On the recent parking thread, there was some confusion over the effective footprint of the building, and Marti expressed a wish for 3-D. Here are a couple of recent attempts to capture the 3-D impact of the proposed Austin Street project in context. The renderings were done in SketchUp. I didn’t do them myself, they were a present from mystery elves so I can’t personally attest to the accuracy, but it looks like a reasonable representation. If anyone else wants to try their own version, have at it.
From the angle above you can see Shaw’s on the other side of Austin Street, although not the portion over the Pike as far as I can tell. From this other angle, below, you can just see the far left edge of Shaw’s because it’s mostly hidden behind the new construction.
Here’s another attempt to visualize the building, in Andre Khachuturian’s report on the last meeting at the Senior Center for NewTV, although they didn’t have quite the right perspective of the building to work with, since the front of the building should be parallel to Austin Street, a little bit closer to the street than Rockland Trust (not angling away), judging by the illustration in the last Austin Street post.
And here’s the view from page 47 of the Austin Street Partners document that Adam linked to.
For anyone who’s saying, well, this height is okay because the Masonic building and the church are already that high, I would note that just because one tall thing is nice, doesn’t mean lots of tall things are nice. And there is a tendency for each incremental big build to be used to justify the next. We’re seeing that with the luxury townhouse-ification in my part of West Newton that I wrote about previously, and the teardowns in Oak Hill Park and elsewhere. What starts out as an anomaly becomes the new normal. Would you like a five-story building on the Rockland Trust lot and the Shaw’s lot as well? Because if one developer does it, the next developer will argue they should be able to as well.
Addendum: Here are a couple of additional views, which include top floor indentations, the abutting church on Highland Ave, and the 16-unit building at 25-31 Highland Ave (far left foreground below), although I think they overstate the bulk of 25-31 Highland, which, looking at the Assessor’s Database photo, is a 3-story building but the third floor has a sloped roof with gables and turrets.
Here’s a view looking east:
The special permit ordinance now requires submission of an accurate, detailed computer generated 3-D model of major projects like Austin Street, that show surrounding properties in context that are within 500 to 1000 feet (depending on the square footage of the proposed development) and can be rotated to allow viewing from different directions and angles.
The 3-D model above is somewhat misleading, in that I believe it is based on an older design (based on the tower that was not part of the more recent plans I saw), does not reflect the setback of the top story that is required by zoning, and does not show the immediately abutting church and 3-story apartment building that are of similar height. Per the zoning ordinance, the Austin Street building is 4 stories tall, with the top story set back from the street by the height of the story, and a total height of 50 feet (the maximum allowed is 60 feet). And, unlike model that will be submitted as part of the special permit process, it does not show all of the buildings within 500-1000 feet, in particular the 5-story office building next to the Masonic building and the 3-story office building, commercial buildings and the large church just across the MassPike on Walnut Street.
Was this 3-D model really created by “mystery elves,” Julia, or do you know who created it and you just aren’t saying? Because the exclusion of most of the nearby buildings that are similar in height from the model is interesting, to say the least. It would be helpful to know who created this model so that one could ask them why that was done.
Might the mystery elves be the same people who urged inflating the parking study or who run a citizen group that refuses to disclose its members and has time to create this but no time to talk to the TAB?
Rockland Trust borders a residential area, so no, but a 5-story building on the Shaw’s lot? Why not?
@Ted Hess-Mahan – Is the superior 3D model that was part of the special permit application available on-line somewhere?
Jerry, the special permit application has not been filed yet.
It is also interesting to note that the 3-story apartment building abutting the Austin Street lot has 16 units on 13,000+ sf while the proposed Austin Street project is 80 units on 74,000+ sf, which is almost exactly the same density of units.
Ted, aren’t you the one who keeps telling us it’s important to get public input early because projects rarely change much once they get to the Special Permit stage? So what use is the 3-D model at that point, beyond showing people ‘this is what you’ll get, take it or leave it’? (Which, come to think of it, is not that much different than where we’re at now.) And I find it interesting that you did not argue with my observation about big things being pointed to to justify more big things.
No, I really don’t know who made the SketchUps. I don’t know how hard they are to do, or whether you need the ‘Pro’ version to do refinements like the tiered top floor. But maybe Austin Street Partners already has a wider view of the color bird’s-eye-view above that includes the churches and the Masonic building that they would like to share.
What struck me looking at the view with the church and Masonic building, is that you can’t just cite heights when comparing a flat-roofed building to a hip-roof building, or especially a steeple, for heaven’s sake. And weren’t steeples traditionally supposed to be the tallest things around?
Well, Julia, “public” means “public” and not magical emanations from some clandestine elfin creatures. I assume you know where you got the models from. Why not just say where you got them from?
Ted,
Do you believe a majority of your constituents support the Austin St project?
Paul, I believe a special permit should be granted based upon whether it satisfies the criteria under the zoning ordinance and MGL 40A. So do our legislature and the courts.
