Newton Mayor Setti Warren released this statement this morning
It is with great optimism and excitement for the future of Newton that I announce the selection of Austin Street Partners development team to design and build a mixed-use project on the Austin Street Municipal Parking Lot. Our overarching goal in developing this property is to improve Newtonville by creating a vibrant and robust village center while improving parking and traffic flow.
This decision comes after a thorough review of the strengths of several competent and competitive teams, which I wish to thank for their thoughtful proposals. Director of Planning and Development, Candace Havens coordinated review of the qualifications of the teams with a group of expert evaluators, sought the advice of a professional financial analyst, visited representative sites, consulted with several other department heads, and considered public comments in making this recommendation. I am confident that Austin Street Partners has the essential qualities to create a successful addition to the village of Newtonville.
Austin Street Partners is team of accomplished professionals with excellent references that have designed and built comparable projects in New England that showcase their abilities. This team has the financial capacity, commitment to sustainability, and collaborative approach to design and implementation that distinguish them. Their GreenStaxx modular system with off-site construction allows for parking on the site throughout construction and also reduces the duration of construction, thereby minimizing impacts on local businesses, which is very important to the ongoing vitality of the village. This approach also allows for energy-efficient construction methods, which strengthens their contribution to sustainability.
Now that Austin Street Partners has been selected, negotiations will begin. A group of City officials, including the City’s Economic Development Director, City Administrative Officer, City Solicitor, Director of Planning and Development, and Chief Financial Officer will meet with Austin Street Partners to negotiate terms of a Land Disposition Agreement. During this time, Austin Street Partners will meet with the community to hear about its interests and concerns. The principles that will guide these discussions include the City’s commitment to ensure the project will:
o Provide a focal point and welcoming gathering place for village activities;
o Provide positive benefits for the City, such as additional housing, activities, services, and patronage for existing businesses;
o Achieve site development objectives in a manner that is financially feasible and fiscally responsible; and
o Include opportunities for public participation throughout the process.
Once negotiations conclude, preparations for the special permit will start with additional community meetings to shape the project design. Reviews by several advisory groups will take place alongside staff evaluations prior to being considered by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen. Public input will be solicited throughout this time. With community engagement, I expect the resulting project to be an attractive place where people can gather, businesses can thrive, traffic flow and parking are improved, and a village feel is maintained.
In closing, I want to extend my congratulations to Austin Street Partners and commend all the teams who submitted responses to the City’s Request for Proposals for their interest and for taking the time to explore the potential of this site. We look forward to working with this talented team and to a collaborative community dialogue as we move forward.
Additional information about the Austin Street Redevelopment can be found at www.newtonma.gov/austinstreet. Comments and questions also can be sent to [email protected].
Doesn’t exactly sound like napalm to me.
Definitely not my top choice. I’m completely not sold on their modular system, which seems like something that will yield an ugly building…
Oh well. Onward to making this proposal better. This developer has a lot of work to do. Ted, what are the next steps to try and make this better?
And I thought that Godzilla was just a movie…
And now his honor the Mayor is off to Israel. I am sure we can email him and get speedy responses as always to any questions that we citizens may have regarding his decision.
Hey Bob. How about if we all agree now to have a mature conversation about this? For starters, the mayor’s trip is for only three days. This is certain to be a months-long process.
My main jab was at the lack of response to emails from the Mayor’s office. Perhaps the Mayor responds to your emails. I have had very little success in getting responses.
Emily Costello has posted a story on Wicked Local.
And before you say it is just my emails, my neighbors also get ignored by the Mayor.
Ok, so I just reviewed their proposal again. Not so bad. Lots to discuss over the next few months. But the folks complaining about parking during construction got what they wanted. This is the most friendly component to parking concerns…
I’d be very interested in the timing of what comes next.
Greg, even you should agree that announcing news on the Friday before a long holiday weekend is the standard ploy by large organizations, public and private, to reduce negative press coverage and reaction by citizens. It is this perception that makes this first impression of the city working with ASP a less than positive one. The mayor could have waited a week until after his return from his international trip to make this announcement. His choice of today will raise more questions by those leery of the process.
@Patrick: Agreed. The timing does create this impression.
Oh great! A stack of mobile homes!
