It’s not online yet, but Newtonville resident Peter Bruce’s op-ed column in this week’s February 25 Tab (page B3), has some interesting statistics on seasonal parking at the Austin Street lot. In addition to receiving data back to 2012 from the Planning department through a documents request, Bruce has been doing his own counting of not just parked cars, but also of snow-covered (unusable) spaces and illegally parked cars. From the article [typing by hand here, so apologies for any typos]:
Unlike winter, however [referring to increases in summer and fall parking demand from 2012 to 2013], they will not face the problem of snow mounds shrinking parking capacity and forcing occupancy rates above 100 percent. How is that possible? Well, on recent Saturdays, snow mounds have covered eight or nine spaces in the ASL and more than 20 spaces on the right side of the Shaw’s lot. On Feb. 17, they covered 20 spaces in the ASL. Already such overcapacity has led to four to eight cars parking “illegally” in the six “tow zone” spots in regular parking rows, and outside formal spaces. As a result of high demand, reduced capacity and illegal parking, so far this winter, peak-time occupancy in the ASL has averaged 99 percent on Saturdays.
He also notes that part of ASP developer Scott Oran’s valet parking plan to expedite parking and create more spaces would be the use of mechanical lift double-stackers (illustration above).
What do you think? Would you use them? Would you even use the valets? I’m always reluctant to hand my car over to a stranger, making a mental list of what’s in the car, whether information or valuables. Then there’s not knowing how long it will take to get my car back if there’s a wait.
Perhaps there will be more information at tomorrow’s final (really, “final”?) community meeting on Austin Street, Sunday, March 1, 1-3pm at the Newton North High School cafeteria.
It seems almost unfair to bring up climate change when Josh is not able to respond, but I have to say, while this year’s snowfall may be extreme, I don’t think we should assume it’s an aberration. I think extremes of snow, rainfall, heat, cold will become more common and should be factored into decision making. “100 year storms” seem to be coming every five years or so.
Really, shouldn’t all “affordable” housing have valets and mechanical lifts for cars?
Julia,
Is this a joke ? Is the developer jerking Peter Bruces chain ?
Given car stackers and stacking mobile homes Austin Street will really be something ! Talk about consistent with neighborhood character !
This project is becoming a critics dream and a supporters nightmare !
Just two layers of cars? Don’t stop there. Try this.
I park every day in a garage that uses stackers. While I wouldn’t want to use it for short stays, it could be feasible for commuters using the lot for 8-12 hour parking.
Oh, oh a Ferris Wheel for cars. Yes, please.
This must be a joke. Let it be a joke.
This is Newton, anything is possible.
Another issue with the parking plan is that cars are likely to queue up on Austin St waiting to enter the parking area, which looks like it will have an automated parking gate with an arm. This will be a restricted single point of access which will slow the process of parking considerably, and may encourage people to go to other villages with more accessible parking.
I noticed Andy Levin’s comment at the beginning of the OpEd that this is the last column about Austin Street they plan to publish until the proposal goes to the Land Use Committee. Why would the TAB want to limit opportunities for residents to write about this topic, especially when there is a lot of new information which is likely to be generated during and after tomorrow’s community meeting? Andy did say letters can still be submitted, however since they are shorter it limits the extent of commentary allowed about this issue. This does not seem to be an approach most journalists or publications would embrace.
@Jeff: I believe you are mistaken about the parking gate. At a presentation I attended, I recall smart meters (i.e. they would take credit/debit cards, with revenue going to the city) were planned.
And I’m glad Andy put a pause on oped columns, it’s the Newton TAB, not the Austin Street TAB, and yet the oped page has been dominated by this one topic (often from the same authors) for months. I’m guessing he’s been flooded with requests and I know he has limited space.
Jeff, I agree with you completely about that Andy Levin “last column” pronouncement. I meant to say something about that, too. What topic will be next on the banned list?
