is not going away and time soon. Whether Newton is interested in providing the supply is, I suppose, questionable.
Greg,
Attract young workers ?? !! By housing them in a massive apartment project, next to wealthy dottering seniors, in quaint old Newtonville. What a joke ! You’ll have to attract young workers from the city, where they want to live, with employment handy to mass transit. I’d hesitate to build any more parking facilities to increase the traffic tie ups we already have,.. oh I forgot,.. those young workers don’t drive anymore.
The ‘Young” will come to Newton, married with babies, bicycles and cars for those 2 car garages next to those yards.
@Bill: you’re selling Newtonville short. It has hip restaurants, independent coffee shops, bars, an arts center, a grocery store and public transit. But it needs housing options.
Meanwhile start ups, tech companies and other innovation sector companies are out growing their spaces in the Innovation District and Kendall Square and are looking to move to the inner suburbs…but only to those communities where their workers want to live, work and play.
@Elmo – Your future for Newton is $3M+ houses as the norm.? Yikes! One-percenters need not apply, definitely need to be a sub-one-percenter for that.
Mr. Reilly, where did I say it is the norm? I merely stated what is empirically true: there will be high demand for some very expensive houses on some very nice lots populated by people who drive cars. Look at what is being built and bought throughout the city.
In terms of the norm, I would guess that there will be strong demand on the part of families with 2+ kids and combined incomes of $200K or better for 3-4 bedroom houses in the $850K – $1.5M range. Nothing wrong with that demographic.
Greg, What percentage of workers live in Kendall Square and the Innovation District? Not many. Mostly commuters
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to move the businesses they outgrow in town to the expanse (hah!) of office space in Newton.
We’re 8-10 miles from Boston with public transit to the city, the Masspike, with 95/128 accessible. We’re highly desirable for commuters.
Terry, my friend. When did you become such an old fogey?
Modern (i.e. innovation sector) companies are looking to move/expand to the inner suburbs and Newton can, should and is working to encourage them to come here. There are beautiful old warehouses in Nonantum along Chapel and Bridge Streets that are already home to young companies and start-ups. There are vacancies just behind the retail stores on Needham Street and along Oak Street. There’s opportunities at Wells Ave.
These businesses find communities like Newton desirable because of their proximity to Boston and Cambridge but also because we offer good schools, open space, a thriving restaurant scene, excellent shopping, etc. And they’re hiring. But they do need a places for their employees to live.
So what happened at the meeting??
Anyone there that can make a first hand report? Please?
I was there for the tree item but took notes on the other ‘second call’ items.
They postponed the vote on 23-14, the Special Permit for that 78 Lovett Rd retaining wall because the Land Use chair and a Ward 8 alderman were absent.
On the Austin Street petition, 47-14 I’m not real clear on the three parts, but they scheduled a public hearing for May 15. Emily Norton moved to delay the vote that was to happen tonight, to the May 19 meeting so that it would be after the public hearing. That failed by something like 10-9 or 10-8 (can’t read all my scribbles, and I think I missed someone). Ayes for delaying: Blazar, Ciccone, Cote, Fuller, Harney, Leary Norton & Yates. Nays for not delaying to May 19: Albright, Crossley, Danberg, THM, Johnson, Kalis, Lappin, Rice, Sangiolo, Schwartz, and Lennon. Then they voted to approve Amy Sangiolo’s motion to postpone the vote to Monday May 5. meeting.
E-cigarettes was next but I kind of tuned out on that one because I just don’t like to think about any kind of cigarettes.
The tree ordinance was the last item, and got recommitted to Programs & Services in a morass of language confusion. First there is this “Intents, Findings and Purpose” section (which basically explains why trees are good) which — bear with me here — was part of the original, existing Tree Preservation Ordinance, but not included in the city code or whatever way back then because the Law Department didn’t think it was appropriate to include. THM remembered it existing, and thought it should be part of the revised ordinance, and that is how it was discovered that it was not in the code. So it was added to what was being voted on tonight. Deb Crossley thought it was badly worded (that the intents, findings and purpose were all muddled up) and wanted it excluded so that they weren’t reaffirming it. I’m not clear, and I’m not sure the Aldermen were either, on whether not including it would mean that this preamble was repealed in a sense, or if it was still in effect. I think Amy Sangiolo was saying it would still exist, and I think others wanted to get rid of it until it was worded better.