I can’t wait for the first hurricane. Maybe we’ll get the parking lot back! Doesn’t this deal out organized labor? Unions only make construction more expensive. And of course we don’t want expensive construction here. We want to keep costs down so that we can build more units, house more seniors , and provide more affordable housing.
Bob,
I worked my butt off for the man and the day after he didn’t need me anymore he stopped returning my emails/phone calls, etc. You’re not alone.
Who is on Austin st partners? I heard (through the grapevine) that one of the developers offered to finance his campaign for higher office if he supported his development team. It will be interesting if that was the team. Time will tell…we’ll find out 5-10 years from now.
OK apologists come and get me.
Tom:
Strange but I seem to recall that he endorsed you for alderman two years after he stopped needing you. I’m just guessing here but perhaps he wasn’t comfortable with your tendency to report things you’ve heard “through the grapevine” without regard to backing any of it up.
If any of the Austin Street partners gave money to any of the mayor’s campaigns it would be in his finance reports.
Fignewtonville, the scores of people emailing the aldermen after today’s announcement have been venting their frustration that the Mayor chose to announce his choice before the Planning Board and/or Board of Aldermen have voted on the citizens’ rezoning petition and the resolutions docketed by the aldermen from Ward 2 before making his announcement. Having waited this long to announce, out of respect for the citizens who filed the petition, I think it would have been better for the Mayor to await the outcome of those votes. My concern now is that this will only increase the sense of resentment that already exists.
Notwithstanding these concerns, now that the die has been cast, I think that the sooner the community engagement begins the better it will be for everyone. I sincerely hope that the new chairman of Land Use will insist on a pre-filing public hearing to review the conceptual plans and solicit community feedback. But that is no longer my call.
This will be a critics holiday!
What about the delivery process involving the disposition on these streets relative to the delivery of 100 units of mobile homes? Can one expect to be driving around this neighborhood and parking your car with the cranes, trucks and trailers waiting for plumbing connections to be prepared, steel framing to be installed, lifting operations to be coordinated etc. has Star Market / Cerberus Partners been consulted.
Has the Mayor gotten outside professional construction advice before proceeding down this path?
And had the developer gotten some quality architectural design advice before gifting the community with this dusty ugler?
Pardon the misspelling.
That’s ‘sisty ugler’ , an architectural term for a less than attractive product.
Greg, the Mayor filed disclosures with the City Clerk that he received campaign contributions from principals of three of the bidders on Austin Street, and returned those contributions in order to avoid a conflict of interest.
thanks Ted.
thanks Ted.
That doesn’t talk about future donations though. Any law regarding that???
Greg,
You take you’re blog way too seriously. I prefaced everything I said that it was hearsay and not what I know. Too bad you dont know the difference…but that doesnt surprise me.
Tom – You have to stop saying stuff like that. About anyone.
I suggest you watch this episode:
The Daily Show
@Tom: Yes I take being factual seriously. But it is stunning, just stunning, that someone who is running for Governor’s Council — and would have the responsibility for approving judicial nominees — doesn’t understand what’s wrong with just tossing unsubstantiated reports out there, especially if you think that by acknowledging that you have no facts to back it up that makes it OK. God save us all if by some accident you were ever elected. Geesh.
What Gail said.
Greg, I will add that the mayor was politically astute enough to hold the announcement until after he marched through Newtonville in the parade last Sunday. No need to be subjected to public comments, positive or negative.
@Patrick: Well if the guy is as astute as you make him out to be, perhaps he’s astute enough to select exactly the right developer and make sure we get exactly the right project.
More to the point, why hijack this thread with this stuff? How about focusing on a substantive discussion about the project?
@Greg, political astuteness does not equate to project management expertise. Perhaps the mayor has both skill sets.
As far as hijacking this thread, I think questioning the announcement timing of the project’s developer is a current relevant aspect of this project.
You control this website. You just updated the commenting rules. If you really think I am hijacking this thread with inapprorpiate “stuff”, V14 can block my comments. I understand and agree with your rules. I do not believe I have broken them.
@Patrick, I’m sure I was reacting more to Tom’s ridiculous remarks than yours. I agree it’s fair to reflect on the timing and the potential strategy behind it.
@Greg, thank you for the clarification. I will let Tom speak for himself since I have concerns about some of his remarks, which to me seem to stress parts of the commenting rules.
