I prepared the Google Sketchup 3D model of the Austin Street project that Julia introduced in an early post. I did so because I shared concerns expressed by Jerry Reilly and Marti about the difficulty of visualizing the impact of the proposed project without a 3D model.
I took building footprints from the proposal and the assessor’s online maps. For the height of the proposed building, I used 54 feet — the height mentioned by the developers in their recent TAB op-ed. I estimated the heights of existing buildings using Google Streetview.
I’ve updated the model a few times in response to some of the points raised in the earlier thread, but I have to say that I’m not up to adding in buildings on the other side of the Pike or trees and landscaping. Here are three views from the latest version.
Looking northwest:
Looking northeast:
Looking west:
[Update: for the adventuresome, try this link -Adam]
If anyone wants to look at the model and mess around with it, you can download it here and run it in the free, non-commercial-use-only version of Google Sketchup.
Bruce, thank you for all this work! I see that downloading the model puts it on one’s own computer, and then you’d need to install the app to open it, but people can play around with it as much as they’d like without disturbing your copy. Pretty cool. This could be a way to visualize a smaller project, like 20 units on two floors over first-floor retail, that a lot of people envisioned when this all started.
I still don’t understand why, if even our pro-development Planning Department considered 18 units as “moderate” and 30 units “aggressive,” as Emily Norton has noted, the RFP didn’t specify a cap of 30 units. Instead there was an 18-unit minimum and no maximum. So of course we got big proposals from for-profit developers. If we’d specified a cap of 30 and that 18 was ideal, more non-profit developers like B’nai Brith might have submitted, feeling like they had a real chance. If that had happened, it might have been built already!
Thanks, Bruce. The new iterations keep getting better. I have to say, though, you don’t look elvish. ;-)
C’mon, Ted, you know that Elvish has left the building.
Meanwhile, back to the discussion of the Austin Street proposal…
When my wife and I went to visit RIT in Rochester NY, where my daughter is going to college, I was struck by how much the Global Village reflected what I was envisioning when I thought about how the Austin Street project could look. The 4-story residential building surrounds a courtyard with single story buildings on either side, retail, restaurants and a post office on the first floor, and a lively public space where people naturally seem to congregate. The buildings and the public space work together on a very human scale that does not seem so overwhelming, and there is constant activity in and around the village itself, which is a social hub on the campus. Here is a slideshow that should give you a good idea of what it looks like.
SimNewtonville, anyone? Nice work, Bruce!
This makes Austin Street a lot more understandable, and if it’s from Bruce Henderson, you can be pretty certain it’s right on the mark.
Adam, Thanks for updating this post with a link to a 3D viewer that allows anyone to pan and zoom around the model.
TIPS:
– Click the arrow in the bottom-left of the screen to open up the left-hand menu.
– Then click the top icon on that left-hand menu (“Zoom extents”).
– Then you can hold your mouse button down to grab the model view and turn it all around.
– You can always re-center the current view by clicking again on the “Zoom extents” icon.
– You can use your mouse scroll wheel (or two fingers on the touchpad) to zoom in and out.
Bnai Brith actually did submit a proposal but it was for 79 units. Metro West Collaborative Development submitted a proposal for 25 units, 100% affordable. Their proposals can still be viewed on the City’s Austin St page here (scroll down).
Why was Metro West’s proposal turned down?
@mgwa – On that same page, visit “Purchasing Department RFP 13-51 Evaluation Summary”
Julia, you and others keep saying the planning department has taken the position that creating 30 units of housing on Austin Street is “aggressive.” This appears to be a deliberate misreading of the Request for Interest prepared by HAPI, the EDC and the Planning Department. These were financial feasibility, not an evaluation of the appropriate size of the project.
