Austin Street Partners, the firm selected by the city to develop the Austin Street parking lot following a unanimous vote to do just that by aldermen back in 2012, published an op-ed in this week’s Newton TAB.
Austin Street developers outline parameters for project
by Greg Reibman | Jan 14, 2015 | Austin Street | 76 comments
No specific project in mind?
How is this any different than the last one?
We don’t want a building this large. We don’t want anything close to 80 units.
Paul, it would help if you would explain why you don’t want 80 units or a building this big. Just being against it doesn’t advance the ball.
Who is the “we” that is against this? There are many people who are in favor it and the housing options that it will generate, particularly for Newton seniors who wish to remain in our City but not in their single family homes. “We” need to become more vocal and tell “you” that “we” are, in fact, in favor of this proposal.
I agree with Paul. The 80 unit apartment building is too large for the location. Many of us Newtonville residents favor a calming type of development. If we wanted tall buildings we would move to areas that have grid lock, wind tunnels and lots of busy activities.
If the village becomes crowded, with difficult parking accessibility I will avoid the area completely. I would like to see trees and gardens, benches etc. A concrete building will ruin the village.
NativeNewtonian,
I appreciate that there are some, including yourself, that would prefer the project. 61% of Newtonians voted that they want direct approval of projects like these– a very rough proxy vote against the Austin St. project. I understand you can argue otherwise.
So let’s just have the vote. No need to debate here the “we” and “you.” If anything is clear, this process has been terrible. Its hard to have confidence in our leaders, particularly when it appears that the Mayor is saying things that aren’t true.
We deserve a say in matters such as these. Put it on the ballot.
I like a lot of this proposal. Specifically, the planned 25% affordable units plus another 25% for just above median income, the 100 public parking spaces on grade with electronic meters, and the proceeds going toward Newtonville’s sidewalks, lighting, trees, etc. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Ted,
If I wanted to live in Brookline, I’d have moved to Brookline. I chose Newton because it had the right balance of density for me and my family. I’m not interested in increasing density.
I’m willing to compromise– but this project is completely out of character with Newtonville.
Colleen – is 4 stories really a tall building? And they seem to have made a commitment to preserving adequate parking, so that ought to be a non-issue at this point. Besides the other positives I see, it should be very good for the merchants of Newtonville to have more customers just around the corner.
Based on last night’s tweets (by @NewtonVillages) it appears the height question came up, and Oran said the retail floor was 21ft high. I think that means that it’s four stories with the total height of five normal stories.
“We are proposing that the building be no more than 54 feet tall — four stories along Austin Street with shops and a restaurant on the first floor with homes on three stories above. This is below the 60-foot height limit and well below the density allowed by the Board of Aldermen’s 2012 rezoning. By comparison, the Masonic Hall, Newtonville’s tallest building, stands at 71 feet.”
I was taking notes last night at the LWVN meeting, and Scott said that the height for using residential Green Staxx would be 11 feet per floor and 21 ft for commercial space. After the meeting, Scott told me that he made a mistake and the dimensions are 12 feet for residential and 18 feet for commercial. This is all due to the ductwork, connections, and structural features with the modular units. So three residential floors plus one commercial level adds up to 54 ft.
I know it’s a major part of the original Austin Street Partners proposal, but is it assumed that the project will use the Green Staxx system? I missed part of the presentation given the other day, so I should keep more of an open mind until I understand all the benefits, but I’m really unimpressed with the look of the end result.
Also, I wonder how these 12 ft / 18 ft dimensions compare with nearby structures. Part of what makes residential teardowns so unbearable is that newer structures (and the newer building codes) often result in a new structure towering over its 100 year-old neighbors, even with the same number of stories. What seems to fit in, say in modern subdivisions around the US might seem very out of place in New England.
@Adam – As mgwa points out. The proposed building would be 20 feet shorter than its 100 year-old neighbor.
Paul – 61% of registered Newton voters did not indicate that they wanted direct approval of projects like Austin St. because nowhere near that number had enough interest in the issue to bother to go to the polls. In fact, you could find a lot of people who believe putting every project on the ballot invites total chaos to the development process in village centers. Aren’t the village centers exactly where we want development? Not to mention, there’s a 4 story building a mere 2 blocks from the village center and no one’s complaining about its height.
And let’s be clear: Brookline is a great town with five vibrant village-type centers. Its residential areas are denser than Newton’s, but the commercial centers are quite comparable to ours.
Almost all of the buildings in Newtonville’s village center are 1 or 2 story buildings. Just because there is one, historic building that is the exception, by no means serves as the reference. The footprint of a 55 foot building will be visually obstrusive, and not in character with the rest of the buildings. Its no just the height but total size dimensions of the building.
