Newton Mayor Setti Warren tells the Boston Globe’s Ellen Ishkanian that his selection of Austin Street Partner’s to develop the Austin Street parking lot was based the city’s evaluation of the developers, not on the conceptual drawings outlined for the property last fall, which included a four- to five-story apartment building with 80 units, and six first-floor restaurants and stores.
“There is no specific project proposed, there is nothing on the table at this time,” Warren said.
Austin Street Partner’s Scott Oran adds,
“The mayor told us that he selected a team and not a project,” he said. “So there is no project yet,” said Oran, who lives in Newton. “Speaking for myself and the whole team, we want to develop a project that everyone can be proud of. That means listening to everyone,” he said.
Planning Director Candace Havens added that Austin Street Partners were “particularly sensitive to the parking needs of the area.”
At least we know we have a Mayor who can “SPIN” the Media.
The quote that the mayor “selected a team and not a project” baffles me. The investors responded to the RFP with a certain return on investment (ROI) in mind and an exit point if the ROI changed. The mayor said he took financials into consideration, hiring a financial consultant to help with the evaluation. Part of that analysis would be to guess what the investor ROI was and judge whether it seemed reasonable. If changes to the project were to include flowering trees and not pine trees, ok I get the statement. But if changes mean adding a community dance floor in place of a commercial space (for example), that I don’t get. Seems to me if changes effect the ROI, the investors will be looking for compensation (either before or after the project)
Hoss, please read the Request for Proposals for a mixed use development on the Austin Street parking lot, and then tell us if it alters your view or reinforces it. (Pay particular attention to Section I. Decision to Use Competitive Sealed Proposals.)
The agreement between the city and the developer will determine what each party gets out of this deal. I assume, without knowing, that it will contain acquisition price contingencies based on the scope of the project that is proposed and/or approved (e.g., retail square footage, no. of residential units, etc.).
Ted, Thanks for the doc. If I said anything that might seem like I have experience in this type of RFP, I’d be confusing people. I don’t. Preparing this type of RFP seems very costly. Unlike where the City said it will cost x to build a school because that’s the mean value to 5 similar schools, the scope of this project requires a count of nuts and bolts and tons of cement. I’d like to hear what Fignewtonville has to say, in addition to others with experience. Financials (the Pro Forma) were a definite consideration.
Ted,
I would be interested in your perspective on this statement from the article:
“City officials stressed that Warren and the developers will include the community in determining a ‘framework for what this can be,’ which would include a range of units, building height, and parking.
Warren will not begin ‘land disposition’ negotiations to sell or lease the municipal lot on Austin Street until those parameters have been established, he said.”
Does this statement indicate lease or sale will be contingent upon approval of the special permit by the Board of Aldermen, or is it possible it might occur before then?
I am all confused! Can someone respectfully (on this blog, some people need to remember to be be respectful and not childish when they disagree), so, respectfully, explain what the difference is between the Austin st project and the construction of Newton North.
If I remember correctly Gund Partnership was given the NNHS project BEFORE a design was chosen; the rest is history: the school is bigger and cost more ($200 million) than anybody anticipated.
In the Austin st project, wouldn’t it make sense to involve the community in the choosing of a design, instead of giving free rein to a builder?
And I am staying away from the topic of selling land that the residents not want sold!
@isabelle: The projects are different in many,many, ways. But they’re similar in one very significant way: Both require direction and oversight from our mayor and final approval from our aldermen.
Of course, Setti Warren is now our mayor now, not David Cohen. And the makeup of our aldermen are very different as well.
Also Isabelle: Yes, it makes “sense to involve the community in the choosing of a design, instead of giving free rein to a builder” and that’s exactly what Mayor Warren has said he is going to do. And if he doesn’t the aldermen have the power to turn it down.
isabelle — A school is a public building for public use. A mixed development is a for-profit endeavor by investors. But your question is around public input on things. Until someone chimes in otherwise, I’ll continue to assume the investor has ultimate control and any alterations that effect the pro forma are made up for in the purchase price and/or parking revenue share, or as a goodbye wave .
It has been said that one reason the price tag for NNHS was so high was because of accommodations made to satisfy the neighborhood. Thankfully, this time, that cost will be borne by private interests.
Respectfully, while there is vocal opposition, it’s hardly unanimous that Newton residents do not want to sell the Austin Street lot.
Dave, the Mayor has not shared that information with the Board of Aldermen. But if I were the developer, I would want the purchase or lease of the parcel contingent upon receiving a special permit. And I would think the City would want that too.