What are we getting in this winning bid of $1 million (with possible contingency value) that makes this one better then the $5 million bid? Is the projected property value that much more such that the city makes up for the lost value in property tax?
@Hoss: I’m wondering if you may be confusing the purchase price with property taxes? Either way I think both numbers would only be a guess at this point.
The mayor’s announcement (above) indicates that the city will now begin negotiating on the sale, while the special permit process moves forward as well.
Meanwhile, since we don’t have anything close to a final design, I can’t imagine how we could determine the annual property tax revenue.
This is my last post on this blog. I am tired of Greg Reibman and his antics. As long as Greg is involved with this blog you have lost my participation. Greg, feel free to vote for whomever you want in next election season.
Last year it was Greg calling into question what I do for a living when in fact it was the Tab (under Reibman) who did a nice article in the paper on Second Life Computers. I believe Chrissy Long did the article.
He has been going after me over the years and I am sick and tired of it!!! I am sure that many people have left the blog due to him…but who knows. Oh wait, I can’t say that it’s just a rumor.
Onto my post. I was merely reporting on what I have heard. Because the Mayor is the subject of the rumor you have turned this on as an attack. I merely stated that there was a rumor that there was a developer that offered to pay the Mayor’s political future ambitions if he accepted the offer. I did not accuse him of accepting the offer, just reported what I heard. I thought blogs were suppose to be for disacussing various viewpoints and angles of a discusion so I threw in what I heard.
So long everyone. Tired of this.
Greg Reibman — My reading is the RFP response included a bid of $1.05 million plus 50% of any unused contingency up to max of $1 million additional. Now that I dig deeper into the bid, the document also suggests that because this there is 25% affordable units in addition to public parking, there is an additional value which the bidder says is $6.5 million. Possibly that is where the additional value comes into play. I asked because there’s a lot of public emotion in this one and I wondered how much that swayed the dry financial decision, if at all. Are you saying the “negotiation” would include the purchase price and not just things such as design of green space, and other features?
Does anyone know if the City has earmarked this sale value for anything? Stabilization fund, for example?
I believe that the President of NCDF which was one of the groups involved in pushing for surplusing the Austin Street lot is also a member of the team that has now been selected by the Mayor to develop said lot. It must be nice to know people in the right places.
Tom, that you would publicly repeat this defamatory rumour (suggesting illegal behavior on the part of an elected official) just demonstrates incredibly poor judgement on your part. And that you don’t seem to get the difference between that and “discussing various viewpoints” is astounding. Instead of accusing others of going after you or not returning your calls, maybe you should examine how your own actions are contributing.
Greg, just to clarify, according to the announcement, the special permit process will not begin until after negotiations are concluded.
Tom, both the campaign and political finance and conflict of interest laws may apply to political contributions. They may require public disclosure of political contributions in some instances and prohibit them in others, depending upon the particular facts involved. The laws are complex and questions about whether and how those laws may apply often arise. So the Office for Campaign and Political Finance and the Ethics Commission both have professional and legal staff who can and do advise elected officials. The City’s law department also frequently advises city officials in these matters.
So once again Newton is announcing a partnership with a developer before we have all the facts in place. *sigh*
I think that, had people chosen to work with those opposing this development, something really special could have happened here, that’s not going to happen now. We’ll end up with another generic box, less parking and still no commitment from the MBTA to increase regular transit service beyond 7pm to the area.
While I appreciate that Ted, Marcia and Susan were all for this project, they don’t live in this neighborhood. They all live on the other side of the Pike away from the NNHS traffic that clogs the streets a couple of times a day and away from the frustration of trying to get home from Boston at 9 pm. I resent having to drive my car into classes or events in town because I have no easy way to get home. There’s no parking near Highlands and the T lots are still usually full during the day/early evening when I need to head in. I can park near the B line (which is fine for the Allston clubs) but trying to get into the Fenway area for school, museums and games… well you roll the dice for parking in parts of the Highlands or (maybe, with your fingers crossed on a good day) Newton Centre.
If this development brings real transit options, that would ease a lot of the tensions. If it makes sure there is at least as much if not more parking, again, it will go a long way. But right now I doubt either of those will happen which means more people, more cars and more city… not necessarily in a good way.
