In a column in today’s Boston Globe, Paul McMorrow, offers a perspective of the proposed 40B project at 135 Wells Ave. I believe too many aldermen failed to see when they rejected the proposal earlier this fall.
And that is this was a very different project from all the other 40Bs and “is as much about what suburbs will look like in the future as it is about building necessary affordable housing.”
Be sure and read the whole thing but here’s two excerpts..
The Wells Avenue park hasn’t seen any new office construction in decades, and the offices that are there rent for less today than they did a decade ago, in real dollars. The logical solution is to shed the vibe of a fading 1960s-vintage corporate park, and create an environment that’s attractive to younger workers.
….But a massive generational shift away from suburban subdivisions and back toward urban living has left the owners of these legacy parks scrambling to adapt. In Marlboro, Burlington, and Medford, landlords are infusing new life into tired suburban parks by building new housing, hotel rooms, and retail space alongside old-line commercial space. In Needham and Cambridge, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes has spearheaded large-scale housing developments in the types of office and industrial subdivisions the firm pioneered a half-century ago.
This push to retrofit outdated corporate parks and make them more urban recognizes the changing dynamics driving the Massachusetts economy…
If the greater Boston region wants to build more housing for young workers, then additional roads need to be built along with more schools and a better public transportation system. The 25-35 year old group will quickly age and need larger homes. I applaud growth but if the rate of growth is too fast, chaos will follow.
@Colleen: We agree we need improved transit but at least some road improvements in the form of the new Kendrick Street ramp and the rest of the Add A Lane project are coming, so hopefully is the work along Needham Street. Unfortunately we may have lost the $1 million-plus in improvements at Wells Ave, Kendrick. Winchester and Dedham Streets that Cabot Cabot and Forbes were offering to fund — and still get the project anyway.
And if you read McMorrow’s full column you’ll see that the alternative to building housing for a younger workforce is losing them to Florida, Texas and Colorado.
The key words in this article are TOO MANY ALDERMEN.
Wells Ave may need a change, but trust a 40B to lead the way? Luckily, our aldermen aren’t that naïve. Now, what about all the things that McMorrow left out? Where’s the hip neighborhood and walkable attractions that are going to attract the hipsters and prevent this from becoming a commuters paradise? Or the fact that there is no plan to change the character of the Wells Ave development, only an ad hoc proposal for one development. Or that Wells Ave just got a whole lot closer to I-95/128 — hardly your typical suburban neighborhood.
I think Adam’s point is well taken: that the addition of entry/exit ramps on Kendrick could make that office park more attractive for commercial enhancement.
@Dan: It takes more than an exit ramp to revitalize an office park. If it did then many office parks statewide and nationwide should be doing just fine. The places that are succeeding are doing more than that.
I’m not against revitalizing Wells Ave. It’s just not obvious how to do it, and without planning it’s easy how we could get all the downsides of housing without any of the benefits. Interesting warnings from Ted Tye in that piece:
Needham’s motto is “live, work, play,” the phrase often quoted in the same article, but it seems to mean something very different to them. “Live” seems to mean their existing housing stock, “work” might mean the new office parks, and “play” presumably is their existing parks. They don’t seem to subscribe to the mixed use model, and they continue to avoid building a linear park on the northern section of the Bay Colony Rail which could provide transit options and recreation for their office park, as well as connections between Newton and Needham commercial districts.
@Adam: You are mistaken about Needham. When the town rezoned the Needham Crossing office park, they allowed for housing (and already have Charles River Landing, which was originally created by Cabot Cabot & Forbes, the same company that wants to build 135 Wells.) Mixed use is also very much part of the town’s vision for the 26 acre General Dynamics sites, which is now on the market. The town is also very interested in seeing the Green Line extension adjacent the Needham Crossing.
Bottom line, Needham has already done the envisioning McMorrow and you both agree we need to do.
@Greg, wasn’t aware of the mixed use. Interesting. It doesn’t sound anything like the vision in these articles, though. All I know about the other CCF development is that it was also a 40B, presumably forced on Needham (or not?) Curious as to what sorts of people live there and how does it contribute to the business district.
Transit is a key element, too, and Needham totally lacks vision there. We know Needham wants a green line extension. We also know it’s clear that’s not going to happen. Their vision for a shuttle bus is ridiculous. Public discussions on alternatives are pretty much forbidden by the selectmen. Instead, they choose to let the rail corridor rot.
I missed this conversation the first time around. I think Adam asks relevant questions that Greg may have answers to. It would be interesting to understand who is living in the Charles River Landing residences — are they singletons or families (with how many children?) or people living with roommates? How many work at the Needham Crossing office park? How many own cars? Etc. Thanks!