In truth, in 2010, prior to the Board of Aldermen rezoning the Austin Street parking lot to permit increased density, citizen volunteers (the Newton Housing Action Plan Initiative — HAPI, “each of whom has some background in development, but none of whom claim expertise at doing that” (Source: Austin Street Parking Lot Reuse Request For Interest, May 15, 2010, page 6-14) evaluated the financial feasibility of two hypothetical redevelopment scenarios that they called “modest” and “aggressive” scenarios.
The “modest” scenario consisted of a four-story 36,000 square foot building including 18,000 square feet of commercial space on two floors and 18 apartments on two more floors.
The “aggressive” scenario proposed a four-story 54,000 square foot building with 24,000 square feet of retail space and 30 apartments.
In neither case was underground parking considered and the Austin Street lot would have been significantly reduced in size or an above-ground parking structure created. Given the amount of commercial space in both alternatives, the proposed reduction in parking and traffic impacts would have been substantially greater than the current proposal.
As for the height of the project and the value of the land, the HAPI citizen volunteers in 2010 concluded:
“If instead, a better designed approach to parking and parking management were to be taken, substantial reductions n[sic] the number of required parking spaces could be made, and it appears likely that the buildings involved would be [financially] feasible at four stories, even if a modest fee were to be charged by the City for the use of the site. At five stories the numbers become more comfortable, enabling more flexibility in the “extras” that the City might want to ask for.”
Just keeping it real. #KeepIt100
Did the words “moderate” and “aggressive” reference financial feasibility, or size? I will let others be the judge. From the Real Property Reuse Committee Report of Tuesday, May 26, 2009:
“Because the parking lot is currently zoned Public Use, a rezoning will be necessary. HAPI recommends that a Business 4 District, which abuts the site, would be appropriate and allow more height – probably 4-5 stories maximum. A modest sketch shows a 4-story building above one below-grade level and containing about 18,000 sf of business floor area, 18 housing units, and sufficient parking for both the new uses and replacement spaces for the ones displaced from the parking lot. A more aggressive sketch shows approximately 24,000 sf of business floor area, all retail, and 30 housing units, plus required parking for the new uses and replacement spaces.”
Again, Emily, that recommendation comes from HAPI, a citizen volunteer group, and was based on the financial feasibility study they did.
Again, Ted, you’re pushing a development that many Newtonites don’t want. And when you’re asked the question whether YOU believe a majority of your constituents support the project, you are simply to cowardly to answer the question. Why?
— You don’t want to go on record saying the majority of constuents support it, because you’re scared you’re wrong
or
— You don’t want to acknowledge that you believe a majority doesn’t support it, yet you are pushing the development against the majority’s wishes.
We’re all watching you Ted. Time to own up to the truth.
Paul, in 1783, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that slavery was unconstitutional at a time when the majority of citizens supported it. The arc of history of long, but it bends toward justice.
I have no idea whether a majority of residents support the Austin Street project or not. I dare say I do not even know whether a majority of residents know all that much about it. But I know my duty, which is to make an unbiased and objective determination as to whether this project satisfies the criteria for granting a special permit.
You call me cowardly. Yet I use my full name and stand by my opinions in this Village 14. What say you, sir?
T H-M writes “The arc of history of (sic) long, but it bends toward justice.” Are you asserting that you have justice on your side and that those who disagree with, do not?
One could quote The Second Coming by WB Yeats also:
“…while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Take your choice.
Bob of Newton, I believe I am on the side of justice. I intend to act impartially and without bias, based on all the facts and the law.
This isn’t slavery, get over yourself.
These are town issues. You’re supposed to be representing your constituents. You’re not.
We don’t want a five story, 80 unit building that will further overcrowd our schools.
Ted,
Its interesting you take the law making point of view.
What about the community? They were promised they would be involved and have input into the project. The community is being dictated to, and they do not like this project!
And now I think about dictatorship – Spring will soon be here ;-)
Jimminycrickets!!
It is unfortunate that even in community issues, the outcome of a persuasive argument is not allowed to rely on its merits without being embellished with misdirection. Presenting the case for a smaller development really doesn’t require scrounging for extraneous “facts.”