Further– the proposal as part of the bidding process suggested a modern architecture that showed no regard for the existing feel of the village.
If we do build, why can’t we add something that fits the village feel? Two stories, like most of the buildings, with a design that fits in with the other buildings.
@Jerry – perhaps, though Masonic Hall isn’t immediately adjacent (in fairness, there’s little consistency in architectural style… especially with Star Market across the street) And in terms of scale, the Masonic Hall has a substantial sloped roof, so I wonder if its own ~4 colossal stories are in fact shorter than 60 feet (and yes, I know, the top story of the GreenStaxx structure is supposed to resemble a mansard)
also… I’m not necessarily taking issue with the proposed 60′ height, as much as the scale — wondering whether 60′ would typically be 4 stories or 5!
@Adam – as has already been said several times, the height is 54′, not 60′.
I really don’t see why a fuss over this height – it’s not like it’s a 10 story tower. I agree that it’s reasonable to ask that the facade fit in the the character of the rest of the neighborhood, but I haven’t seen anything written by the developers that would preclude doing that if community input says it’s wanted.
Looking at their piece in the TAB, it sounds like they’re offering to go above and beyond to take the neighborhood into account, including offering to help improve the Shaws parking lot.
Thanks, Paul. I lived in Coolidge Corner in Brookline for many years, and your comment really doesn’t make any sense to me. I lived in an apartment in an old Victorian house, on a street full of old Victorian Houses, next to the street where JFK was born, and a lot of other houses, shops, a Whole Foods, Kupel’s Bagels, a bakery, an elementary school, an adorable toy store, a small hardware store, a store that sells Judaica, and the Coolidge Corner Cinema, all of which remind me very much of West Newton and Newtonville. Moreover, Newtonville, West Newton, Newton Corner and Newton Centre for many years had even more 3 and 4 story mixed use buildings in their village centers than they do now, which were demolished during and after the depression because the owners could not fill them with tenants and wanted to reduce their property taxes. (These one-story remnants were called “taxpayers” because they only needed one or two tenants to cover the taxes.) And the proposed 4 story building at Austin Street is not even as tall as its neighbors, including the church nest door, the Masonic Building and the 6 story office building in the former church on Bower.
To be sure, most residents of the north side of Brookline live in apartments, which is not like Newton, which is mostly homeowners. But not all of those apartments (in fact very few) are in high rises. And a 4 story building is not in any sense of the term a “high rise.”
@Adam – According to mgwa the Masonic Hall is 71 feet, by any measure more than “a floor” taller than the proposed Austin St.
Jerry, overall height (while an issue to some) isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the scale of the building.
More to the point, would the developer get the same square foot area with a shorter building if he weren’t using pre-fab blocks designed, perhaps, for a larger scale? And if we were to build at the same scale as some of the surrounding buildings, how high would a 4 story building without a roof be?
Ted,
You ask for the reasons for my preferences, then proceed to litigate them.
Brookline is higher density. I’m glad to hear that you like Coolidge Corner, but here are actual facts:
Brookline: population of 58,000 in 6.8 square miles
Newton: population of 88,000 in 18.2 square miles.
Further, I spend a lot of time in both Coolidge Corner and Newtonville, and while there are similarities, the former is unquestionably more busy in stores and on the streets.
Its nice to know that historically Newton had some larger buildings, but its completely an irrelevant counterpoint to my post. When I bought a home 10 years ago, I was seeking a home with my preferred density and liked Newton for what it was then, not what it was 50 years ago.
Many folks on this thread seem to by overly focused on height or stories– it the overall size, not just that one dimension.
An 80 unit complex with commercial space would be the largest building in that part of Newtonville. It would not fit in to the existing scenescape, but would redefine it, with this new complex being a major focal point, which is highly undesirable.
There was a reason that the Planning Department had a range of 10-35 units for Austin St, with 35 units being described as “aggressive.” A discussion in that range is reasonable, larger becomes an eyesore for Newtonville.
I like the proposal the only question around the impact on the school. According to the op-ed – “We hope that young professionals, empty nesters, and downsizing seniors will all make their homes in new studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments”
Is there a strategy besides hope, to limit it to seniors and young professionals. Was this answered at yesterday’s meeting or this could put 100s of new kids in the school system?
Thank you.
Sam S, I don’t believe there is any way to guarantee family size legally. The various sizes of the units do attract different family sizes. In the affordable units, family size is a qualifying factor based on the size of the unit – studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom. A single senior or individual cannot qualify for a unit over 1 bedroom, I believe.
Going over the proposal, I see that even though there will be a parking space underground for every unit, that space will have to be purchased separately. ($25,000??) I think that would be a hindrance to some.