I, too, was happy to see Andy’s notice about a moratorium on Austin Street columns for now. The opinion page has been dominated by Austin Street and it’s tiresome — and boring — reading the same sentiments over and over. I’d like to see him put a kibosh on running the same authors repeatedly too, unless they are regular columnists. He should run every letter to the editor that adheres to the paper’s guidelines, but he shouldn’t feel obligated to run every column that readers submit.
@Julia– Answer: Common sense!
Biggest complaint: it’s boring and which leads to fewer actual readers and more singing to the choir.
@Gail: Is there something in between a complete ban and an editor’s judgment as to whether a particular submission offers an interesting, different perspective or new information? As to banning specific authors, I suggest the content is more important than the source – otherwise it becomes personal and contrary to our general traditions of free expression. Does this also mean the subject is so boring and uninteresting to the readership that the Tab should not report on today’s City-sponsored meeting and/or not include any mention of sentiments from either side?
@Ron: Sure, there’s a middle ground, but as editor of the paper, Andy gets to determine what’s appropriate for his entire readership. I can only speak from my own experience, but, I know that it takes a good deal of time to read, edit and respond to all the columns you get from readers. Personally, I tried (but was not always successful) to make sure that reader-submitted columns didn’t contain inaccuracies, and I went back and forth with authors to make sure their points were clear. (Again, that’s how I did it, but I put a lot of effort into the op/ed pages.) That all takes a lot of valuable time and resources, not to mention newspaper space. And Andy is trying to squeeze the same amount of news into a much smaller newspaper than I was working with.
I agree that the content is more important than the source, but it seems to me that some authors write the same thing repeatedly. Emily Costello instituted the policy of limiting people to one letter per editor per month. I don’t agree with that policy (although I understand the rationale). Give people their 300 words; that’s what the letters are for. Columns are to expose readers to different viewpoints.
Of course the TAB should report on today’s meeting. It’s news. The paper should not, however, run multiple opinion columns from people who attend the meeting. Decisions about what runs on news pages and opinion pages are not the same.
It’s frankly a bad political decision as well. In any campaign I’ve been involved in, people who want to write a column or even letters figure out how to present the issue through different lens’ over time in order to engage the community. Even if letters and columns represent both sides of an issue every week, readers just tune out. More importantly, when it gets to the point that the loudest voice wins, then we all lose.
Any updates from Todays Meeting?
What I noted was that many people with various viewpoints were there and the discussions between people of differing opinions was respectful.
A few photos and comments from the Sunday afternoon information session here.
I’d like to know who wrote the feedback forms that all started out “Please share a positive reaction to …” parking circulation, design, whatever. https://twitter.com/newtonvillages/status/572136456946372608
That was just bizarre. Think lovely thoughts!
They’re trying to push affordable housing where it clearly doesn’t belong. I think we should approach the mass turnpike and make a deal with them so that they lower the price of developing over the Turnpike in lieu of affordable housing (40B). It would prove that the state would be in favor of affordable housing more revenue would be generated to cities/states thru taxes and it would take a smaller development to build over the pike before a developer turns a profit. There’s a lot of potential land over there, we need to think how we can benefit from it….no one will know unless we try. If the state is so committed to affordable housing and 40B let them make some concessions by lowering the price over the Turnpike.
@tomsheff – from what I’ve read, here on village14 and elsewhere, what makes any building over the pike prohibitively expensive, except for the biggest projects, is construction cost rather than the cost of the “air rights”.
@Tom – What Jerry said is correct. The costs are in the engineering and decking over the Pike, not any fee that MassDOT is charging. MassDOT came to speak to the EDC several months ago on the topic and noted that while it would be somewhat less expensive to build over the Pike in Newton (than in Boston), the costs involved would still have to be made up for by a corresponding amount of revenue-generating real estate above.
The meeting seemed like a trade show-type marketing event. The mayor’s enthusiasm while speaking about the proposal sounded like he is on-board with the unchanged size of it. I think most people there would have preferred more opportunity for open, balanced dialogue between the city and those attending.
