Those of you who are as bored with Austin Street as the Tab seems to be (no coverage of the March 1 community meeting at NNHS) can skip right over this if you want, but for anyone who’s curious, here’s a sampling of what people were hearing. I’m sorry I didn’t manage to shoot more than these 12 minutes, but frankly, the cacophony was exhausting. It sounds about like what you’d expect a high school cafeteria to sound like at lunchtime. Or being at a wedding where the music is too loud.
The good thing about the format was anyone could ask their own question of anyone. The bad thing was no one who wasn’t standing within about arm’s length got to hear the answers. Alas, I did not happen to witness any parking stacker discussions, but did catch a bit of the outrage over (mis)representation of the building footprint.
FYI, the reference to 30 Haven Street in the first conversation is to Oaktree Development’s GreenStaxx building in Reading. That unresolved question about maximum occupancy seemed answerable, so here’s my attempt:
The state Sanitary Code section 410.400 says this about minimum square footage:
(A) Every dwelling unit shall contain at least 150 square feet of floor space for its first occupant, and at least 100 square feet of floor space for each additional occupant, the floor space to be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area.
(B) In a dwelling unit, every room occupied for sleeping purposes by one occupant shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor space; every room occupied for sleeping purposes by more than one occupant shall contain at least 50 square feet of floor space for each occupant.
The unit sizes in the ASP proposal (pg 79) are as follows:
| sq ft | qty | |
STUDIO | 530/ unit | 8 |
ONE BEDROOM | 720/ unit | 40 |
TWO BEDROOM | 1050/ unit | 32 |
Julia, thank you for posting this thread and your continuing involvement with this project even while others get worn down by the process. We will be living with the results of these developers long after they and the current city politicians have left the scene.
I was not able to attend due a previous commitment, but after watching this video I don’t feel like I missed any new information. It appears to be a re-hash of propaganda and justifications for a project the vast majority of an entire village is solidly against.
If your throat hurts, it’s because more and more things are being shoved down it.
@Charlie: “Propaganda?” Really? What do you expect the developer to do? Diss their own project?
It’s also unfair to say this has been “shoved” down anyone’s throat. The item hasn’t been approved yet, in fact as of last week the special permit wasn’t even filed yet.
Allow me to focus on a first-world problem…but I was struck by Julia’s comment about the sound issue. I thought I was the only one having a hard time hearing. In conversing with a friend at the event, I noticed that the overall sound of the background chatter was really more obtrusive than any I had ever experienced, worse even the N’Snyc concert my Daughter and I attended 12 years ago.
And she’s right, if one was more than 5 feet from a presenter answering someone else’s question, forget about hearing the answer.
It WAS exhausting.
As someone who organizes a lot of events, I can say that Newton is challenged by a lack of big meeting spaces with reasonable acoustics. (The War Memorial is even worse). I’m not surprised to hear that the place sounded like, well, a high school cafeteria.
With all the new schools being built including this one, hasn’t anyone figured out how to make cafeterias more acoustically pleasant? Like Eve Tapper, I’m not an engineer ;-) so I’m not sure what the answer is. Lower ceilings? Higher ceilings? Sound absorbing panels hanging down? Or is the idea to make lunch break so unpleasant that going back to class is a relief?
Why not use the NNHS auditorium instead of the cafeteria. That room is not bad especially if they use microphone.
I’m finding it hard to write an articulate post about this because I’m distracted by the absurdity concerning the number of occupants allowed per unit.
And the man talking about Shaw’s parking lot being available for public parking, illegally yes, but available all the same.
Did I attend the same event? No one “shoved” anything down my throat, but I did have a number of productive conversations with old friends/neighbors, and some people I met for the first time. Very frankly, the developers were pretty amiable. The more passionate conversations were between people of differing opinions, but I found these exchanges to be very respectful. The more residents talk to each other about issues we agree or disagree on, the better. Most people wore stickers declaring a position on the project, so it wasn’t an event where you expected to change the minds of the attendees.
I typically have a lot of trouble filtering outside noise, but I didn’t have any trouble at this event. The NNHS cafeteria is used for many community events and no one has ever complained about the acoustics.