Paul, who evidently is not the “typical Paul,” and Simon climb back down here with the rest of us who are also not omniscient. I know I don’t need or want you to speak for me on this development or anything else and am sure you have not been appointed to be the voice of all “Newtonites.” Your opinions are just that, yours.
Simon, while disagreeing with Ted is fun at times, on this particular point you are actually agreeing with him. Check some other Austin Street threads. If there is a dictator governing this project, he is in the Administrative chair.
Paul – THM is representing some of his constituents. I strongly support THM’s push for affordable housing in Newton.
Marti,
Who says I was poking fun at Ted? I have read Teds comments and mostly agree with him.
As for public opinion, even Andy Levins articles are becoming more gloomful!
Ted mentions law, and admits he has no idea whether the public want it or not. Its should not be this way.
In my humble opinion Austin street would be an reasonable location for affordable senior housing with around 20-30 units.
Simon, I so agree with you that it should not be this way and don’t get me started on Andy Levin. As for me, I have no idea why Newtonville needs any more luxury apartments, so I don’t get it at all without the extra 25% priced moderately with city help.
You like senior housing.
Well, I think maybe a similar design proposal flipped with the open side facing Austin Street but more of a horseshoe meaning a skinner building and fewer apartments, with the bricked plaza extending from Bram Way and Austin Street into the opening (instead of parking) covered in the Bryant Park style tables and chairs leading up to the retail, restaurant and lobby would actually invite the community in rather than sticking the 4 story side at the sidewalk closing it off to anyone but residents. And I do like the idea of having all sizes and types of families, if we are just wishing, that is.
Alderman Hess-Mahan: The philosophy that guides your decision-making has seemed contradictory to me, but I think I’ve started to make sense of it. For instance, on one hand, I’ve heard you tell sob stories about neighbors who would not be able to sell their homes for full market value if they had to comply with a demolition moratorium. This suggests a libertarian or classical liberal philosophy, that is, that individual self-interest should trump the law and “reciprocity norms” of our local zoning codes. These hold that communities have a legitimate interest in regulating their built character, since individuals invest huge portions of their savings in their homes, cannot easily move, and have a right to expect their neighborhood built character will not change radically. Where such zoning norms rule, land’s primary function is not to allow owners to reap profits, but to provide use, enjoyment, and stable expectations within their community.
On the other hand, you seem to be a big proponent of 40B housing developments, a dirigiste social engineering program, made possible by so-called “anti-snob” legislation that overrides local zoning codes. While it may have been enacted with good intentions, these days it appears to be destroying more affordable housing than it creates. (The affordable housing to which I refer here is that of middle and working-class residents whose homes are being demolished, whose space is being encroached upon, and whose property taxes are likely to rise). Indeed, the very idea that 40B projects are net providers of affordable housing has an Orwellian ring to me from what I’ve seen (and I confess I am new to the subject) with the 40B project on Court Street, and the formula of 40Bs creating three or four upscale units for every affordable one. What seems consistent to me, however, in your advocacy of social engineering 40Bs, and your allowing of tear-downs and mansionization, is your usual siding with developers against our communities. No wonder you favor the Austin Street Project, despite strong public opposition. This coming November, on Election Day, we’ll find out if the public, whose views you seem willing to ignore, will side with you.
Claflin Place
Peter Bruce, thank you for articulating a valuable argument for why the city needs to continue denying 40B developments. We have enough luxury apartments.
Peter,
Thanks for keeping the pro density , pro urbanization argument in perspective.
“Density is the Problem” ,.. A mantra I hear with increasing volume as time passes. Population increases ever so slightly state wide , it’s not clear to me why Newtons population needs to climb at anything other than that.
Tthis thread is a month too premature, given the recent “civic ” presentation this past sunday at NNHS. One would hope that city officials and their constituents have another review of all posted here and perhaps respond in a new light, given what transpired there.