Then there were a couple of ‘friendly amendments’ by Deb Crossley intended to make the definition of ‘exempt lot’ grammatically a definition and not a command: replace “must remain” with “is” in item 3 (The existing structure on the lot must remain occupied as a dwelling with a person or persons living in it for eighteen consecutive months from the date any protected tree(s) are removed) and “must be” with “is” in item 4 of the definition of exempt lot (The lot must be owned by the same person for eighteen consecutive months from the date any protected tree(s) are removed). I think we tree people were okay with it either way, but Brian Yates was concerned that the change might make it harder to enforce, and at that point there seemed to be enough to resolve to send it back to Programs & Services.
To build such a large and ugly structure in the middle of Newtonville is not the right thing for our community. These young people wouldn’t be able to afford the costly rents. The commuter system is most inadequate for young people reliant on public transportation. Also, they would need cars to access the rest of Newton’s restaurants and recreational areas. I say NO to this new development.
@Colleen: Ha, ha, ha. I’m sure if Architectural Digest were to release a list of Newton’s 200 most attractive parking lots Austin Street would make the cut. I agree, we must avoid “large and ugly” in our Village centers.
But why are you so certain the new building will be “ugly.” We haven’t selected a developer yet. We have some artist renderings, but those are hardly the final designs. I hope this building is a gem. We should insist on it.
And while we certainly need affordable housing options in Newton, what makes you so certain that the young tech workers, engineers and entrepreneurs who might find Newtonville desirable can’t afford this? Have you studied the salaries MIT, Babson, Olin or Bentley grads are earning?
Greg,
If Newton is so interested in attracting tech and biotech corporations to do business in our town, why did Newton not even try to keep TripAdvisor from relocating their headquarters to Needham with a counteroffer in terms of tax incentives?
On your point about high tech / biotech companies moving out of Cambridge, there was a recent announcement that Verastem is moving from Kendall Sq to Kendrick St in Needham. So yes, there is a mini trend afoot, BUT in my opinion, the moving of these high tech / biomed companies to Needham over Newton has nothing to do with the available workforce, but rather has to do with cost in terms of tax incentives and rent. Newton could match that, but will we?
You mentioned that we need to attract highly qualified young residents to Newton to make it more attractive for companies to start-up or move to Newton. I do not believe this is true at all: I work for a hundred million dollar software company in Waltham. And do you know what percentage of the employees actually live in Waltham? Less than 10%. Our workforce is spread across the entire area inside of I-495 from Cambridge to Concord, to Lowell, to Canton. Start-ups need to hire people who can hit the ground running not 25 yr olds who need to learn the ropes, i.e. they’re looking to hire people in the 35-40 age group. In that sense we already have a decent pool of knowledge. What we need is tax incentives and a business friendly environment if we want to attract tech businesses to the Needham St corridor and other possible areas. I don’t believe we have that in place today.
@Peter. I don’t fault you if you didn’t know that Newton tried to keep TripAdvisor because it was under reported. But I’ve talked to both sides and know for a fact that there were quite a few conversations about just that. Unfortunately there just was not a parcel in Newton that met Trip’s needs (which was not just for one building in a highly visible location but an entire campus with room to expand to a second building).
But TripAdvisor is pretty unique. Newton does have locations available for many small, medium and even largish companies.
Yes, you’re right the tax incentives were important to TripAdvisor when it ultimately choose Needham. Wisely, Newton was since been approved to offer similar incentive packages here. In fact, Mayor Warren spoke about just that in his budget address last night.
Finally, you’re right when you say 35-40 year olds are a key part of this work force. But unfortunately that’s young compared to Newton’s demographic trends.
On Pleasant St. in Watertown near Russo’s new apartments are quickly being built to meet the need of young professionals. Raytheon sold large tracks of land for this purpose. Some of the buildings look good but one in particular is very close to North St. and quite ugly.
Austin St. is not suitable for a 4-5 storey structure. We residents want trees, gardens, benches. A place that entices people to come and relax in the town center. Preserve some areas for parking but do not build a big, overbearing structure in the middle of Newtonville.
Greg,
Not an old fogey (yet), but I’m not blinded by boosterism.
How many feet of appropriate vacant space does Newton have vs surrounding communities? A nice economic mix would be ideal, but we need to keep in mind who we really are and what our strengths are: For the most part, Newton is a commuter suburb with strong schools, safe streets and a terrific location.
So Terry, we should just ignore those commercially zoned sections of our city (Needham Street, Rumsford Ave, Washington Street, parts of Nonantum, West Newton, Upper Falls, Lower Falls, Route 9, etc. etc.) because our strength is our schools and our residential neighborhoods?
We’re a smart community. We ought to be able to figure out how to maximize multiple strengths. And besides, who’s helping pay for those schools and police anyway?