@Greg:
The video I saw was lots of Ms. Tapper and others from the city doing most of the talking in the video. My sense was the city folks were actively ‘selling’ the project. Not the developers.
It’s hard to read it any other way.
I just simply feel that the village is being ignored. Or worse…placated.
Maybe this is the great idea for a project… but if the residents don’t want it, it really doesn’t matter.
We don’t want this project.
Charlie – you didn’t attend the event, and if you had, it would have been clear that there are two sides to the story – some want the project and some oppose it.
It was a little odd that Mark Dufton of ASP, who really is quite amiable, and did acknowledge that they would need to do another parking study, would talk about how you “were able” to park at Shaw’s. Yeah, and I used to be 40, and we used to be able to buy gas for $2.
Yeah, those were the days, eh? Seems like it was just last month.
@Joanne: A little history — and a deep breath — might be appropriate here.
Back in 2012 the board voted to authorize to sell or lease the site, so actually while you want to blame this all on the mayor, let’s remember that the board supported putting a building here too. More to your point. the board can “shut this project down” once the special permit comes to them for consideration, the sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. So instead of getting hysterical, how about we let this thing actually run out the process that the board essentially requested?
There, someone has explained it to you.
60% of Newton voters want a direct referendum on selling city owned property.
We don’t trust this process.
We don’t want the Austin St project.
It’s time our Aldermen respect the wishes of its citizens.
@Julia: Thanks so much for sharing this video. I have had several people tell me in the last few days, including a couple aldermen, that they thought the proposed project only took up a small portion of the parking lot. When one looks at the visual that was presented at the NNHS meeting one can understand the confusion.
Can someone explain to me why the BOA cannot shut this project down? Is it because the Developer is the BFF of the Mayor? Is it because the Mayor already put that the land could be used for Development?
I just dont understand when there is SO much controversy and opposition that it is not halted.
The Mayor seemed to be able to stop the Waban development quite easily? Why not this one? Was the Mayor at this meeting at NNHS?
There are many people who support the project. My understanding is that the land is going to be leased, not sold.
@Jane-
I am very aware that I was not at this particular event, and I stated it in my post.
The simple reality is that the well meaning people who favor the development are in the minority in this case. The overwhelming majority don’t seem to want it. Just think back to the NNHS meeting when hundreds showed up to protest it…but were shut down or ignored.
Jane-
While there are many people who support the project, there are many more who oppose it. The majority does not want this project.
Greg,
I don’t see anyone being hysterical.
Let’s be civil.
A simple apology to Joanne is warranted.
Paul – No one knows how many people support or oppose the project, or how many have no opinion about it.
These blogs and listservs tend to be echo chambers so reading them can distort the true sense of the larger community.
Just to be clear, Paul, on whose behalf are you speaking? Abutters? Residents who have yet to take a position? The 60% who voted for a non-binding measure which would offer two choices? Public meetings on contested issues often do bring out more vocal opponents than proponents. Still, there may very well be a majority opposing this project, locally or city wide. Or there may not. There may be many folks who want something substantial built on that lot but aren’t in love with the current proposal (I consider myself in that camp)
What Adam said.
What Jane said.
Folks,
Here is the reality.
While the data is imperfect, both the ballot referendum and the presence of opponents vs supporters at public meetings are both reasonable data points suggesting the majority of Newton opposes this project.
As importantly– there are NO data points suggested supporter of Austin St are in the majority.
@Paul: Here’s the reality: The aldermen get to vote on the special permit. 16 votes needed to approve. Nothing else trumps that. I say bring it on already.
Yup,
Both statements are reality. The aldermen will make the decision. The majority of Newton opposes the project.
We’ll see if the aldermen carry out the wishes of their constituents.
Does the President of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce support moving forward with a development project on public land if the majority of the residents oppose it?
Would be good to have you on record for that question.
@Paul: The Newton-Needham Chamber Board of Directors decided last year not to weigh in on the proposed Austin Street project until an actual project is officially before the Board of Aldermen, which I will keep reminding folks, has yet to happen.
As for whether or not the majority of the public support this or not, I personally agree with those here who say we have no way to know this either way. That’s just a fact.