Blueprint:
Worry not. Everything that has happened to this point has just been spring training, maybe even winter ball. The real action hasn’t even started yet.
Marti – By law, the city can’t deny 40B housing until we reach a certain clearly stated level of affordable housing. Last I heard, we are a nation/Commonwealth/city of laws and the 40B law allows developers to bypass zoning regulations if the municipality has not met the criteria for affordable housing. if you want to change the law, then that’s a matter to take up at the state level.
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending just about everything that Ted Hess-Mahan has stated about not knowing what Newtonites want at Austin St. and the need to follow the law. We can all talk within our own echo chambers, but none of us knows what the majority of Newtonites think of this project, and I suspect most don’t know about it at all.
Bruce – May I impose upon you to produce an articulation of the project as it fits in the village center in one color? In reality, the project isn’t going to be pinkish/orange, but will be the color of the surrounding structures.
Jane Frantz: The city of Newton now claims that as far back as Feb 20 2014 (not a typo), it had easily surpassed the state required 1.5% of developable land dedicated to affordable housing. On that date, the city has written that it was at 1.8% already. The relevant document is included in the Rowe Street developers appeal to the DHCD.
Jane: Take a look at this view. Google Sketchup allows you to ‘paint’ a building with a picture, so in this view I applied pictures of the rear facade and roof (taken from the drawing on page 47 of the developer’s proposal 25-April-2013). I could not do that for the east side of the building (which is not visible in that page 47 drawing), so I used a color that I had used on some of the existing buildings.
@Jane, I’m sure that hurt you more than it hurt me. But thank you anyway.
@Peter Bruce. Damn! I had to look up dirigiste, so I could figure out whether you were insulting me or not. Actually, my philosophy about the appropriate role of a legislator (or Alderman) in a representative democracy (which is what we have here in ‘Merica) is closer to Edmund Burke than to either Ayn Rand or Karl Marx. Burke, who you may recall was one of the few in Parliament who sided with the American colonists against King George, said this about representative democracy in his speech to the Bristol Electors:
Trust me, Ted, it did. ;). But thank you for standing on the side of the 40B law as it is written. 40B is established law, not an opinion, and until the state declares the city of Newton to be within the confines of the law, we are bound by it. As of this time, my understanding is that the Housing Appeals Committee is deliberating our status, which means it’s being dealt with at the state level..
Bruce – Thank you for that link. It shows a much more accurate representation of the project within the context of the surrounding village.
Jane, I’m sure that even though you saw fit to lecture me, you know that I know we are bound by laws. I also know that 40B is a state statute requiring a percentage of affordable housing in a development while allowing them to bypass zoning laws to be able increase density. I don’t think it is an opinion! It certainly serves a purpose and creates some affordable housing.
I expect the city to follow the law and it has been. We have a lot of luxury housing and a little affordable housing because of it. I would like to have as much affordable housing in Newton as will fit, along with mid range affordable housing. I don’t like the control 40B puts in the hands of developers because I believe that power is being abused. Until the city meets the required proportion of 10% housing or 1.5% land, it has none of the power and must do whatever a developer wants. I want the city to be able to negotiate with developers not to be held hostage.
My comment reflects the fact that the city has reportedly met the 1.5% land portion. And because I don’t think the city falsified the numbers, as suggested by Dinosaur Capital’s lawyer, I am certain they have.
The comment did NOT mean that I don’t know we have laws, that I’m confused about what the difference is between a law and an opinion, that I want the city to violate the law or that I want to change the law. I hope that makes it easier for you to understand.
Bruce, many thanks for taking the time to make these models. It is great to be able to see the height and mass of the project as compared to the rest of Newtonville square.
Here’s another view of the same model that combines the southwest-facing viewpoint of the developer’s future-view-with-invisible-building with Jane’s request to use a color on the new building that is similar to the other buildings in the drawing.