Greg: There is a vast difference between a population with a high IQ and that of one that demonstrates any sort of commitment to smart growth. I agree with you that Newton needs to evolve if it wants to stay relevant going forward. “Schools and residential neighborhoods” is the last century’s battle with the surrounding suburbs, which have caught up to, if not surpassed Newton on that measure.
Newton has a lot more going for it. Villages, sound management, major transit routes criss-crossing the City, a well thought-out comprehensive plan. However, Newton also has something else: an entrenched parochialism that recoils in horror at the very mention of change. Is it complacency? Fear? Much at stake? Whatever it is, in my view, it represents the biggest threat to Newton’s future. Evolve or perish. Resisting the replacement of a parking lot is not a smart or winning signal.
@Bill: Amen brother.
No Greg, we should not ignore commercially zoned areas of our city. We should aggressively recruit businesses for these sites and, as you say, maximize these opportunities. But appreciate the limitations: we’re a built-out residential city and there’s only so much room for this type of growth. You argued that we need housing for these Kendall Square immigrants. I disagree. They can commute here just like they commute to Kendall Square. The bigger limitation is not housing, it’s lack of available commercial space.
@Terry:
You’re so right we need to use our available space productively. And I’ve got a great idea! Let’s take that ugly old parking lot at Austin Street and replace it with a smart mix of housing, retail and parking. Newtonville deserves something really terrific there.
Bill Brandel — You’re right on the observation of entrenched parochialism. The reason isn’t due to the water we drink or the type of people Newton attracts. Take a look at any of the newspapers for similarly sized communities. These are mostly daily papers filled with stories about violent crime, arson, heroin deaths, etc. The focus in those communities is naturally not traffic patterns, leaf blowers, or parking lots. As a corollary, we’re not different from Duxbury, Manchester-by-the-Sea or Dover.
Give it a rest all of you chamber of commerce cheerleaders!
And include me as a horrified part of the recoiling “Entrenched Parochialism “rampant throughout the city. Consider us also as citizen home owners concerned with their individual home owning investment and the onslaught of a rapacious real estate industry intent on feathering their own nests at the expense of the inherent sub urban character of the ‘Garden City’.
Show me the democracy in this, where real estate developers, the city planning department and various planning authorities all cozy down together to further their respective agendas, figuring out the next urbanizing Riverside, Austin Street, Court Street, Wells Ave, Newton Center Etc. housing project.
Like big business dictating Republican money grabbing in Washington, the people of Newton are starting to wake up to the business mans agenda here at home. Density is The Problem in the city, and urbanization is Not the solution.
The Austin Street concept fails to take into consideration the potential role of the municipal lot in expanded Mass Pike air-rights development. It sells the city short by tens of million$ in revenue. It’s akin to building on top of a gold mine, with no idea how you’re then going to mine the gold. People who support the current proposal either don’t understand commercial real estate, or simply don’t care.
Mike, for the love of all things in development, PLEASE do some basic research or ask anyone who does real estate development about building over the Mass Pike. I have. It is a non starter without a huge building (think 15 or more stories) AND huge subsidies. See this link for instance.
http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2009/08/20/state_may_absorb_30m_on_pike_air_rights_project/
In addition, a study 15 years ago (the civic vision study) identified extra costs on building over the turnpike between 15 to 25 million per acre. I think it is now closer to 40 million per acre.
Fenway Centre is being done using a innovative rent structure to make the cost of building over the pike almost neutral to the developer. BUT LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. Folks are freaking out over 5 story buildings, never mind 15 stories.
To give you context, think about taking the Crown Plaza and Newton Corner and moving it to Newtonville. Think the village is split now? Worried about shadows from 5 story buildings? How about 4 times that in shadow and an actually wall of building between us.
Not the least of which, that parking lot is ACROSS THE STREET from the usable lot. There is some small potential for the folks that own Shaws to do a Mass Pike air rights project, if they could make the return on investment work, if they could get the State folks to agree on the air rights, if they could figure out a use that doesn’t kill in from day 1. But mostly they would be the only ones to do it because they have terra firma right along the pike and an already built overhang from the current Shaws (from the 1960’s I believe), and partly as compensation from the original taking when the Pike was actually built.
The city would need to front millions to get this to work. And you’d need Shaws involvement. Call me back in 20 years when the project is in the planning stages. In the meantime, I’d rather be enjoying a refurbished Newtonville, rebuilt using the money from the Austin Street development, and shopping along Austin Street in some of the new shops (assuming they aren’t hair or nail salons).
As for those of us so opposed to Austin Street that they’d rather keep it a parking lot, what is your alternative proposal? Do you love easy parking THAT much?