About half of Newton’s voting age population voted in the 2014 election with the ballot questions referring to Austin St and other development. Of the roughly 32,000 voters about 25,000 voted on ballot questions 5 & 6 (the development/sales of public property questions).
Roughly 3 out of 5 ballot question voters opposed sale/development/etc. (voted for 5 & 6).
I’d say, the best that can be said is Newton is divided or indifferent to the issue of development.
It’s a stretch to say that all of those 3/5 voting on the non-binding question 5 opposed development of Austin Street (or Crescent Street or Cypress Street or past sales of libraries or schools) or any particular development, or that they were even fully informed of the issue or the ramifications of putting everything up for referendum, only that there was a significant campaign run by nay-sayers. Some people may have read the ballot question, heard about the various projects, and thought it sounded empowering to bring all such matters to a vote.
Paul – I never attended a meeting on this project before Sunday because I supported the project from the start and didn’t think it necessary or important to express that publicly. It’s a stretch to say that attendance at meetings means anything.
On Sunday, a number of people on both sides of the issue were at the meeting. I suspect the real truth is that a very significant portion of the city doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other.
Greg,
Read carefully. I asked what the President of the Chamber believes, not the Chamber itself. Also didn’t ask about the Austin St project, but whether you generally support development on public land if the majority opposes. Its a general question.
Regarding the facts. Of course no one knows. But the data generally supports the fact that the majority opposes. As I wrote before, there is absolutely no data that the majority supports the Austin St project. Folks can poke holes in imperfect data, but it leans in one direction– against the project.
PS I support truly knowing, by letting Newton vote on the issue. It seems the “no one knows” crowd also doesn’t support letting citizens voice their opinion on this contentious issue at the ballot box. Funny how that is.
I would agree that Greg owes Joanne an apology.
The word “hysterical” has a long history as a sexist put-down.
From the online eytmology dictionary: hysterical (adj.) 1610s, from Latin hystericus “of the womb,” from Greek hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter.
I hadn’t know that until now, suspect that Greg hadn’t known the etymology either, and will strive not to use this gender derogatory term going forward. I’m going to apologize for having personally used this term in the past as well, I’m sure.
I apologize for the use of the word “hysterical” as well. I had no idea either.
I intended to use “hysterical” in reference to a general feeling of
hysteriapanic? doom? delirium? by both men and women. That’s clearly not the way I wrote it.My apologizes Joanne.
All that said, my basic point is the same. We have folks, here and elsewhere, who are sure this is one big conspiracy or declaring as fact that the Aldermen aren’t respecting the wishes of our citizens, when, in fact, the aldermen have yet to vote on it because there is not yet an item to vote on.
I propose we respect our aldermen enough to let them undergo the proper process.
I also propose we do this soon so it does not drag into the fall and continue to be such a divisive issue in our community.
Most importantly, what we have here are citizens and public servants, who both care about our city and some of whom disagree passionately about the use of this public asset. And many more who don’t have an opinion at all. I’m urging a little perspective….and less, um, ….whatever.
We moved here to Newtonville about a year and a half ago. This is the first time I have lived with anything close to this population density, or any place this expensive. We frequent the businesses in the Walnut/ Washington area.
We are in favor of the Austin Street project, so long as it is dog-friendly and the amount of lower-rent/ income units is maximized. it is needed housing, especially for people trying to stay in the area, or just moving into it. Heck, maybe having more people down there would mean better snow removal in our area in the future!
I am disappointed to find out that this is not a done deal, and that the NIMBYs have chosen this as a current target. It is not as if it is taking out green space, which I would not support. It does not remove historical or still-useful buildings. It will take local needs into account. Okay, then. I would have supported the firehouse project in Waban, too.
People are going to move here. Jobs are here. Public transportation is here. Newton needs to come to terms with that, and make plans for education the children, providing senior services, and meeting their other needs.
A note about village parking, citywide, though: I am more likely to drive to Framingham or Highland Avenue or to Target in Watertown to shop or do business rather than having to use a space with a parking meter. If we can’t park in a regular lot or walk to it, I’d even rather have to pay a toll on 90 using the electronic system than have to carry cash, have change, and possibly parallel park. I’ve always had to drive to get to stuff and am not bothered by it. Yes, I have always lived in a rural area or in actual suburbs.