@Karla: I agree fully that we need enhanced transit options. I hope our mayor and other electeds use every connection they have inside state government to lobby for this. I don’t think selecting a developer harms our position.
But your comments about Aldermen Hess-Mahan, Johnson and Albright are unfair. Disagree or not with them about this issue or other issues (and over the years, I have), but you won’t find three people who care more about our city and villages. And I’d say the same thing about Alderman Norton, who is on the other side of this debate. Engaging in decisive politics won’t help. (I’ve seen you articulate that philosophy over the years so I was surprised to see you go there now.)
Finally, could you please explain your comment about “announcing a partnership with a developer before we have all the facts in place”?
What specific facts would you expect to have in place (beyond all the information that’s already on the city’s website) before we knew who the developer would be? Now comes that point when ASP needs to have those community meetings to “work with those opposing this development” and to provide specifics about size, density, parking, traffic improvements, public space, construction timelines, etc. Only then can we have a constructive conversation about this.
Ted Hess-Mahan — Can you pls clarify something that was mentioned on another thread. If the developer makes 25% of the units qualify as affordable housing, does the entire number (100% of units) count in the state’s goal of 10% affordable?
Also, isn’t it pretty darn unlikely that disclosure is required when you RETURN contributions???
Greg, we’re still not done with the traffic study, the rezoning is still an issue and we are far from having an overall plan in place beyond, “Look, we have a developer!”
FTR: I didn’t say the Aldermen didn’t care, just they don’t live in this neighborhood. Alderman Norton does (she lives right around the corner from the proposed Court St. project which is being pushed by the same developer). They don’t have the same perspective and they were pretty much good with the whole thing at the get go until Sarah Quigley pushed back.
I literally live down the street from the proposed project – which is developer driven, not community driven. I see the empty store fronts in Newtonville (seriously, how long does it take the Subway sandwich shop to get the right permits or whatever to open?) and wonder why we need more commercial development spots. Rox Diner wanted to expand at one point and the parking was an issue as part of the permitting process. I should note that was over a year ago and the space next door to Rox’s is still vacant.
As I said at the meeting I could attend, it shouldn’t take me 15 minutes to drive from where I live on Austin across Newtonville to work – which I have to do in order to then leave work and get to school on time because the T can’t get me home after 7 pm. (Unless I want to wait at the Yawkey commuter rail stop by myself for over an hour. Thank heaven the guys at Boston Beer Works who let me sit at the bar nursing a root beer and watch ESPN with them the coupld of times I’ve had to do that.) I time my commute by the music I listen to in the car and being able to listen to a large chunk of a Big D and the Kids Table CD for that short a commute is not a good thing.
This comes on top of the Court St. proposal that would also radically change the neighborhood on the Washington St. side. We keep building things piecemeal without a bigger picture in place – none of it feels right.
This chosen development will be awful for the village of Newtonville. The residents want and need something quite different. Setti may regret this decision as the events play out. YUK
I, like Karla, live on Austin Street and agree with her point of view. It seems a better choice would be selecting a developer after the conclusion of the new traffic study and the rezoning assessment, since those outcomes would have an impact, supposedly, on what is done with the parking lot. But, instead, the decision to sell and to whom are decided; does that include the devoler’s proposal or just who is to develop it? As Karla pointed out there is already underutilized retail space in Newtonville. Ted posted in another thread the difficulty regulating the price of parking in West Newton in two lots that are now privately owned and had recent price increases. Now, even though parking is supposed to be included in the new development, it too will be privately owned, so should we expect parking rates to increase? It’s more difficult to address the community’s concerns with a developer who already has the job.
“Hey Bob. How about if we all agree now to have a mature conversation about this? For starters, the mayor’s trip is for only three days. This is certain to be a months-long process.”
You seem to have acknowledged that the Mayor’s method of announcing this selection was a little less than stellar. Therefore, I would ask that you agree to be more mature when criticizing a Newton resident who has been ignored by the Mayor and his office. And that is the nicest thing that I can say for him.