I saw in the NVA tweets that Julia mentioned, the building will be twice the height of Shaws, just to put it in perspective.
Also in the tweets was an explanation given for the increase in public parking spaces saying it would be accomplished by changing to front in parking on Walnut Street. I didn’t realize it would be wide enough. Also something about parking on the bridge.
In looking at the proposal previously submitted (which is basically the same) and their building in Reading, I also see Paul’s point that the mass of the building rather than just the height is quite large.
I think it is also important to keep in mind that the project as currently proposed would represent a significant reduction in available parking.
This past Saturday I counted 110 cars parked in the Austin Street lot and 50 in the Shaw’s lot to the right of the entrance – meaning those cars were not parked there for Shaw’s but rather to go to Starbucks, dry-cleaning, yoga, etc.
Once a development goes in, Shaw’s would have to start enforcing in their own lot or else there would be no parking available for their customers. So the true demand for the Austin St lot that day was 160 cars.
The previous Saturday I also did a count, it was 102 in the Austin lot and 46 in the Shaw’s lot to the right of the entrance, for a total of 148 cars.
This project would reduce the public parking availability to 102, yet would be adding three retail establishments and a restaurant, which presumably would result in an increase in parking demand over and above the current demand.
Even the parking study released last July indicated that the only way there would be enough public parking after the project was built is if the spaces north of the Mass Pike were included.
Now perhaps people would be willing to park along Washington Street and walk over the bridge to get their coffee at George Howell but I think it’s unlikely.
In addition the public parking that would be available would be under the building – so the parking experience would be more like parking in a garage, rather than the open lot there now. If people have a choice, will they want to visit Newtonville knowing they have to park in a garage? If you go to Boston or Cambridge or Somerville and don’t want to park in a garage, well you may not have a choice. Here in Newton, if you don’t like parking garages, you can just go to another village.
I believe that is why there is so much consternation among Newtonville businesses about this project.
This is not about “loving parking lots” as I have heard some say… it’s just that parking lots are a very convenient place to stash a car when you want to get out of your car, say to visit a retail establishment.
I have also heard some people say it’s fine to make it harder for people to drive, that we should all be doing more walking and biking. I absolutely agree with that sentiment, but I think we also need to be realistic – Newton is not Manhattan. Many of our residents are elderly and/or disabled and/or are carting children… much of the year it is raining or snowing or stifling heat… I personally do not favor limiting mobility for these individuals, particularly at the detriment of our small businesses.
Emily, there are plenty of assumptions in that analysis, beginning with the suggestion that uncovered parking in a big ugly lot is somehow desirable, and parking in a covered space is not. It’s worth asking how much of the peak demand you cite on Saturday is due to a single business (yoga) and why the city let that happen in the first place. You failed to factor in pricing in your analysis. How much are people paying at peak time (Saturday) for parking again?
It’s also worth noting that Rockland Trust has a parking lot that’s generally empty… I’d venture to guess it’s very empty on the weekends. Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves if there are creative solutions to the peak parking crunch that would not require building larger parking lots? I can think of a few without even changing driving habits.
Exactly the point. That’s loving parking lots.
@Adam: Many people consider the yoga studio to be on net a benefit to Newtonville. You may disagree.
Emily, the recent study on aging in Newton* had some interesting findings:
– “Among Boomers and Seniors age 60 to 79, walking and public transportation were commonly mentioned as preferred modes of transportation (35% and 33%, respectively).”
– The single greatest challenge cited to getting around without a car cited by boomers-79 was “walkability (e.g. lack of or interrupted sidewalks)”. (Table 9)
– A substantial portion of seniors modify their driving habits because of difficulties in driving, unrelated to parking availability. (Table 8)
– A senior parking sticker and transportation services were the most important services to those aged 60 and above (pages vi-vii). (I’ll add that this can greatly help solve providing parking for those who most need it).
*http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1102&context=gerontologyinstitute_pubs
Emily, I didn’t say the yoga studio wasn’t an asset. I’m merely suggesting that it’s bad planning to let a single merchant take so many spaces at peak time (don’t you Alderpeople have a permitting process for this?) worse to let a single merchant justify a vacant lot in future development, or even assuming that merchant will always be present in the future.
Perhaps a little pressure during the permitting process could have forced a deal with Rockland Trust, or perhaps that could still happen now. Perhaps yoga customers shouldn’t be entitled to free parking.
Emily, I appreciate and applaud your consistent concern for the mobility options of those who most depend on cars. Therefore, let’s make parking easier for those who need it by creating incentives for the younger, more able-bodied and fortunate to cede their use of precious parking space. A co-benefit is that for the substantial number of seniors who would like to walk if only it were safe, better pedestrian infrastructure allows them to consider walking and to enjoy the mental and physical health benefits.