However, I’d rather shop locally, and support small business, but don’t get paying for the privilege. I can’t see how this help local business. Shouldn’t time limits be enough? If there is no way around it (prove it!), then why can’t we use electronic payment? Such a system could be used to allow low and limited income folks to park for free, too.
One last thing, as long as we are discussing improvements that could result from the Austin Street project: I’d love to see a decent fast- or fast-casual chain restaurant come in to town as part of Austin Street development. Zaxby’s, ‘Cane’s, Chili’s, or some other place where you can eat out affordably around here.
My $0.02.
@Carry – I agree. I think the Austin St project would be a great shot in the arm for Newtonville. In particular, I would think that those most worried about the economic health of the village center would be delighted by the proposal. I think there’s no better way to bolster those local businesses than to have more folks within walking distance.
I’ve stayed out of the fray over Austin St since I live across town and don’t have any immediate interest. I do agree though that opponents are way overstating things when they definitively declare that “the majority oppose it” or try to say that the vote in favor of a referendum on selling city property can be read as a vote against the Austin St development.
As for cramming it down the voters throats, it’s an awful slow cram. This process has been unfolding over years, in slow motion, with all sorts of public input and meetings and has yet to come to a vote.
Jerry, would you agree to a similar housing project in Upper Falls? This demand for new housing should be equally distributed across Newton. Everyone that supports more dense development must agree it is needed throughout Newton. Why should one village center alone bear that responsibility?
@Colleen: There may very well one day be such a project in Upper Falls at the Northland Site which essentially sits between Needham, Oak and Chestnut Streets. One difference of course is, that’s not a city owned parcel.
If such a proposal were made I would predict that Jerry would play very respectful, thoughtful role in the conversation.
Greg,
No one is “sure this is a big conspiracy” (Joanne asked questions, didn’t make proclamations) and you similarly mischaracterized my words– I said it was time Aldermen respect the wishes of their constituents, not that they aren’t doing so. So your statement is untrue.
That said, your desire for folks to “let them undergo the proper process” seems to ignore how horrible this process has been to date.
To recap:
— After a long competitive bid process, the Mayor selected Dinosaur Capital as developers for the project. After an outcry on their design, the Mayor stated that he had selected a developer, not an actual plan, and Dinosaur would begin anew with a “blank slate.”
— With a “blank slate” that meant the Mayor did not choose Dinosaur based on the merits of their proposal nor their purchase price, as the latter can’t be promised without a specific plan in mind. So the actual criteria for selecting Dinosaur is a complete mystery, has not been transparent to the public and made the competitive bidding process a sham.
— That “blank slate” then ends up being essentially the same project as was proposed in the process, causing question as to whether the Mayor’s statements were honest.
— During the public comment phase, there has been little opportunity for any discussion on real parameters, i.e. size of the building and # of units. Presentations are made, questions are asked, but no real dialogue between the developers and the community, no discussions of compromise or alternatives– this dialogue was promised after their selection.
The process has been a joke. The mayor has misled the public.
Why exactly should people in Newton have any confidence that this final step will be executed according to “proper” protocol?
@Colleen – Agreed – new housing should be distributed across the city. Where we disagree I think is that I don’t view this as a burden to be born unfairly by the citizens of Newtonville with equal unpleasant burdens being born by the other villages. Personally, I think the project would be to the benefit of Newtonville rather than a burden.
As for whether I’d support a similar project in Upper Falls, that of course would depend on the details – just as it does in Newtonville. In general though, I think some higher density housing close by our village center could be a boon to Upper Falls rather floundering little village center. As Greg mentioned, there will inevitably be some large scale project proposed for the Northland site in the coming years. If done right I think it could be a great thing for the neighborhood. I do expect that no matter what the details of that proposal are, there will always be substantial local objections. There always are.
