If you’re one of those people who’ve been using the Newtonville Shaw’s as your long-term parking lot, it’s time to stop.
Starting this week, the far side of the lot has been yellow-taped off, and Shaw’s associates from other locations have been on hand to explain, and a sign is posted at the entrance to remind people the lot is for customers only. The cars in the far end of the lot right now are employees’.
This arrangement is temporary. I spoke to a very nice manager there named Marianne. She explained that they’ve had complaints from customers for a long time that they were having trouble finding parking spots. She confirmed that there are people — more daring than I would ever be, apparently — who’ve been parking in the far end of the lot all day while taking the commuter rail. They’ve tried leaving warning fliers on people’s cars and that hasn’t worked. So Shaw’s has hired a security company which, starting tomorrow, will monitor the lot for long-term parkers. Marianne said they understand there are people, a lot of them regular customers, who will go to the bank or go get a cup of coffee and then do their grocery shopping. They’re not after those people, and it sounds like if you explain that to the attendants, you’ll be okay. She specifically said they don’t want people to get towed.
With the security company monitoring how long people park, the yellow tape division will go away and the whole lot will be available again.
But if you’re one of the long-term non-customer parkers, I think you should assume the free lunch is over.
Good- it is about time – now we can see if there is an parking issue in Newtonville with the Free Shaws Parking taken out of the mix.
Let the Austin St parking lot development begin… (said sarcastically)!
Problem, what problem? There is no problem here. I am sure that the Dinosaur and its friends have an answer for this. It just may not be accurate or truthful.
Doesn’t sound like there will be a shortage of spots for parkers once the abusers are removed. If there’s a shortage of commuter parking, that’s a separate issue that needs to be addressed.
HA! Way to go Shaws!!!! I am amazed that even on early Saturday mornings, how many “customers” have parked at Shaws! Silly, me on Saturdays I feed the meters when I am not at Shaws. Didn’t realize I was the only one!
NewtonMom, isn’t the municipal lot still free on Saturday. Has that changed?
Here’s an interesting approach by a grocery store in the Seattle area:
“We offer free validated parking with purchase for up to two hours in our parking lot. Spend $15 or more for up to two hours of parking or $7.50 for one hour of parking. All retailers within Uwajimaya Village may validate parking.”
@Nathan: Like.
@Patrick/NewtonMom: Yes parking is free in the Austin Street lot on Saturdays
So soon there will be two parking attendants ( when Austin Street gets approved), at work here ! who’d a thunk parking was at such a premium in this neighborhood!
Blueprintbill, you must be confusing our Newtonville with some other Newtonville. Our mayor, the developer and the good people of Newton who know everything say there is no parking problem. Never was a problem and certainly never will be.
Bob and Blue: I don’t recall Mayor Warren or anyone else saying parking was not important or a problem. I do recall hearing a commitment to making sure there will continue to be adequate parking both during construction and once completed. Good people can disagree on what’s needed but let’s make that the focus of the conversation.
Can someone clarify for me where the NNHS students who now park in Austin Street Lot will be parking when the development starts?
Greg Reibman…I wrote that the developer and the Mayor believe that there “Never was a problem and certainly never will be” a problem parking in Newtonville.
When did either Scott Oran or Mayor Warren see parking as an problem? We have been told all along that the Austin Street lot is underutilized and that this development will in no way impact folks ability to park and shop in Newtonville. I stand by my statement that the powers that be don’t see problems with parking in Newtonville.
@Bob of Newton: You’ll have to show me the quote(s). I don’t recall hearing or reading a comment like that from either man.
What Bob of Newton said- although maybe now with this Shaws parking lot ban – they might see it a bit clearer – but will they admit it or make any changes – now that is another question.
Others will see even more parking surplus for the village with free commuter parking taken out of the mix. That surplus at Shaw’s could someday be used more wisely, rented or shared with the rest of the business community. Nathan’s validated parking idea FTW.
I can understand the argument that our tax dollars should pay to provide parking for teachers. Why should we be paying for parking for students? I’d rather have shops and housing that adds to our tax base then pay to maintain a parking lot for high schoolers who don’t want to walk or take the bus.
Adam, “Others will see even more parking surplus for the village with free commuter parking taken out of the mix.”