Emily – they specifically said that the underground parking will be for the residents and they’re committing to providing adequate spaces above ground (they gave a number in the Tab).
@Nathan: I’m familiar with the report and think its findings are valuable. I believe we need to ensure that our aging population has a variety of mobility options, and again that we are supporting our small businesses.
I have said it before but am happy to repeat it: the original Planning Department documents about this project suggested 18 units would be “moderate” and 30 units would be “aggressive”. And that was at a time when we were entering the biggest economic downturn our country has seen since the Great Depression.
And we’re now considering 80.
Here’s the relevant section: “Second, in order to assure the ongoing vitality of Newtonville after construction, the Austin Street lot will contain no less than 100 on-grade public parking spaces to continue to serve the needs of shoppers and retail businesses in the area. This is in line with the peak weekday and weekend demand observed by the city’s traffic consultant last spring as well as private estimates made last fall and winter. These spaces will remain public and controlled by the city in perpetuity. We will install state-of-the-art electronic parking meters. We will employ a parking attendant when needed during peak hours — at no cost to the city — to allow parking for up to 30 to 40 additional cars. All parking for the new building’s residents will be accommodated in a new underground garage — below the city’s public parking. And while there is no definitive agreement, discussions are underway with Shaw’s to manage and beautify its parking lot and make it more efficient.”
@mgwa: The residential parking will be underground, but the visitor parking will still be under the building – at the surface level, but under a building.
(They could not fit an 80 unit 54 foot building in that lot and still offer 100 parking spaces open to the sky.)
Emily, why are parking spaces open to the sky such a good thing? Nevermind the huge opportunity cost to taxpayers to stubbornly prevent development… why aren’t drier, sheltered, snow-free spaces a very good thing for drivers?
Someone needs to step up and lead a holistic parking plan that brings the key lot owners/managers together – Dinosaur, Shaws, Rockland, City of Newton. Presently, everyone is in their own parking world, dividing private from public lots and this lot from that lot. Without leadership we’re going to end up with a chaotic amalgamation with tons of unused excess capacity and distorted parking behavior.
For starters, can someone bring Shaws, Austin St Partners, and Rockland into the same room to discuss how to share the enormous parking resource? Has anyone seriously considered validated parking, for example?
Austin Street Partners: You contracted with Nelson/Nygaard, probably the best consultant in the nation on parking issues. Can you bring them in as a convener to address this?
What’s wrong with being under a building if it’s at street level? IMO there are times where that’s a big advantage – when the weather’s bad it’s nice to get into a car that’s not gotten covered with snow while you were shopping, or baked in the sun when it’s 90F out. And they are saying that they will provide attendant parking to accept an additional 30-40 cars at peek times. That seems more than reasonable.
There are two ways to look at impacts of compact housing: one, as a traffic nightmare that is addressed by absorbing the problem with more parking and expanded roadways. Or, instead, as development that can enhance economic vibrancy while reducing car dependency by promoting walkable neighborhoods (and priority parking for seniors/disabled/carpoolers). I want to see much more foot traffic in Newtonville and I believe it will be beneficial to the merchants.
If traffic and parking are managed well, my concerns with 80 units are more related to school impacts, and to a lesser extent, the scale issue Adam brought up.
With the advancing of the big box human warehousing that is the Austin Street Partners proposed development, Mayor Warren has taken the side of wealthy, politically astute, for profit developers against the residents of Newton, his constituents. Newtonville residents have overwhelmingly rejected a development of this scale on their village parking lot, and increasingly,are asking for preservation and visual improvement of the parking lot to protect and support the vibrant commercial activity in the commercial center. Many are asking for the lot to be beautified with trees and a pocket park. I personally would ask for utilities underground as well.
In Newton overall, by an almost 2 to 1 margin, voters endorsed Questions 5 and 6 in the last election.
Via Question 5 they requested the right to have a direct say before public property is ” surplused ” and sold to developers. Unlike the mayor, residents – his constituents -, see the folly of selling off our schools and parking lots, only to have to buy them back or rebuild them at a higher price later.
With question 6, voters indicated their disapproval of massive, high density housing projects enabled by our city planners and the states controversial Chapter 40b law. The Austin Street proposal isn’t a 40b, but is similar to the notorious Avalon and Arborpoint 40b (s) already forced into Newton. A resident of Arborpoint spoke at a recent Zoning Board of Appeals hearing about the families with children, living in studio and one bedroom apartments there , and how the kids have no place to play but in the parking garage, and about the multiple Newton Public School buses that pick up and drop off children there every week day. These projects are deviously marketed as being for empty nesters and young single professionals, but people seeking entry into the Newton school system move into them. That is but one of the reasons why these projects are losing propositions for the City. They don’t just add traffic, density and the loss of green space, they cost more in city services than they bring in in tax revenue. Plus, more school overcrowding = more tax over rides. Newtons existing property tax rates place a tough burder on many Newton residents, including seniors. After all , not everyone in Newton is as wealthy as the developers who make up the Austin Street Partners team and supporters.