There will also be a project on the St. Phillip Neri site in the not too distant future and I’ll support that project as well, and it’s very close to my home. Newton has a serious lack of housing for people who want to age in place and village housing and near village housing is a one good option for many people. It’s certainly not the only option. For example, Bob Burke suggested that auxiliary apartments are another option. It doesn’t mean that every development is a good one. I don’t support the Rowe St. development as it stands, but the knee jerk No Development sentiment from an anonymous bloggers and a group that don’t have the courage to be open about what they believe in is off putting at best.
Like it or not, we’ll have a huge wave of baby boomers who need a different kind of housing in the not too distant future. As Boomers age, they will need close access to essential services and social connections. What message is Newton sending so residents who have spent decades in the city, but need a different kind of housing in order to remain independent? You were great to have around when you were useful, but now you’ve become inconvenient so just leave? Thanks a lot. Sorry, but I don’t believe that’s the sentiment of most Newtonites.
Paul and Lucia= I was wondering when the next NVA meeting is at The Brigham House?
Hi Alison – Can’t help. I’m not on the NVA e-mail list.
Hi Lucia-Thanks for responding. There are only a couple of people on it I have been told. I think that they are pretty much defunct.
I think Jerry’s words “it would depend on the details – just as it does in Newtonville” are what matters. I’m sorry Carry and probably others think the only reason some people oppose this project, exactly as it is, has to do with NIMBYism, rather than certain “details” such as it’s mass.
According to Greg we should all stop the … Whatever… and just let the process play out, which it will anyway. Of course he is snarky and disrespectful while doing so. The Mayor and Planning and Development want this project has from the beginning.
In 2012 members of the BOA docketed requests for the Mayor and Planning and Development to change some details of the newly created zone MU4 but few were made. Zone MU4 was “crafted to guide the redevelopment of the Austin Street lot in line with the guidance of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the 2011 Mixed-Use Centers Element, and the JAPG Report.” It was precisely for a development like this one.
“The Economic Development Commission (EDC) analysis broadly demonstrates that a project can be successful within the density allowed in the zone at approximately 85 units, 5 stories … with structured public parking. Changing the assumptions about the public parking has dramatic impacts on the economic viability of development.”
“It is appropriate for the City to encourage the uses and design criteria it deems preferable while discouraging those which are not. Many of the larger centers could and should be expanded at a moderate pace.”
“Where overriding historic or scale considerations are not present, density incentives might be provided to owners or developers who are willing to develop multi-story buildings.”
The RFP was submitted, the Mayor selected Austin Street Partners, their design fits the above criteria, they will file for a special permit and the BOA will have very little reason not to approve it. “The board of aldermen may grant a special permit in accordance with the procedures in section 30- 24 to allow up to five (5) stories and sixty (60) feet of building height by finding the proposed structure plan advances the purposes of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the 2011 Mixed-Use Centers Element, and the JAPG Report and that the proposed structure is compatible in visual scale to its surroundings.
The parking structure was changed. The city has deemed its use and design as preferable and is discouraging others. Were incentives provided to developers to provide multi story buildings? But the proposed structure is NOT compatible in visual scale.
Lucia, Allison, the NVA logo is on the video in this thread posting. It must be active.
Most baby boomers and others who will want to downsize will not qualify for the Affordable Housing rental units and will find the market rate apartments too expensive. In addition all of the over 65 group I know want to keep at least one car afterward and would have to pay an additional fee for a parking space. Those who qualify for the affordable units won’t have the income to afford to pay for a parking place so Austin Street will be available to those who qualify and who don’t need a car to get to work. The commuter rail is only accessible only to the able bodied. The T is a long walk or a drive to the parking lot.
If this development were 20 units of affordable housing and 20 units of moderate priced housing with those qualifying for these units allowed a parking space, it would make more sense. Then the 40 market rate units would sound better.
Marti- Thanks for pointing that out! I thought that that logo was the developer’s logo! I wonder what ever happened to the two members of the group CORD who lobbied to keep the Stop and Shop out of Needham Street and instead we got Avalon? Citizens for Organized Retail Development? What rock are they hiding underneath now?
There are people who do not qualify for affordable housing but may want to stay in the city. Once again, no one knows what anyone can or cannot afford, or who could afford the regular priced housing. People who are selling a house most definitely have more options than those who do not. But, as I mentioned, it’s important to have a range of options available.