I thought that Newton was anxious to promote use of public transit.
@Lucia, the unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of high school seniors who park illegally in the neighborhoods around Newton North. Mill Street became very problematic so parking enforcement was stepped up there. The response from the kids has been to now park around Bulloughs Pond and even though they are clearly parking illegally there is minimal to no enforcement. I understand your point and it’s quite valid, but without increased traffic enforcement the problem is simply shifted.
Greg, thank you for the clarification. NewtonMom’s comment confused me.
To address the student problem, just like teachers, the students should have free parking as well. Right now, the teachers use about 95% of the Elm street lot, and the Lowell lot (which is further from the school), sits at roughly 70% occupancy. The space in between the two lots is also filled.
One thing I would like to mention is that the janitors get free reserved spots right next to the school, this seems a little unfair to me.
Anyways, the students deserve spots too. They already have to park further away, so its only fair. One street that is not open to students, but could easily be filled is Beaumont Ave. This street is near the school and could easily fit one side of student parking during the day. It seems really suspicious that students cannot park on this street. Of course, Setti Warren lives on the street, so if you want to put 2+2 together….
Over here near Cabots Ice Cream, we have parking issues all year round. And the city does not monitor illegal parking by Cabots patrons. Sidewalk parking, trucks and cars blocking intersection at Beach & Washington, 16 wheel trucks parked on Beach for deliveries, for starters.
At least NNHS tapers off during the summer months.
Hopefully, the city will pay more attention to your problems.
Absolutely, Bob. But promoting public transit doesn’t mean providing free parking.
So it seems that if your children go to Newton South you can buy a parking pass and they have the ability and place to park but for Newton North there is street parking and also the Austin St Lot that is free because they don’t have designated parking like NSHS. So I guess in theory that money that the NPS is collecting for Student parking is going toward our Tax Base. It just isn’t from the North Side of the City. It still doesn’t answer the question of where will the NNHS students park once you take Austin Street out of the mix. Some need to drive to get to afterschool jobs etc.
“Of course, Setti Warren lives on the street, so if you want to put 2+2 together….”(Fantasia McMannis)
And a developer who is much in favor of large scale buildings in other peoples’ neighborhoods’ also lives near NNHS on a street (Prospect) where parking is restricted.
It seems that a lot of folks love things that will never bother them where they live.I wonder why.
I’ve lived with a two minute walk of two schools, NN and Zervas. Trust me, the neighbors who live with 2000 teenagers every day are the ones who need parking restrictions and the city has recognized this since at least 1981. Blithedale and Beaumont has ALWAYS had the most restrictive parking regulations because they are closest to the school. Teenagers speed, don’t know or care about the parking regulations, and use their cars as social gathering spots (please read into that whatever you may imagine). When the new building opened, two more streets were added to the most restricted list because they now are much closer to the building and parking poses safety hazards due to the width of the streets. To imply that people who live near NN have recently been given special parking restrictions is inaccurate at best and slanderous at worst.
This is what I learned from my experience with NNHS: at a certain point you have to move on with your life, and moving on can be very liberating.
We don’t owe the Newton North students parking in our neighborhoods, nor do we owe them parking in our city owned lot. We are talking about making them walk a few extra blocks. The spaces in the Austin street lot for students were a luxury, and the idea that we’d make policy for the village based on non-commuters and non-short term parkers is just bad parking policy. There are plenty of spaces on the Lowell side of Washington street that are unused every day. That is an extra 2 blocks. Designate them school parking if you want, and let the students walk. Nothing is perfect. But I care far more about the overall health of the village than I do for our lazy high schoolers. (and for those of you who are worried about kids with health issues, I assure you there is parking right next to the school for those kids, if necessary.).
I’m glad Shaw’s is being tougher. Now we’ll see that the earth doesn’t stop rotating when that happens.
I’ll also note that I’ve seen quite a few Yoga clients parking in Shaws towards the far end. They stick out, since they…well…are carrying yoga mats. I’ve always found it ironic that they are too lazy to walk across the bridge as well. Perhaps one of the master instructors that the owner is always mentioning in every meeting can work on that in their classes. 😉
Can we stop calling the yoga clients names? These are our friends, relatives and neighbors after all. And frankly, how many of us purposely park farther away than we need to, ever? It is human nature to look for the closest parking spot and that does not make anyone worthy of ridicule.