Thats correct. The decking makes the construction too expensive. When I checked into this 6 years ago, I believe the price was roughly $5,500 per sq ft which is ridiculous. You would need projects that hover 15-20 floors high for a developer to produce a profit. I believe a deal can be made (my personal belief, thats all…I have no proof of it, but there is a huge push for affordable housing). The state/nation have a way of imposing laws/regulations that cost cities/town money to mandate, ie “no child left behind”. Let them actually act like partners with us by bringing down the price of the decking and work a deal out.
Ultimately, it would be an incredible message the state would send.
On a side issue, you could easily argue that Boston or the Turnpike authority (whoever controls the process) is not making a dime on the property while it sits there unused. They could bring in some revenue, cities can earn some revenue with taxes and we can bring in affordable housing if they are willing to play ball and be a partner and put their money where their mouth is and allow us to use/maybe even rent the air rents.
Maybe get all the cities/towns that would benefit from that, get them together and write a letter to the Governor or someone else involved in the decision. Not doing anything shouldn’t be an option at this point.
The end of my rant.
@Tom: It’s always easy to be generous with someone else’s money.
“rights” not “rents”….sorry
The overbuild of the project continues to metastasize, to the extent that mechanical parking lifts are being called to the rescue. In places like Boston I can understand the use of these for long term parking or valet – but in village centers? Its desperate. They don’t fit, and neither does the project.
I’m stunned to learn about the mechanical parking lifts as a real solution.
Its a transparent attempt to say that parking is being maintained, when it clearly isn’t– its very different to go from choosing an on-street spot to having your car put on a lift (the waiting time of 5-10 minutes each time, risk of damage to car, someone else driving car, etc.) People will simply choose to go elsewhere with their business rather than deal with that type of situation. I know that I will.
Its disrespectful and dishonest to the citizens of Newton who have made parking a priority to pretend this is a legitimate solution. It frankly causes question of those making the proposal if they truly care about Newtonville– the parking isn’t legitimate now, the modular building style clashes with the village style, and many believe the size is out of proportion (I know there isn’t full agreement on this point, but the other two seem pretty irrefutable). I’m not seeing evidence of plans being changed to address citizens’ concerns.
For Gail and Greg who support a TAB moratorium:
It is really appropriate to stop concerns from begin shared even after new facts of the project are shared with the public? i.e. parking lifts?
@Paul: It’s exaggerating to say I “support a moratorium.” I said I was glad Andy Levin put a pause on columns because this one topic seemed to be overwhelming the op-ed page and presumably taking away from other topics.
Plus, it’s not like there aren’t (a) other forums to discuss Austin Street (including here and letters in the TAB) and (b) we aren’t going to have several months of aldermen meetings and public hearings once the special permit is filed and that presumably will include months of columns too.
And, let’s face it, do we really need 700 word columns about car lifts, when I suspect Mark Marderosian is likely working on a cartoon about it at this very hour?
I just read Jack Prior’s summary of yesterday’s meeting. I have to say: The thing I can’t get past is that the city displayed a photo of Austin Street from Christmas morning.
BTW, I just heard from Mark. He tells me he submitted his car lift cartoon to The TAB last night. I honestly had no idea, but really it’s a natural.
@Paul: I suggest you write a letter to the editor sharing your objections. Or email Andy at [email protected]. He can probably explain what he’s thinking better than Greg or I can.
In the meantime, I’ll start a new thread here for discussions about yesterday’s meeting.
Greg,
As I see it, we can do the samething over and over again, which is to have 40B projects invade Newton and have the same backlash from the neighbors and have people calling each other names and being divisive OR try something new and novel (doesn’t have to be how I just laid it out) and try to work with the proper authorities to alleviate some of the problems by adding more property which hasn’t been built out, yet. I don’t see the harm in bringing all effected parties together. There’s nothing that can be done if the State won’t budge. but have we sat down and asked them if certain parameters were met, that they would budge??
This is the type of leadership I hated under the Cohen administratuion