One of these team members, Scott Oran, a close advisor to the mayor, has been pitching the Austin Street Partners proposal in private briefings around town. He is a slick salesman, and could probably sell ice to Eskimos. As an architect, I can tell you that there are architects and illustrators who can make the cheapest, most banal, most massive structure look appealing in a colorfully rendered illustration. It’s difficult to believe Newton residents are gullible enough to be suckered into accepting this massed- mobile -home monstrosity with sweet talk and pretty pictures. It’s also hard to believe that members of the Board of Aldermen would even consider turning their backs on their constituents, by allowing the mayor to sell to his friends, at a below market price, our public property, that the people of Newtonville, and the city as a whole, want and need to preserve their vibrant village.
It used to be that monuments to our time here on this earth were built in cemeteries, but now it seems our leaders are intent on building them, before their time, in front of everybody.
Emily, the public parking will not be under the building. The plans show that the building takes up a small portion of the existing lot. Most of the lot will remain as it is now, an open parking lot. The first floor of the building will be shops and a restaurant, and a lobby for the apartment building. Resident parking will be below the building.
@Nathan: I think compact housing makes sense in the village center. In fact years ago the commercial strip in Newtonville used to be 3 or more stories rather than the single stories that exist there now. I think it makes more sense to work with the landlords to restore this mixed use design. I am also intrigued by the “micro-units” being built in Boston and elsewhere, as these are, by virtue of their small size, naturally affordable without the need for complicated government programs to figure out who qualifies, run housing lotteries, etc.
@Rhanna: That is not accurate. At least not at 80 units!
The structure does look massive in the proposal, twice as tall as Shaw’s and takes up most of the lot. I see the purchase price is $1,050,000 at this size, even though it was appraised at $2,000,000 so I’m assuming the developers are making up the difference with amenities. At the meeting they said the purchase price would go down if the size goes down. Although I think that’s a pipe dream.
I think they once were to have only 85 spaces but now the 100 metered public spaces have some on grade on the lot open and some on grade but under part of the building, some gained by head in angled parking on Walnut Street, some on the bridge? and Highland Street. I think asking for more parking would be a waste of time. Bram way is for the plaza so the entrance to the lot is across from Shaws.
The parking space that is assigned to a unit will have to be purchased even though it is a rental.
The survey may show Boomers prefer public transportation and walking in some respects, but other surveys have shown that more Boomers are driving and expect to continue driving than other generations. Taking the bus to the T to get into Boston works well compared to driving in addition to getting some places in Newton, but the steps to the Commuter Rail in Newtonville are prohibitive to most Seniors. As for walking to shops close by, that will be great for restaurants, coffee shops, and bakeries, but the CVS is tiny and Shaw’s may be right down the street but Whole Foods, Wegmans, the Street and the Square are accessible by car. I’m looking forward to having a Village bustling with even more activity but am also accustomed to visiting all of Newton’s Villages for various reasons.
I can certainly see young professionals using public transportation and using a zip car or other forms of shared transportation. But the renters of the 2 and 3 bedroom units will want access to a car more than likely.
I also am wondering where the 32 spaces for Newton North will go or are they not used.
The article lists some things as non negotiable and the size and height are among them so I’m not sure what is left for the BOA and ZBA to recommend.
Rhanna, I think you are looking at the drawing of the ground floor which looks as you describe. It is in the next drawings that the size can be seen to take up most of the lot.
A few questions and a comment come to mind: On one thread we read about the need for villages to be walkable and on the next thread, residents insist they simply must be able to park as close as possible to a store/business of convenience. So which is it? Do we want to be able to walk to a store/business or do we want to be able to park really close to a store/business? How do we define “walkable”?
How do we as a city meet the needs of those who truly need accommodations? I’m well over 60 and don’t need any accommodations, so age isn’t necessarily the gating factor. Not to mention, the issue of accommodations isn’t an issue specific to Newtonville.
I don’t know her, but the yoga lady is getting kind of tiresome. She could move her business tomorrow for a whole host of reasons and not think twice about the future of Newtonville.