Thank you Emily. It’s also worth noting that many people do yoga precisely because they have health issues that preclude more vigorous activity. Going to a yoga class doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily about to walk distances.
Ah Emily, perhaps you need a lesson in emoji. Hence the 😉 at the end of my post. It is definitely ironic that the business owner most stridently (and at times rudely) defending the need for the parking lot to stay the parking lot happens to be the Yoga studio owner. There are 3 other fitness studios or dojos in the village and none of them comes to the meetings and yells over people. If I was the owner of any of the fitness businesses I would certainly identify for my customers alternative places to park a short walk away (if for no other reason than to prepare for the possibility of loss of parking) and I might even mention the health benefits of a 45 second walk.
Mgwa, I appreciate your point, but the various folks from Yoga I’ve seen illegally park at Shaws seem very able to walk to me, none had handicap stickers that I saw on their cars, and I think you missed the point that they were parking illegally, so even if they had a health issue, that doesn’t excuse that particular issue. They were just being lazy, something that Emily has pointed out many of us are, myself included. I’d say calling someone lazy for being…well…lazy… is just being factually accurate, especially since there were plenty of spots in the Austin Street lot, just a few short feet away. But perhaps they were being cheap INSTEAD of lazy, and trying to avoid the 3 dollars of parking meter fees. Again, not an insult, just a description of actual behavior observed on multiple occasions.
And Emily, calling out my friends/neighbors/relatives for being lazy or cheap is someone I would do in a mocking tone to my ACTUAL friends/neighbors/relatives. Probably with the same emoji I used. So no, I won’t refrain, when it is definitely not my friends/neighbors/relatives, since the majority of folks using the yoga studio are from outside of Newtonville, and especially for folks that are parking illegally. Not to mention that the Yoga studio owner, as you and all the aldercritters know has put herself and her studio front and center in the “keep the parking lot a parking lot” side of the debate. And her original permits seemed to grossly underestimate her parking usage, no?
I will note in passing that I wish you’d respond and push for overall village improvements as hard as you push against a larger project for the Austin Street lot. It is easy for someone to vote no, I’d be impressed if you took the lead in the Walnut Street improvements and pushed for wider sidewalks, better lighting, more plantings, etc. It would be a real shame if all you and the aldercritters accomplished for Newtonville in 5 years is keeping a parking lot a parking lot (as well as preventing jokes about yoga studios, looks like you’ve got that one covered as well). 😉
This isn’t about name calling or even consumer behavior, it’s about a valued local business (and the vitality it brings to the village) and the special permit which enables it to operate there. The petitioner, back in 2009, suggested that there’s ample parking, hundreds of spaces on average, even without including the public parking lot (see attachment “C”) as well as the likelihood for many customers to use alternate transportation. I’m not sure where the number for 8 parking spaces comes from, nor did I see an estimate of how many people actually take a yoga class, on average, but I’ve only skimmed the document.
EXACTLY Adam. Thank you for posting the document. Now everyone can see the hypocrisy of the owner of the Yoga studio. The Yoga studio uses FAR more parking than disclosed to the board of Aldermen, it got a waiver for the 8 required spaces per the zoning code, AND IN THEIR ACTUAL PROPOSAL THEY STATED THAT THEY BELIEVED THERE WAS ADEQUATE PARKING EVEN WITHOUT THE AUSTIN STREET LOT. Now that they are operating, the sky is falling if we do the exact thing they said wouldn’t matter in their petition. How is this not brought up EVERY time the owner complains?
Look, this isn’t really about one business. It is about how we handle our parking as a whole. But the businesses can’t have it both ways. They can’t argue that their use of the commercial space doesn’t require parking mitigation that the new business would have to pay for (new parking lots, contribution to a parking fund to fund an eventual garage) and then, once the permit has been granted, make the CITY pay to keep the extra city parking as parking, and in effect pushing that mitigation cost onto the city instead of the business. My view is that by petitioning for a parking waiver, the Yoga Studio effectively eliminates themselves from this discussion, since they have already told the city “hey, we don’t need the Austin Street lot” in order to run our business. If they now feel they do, perhaps there is a way for the city to go back and require parking mitigation funds and require those 8 spaces to cover some of the opportunity costs… 😉
Emily, I’d appreciate if you could read what Adam attached and respond with your thoughts. No emoji on this one, you clearly support the Yoga Studio, so I’m interested in your take.