Ok, let’s address some of what was said above:
First, Hoss is right Greg. There is a difference between 5 million and the 1 million in public money (not public benefits, which is basically code for what is required in the RFP but wasn’t cash. not to say that isn’t important, but most of the projects had similar public benefits except for cash in my view). There was one project that had a 5 million dollar CASH value for the city. This one has 1 million, plus a million of cost savings which will NEVER occur. I think others who work in development can back me up on that…
So my main disappointment in this, besides the rather unsupported use of modular as a positive factor, is that loss of 4 million. We got a large project, but didn’t reap all the potential benefits. Why? I think this proposal was far more positive in the short term in terms of parking and length of construction. I am disappointed with the choice because I think the additional cash could have transformed the entire village, including potentially the commuter rail station if the MBTA partnered with us. 1 million is nice, but it doesn’t go as far as you think it will. But the adverse parties and the parking lot supporters did move the debate, and this, in my opinion, is the result. Great for the short term, bad for the next 20 years. I’d feel better if the value of the purchase was actually 2 million as promised, but like I said, anyone who thinks cost savings will occur is fooling themselves. Is that before or after the developer’s construction management fee? Developer fee and overhead?
I’ll address some of Karla’s, Marti’s and Hoss’s points in my next post.
Ok, a few other points:
Hoss, you asked if the buildings full number of units count towards our 10% goal. No, only the affordable units count.
Karla, you asked why the Subway is taking so long. My understanding is that it is an electrical issue, namely that it isn’t the cities issue. Also, regarding the empty storefronts, a vacancy rate of between 5% and 10% is common for commercial districts (healthy ones have lower ones of course). Frankly, part of the reason a particular unit may stay empty is the rent being asked or a prior tenant still on the hook for payments. Or it could be that most of the units are in bad shape and need substantial upgrading for new tenants. I’ve heard from multiple sources that the Newtonville space is overpriced for what it is.
Marti, the public parking with this project stay public, at least that is how I’ve understood it. That is part of the public benefit here, and why many of us have supported the project.
Also, let us be honest with each other about the zoning issue and the parking study. These were methods to kill the potential development. The folks proposing those “solutions” were well aware that little could be built on the site if the zoning had changed, and the parking study will be incorporated into the special permit (and frankly I think the adverse development folks are going to be surprised at what the parking study shows…) The city didn’t want to kill the project, and the zoning issue was studied by various parts of the city and rejected, nor did it have the votes in the Board of Alderman.
I point out (again) that this process has taken something like 6 years at this point. You can object to the development and the project, but really it is impossible to say that it hasn’t been veted. At some point a decision had to be made, at least on picking ONE developer to negotiate with.
Finally, for those folks who say that not enough information was out there, I went last night to the city website (mostly because I couldn’t remember the differences between the projects.) EACH developer had a very large and detailed presentation, listing out its benefits. Best of all the various evaluations by the committee were also posted. I was surprised at how detailed they were, and how much information went into it. It told me a lot more about the developer that got picked, and I think the community owes a debt to those individuals who served on that committee. I was surprised at how much information was available. If you are saying not enough vetting was done, I think the issue lies not with the city but with you personally. In other words, if you oppose the project, there would never be enough studies or information available to make you support it.
Again, my choice didn’t win, but I’m going to keep pushing to make this project a net benefit for the community and hope others will as well.
The timing of this announcement, coupled with the selection of a developer with no real project planned makes me wonder about both the intentions of those involved and the likely outcome of this endeavor. Hopefully my instincts are wrong, but I’ll be extremely surprised if Newtonville, and Newton overall, are better off with the result of this effort.
Regarding the 3 developers offers of campaign contributions.
Why were these offers made? Isnt an offer by a business organization on a list of possible contractors akin to bribery ? Once a bribe is made shouldn’t the agent to whom the bribe was directed be sensitized to the ethical inclinations of said business organization and rule those organizations out of the running? What other business practices might those organizations be inclined to participate in that will never be found out about that might impact the quality of the final outcome?
Is it only public knowledge of unethical behavior that matters or is this just politics as generally practiced today ?
I’m so naive .
In today’s TAB, Kathleen Kouril Greiser made an interesting point about how Bob Engler recommended that Newton should surplus the Austin Street property and now he’s part of the Austin Street Partners group that gets to develop the property.
Technically, it was the organization (NCDF) of which he is the President of the Board of Directors which advocated for development of Austin Street. Not that much of a difference really. But it allows for some deniability on the part of the city.