The only viable option I could come up with is taking away half the parking lot, and putting in a small village green type arrangement, with tables and green grass. But look at the location, with the next door alley, overlooking the shaw’s parking lot. Is that charming? Seems rather ugly to me.
And I do agree that many of the designs are horrible. We can work on that. We SHOULD work on that. But as long as the money from the winning developer is going to be used to better the village, I’m on board.
@fig– I’ve made a pretty decent living being a commercial real estate developer/investor for the past 20 years. So I probably have a little more knowledge about this than you’re assuming. I also researched the subject extensively before I ran for mayor in 2005, and can tell you that the number$ you’re using have no basis in reality. Additionally, I’ve had numerous conversations with other commercial developers about the value of air-rights in Newton. The only reason they’re not standing in line with potential projects, is because the City has not articulated a pathway to approval. The fact that the municipal lot is across Austin Street from the Pike is nearly irrelevant from a construction standpoint. It’s something that’s easily countered through design. Even more easily countered through a land swap with Shaws. Which prompts me to offer this disclaimer…
*I own some supermarket properties and at least one of them is a Shaws, [not in Newton].
“Newton needs to evolve if it wants to stay relevant going forward.”
I honestly do not understand what this means. People are obviously willing to spend enormous sums of money to buy a home in our city… in fact my real estate friends tell me we are back to the days of homebuyers offering more than asking price. Presumably these home buyers are coming to Newton because of the way we are NOW, not because they hope we will turn into something else. It’s not like we’re Detroit and we need to change up our model in order to attract people.
@Greg
I’m with you!
Mike, how do you get to an adequate return on investment with the additional costs of building over the Pike? The only way is through a gigantic building and large subsidies. Not only that, but the rents in Boston are far higher than in Newton, but the construction costs are the same. With all due respect to your prior experience, building/developing over the Pike is a completely different animal. Has Brookline also not “articulated a pathway to approval”? How many other towns/cities does the Pike intersect, all of whom don’t have a path forward? Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t work.
What do you think the actual costs of building over the pike are? I don’t doubt you are in development, but again, do some more research and crunch some numbers. In the meantime, please read this useful article.
http://www.asce.org/CEMagazine/Article.aspx?id=23622327851#.U1hMmk13uUk
Let me quote from it to prove my point.
“Air-rights projects may continue to be a viable direction in a compact, built-out city such as Boston. “In many ways, now we’re creating land,” says Rosenthal. “I feel a little bit like a pioneer, when our forefathers filled in Boston Harbor, which was an engineering feat in and of itself. Now we’re taking air rights over the highway in order to create land.” In doing so, however, it is important to ensure that the projects can justify the costs. “You certainly need uses that can help pay for that premium,” Rosenthal says.
Building this project over the sunken highway rather than over land will run at least $34 million more than a traditional development of this size, he says. Getting buy-in—convincing community groups that higher density is the only way to make it fly—is tough, especially in a neighborhood where buildings typically extend just four to seven stories.
“Boston, in particular outside the financial district, has been opposed to height, density, and parking,” Rosenthal says, “all of which the community groups had to accept in order to see the highway, this ugly scar, covered up.” ”
Mike, see where they say $34 million more than a traditional development? See where they Rosenthal states that the only way to make this work is to go up and add height density and parking? The mythical developer you want to build over the Pike won’t own any terra firma, will need to do a land swap to make it work, and will have to deal with a city that won’t exactly like a gigantic hotel or residential structure plopped down in the middle of the city. It took Boston almost a decade of planning to kill Columbus Center, and it has taken Rosenthal almost the same time to do Fenway Centre.
So basically the problem isn’t the city, it is basic engineering, costs of materials, difficulty in placing support columns, building over the railway (ever wonder why they never built the Shaws over the commuter rail, this article tells you why), cost of steel, cost of air rights, size of building, lack of subsidy, lack of neighborhood buy-in.
I could go on, but why don’t you read my article from Civil Engineering first, process it, and then we can talk more if you are interested.
Let’s not as a community put all change on hold while we wait for possible miracle events to occur. The Pike will still be there in 20 years, completely uncovered, as air rights deals slowly make their way from Boston proper out to our neck of the woods. I’d hate to be looking at a parking lot in Austin Street all that time…
And lest folks think I’m picking on Mike, he is not the only one to say this about the Pike, just the one who is brave enough to keep making the point in a public forum. It is a very tempting idea. I’d love for the pike to be covered. Maybe one day if I live long enough I’ll see it. But it won’t be in the next 20 years.