Hi Fig,
We have these exchanges every 8 months or so, and as you may remember my wife is affiliated with the studio which has certainly informed my perspective.
Regardless of how you may feel towards the studio owner’s manner, the facts on the ground are these: Down Under Yoga is a business that excavated out an unproductive basement storage space and converted it into a thriving enterprise that brings 1000 visitors a week into the village of Newtonville. They do yoga, eat, drop off dry cleaning, buy prescriptions and coffee, do their banking, shop for eyeglasses and camera equipment, get fresh bread and pastries, and buy groceries; in short they make all manner of contributions that add to the dynamics of a thriving village. As a rising tides lifts all ships so does Down Under Yoga’s success contribute to the vitality of Newtonville. Their parking issues are everyone’s parking issues.
Their special permit application: It was done 5 years ago. Aji had just opened. The packed Brewer’s Coalition had not yet replaced the failing Ariandne’s. The always busy Rox Diner had not yet replaced the failing KFC. And most importantly, the parking relief impact of what, as a practical matter, was a free public lot at Shaws, was not even understood by the City of Newton let alone an upstart business.
Just because Down Under Yoga has grown to be more successful than they imagined when starting, and competition for parking spaces has significantly heated up since their opening, they forfeit their right to lobby for conditions that will continue to contribute to their success and to the success of their neighboring businesses?
I say this as someone who has no particularly developed position on Austin Street, but with a strong position on factors that help thriving businesses continue to thrive. All personalities aside.
Thank you Steve Siegel for that thoughtful comment. I have never taken a yoga class in my life but I can see the “foot traffic” that the studio brings to Newtonville and I feel it is a net benefit to our community. The relatively recent openings of Cook, Brewer’s, Rox and the Paint Bar have also contributed greatly to the parking shortage, but that is a result of their being successful businesses, which I think is what we want, not just for Newtonville but all our villages.
It’s a free country. The owner can represent any position she likes. Her studio does benefit Newtonville, and it’s fair to say that conditions have changed. But take a look at page 4 (my parentheticals). Was Newton duped?
Do patrons park on those streets at peak times? Honest question, I don’t know. It was the Yoga studio (or its attorney) which suggested that patrons would be comfortable with a .25 mile radius. It sounds like the planning department didn’t really buy that argument in 2009, either.
That would certainly be ideal. Wonder how it turned out? Was a bike rack ever installed? If so, how much is it used?
It’s possible that there really is ample parking in the area, if managed properly. We’ll see how much excess Shaw’s actually has. What if peak times were not in conflict and they rented it out? Take a look at Rockland Trust. They’re sitting on an empty parking lot, even on weekdays.
Steve – The issue isn’t whether Newtonville has benefitted from any particular business at this point in time, but whether decisions that that will affect the vitality of the village for decades to come should be based on the presence of one particular owner.
This may very well be a wonderful yoga studio, but may I remind you that in the 80’s, Newtonville had a fabric store and a small “stationery” store, as well as a number of other small businesses that suited the times. They are gone now, highlighting the need for village centers to have spaces flexible enough to change with the times. Making long term decisions based on the convenience of patrons of a yoga studio that may very well relocate at any time simply doesn’t make sense.
Emily – I rarely park in the spots closest to the business I plan to visit because they are very difficult to navigate (parallel parking has never been one of my strong suits, and it’s only getting worse). Most often, I find parking place several blocks away and enjoy the walk. We all have individual preferences, and it’s probably best not to generalize based on the preferences or needs of the most vocal.
Hi Jane,
I think you’re addressing a different point than mine. Although I reference the yoga studio, I’m arguing that village vitality is fed by successful businesses that their customers can easily access. Will a large mixed-use Austin Street project facilitate that vitality better than lots of nearby parking? I have no idea.
But I am attentive to businesses that believe that a sudden drop in available parking will hurt their bottom line. Justine Cohen regularly and publicly vocalizes this concern but her issue is echoed by business owners throughout the village. To this point Chris Pitts just posted on another V14 thread that Great Harvest shares Justine’s perspective and I’ve heard others worrying too. All of their customers need to be able to get to Newtonville for these businesses to do well.