Sec 30-24 (d) of the Newton Ordinances: “The board of aldermen may grant a special permit when, in its judgment, the public convenience and welfare will be served, and subject to such conditions, safeguards and limitations as it may impose. The board of aldermen shall not approve any application for a special permit unless it finds, in its judgment, that the use of the site will be in harmony with the conditions, safeguards and limitations herein set forth and that the application meets all the following criteria (except that uses accessory to activities permitted as a matter of right and which activities are necessary in connection with scientific research or scientific development or related production may be permitted provided the Board of Aldermen finds that the proposed accessory use does not substantially derogate from the public good):
(1) The specific site is an appropriate location for such use, structure;
(2) The use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
(3) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians;
(4) Access to the site over streets is appropriate for the type(s) and number(s) of vehicles involved;
(5) In cases involving construction of building(s) and/or structure(s) or additions to existing building(s) and/or structure(s), if those proposed building(s) and/or structure(s) or additions contain individually or in the aggregate 20,000 or more square feet in gross floor area ,the site planning, buiding design, construction, maintenance or long-term operation of the premises will contribute significantly to the efficient use and conservation of natural resources and energy.
Ted,
Respectfully, you didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask whether you supported the project, but whether you believed a majority of your constituents do.
As one of those constituents, I would appreciate a direct response.
The elf is evidently reading V14 and trying to respond to constructive criticism, as I’ve received two more views which I’ve added above. These reflect the indented top floor or the ASP project (front and back of the building), and include the abutting church and the 16-unit building on Highland Ave, although as I noted in the Addendum, I think these views overstate the bulk of the 16-unit building. 25-31 Highland Ave, actually condos, not apartments, is three stories but the third story is not a full story, but rather has gables and turrets on a sloped roof.
Ted, I don’t know what you mean by “public means public.” Blue means blue. Apples mean apples. Whatever. I’m not claiming these are official representations. If the provenance is not satisfactory, people are welcome to ignore them or try to come up with their own, or wait for whatever ASP produces. I’d be surprised if ASP doesn’t already have a more complete virtual 3-D, and if they send it to me/V14, I’ll be happy to add it. They probably have much fancier software than SketchUp (I’m still not sure if these are done with the free online version or a pay version).
I would like to constructively criticize the Elf for being secretive.
I would like to commend the Elf for helping us visualize the site and improving it when given valid feedback.
Emily, there are also a comprehensive set of additional special permit criteria and design standards in the MU4 zoning amendment that was passed specifically for Austin Street. The review and approval process is a quasi-judicial function of the Board of Aldermen, which is to say that we are supposed to be objective and unbiased in determining whether a project satisfies the criteria for granting a special permit and imposing conditions that mitigate the impact of the project. It is not a plebiscite nor is it supposed to be a popularity contest. I would add only that the RFP for Austin Street required compliance with the MU4 zoning ordinance, and that Austin Street Partner’s proposal was given high marks for that criteria.
Julia, when someone gets up at a public hearing, they have to give their name and address. I realize blogs and social media are the land of all sorts of mysterious and mythical creatures like avatars, elves and trolls. But if you want serious people to take you seriously, you ought to be willing to say who you are and not be so coy about it.
That said, the new renderings are an improvement, although they do not include the entire context of the village, particularly the office building across from the Masonic building, or the trees and landscaping. Moreover, the church on the corner of Walnut and Highland does not even come close to the proportions of the real building, which is rather more graceful than the short squat edifice depicted, which sort of looks like a couple mismatched pieces of Lego stuck together. The steeple and rear wing of the building have also been either elided or not rendered accurately or consistently in the different views. Take a look on Google street view or have a look at the property card on the Assessors Database for 19 Highland Avenue. All in all, ASP’s rendering is still far closer to reflecting how the proposed building would fit in with the existing neighborhood.
Emily, Thank you.
Ted, after posting viewpoints (it is too large) on both V14 and the Tab Blog, to answer a question about the opinions of your constituents with “I believe a special permit should be granted based upon whether it satisfies the criteria under the zoning ordinance and MGL 40A. So do our legislature and the courts.” appears smug and dismissive of those who aren’t your political equals, but have valid positions on city issues. (To spell it out, the implication is that constituents’s opinions be damned, because I know the procedure and as long as it fits into legal criteria I will approve it.)
The administration has asked for citizen input that (we have been told) would be a part of the decision making process.
Your prior posts are hopefully more accurate.
“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.”
and “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.”
and “So I will keep an open mind about this proposal and wait to hear from the proponents and the public before making my decision.”
You and Greg continue to harp on “secrecy” rendering posts irrelevant while secrecy had been one of the biggest problems with this development. Knowing the people (or elves or fairies) who are offering input on this issue doesn’t affect the input itself or the value of their statements.
I do not know you as you do not know me. I know only your political positions, your voting record, and your comments which range from insightful to rude.
Marti, my posts about the special permit process are intended to enlighten and educate people about the process, and I sign my full name to them so fellow bloggers know whose opinions are being expressed. I try to be as accessible as I can to the public (taking into account that I also have a day job), and I consider blogging to be part of that. If I have offended you, I sincerely regret it. If you want to discuss it further, please feel free to email me at [email protected].