We need to focus on the possible. And the same goes for the folks who want to do nothing at all. Mike is dreaming too big, which is an admirable thing. I’m more annoyed at the folks who don’t dream at all (parking lot today, parking lot tomorrow, parking lot until I retire, because that is always the way it has been and shall be.)
Mike’s dreaming too big, Fig? Mike’s dreaming about something that would tear the community apart. I’m all in favor of developing one of the ugliest public spaces in the city, but a building of the size of the Crowne in N’ville ? I’d fight that. Thank you for the reality check – facts, figures, etc. about development of air rights.
@fig– In 2005 the platform cost was $6-8M per acre. I can’t give you an accurate cost today, but let’s just use your number of an additional $34M for an individual project…
Now let’s suppose I want to build a $400M mall in Newton and I’m looking to acquire the land. Where would you suggest I look? The only site in Newton where I could feasibly build a mall of that size would be over the Pike. So if a developer is willing to build a $400M mall, do you think they’d shy away from building a $434M mall? Of course not! There is nowhere else to build it.
What that developer would almost certainly do, is try to create a footprint that connects the air-rights and a land based site, in order to reduce that “extra” $34M. That’s why Newton needs to be particularly thoughtful about all of the land that abuts or nearly abuts the Pike. And it’s exactly why selling the Austin Street lot without understanding its potential, is simply ill conceived.
One more thing, fig… When you say “it doesn’t work,” that strikes me as kinda silly. If it didn’t work, the Gateway Center and Shaws market wouldn’t be standing there right now. Of course construction costs have increased substantially since those structures were built, but building values have kept pace. That value is one of the reasons the city needs to cultivate our air-rights. Do you know how much in annual property taxes a $434M commercial structure pays?
Greg said “You’re so right we need to use our available space productively.”
You know, I’ve been saying that myself concerning Newton’s development.
“And I’ve got a great idea! Let’s take that ugly old parking lot at Austin Street and replace it with a smart mix of housing, retail and parking. Newtonville deserves something really terrific there.”
I am keeping an open-mind regarding Austin Street however I am concerned that the project will not pay for itself and that it will be another Avalon Bay in which we privatize profits for developers and socialize costs to taxpayers.
Bravo Joshua,
Between the Chamber of Commerce, the Mayors Office, the Planning Department, the real estate ‘industry, and pro development / pro urbanization do- gooders, Austin Street is being forced down the throats of the citizens of the Garden City. Density is the Problem, not the solution. Problem definition is the key to its solution.
Mike:
Now we are getting somewhere (at least to coming to terms on how we specifically disagree). Reread my prior comments. When I was saying it doesn’t work, I clearly was referring to Newtonville. Obviously we’ve got the Gateway Center from 20 years ago, and Shaws from 50 years or so ago I think. But Shaw’s was a product of the initial taking for the Pike I believe, and the Gateway Center left a gigantic hotel atop the pike, smack dab in the middle of Newton Corner.
So let’s ignore the very real cost concerns I brought up. Let’s focus on the reality of any 15 to 20 story structure in Newtonville. Let’s think about the traffic issues. Are you proposing new exits and onramps to the Pike (please no, that would make our village into Newton Corner and horribly add to traffic). So basically it is just a large use, like a mall like you referenced. Or maybe a large office space, without underground parking of course. How does Walnut and Washington Street handle that traffic for that use? Newton Corner can possibly handle it (although I’d maintain that the Newton Corner hotel and parking garage is a huge disaster of a project for the local community) due to the Mass Pike entrance/exit. In fact, more big development in that area might actually work, like your big mall concept (although big malls wouldn’t work for ROI and malls are generally not built except on very cheap land (or at all anymore)). More like a large office space and condo concept perhaps. But in Newtonville? Sorry, that just won’t work. WE CAN’T EVEN AGREE ON A SMALL 5 STORY BUILDING WITHOUT CONCERNS ABOUT SIZE/SCALE/WIND/SHADOW/NIMBY issues. Heck, even I would fight tooth and nail over a gigantic Fenway Center/Gateway Center project over the pike. Talking about splitting the village in half….
My basic premise remains the same. In order to justify the costs, you need to go big. Your example shows that. Yes a developer building a 400 million dollar project might be ok with a 434 million dollar project (although I’d maintain that the loss of the 9% ROI is going to mighty painful). Money is cheap right now, so maybe. But it still needs a 400 million dollar size project. Would that same developer be ok with 34 million of costs and a 100 million dollar project? Heck no. The return would be negative without state or city support. And even then you’ve got a 10 story project.