I think the new Shaws parking restriction is a good thing as it converts discussion about their parking impact on the village from speculation to fact. We can work with the information provided.
I am not making an anti-Austin Street argument. Rather, I am suggesting that Newton should be hyper-vigilant in understanding and addressing conditions under their control that may negatively impact area businesses. If we get it wrong it may take a long time before this vital commercial center recovers.
Village vitality is enhanced by walkability and bikeability too. If Newtonville develops primarily for the automobile, it may gain more car customers traveling from a wider region, but will tend to discourage locals who would like to walk or bike to the cafe or yoga studio.
Maybe as part of the developer’s upgrades to the community, they should be asked to provide strategically located bike racks.
Steve – I know you’re not expressing an anti-Austin St. sentiment. But the fact is Newtonville changed from a village that catered to small businesses to a bank/salon center over a relatively short period of time with the same amount of parking spaces, so that indicates to me the Austin St. lot hasn’t helped small businesses all that much. From my conversations with owners who left Newtonville, the reason they left was that the rents are exorbitant.
Maybe I prefer the aesthetics of the Highlands and the activities our incredible Ward Alderman manages to pull together or the variety of shops in Nonantum, but I just found the bank takeover to be kind of depressing. IMO, the new restaurants have definitely been a great addition to the village. I also happen to be entering that stage of life when one begins to think about what type of living situation will be well suited to my future and living in a village definitely has its benefits.
Steve, your description of Down Under Yoga as a “business that excavated out an unproductive basement storage space and converted it into a thriving enterprise that brings 1000 visitors a week into the village of Newtonville whose clients do yoga, eat, drop off dry cleaning, buy prescriptions and coffee, do their banking, shop for eyeglasses and camera equipment, get fresh bread and pastries, and buy groceries; in short they make all manner of contributions that add to the dynamics of a thriving village.” seems to deem it magical powers drawn from a Norman Rockwell vision, just throw in the barbershop. It surely would sustain Newtonville’s vitality all on its own. I don’t know how accurate it is, although it is a lovely thought.
This Austin Street project has been a little magical itself as several things have rarely been what they seemed. Most recently, with the wave of a wand, the parking solution Scot Oran published in the Tab has disappeared, albeit because of “commuter parking” rather than unwarranted pronouncements.
I walk by the Austin Street lot regularly. Both it and the Shaw’s lot are ugly blights and could do with some changes. I think a medium sized, mixed use development would be a good addition to Newtonville, primarily for the affordable housing in a village setting. It’s too bad this one has been mishandled and misrepresented creating distrust instead of community excitement. When I’ve checked out retirement options with friends, village living with all ages and types of families always ranks near the top. A beach thrown in would be nice too if magic is an option.
I agree with Steve. I shop in places that have parking lots. I go to Newton Centre because it has a nice parking lot and to Newtonville for the same reason. I wouldn’t go to Newtonville for my shopping and coffee if there was an underground lot or parallel parking only. I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way.
Lassy’s comment concerns me. After all the meetings and discussion, it’s troubling that some people think there won’t be any public parking at Austin Street. Makes me wonder if some of the folks who are dead set against this don’t know the details.
And yes Steve, as Marti points out, your description of what can happen to a village when an unproductive space finds a more productive use really could describe what might happen if part of the Austin St. lot was used for something, well, more productive..
Parking will be available in the Austin Street lot, on grade, not parrallel or underground, regardless of development or not, Lassy. No worries. I think we all agree on that part.
Nathan Phillips writes that Village vitality is enhanced by walkability and bikeability too. Maybe, maybe not.
Too often, assertions are made about development that seem to suit the writers wishes. For example, developers and the city tell us about the need for seniors who want to downsize. However, when I wrote to Nancy Hyde for the names of the studies that the city used to develop their plans, she said that she could not supply them. She said the city beliefs about the need of seniors were based on anecdotal comments.