@Jane: you were adamant that the new Zervas include a parking lot on-site for staff and teachers, even though it cost city taxpayers over $2M and required the taking of 3 homes. I thought we should at least consider seeing if the parking lot at Cold Spring Park could be used for employee parking, as it is an extremely short walk away. I agreed with other aldermen/women who suggested some sort of incentive be established to encourage alternative modes of travel if at all possible, but as I recall you thought that would be unfair to the employees. I am not sure I see the distinction between that and Newtonville shoppers.
Emily-The alternate parking plan for Zervas required teachers to walk from a T station or Cold Spring Park carrying student work, often in multiple bags. That’s an entirely different scenario from asking people to walk an extra block to a yoga class, or to a bank, nail salon, or coffee shop.
I was very clear in my post that the city needed to accommodate the needs of a wide spectrum of people an the need could be for any number of reasons. As a one who now works in a high school after spending many years in elementary schools, I stand by my statement that elementary school teachers need parking accommodations if this community expects teachers to deliver the highest quality curriculum and instruction. From what I hear, that’s the expectation.
I should never write after 10 PM! “and the need could be for any number of reasons … As one who now works in a high school…”
Ted,
On Nov 19, 2014 Andy Levin wrote in his posting ‘Change is Inevitable’ about the Austin Street development proposal on the Newton TAB blog “…the project is likely to include about 80 apartments, a quarter of which would be affordable…”
You posted the following reply:
Ted Hess-Mahan permalink
November 20, 2014, 3:58 PM
Andy, I would be interested in knowing what you are basing that number on. The Real Property Reuse Committee, of which I am a member, held a public meeting with the Planning Director months ago at which a number of the aldermen made crystal clear their view that a much smaller project was more appropriate. I don’t know what the right number is, but I do know the requisite number of votes for the special permit Austin Street would require is 16. If the project has 80 units I don’t think the votes will be there.
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2014/11/19/on-austin-street/#ixzz3P6DnTqME
Is your comment from less than 2 months ago about the scale of the original Austin St development proposals still relevant in relation to the appropriateness of the scale of the current Austin St Partners proposal, which is essentially the same size as the one they originally submitted? If not, what has changed?
And the beat goes on…We have an asset: should we sell it? We have a plan to expand density: do we want it? We want to walk: or do we? Who are we? Old? Yes, and aging very rapidly. Will this plan meet the needs of the elderly? Will it bring in families seeking better education for their children who will occupy 1 and 2 bedroom units to accomplish this? Is this bad? Don’t forget, education is Newton’s best and most recognized product.
Some suggestions come to mind: Why don’t we look at the number 80? Oran said it wasn’t written in stone. He won’t pay for as many amenities if the number is lowered. So how about 40? What amenities would we lose? This may be a little more aggressive than the alluded to “Planning Memo” above, but not necessarily crazy. How about making all the units subsidized in the same way as is currently being proposed… to be paid by CPA (CDBG?) funds? How about having the City lease the property to Oran or a construction/management firm instead of selling it? We sold off our “surplus” schools and that has been acknowledged to have been an extremely bad idea. How about limiting the number of people allowed to occupy a unit? I believe fire codes that are enforced and leases that are well-written could do that. We could ask the local merchants to donate funding and/or Parks and Rec to use CDBG funds to turn Bram Way into a place to meet and converse by contributing some strategically placed shrubbery and benches, no matter what! I live across town, but hear the anguish in the voices that say that they chose Newton, not Brookline, and don’t want to become Brookline. I used to visit Brookline to get kosher meat…but I now avoid it like the Plague. (Trader Joe’s has come to the rescue) Too much density, no place to park and carry my heavy packages without dying of a heart attack. Nice place to visit if someone else is driving and can drop me off and pick me up! No matter how you stretch the images, Brookline is not Newton. They’re very different. And some of us like Newton better! That doesn’t mean we’re against progress, visioning changes, or planning. It means that we try to accommodate new voices that represent such groups as cyclists and pedestrians, and young professionals, while preserving our own transportation modes to accommodate our own needs. 40 units on Austin St. doesn’t scare me, especially if Newton retains ownership of the land!
There’s an article in today’s Boston Globe about the current Austin St proposal, ‘Critics say Austin Street project still too big for Newtonville’
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/01/18/critics-say-austin-street-project-still-too-big-for-newtonville/0I1E8zjEhJ3mV8rstPwZ7J/story.html
The developer states “Now is our opportunity to reintroduce the project and gather feedback.”, yet later in the article the reporter writes
“The project will now move through the special permit process…”
From what I’ve read the developer is not really responding to community feedback at this point, despite hearing it, and my understanding is there is usually minimal change to the characteristics of a proposal once it gets to the special permit process. Good thing this is an election year for the BOA.
Actually Jeff for better or worse projects often change considerably during that process. Riverside and Chestnut Hill Square are just two recent examples.
What Sallee said.