So I’m back to what I said, you are dreaming, but at least you are dreaming “big”. Unfortunately, “big” doesn’t work for the site in question. And this is ignoring the cost considerations, the zoning considerations, the air right costs (in addition to the extra costs to build the deck), the traffic and parking issues, and the fact that most of these large Pike projects take a decade or more to build. In perfect no-brainer sites. If Boston can’t stitch together the South End and Back Bay (the Columbus Center project, (also a huge mega project)), then I doubt the wise folks of Newton can make it work in Newtonville, where the lease rates are half.
Thank you blueprintbill.
One thing I don’t understand from the Chamber of Commerce, the Mayors Office, the Planning Department, the real estate ‘industry, and pro development / pro urbanization do-gooders is that they don’t seem to understand that northside residents in general and Newtonville residents in particular don’t want the Austin Street project?
Here are some observations that were shared with me that lead me to be apprehensively concerned about the Austin Street project proposals:
From what I heard, the current proposals are not really “mixed use”: by sq footage, New Atlantic is 4% commercial, Newtonville Sq is 5% commercial, Austin St partners is 10% commercial. They are really housing complexes with token amounts of commercial.
Add to that the strenuous opposition of many Ward 2 residents: too high, too dense, too little parking, too much traffic. We don’t want to turn the northside neighborhoods and especially Newtonville into Brookline or Watertown.
Whoops! Mistaken again Josh Norman! Actually an overwhelming majority of village residents say they are receptive to the Austin Street lot being developed according to this poll. (see slide 5)
Good people disagree about the scope of the project, the number of parking spaces, etc. but they clearly recognize that we could improve upon what’s there now.
fig– Okay, so your “it doesn’t work” comment is actually about economic viability. And I’ve given you one example of how building over the Pike is in fact economically viable. I wasn’t proposing a mall for Newtonville, just using it as an example. I could give you other examples indicating viability as well… hospital, performing arts center, sports arena, office building, and hotel.
Do those buildings have to be big in order to work? Yes! Do they have to be 15-20 stories? No! For example, when I researched air-rights in 2005, economic viability could be achieved in an 8-10 story structure, putting it on par with buildings like Chestnut Hill Towers. Of course viability depends on the use.
Admittedly, I do tend to think BIG. But it’s my understanding that we have some very BIG issues to overcome in Newton. The Mayor has just proposed a $345M annual budget. We’re facing a collapse of our City pension system. And there’s an enormous need for funds to improve infrastructure. Where’s all that money going to come from? If you can tell me how to fix those problems without BIG ideas, I’d be happy to forgo the idea of air-rights development.
Mike Striar — If you like BIG, you left out the grandest, most economically significant, largest possibility of all! Before I say what this is, if development over the Pike is attractive, wouldn’t Shaws have already taken the exit possibility and sold? Clearly, Newton City Hall is not a friend of Shaws – they rejected Shaws right to use one of their three wine licenses and instead handed this right to an out of state competitor (Wegmans)
The grandest possibility, with possible National significance in terms of changing Boston’s gateway is — a casino. Newton would have non of that idea — but look at the stupid plans left on the plate with Everett and Suffolk Downs. That would define BIG!
BTW — if you keep up with the Mass Pike idea, City Hall is bound to think of something like a huge solar field over the pike. I’d rather we didn’t go there
Greg, I have to disagree with your conclusion since you are wrong and I am right.
The survey participants clearly wanted a 2 to 3 story building with 20 to 40 units. That is not what we’re getting with the Austin Street project proposals.
In terms of the mayor’s current trajectory* being a project of 5 stories and 80-98 units, which that same survey shows the vast majority do NOT want.
*as defined by the 3 projects that were rated highest by the mayor’s evaluation team
Mike, I’ve got some personal knowledge here, and I’m telling you your numbers are way off. Either your proposed 10 to 12 story building will need millions of state or city money, or it will need a use that doesn’t exist in Newton. Ask anyone who does large developments in Boston (the only place this has worked in the last two decades) and they will tell you the same.
Part of your issue I think comes from your base line assumptions on deck costs and steel. Part of it is assuming that the air rights will be free or greatly less than what they are currently going for. A lot of it is the use. Take the current rents for retail/commercial or residential. You’d did Boston rents to make any deal work, and Boston deals are only working at very large heights with large subsidies (and in the case of Rosenthal, he already owns a large tract of land in the area of Fenway).
Not to mention the borrowing cost issues. Columbus Center fell apart for lots of reasons, but in the end it was the combination of rising steel and construction costs combined with some nasty NIMBY delays that did them in.
And all of your uses are, frankly, horrible. Hospital? Mall? hospital, performing arts center, sports arena, office building, and hotel. Let’s see.