Adam – During the architect interview for the new NNHS, Gund Partnership presented virtually the identical building that is now NNHS, which would have been fine if the city had planned to build a $192M HS. In fact, the Designer Selection Committee asked if they could build the facility for $135M, and the answer was yes.
To say there were no accommodations to the neighborhood, with the exception of one property, would be an understatement. Accommodations came after the project was completed and were low/no cost items (parking regs on abutting streets, signage, etc.). While I’m sure you meant no harm, “it’s been said…” is really a polite way of repeating what may be, and in this case is, inaccurate information. I cannot stress enough the importance of being present at meetings, getting accurate information from the correct source, and keeping the developer’s and the city’s feet to the fire for the duration of the project. It was hard to see how to solve the parking and traffic issues around the NN site but the Aldermen were able to make that happen. However, they were not able to change the costs associated with the design of the building. Moving forward, we need to keep that fact in mind.
Thanks, Ted. Is there any way you might be aware of, about how residents or the BOA could request that the city provide more information on whether the sale will be contingent on approval of the special permit? It would be helpful if that were requirement that is explicitly documented by the city. I know a lot of this involves negotiations between the developer and the executive office, but it seems like there should be a baseline understanding about the conditions of the sale before they proceed.
Dave, I will find out whom to talk to about this. I will say that the Ward 2 aldermen are the best informed, since Austin Street parking lot is in their ward. All three aldermen are very responsive.
Greg — Unless I’m misunderstanding this process, the power of the BoA to turn it down should be fairly limited and it should make no difference on whether the plan came from the mayor or an independent plan from a site not under control of Newton. It’s really up to the mayor working within the RFP scope that the developer envisioned. Once it gets to the BoA, they need to look at it without regard to who was consulted and not make this a political football
Not understanding your point Hoss.
Greg – Considering that by the time the BoA makes another vote on this – the RFP is done, the developer selection is done, the terms will be done, and the design will be done. So if constituents wanted something that the mayor left out, the BoA can’t do much about that, I don’t think.
@Hoss: As you may recall from Riverside, the developer was negotiating changes with the aldermen up to the final vote.
Austin Street will be a very different process from Riverside. Normandy entered into an agreement with the MBTA to build a garage and lease the rest of the property for $1 million a year, and planned a much larger office, retail and residential project than was ultimately submitted. Newton had little or no control over the terms of the lease, which drove the economics of the project. The zoning change was contingent upon approval of the special permit. The zoning amendment and special permit that were approved by the board was far more modest than what the developer had initially proposed. The leverage the developer had was that it had control of the site and could move ahead with a 40B residential project of 550-600 units instead of seeking a special permit for a mixed use transit oriented development.
The agreement between the city and the Austin Street developer, on the other hand, is entirely within the Mayor’s control. The zoning has already been changed and is not contingent upon obtaining the special permit (although the board has not yet voted on the citizens’ petition to rezone the parcel). The developer will have to provide the same proportion of affordable housing as a 40B, but must also build a mixed use transit oriented development. But, unless the city sells the property to the developer without conditions, the Austin Street developer will not be able to use a 40B as a sword of Damocles.
Greg, there is very little substantive change to a project once a special permit application has been filed. You might see some reduction in square footage or number of units, as well as conditions to mitigate the impact of the project. But Riverside was essentially the same project that was proposed when the zoning amendment–which was very specific about the maximum number of units, and office and retail square footage–was passed and the application for a special permit was filed. The modifications related almost solely to mitigation including funds for infrastructure and neighborhood improvements, traffic mitigation, and phasing of construction of the elements of the project. As I would often say when I chaired Land Use, the board has to decide whether the approve the project before it not the project we wish we had. Which is why it is so important to influence the project before the special permit application is submitted.
Hoss, I’m surprised about this stance. Why spend so much time evaluating projects if this was the end result? We could have just evaluated development teams….
Look, I think this is spin, but useful spin. I’m happy to have the mayor demand flexibility and some more accountability from the developer, as long as the project moves forward quickly…
Fignewtonville – seeing the City declared this team a “winner” of something and the team spent a lot of money getting to this point, would there be legitimate recourse if something very drastic changed that affects RFP assumptions? Has this type of thing been litigated against a municipality?
Hoss: In a word, no. It is the city’s game and the city makes the rules, since it owns the property. But it is also a very strange way to do an RFP in my opinion. I think some of it is for show. We’ll know if the finish product looks like the RFP proposal or something completely different…