Sallee just hit a ten strike with her comments above. I might also add that this is a very Area Council way of identifying, approaching and thinking about the effects of development issues–prudent, measured, comprehensive, community oriented and realistic.
As many of you on this blog know, I’m very disappointed with this process thus far. My first impression reading through the proposal was “this has potential!”. Then I took a second read, and began to notice the holes.
Parking: If it is true that the parking changes included angled parking on Walnut OR parking on the bridge, THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION. We are effectively “solving” the developer’s problem by giving up ANOTHER public asset. There have been plans for many months to redo Walnut street and widen the sidewalks and beautify the village. Many of us supported the Austin Street Project to help make that happen. Angled parking takes that extra space and uses it for parking! Are you KIDDING ME? So basically the developer wins, gets his project built, and the parking resource is shifted to the village center, making a bad traffic situation worse, making the village uglier, and generally serving no good purpose except getting the Austin Street project built. Why would any Alderman vote for this? And I say this as someone who WANTS something built in that lot, and would be ok with a larger project than most. This parking solution will turn a lot of the supporters against the project. My neighbors I’ve discussed this will are angry, and feel like the city isn’t taking into consideration the viewpoints of the village.
Future parking: Let’s get some of this in writing with timeframes. PArking attendant sounds great. Are we going to have that tied to the ground lease of the land? How do we insure that parking attendant is not a short term addition? Are we going to tie it to the project and not the ownership of the project, and record some sort of Use Agreement.? Nice words, need to see the follow-up (and I want to hear the developer commit to these givebacks/community benefits for the life of the project).
Earmarking purchase price: I’ve been harping on this issue for a while. I want the Alderman and the developer to both agree with the statements made. This is a huge benefit if true, but only if the Aldermen and the city treat it as such. If the city removes money from road repairs, light repairs, senior center because of this new source, it doesn’t help us.
Affordability: I would love to increase the affordability component, and I love the possible addition of 25% middle class affordability. But since this is contingent on the city funds, let’s wait and see.
Height and look of the building: I hate the premade moduler version of this, but the mayor in his wisdom picked a developer wedded to this construction process. It produces boxy, ugly buildings. This is the developer the Mayor in his wisdom chose. I think the ugliness can be tempered and tolerated if the plantings are nice, and if it doesn’t tower over the sidewalk on Austin Street. Not perfect, but workable.
Village Manager. Same comment as above. Possible great feature. Funded for how long, who do they report to (village counsel?), are they a city or developer employee? Devil is in the details.
I think the details need to be tied down and the developer needs to be pushed (HARD) by the city to give the most bang for the buck. Unlike all the other projects Ted has discussed over the past 10 years, we OWN the land. This project doesn’t happen unless the developer team convinces the city to move forward. The aldermen should treat this differently than riverside or the 40B projects because they have ultimate control. The mayor should as well.
Fig-Have you seen the angled parking in the upper section of Waban village? Compare it to parking in the lower section (by Starbucks, the Post Office) which IMO is very car focused and very unattractive (sorry Terry Malloy!).
At a summer spot in Maine where we spend a lot of time, the city changed the parking from parallel to angled, against the wishes of every resident in the area. As it turns out, it’s more attractive, much easier to use, and people are very happy with the set up. The devil may be in the details on this one.
Jane, I’m very familiar with angled parking. The problem is not in the concept, it is the width of the street. Effectively, we would need to make a choice between expanding sidewalks with plantings and trees, or angled parking. It is great if there is space for it. Instead, we will give up all of our new space from eliminating the center lane, with limited benefit except for the developer…
So the devil is in the details, but my initial read of the details is that this works only if you want to put the needs of the project over the best interest of the village. And the parking consultant who suggested this is clearly interested in the former rather than the later. Our mayor and his various departments need to be more concerned with the latter. And not be incompetent.
@fignewtonville, I know that you have been a supporter of redevelopment of this site, and it pains me to hear your obvious discouragement about the process.
The Mayor has ultimate control over the agreement between the City and the developer of Austin Street. The Board of Aldermen has control over whether to approve a special permit for the project, which is no different from Riverside or Chestnut Hill Square or any other project which comes in for a special permit. It will ultimately fall on the Mayor and the developer to persuade at least 16 members of the Board to support the project when it finally comes before us.
I do want to disabuse people of the notion that a special permit project will change dramatically once it has been filed with the Board of Aldermen. Indeed, if the project changes materially, legally it may well have to be refiled and readvertised. Not to sound like a broken record (does anyone even remember what that is anymore?), but I firmly believe that this project needs to be presented in significant detail–in a public forum–so that the aldermen and the public can learn more about it, ask questions and make suggestions before it is filed with the BOA.