Bob of Newton – here’s data from Newton. Funny that you used an anecdote to make a point about the use of anecdotes (which, btw, the data below shows is not the case):
“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
Read more: Austin Street developers outline parameters for project | Village 14 City of Newton, Massachusetts http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/01/austin-street-developers-outline-the-non-negotiable-parts-of-their-project/#ixzz3PsQhRLwr
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
Thanks, Marti and Greg. I try to keep up but the last I heard on another blog was the plan was for underground parking and it sounded like there would not be enough parking with all of the new retail and restaurants.
Nathan, the link doesn’t work
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1102&context=gerontologyinstitute_pubs
Try this one. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=gerontologyinstitute_pubs
“A substantial portion of seniors modify their driving habits because of difficulties in driving, unrelated to parking availability.”
While I am perfectly capable of walking a few blocks, I recently came to the conclusion that parallel parking and even tandem parking in populated lots are no longer good options for me. It’s the first step in “modifying driving habits”. For workplace parking, the Lowell St. lot is where you’ll find my car, with an empty spot to the right and to the left.
Bob of Newton, from the same recent study, “88% of Senior respondents who stated it is important to them to stay in Newton as long as possible, and 78% of Seniors who said it is important to remain in their current village as long as possible. The vast majority of survey respondents (72%) reported that they lived in single-family homes. Nevertheless, in the event that a change in their health required that respondents move in the next 5 years, condominiums were the most common preference for Boomers (48%) and Seniors age 60 to 79 (41%).”
Your post above seems to be an example of “assertions made to suit the writer’s wishes.”
“Most survey respondents (Boomers and Seniors) of all ages (90%) indicated that they still drive themselves.” Downsizing frees many seniors from homeowners’ responsibilities, allowing them to pursue new avenues in life, travel, etc. It’s not an anecdote, it’s a fact of life. Village living and walkability would enhance rather than replace driving for most. We Boomers are a driving generation.
I am by no means a statistician, so I simply tried googling some info.
What constitutes an acceptable return rate? Research methods textbooks differ in their guidelines, although most argue strongly for securing a high rate of return as a means of minimizing nonresponse bias. Babbie (1990) contended that a return of 50% is adequate, although Bailey (1987) set the adequacy bar at 75%. More recently, Schutt(1999) instructed students that “a response rate below 60 percent is a disaster” and concluded that “it is hard to justify the representativeness of the sample if more than a third failed to respond”
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/research/response_rates_for_mail_surveys_of_nonprofit_organizations_-_a_review_and_empirical_test.pdf
Mail surveys are used with good success in many contexts, and response rates of 50–70% are common, with 90% possible in some cases.
http://www.pra.ca/resources/pages/files/technotes/rates_e.pdf
Overall, 1,111 sampled residents returned surveys with usable data, representing a response rate of 27%
(page 27 of Living and Aging in Newton)
BTW, my wife and I are seniors according to the Newton survey. My wife received the survey but didn’t respond because she thought it was biased towards certain answers.
Steve: I have nothing personally against Down Under Yoga. Always happy to have a new business be successful in my village, and lots of my friends and neighbors use it occasionally. But I think you overestimate the value it has to its surrounding businesses, and you paint an incredibly rose picture of its impact. But that is your right, as it is my right to say that generally I see the Yoga users walk from their car and back to their car. No study has been done on the impact, and in the past the Yoga studio has made a point of claiming how many of its students come from outside the village, so I tend to doubt those folks are buying coffee at local establishments or dropping off dry cleaning. But lets go with your assumption and use the fact that the Yoga studio now brings an additional 1000 yoga students in per week to the village.
A few facts:
It has already been established via the parking study that the yoga studio is using a very large percentage of the Austin Street Lot.
We know from your permit that the yoga studio said that it’s classes were largely during low parking use times, and that is no longer the case.
We know from your permit that you claimed that the yoga studio’s customers would be willing to walk up to .25 miles to park, which would include Lowell Ave (among other streets in the radius) far past the Austin Street Lot.
We know from your permit the Austin Street Lot wasn’t taken into effect in the permit..
We know from your permit that a bike rack was promised (was it ever delivered upon)? Not sure as to how the parking mitigation got reduced to just a bike rack for a business that had the potential to host 1000 cars/customers a week, but hey, I’m not the city dept.
We know that unlike Brewer’s Coalition/Aji/Rox, all of which you mention in your email, the yoga studio has no dedicated parking. All of those restaurants had private shared lots, and all of them bring far less traffic to the area than the yoga studio.