I wholeheartedly agree that secrecy and the utter lack of transparency have been consistent and ongoing flaws in this whole process. The aldermen recently received a letter to the Mayor from the Newtonville Area Neighborhood Council complaining about the fact that the members had invited Austin Street Partners to make a presentation to the Council, but were turned down because the Planning and Development Department had advised the developer not to. The Council rightly pointed out that the Aldermen had unanimously endorsed a resolution to the Mayor to “ask the Newtonville Area Council to take a leadership role in the process by sponsoring community meetings in order to vet the design and potential impacts on the neighborhood directly with residents so that the developer will be able to revise the plans accordingly.” The Council members and residents of Newtonville have every right to be angry about being deliberately excluded, even as non-governmental groups were given private previews by the developer. In this case, it is not the fault of the developer, but of the administration. Moreover, at a seminar on affordable housing at the recent Massachusetts Municipal Association Annual Meeting, I learned from staff at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that MAPC had offered to assist in providing a public forum for the Austin Street project, but were turned down by the administration. That, too, is highly regrettable.
At the risk of sounding “superior,” when I was chairman of Land Use, I insisted on a public forum for the developer to present its conceptual plans for Riverside Station so that residents and aldermen could provide their feedback before the special permit was filed, knowing as I do that once it is filed the project cannot be significantly changed without having to go back and restart the process. (It was written into the zoning at my urging.) Based on some of those comments, the plans were revised and, in my view, improved to address legitimate concerns. There were also a whole bunch of well attended public meetings held at the Williams School and elsewhere–arranged by the aldermen from the ward–so that residents could ask questions and express concerns about the project directly to the developer, the aldermen and city staff. And, at the risk of sounding prideful, I also pushed through the requirement for submitting computer generated 3-D graphic models of all large projects which could be posted online where they would be widely available to the public, instead of the old fashioned physical 3-D models that could only be viewed in person. Ultimately, the Riverside Station was unanimously approved by the Board of Aldermen.
As far as the process is concerned, the aldermen always take into account the opinions of residents and abutters with respect to a particular project. Nevertheless, our job is not to count votes, but rather to evaluate a project on the basis of all of the information provided, including public comments, and make an objective and unbiased determination as to whether the project meets the special permit criteria and whether the conditions imposed will mitigate the impact of the project. That is what the law, as passed by the legislature and interpreted by the courts, requires of us. And, yes, I take the law very seriously, both as an attorney and as a local elected official. I do not apologize for that.
Lastly, Greg Reibman and I do not always agree, but I think we do agree that arguments and information posted on the blogs are far more credible and persuasive when the source takes ownership of it. If the creator(s) of the 3-D graphics above prefer to remain anonymous, that is their prerogative. But, if they want people to take them seriously, why not take credit for it?
Ted, thank you for the thoughtful reply to my post.
This is my take away. Development proposals, such as the two mentioned, are presented to Land Use at some point in the early stages where terms and conditions can be required. In the case of Riverside, the developers were required to be community centric, but the Austin Street developers were required NOT to engage the public. The Administration can prohibit the developers from presenting to some Newton citizens, but not to others. I know of a presentation that was cancelled because of the storm but not who arranged it.
The administration and the Planning Department seem to be handling this very poorly.
Anybody remember this article?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/05/24/newton-mayor-setti-warren-picks-developer-for-austin-street-parking-lot/QwUomsG2fkaPPVWguhQ19L/story.html
Marti, that is mostly correct. Austin Street is different from every other special permit project I can recall for one very significant reason: the city is a partner in the development, since it owns the land and is setting the terms for the sale or lease of the property as well as its use. By contrast, Riverside Station is owned by the MBTA, which likewise set the terms of the sale or lease (in that case an 86 year ground lease) and use of the property, and was a co-applicant.
With Austin Street, the developer and the city really ought to be working together. That does not change the fact that the only way this project gets approved is if at least 16 aldermen vote for it. But, as co-applicant, it would be in the city’s best interest to have as open and transparent a public process as possible. So far, however, I am just not seeing it. A handful of tightly controlled and orchestrated public meetings is no substitute for a robust conversation about the pros and cons of the proposed project.
I just want to put it out there that as someone who has had issues with domestic violence, restraining orders and stalking, I would rather not use my last name. I’m not being secretive, so I think it’s worth considering that there may be a variety of reasons why people use psuedonyms and not all of them are for nefarious reasons. I’ve seen this come up a few times.
Ted,
C’mon… crickets.
You’re honestly too scared to answer a simple question about your constituents opinion’s on Austin St.?
Why no answer?
Do you not know what your constituents want?
Do you think its OK for something to get built on public land if a majority of Newton doesn’t want it?
@Paul: I don’t know how one can state with certainty that anyone knows if a majority of Newton supports, opposes or, most likely, is even aware of this project. Yes, there have been some unscientific web surveys and yes there are vocal supporters on both sides. But really, no one knows.
Also, Ted Hess-Mahan is many things but scared to answer a question is most certainly not among them.
@Paul “C’mon …. crickets.” – Like
Greg,
My words were chosen delibrately– I asked what he believed, not knows.
And he can speak for himself, doesn’t need you.