Jeff, I will be absolutely candid and truthful with you. After the last meeting the Real Property Reuse Committee of the BOA had with the planning department, where a number of my colleagues made it clear that they could not support the size and scope of the project as proposed, I fully expected that the size and scope of the project would be materially changed. I am looking forward to better understanding the details of this proposal and what its true impact on the village and our city will be.
Our job as a special permit granting authority is inherently quasi-judicial, not political in nature. We are supposed to be unbiased and objective in determining whether a particular proposal satisfies the special permit criteria and the conditions agreed to by the developer will sufficiently mitigate the impact of the project. So I will keep an open mind about this proposal and wait to hear from the proponents and the public before making my decision.
For those folks who have no idea what the SENIOR alderman from Ward 3 is talking about, there’s almost always an answer on YouTube.
Greg–
Immature and not helpful.
@Paul: I believe it’s always beneficial if we don’t take ourselves too seriously here. I was simply referring to this comment from Alderman Hess-Mahan…
Greg–
Honest apologies, missed that sentence in Ted’s post. Thought you were besmirching his post. Consider it retracted.
@Paul: No worries!
LOL, Greg. And if there isn’t a youtube video, there is always a GIF.
Looking at the proposal again, I noticed a few things I had misunderstood, such as the entrance.
The area being called the Plaza, on Bram Way in front of Starbucks and the Cleaners, is actually just a re paved Bram Way with its existing curb cut and is the entrance to the parking lot from Austin Street and on the other side from Highland Street.
It is to be a “Living Street” meant for use by pedestrians, cars and bikes.
The loading dock is also on Bram Way.
The city’s preferred transit is walking, biking and public transit. To encourage these modes there will not be enough parking spaces for each residential unit and purchasing a parking space will be a different transaction from renting a residence.
But each adult will receive a Charlie card good for one month.
This would be better if it were at a T stop that was accessible. The numerous, steep steps to the commuter rail are not accessible to some seniors, strollers, etc.
Underground utilities and a 12 ft wide sidewalk sound good.
The seating area shown on the Plaza design is part of the restaurant. (“Publicly accessible dining square adjacent to intended restaurant”) Misleading.
85 public on grade parking spaces will be owned by Newton.
17 spaces, the rest of the on grade spaces, will not owned by Newton and are for the retail/restaurant outlets.
80 spaces underground are divided into those for purchase by the residents and those to be used by the employees of the retail/restaurant outlets. (Doesn’t say how many.)
Construction/construction worker’s vehicles will park on Elmwood Park on Lowell Ave. Evidently students at NNHS will repair the park afterward and design and build playground equipment there.
You’ve got to love these 40B projects. Its now seems a common theme in Newton. Make some of the housing “affordable” but make sure we screw them all for the parking! And lets face it, the reason they can get away with charging for parking is due to over densification.
Not a 40B
@Marti,
Thanks for pointing that out.
I believe my point about affordable housing complexes and parking fees is still valid though.
I think I see your point. If someone qualifies for the affordable housing, s/he will more than likely have to do without a parking space.
Since it is not a 40B, the statute can’t be used as an excuse for not getting a development that is “just right” for Newtonville, as ASP likes to say (a la Goldilocks).
Ted,
Thank you for clarifying your comments about the Real Property Reuse Committee’s discussion about the appropriate scale of a proposal. You wrote on 1/20:
‘It will ultimately fall on the Mayor and the developer to persuade at least 16 members of the Board to support the project when it finally comes before us.’
Couldn’t the reverse also be true?; that the Board could pursuade the Mayor and developer that a smaller scale proposal would be more appropriate, through discussion BEFORE it gets to the special permit phase?
I personally won’t go shopping at stores or spend time in centers if I can’t park my car. I like parking lots!
@Lassy: I can empathize with your need to be able to park close to where you shop. The problem is, many of the businesses in our village centers — including Newtonville — are hurting and need more customers. One way to bring more customers into our village centers is to provide more housing close to those stores and restaurants, while still preserving most of the parking people like you are accustomed to.
I’m sure every merchant inside any one of our village centers would be interested in hearing other possible solutions. Any ideas?
Hey Greg, I figured Great Harvest might be one of those businesses that are hurting. It turns out they do not support the project, they ask where are customers going to park?
@Chris: Nobody has said that parking in Newtonville isn’t important. (I’m still waiting to Bob of Newton produce quotes from the mayor and/or the Austin Street developer to that back his claims that they’ve said something to the contrary)
The question is do we need the entire Austin Street lot or can a portion of that lot be developed in a way that would provide needed housing for seniors and a younger workforce and more customers for Great Harvest, the yoga studio and the other businesses in Newtonville?