Can’t see a new hospital being built so close to Newton Wellesley, and the ROI wouldn’t work for a turnkey.
Mall: Only way that could work is a very high end, Copley place style mall, and no market study will support that for a Newton location with the other malls in the area. Maybe 25 years ago when malls were king.
Performing arts center: Most theatres rely on large public subsidies to get going and keep going. Not nearly enough cash flow.
Sports area: I’m not even going to entertain that one. Too narrow a space.
Office building: Perhaps, if it was tall enough. For Newton rents, 30 stories at a minimum. Run the numbers based on other local square footage.
Hotels: Maybe, if Newton’s occupancy rates were high, and if there were better visitor transportation options. But in Newtonville? It is isolated for a hotel of any real size or price point, and the last one in Newton Corner was 12 plus stories and would be a dividing wall between north and south newton. Good luck with that.
Happy to entertain big ideas Mike. Let’s try and keep it somewhat tied to reality though. You don’t solve big problems by throwing big money away.
fig– I get the sense we’re just going around in circles. We’ll have to agree to disagree. So I’ll lay out a final point, and then you can have the last word if you wish…
I’ve never developed an air-rights property. I’m sure there’s a great deal of knowledge about constructing an air-rights property that I simply don’t have. But I do buy and sell large commercial buildings for a living. And every once in awhile I hang out with other people who also buy, sell and develop large commercial properties. Although cost is a factor that would make some shy away, I can tell you unequivocally that the primary impediment to cultivating Newton’s air-rights is not financial viability. Rather, it is the lack of clarity surrounding the approval process. If the process was reasonable and well articulated, Newton would be in position to choose from some great development proposals.
Greg. What you state is a little misleading in quoting page 5 of the survey as a standalone item. 75% of those surveyed are in favor of developing the lot ONLY if it met their criteria which is clearly stated in the Executive Summary on page 1. That is:
Scale: Over three quarters of residents (82%) say a development of three stories or less would work best.
Density: The overwhelming majority of residents (80%) want 40 or fewer residential units. That includes 20% of surveyed residents who want no residential units at all.
Public Parking: The overwhelming majority of residents (79%) want to retain 100 or more public parking spaces. That includes 40% of surveyed residents who want 150 or more spaces.
This is in line with some of the smaller bids, but completely out of line with the three front line contenders.
In my opinion the maximum size and scale allowed should be defined before a contractor is selected rather than the other way around. You can’t select a contractor who has proposed a 90 unit development and then turn round to them and say they can only build 40. That’s just not going to happen and we all know it. Hence the concern by the majority of residents over this project.
What percent of the village residents responded to the survey?
Jane,
Ten percent of Newtonville’s poupulation over the age of 14 responded, according to the Newtonville Area Council. People who know a lot about surveys, and how difficult it is to get people to complete them, say 10% is a very strong response rate. In addition, more than 500 Newtonville and Newton residents have signed one of the three petitions opposing the current development process and plans, and asking that the process be re-started with the genuine, extensive input of regular residents of Newtonville, and not just the pro-development lobby. This is not just about a parking lot; it’s about having a say about what happens in our village and will affect us every day for the rest of our lives.
*oops… I meant “population”
Mike Striar, you make a terrific point about the approval process. I made a similar point at a meeting with the planning department and representatives from various boards and commissions this morning to talk about community engagement in the permitting process. To serve the best interests of the city, developers and residents, I think it is essential that the process must be fair, well articulated and predictable.
Kathleen:
The process has had the input of dozens of Newtonville residents, and it has been going on for what.. 5 years? Just out of curiousity, what is your perfect plan for the Austin lot? Leave it as parking? Something else?
As for the 500 hundred signatures, it is a bit ironic how you support the voice of true Newtonville residents as what is missing from the process, but point out how many non-Newton residents signed a petition. Also, I believe many folks signed all three petitions…
Let’s be honest here folks. I think the parking lot is ugly and underused. My perfect plan for the lot is 3 to 4 stories, with a multiple building like designed (similar to the Bnai-Brith proposal but smaller) with 100 parking spaces. I want full commercial lining Austin Street, some green space along the side near the alley, buried power lines along Austin Street for the commercial district, and enough money to fund the redo of Walnut street from the sidewalk in, including new lighting, benches and landscaping. And I would mind more activity in Newtonville village center either, and more people living there will help.
Am I getting that with any of these proposals? No. But ANY of them is better than the parking lot. As long as the money raised from the sale stays in the village, I’m in for the development. I’ll be advocating to have it look more like what I want, using the process that was identified for the past few years.