The restaurants are judged for similar permits based on the number of seats and evaluated as if maximum patrons are assumed. For the case of the yoga studio, from the permit it is clear that did not occur, or if it did, the city clearly didn’t take into 1000 users/cars per week.
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing the yoga studio’s rent is far less as basement space with NO dedicated parking space. Which is great for a new and growing business, but I think you can acknowledge that the village and the city is then subsidizing the business by supplying access to parking. In a perfect world the parking resource would be fairly divided between the various village businesses, but I believe the yoga studio now uses around 10% to 20% of the Austin Street lot, according to the parking studio.
Why do I mention all of this? It is not to pick on the yoga studio, although I find the hypocrisy of the business to be a bit frustrating. I mention this because if the city were to use the same standards pushed by the yoga studio and other new businesses regarding parking, those same business would NEVER have been approved originally. The yoga studio got approved under some REALLY incorrect assumptions and got the parking requirements waived. I’m sure other businesses did as well.
Steve, when the yoga studio came and asked for approval, the city bent the rules and allowed it to move forward and be the successful business it is today. You claim a rising tide lifts the village boats in regards to the yoga studio. But when it comes time to evaluating the Austin Street proposal, you/Emily and yoga studio don’t see a further rising tide, you only evaluate it by the loss of parking. You don’t give another business owner the same chances you got, or allow the city to make the same assumptions. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t defend what the city did on your permit proposal and decry what it wants to do a few short years later for other businesses.
I say this all not as a supporter of a large project, and as someone who isn’t happy with the proposal for the Dinosaur folks. But I think folks do deserve to know where some of the most strident opponents are coming from, and I agree with Marti and others that the parking lots are ugly and that we could do better.
Fig,
Who are these “strident opponents” that you refer to? Its not Emily Norton or Steve Siegel. You say that you’re not a supporter of a large project, neither is Emily Norton. Think she’s been clear that a proposal along the dimension of the Planning Department’s range, 10-35 units, is a very different proposal that the one on the table. Steve says something similarly in this thread.
You are arguing minutia, and using hindsight 20/20 logic to boot. The application for the Yoga studio was from 5 years ago, circumstances change. Its fair to point out that the Yoga studio owner is a being somewhat hypocritical in being such a vocal critic– but its a small point in the grand scheme of things.
Much larger is that Dinosaur is pushing a proposal with a size that a minority of the city supports. Given that after “hearing feedback from the public” the size of the proposal hasn’t changed– at all– and the Mayor said that this phase would begin with “no specific proposal” yet the same proposal is basically being trotted out– these issues are significantly of greater concern.
Yoga lady may be a bit annoying, but its hard to see how she has any actual influence on the process. Dinosaur and the Mayor, however, have most of it.
Your point has been made, let’s focus on the important stuff.
“…Given that after “hearing feedback from the public” the size of the proposal hasn’t changed– at all–…”
This appears to be a typical developer ploy. That is, hold a couple of meetings, say you listened and then proceed the way you had planned all along. We saw this on Court Street where the major criticism was the 36 unit size. The Englers said they listened to the neighbors and then came back with a…36 unit development.
Paul, I don’t disagree. My larger point is frustration with the permitting process as a whole. Lots of cities have permitting fees to deal with parking issues that over time allow for more flexibility. And I agree with the frustration regarding the size of the project feeling like a foregone conclusion. If it is a foregone conclusion, I want to also focus on the amenities that the village will be receiving. It feels like those have been decreasing in reality, increasing in verbiage.
The difference between Austin St. and Court Square is that the city DOESN’T have to sell or rent the parking lot. That gives a well-run city lots of leverage. Not really feeling the leverage here. Picking one developer weakens that position as well.
All in all, this is just a disappointing process.
Dan
Whoops, hit the button too soon.
Dan Fahey used to have good insights as to the village and this project in particular since he lived so close. I’d really appreciate knowing what he and others who live nearby think at this point about the parking. They live in every day I imagine. Is Dan still on this message board? I see Jane, but she moved away from Newtonville I think. Anyone else who lives nearby (by nearby I mean within .25 miles)
Fig, still here, still posting, still walking by.