Kathleen, Peter, others, how about what YOU want the parking lot to be. Ted, how about you? Let’s bottom line what we really want and not focus on the process for a few posts.
Fignewtonville,
I’m sorry but I cannot have a conversation with a person who hides behind a screen name. You put all of us who have the courage to stand by what we say at a disadvantage by hiding as you do. Of course, I can answer all your questions and your inaccurate assertions, but I will not, unless you show us the respect of identifying yourself. Please don’t bother to address me again. I won’t answer.
Kathleen
No need to respond. But let me point out that public discourse doesn’t require identity anymore. Welcome to the computer age. And most folks here know me as I’ve been posting here before your pet nimby issue and I’ll be posting here about Newtonville long after you stop. But I’m actually hoping you don’t stop but stay engaged about more than his one issue.
I’ll also know that the folks who complain about anonymity always seem fine with the folks that agree with them. Peter and jane and boss and terry and blueprintbill and others all post here too. For all I know half of these names are fake that look real.
But are you here to vent or to move opinion to your side and make newton a better place? If you are, perhaps respecting those of us who can’t give our names and addressing he substance of our discourse versus the fake name on he door.
I’ve always suspected that half these folks are just avatars for Greg anyway.
Cheers and a good night to all.
@fignewtonville, as you probably know, I agree with you and the majority of respondents to the Newtonville area poll: I want a transit-oriented mixed-use development that does not overwhelm the neighborhood, provides sufficient parking, promotes pedestrian vitality, adds to the economic vitality of the village, includes market rate and affordable housing for empty nesters, young working couples and singles, and low to moderate income households, and creates a space where people will gather. None of the proposals so far do it for me, but I think that with the right developer at the right price we can get a great project. And we should learn from other profound failures to revitalize commercial areas through misguided planning. I firmly believe the current zoning does that.
What I have had a problem with, from the beginning, is a designed/developer selection process that has been shrouded in secrecy and prolonged without a decision for, what, almost a year now? Ironically, the process the city and the BOA adopted was supposed to streamline and expedite the permit review and approval process for developers while ensuring community engagement. So, EPIC FAIL on that count. But all is not lost. Moving forward, we can salvage the process if, and only if, the city starts engaging the public now and instead of having dog and pony shows, with little or no opportunity for the public to participate and weigh in, invites questions and comments and feedback that will actually influence both the process and the product.
This administration talks a lot about “outcomes.” Here is an opportunity to ensure a positive one. But if this process continues to be more for show than for substance, the project will be doomed to failure whether it gets approved or not.
BTW, fignewtonville, I know who goes with every avatar on this blog–except you. So I can vouch for the fact none of them are Greg Reibman, who, ironically, is actually not a real person. Sorry, Greg. Cat’s out of the bag. Check the cellar for pods. 😉
Ted – You know the identity of Hoss?
Yes, but I’m not telling. That’s up to Hoss.
Yes Gail. He made a few references to my address, etc during his campaigns last year, clearly attempting to squash any descending remarks. I wish him the best in conquering public opinion and free speech.
Sadly I must stay anonymous. But I will tell you I don’t work for the city or any interested parties and I love my house in Newtonville. I’m bummed that Ted disproved my Greg theory.
I do really like this blog though. I get all my newton info here!
Ted,
A breath of fresh air !
I agree we need more transparency, public participation, feedback, and community input into the ‘streamlined and exploited permit process’. But local government does not owe the Real Estate Development Industry any more profits than they might earn legitimately, without their participation in the city planning process. It’s like inviting the fox into the hen house. Housing projects in this city should not be governmental sponsored charities. Let the citizens of Newton contribute to the charities of their choice, and stop using tax dollars on that behalf.
@Fignewtonville: I, like 75% of the survey respondents, would support a project which:
(1) Fits the existing scale, density and size of the neighborhood and village center, i.e. 2-3 stories.
(2) Maintains some open space where trees could be planted. Maybe Bram Way for example could be widened to allow some park benches and some green space between the buildings.
(3) Maintains sufficient easily accessed publicly owned parking for shoppers. I will not continue to shop in Newtonville unless I can readily find parking, for example on weekend mornings to stop in at Great Harvest, George Howell or Bread & Chocolate.
(4) Is at least neutral in terms of long term tax revenue vs cost of services. Better still make it nett positive. This leads me to believe a larger percentage than what has been proposed by all the current bids needs to be commercial than residential. A two bedroom residential unit will absolutely have kids. Don’t think for a moment that 2 bedroom or 1+ units won’t eventually have school age kids living there. It’s as convenient to schools as it is to public transportation. I can attest to this from previously living in a more urban town.