A market study conducted by the highly respected Metropolitan Area Planning Council of the Wells Avenue Office Park says the site needs residential, retail and office space to remain vital, Jim Morrison reports in the Newton TAB
The report claims the age of the buildings and design of the park will make it “functionally obsolete” and less attractive, particularly since other mixed-use projects are being planned in the vicinity.
“Wells Avenue will be at a significant competitive disadvantage and lose value as new, amenity-rich product comes online nearby in Needham, and along the entire 128 corridor,” the study reports.
Go here to read the full study, along with a letter from Acting Planning Department Director James Freas here.
Previously: Globe columnist says Newton should infuse new life into tired office park
On the surface this seems to make sense.
Keeping its primary purpose as an office park is desirable, and the deed restrictions seemingly wanted that to be so.
Does anyone know whether those restrictions would preclude some LIMITED residential development?
@Dan Fahey, as I understand it the alderman have total control over lifting the deed restriction and as indicated on page 10 of the report it has already been lifted nearly a dozen times since 1968.
The idea has merit. I don’t doubt that. But the project will generate traffic, and add lots of kids to the school system. So it’s up to the owner/developer to put a proposal on the table that’s fair to the city. They have moved incrementally in that direction, but [in my opinion] their proposal still falls short. Mayor Warren needs to recognize this as a business deal, negotiate for more money from the developer, and keep the aldermen from giving it away too cheaply.
6 Months James Freas has this to say
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/62050
Not following your point Simon.
Exactly what Striar said.
I have to agree with Mike Striar and Charlie.
It’s a shame that the MAPC is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that the project will generate traffic, and add lots of kids to the school system. So it’s up to the owner/developer to put a proposal on the table that’s fair to the city. They have moved incrementally in that direction, but [in my opinion] their proposal still falls short. Mayor Warren needs to recognize this as a business deal, negotiate for more money from the developer, and keep the aldermen from giving it away too cheaply.
Although I don’t agree with Mike and Charlie on everything, at least they’ve had to face the voters, and be held accountable to them. I can’t say that about the bureaucrats at the MAPC, even though nearly two thirds of their revenues come from the federal and state tax dollars.
http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/MAPC-Full-LR.pdf
@Greg
Below is an except. I have no idea how MAPC operates, but it would appear it pays little regard to Newtons Comprehensive Plan. I couldn’t see any references to who they had discussions with either.
The location of the proposed development does not appear to be consistent with the Newton Comprehensive Plan, affordable housing goals, the goals of the N2 Innovation Corridor, or smart growth principles, which rely on a robust mix of uses and amenities with a variety of transportation connections. The lack of walkability and access to transit options ensures a high number of vehicle trips and raises questions about the site and the projects inherent lack of sustainability, particularly for mixed‐income affordable housing. Approval of this project will introduce housing as a new use to this Office Park, which may also compromise Wells Avenue’s fiscal value to the City.
The Newton Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2007, notes that land development in the Wells Avenue Office Park “should continue to encourage office and business uses (perhaps more intensively) in this location and exclude other uses as a means of maintaining the City’s employment and tax base.”1 The City values its limited commercially zoned real estate and is concerned about the conversion of this site from commercial to residential use. Since the City is predominantly a residential suburb, the real estate zoned for commercial and manufacturing uses is limited and must be maintained to ensure a strong commercial tax base in the City.
I have problems with reports like this. My problem is that as far as I understand it, the city pays for the report. If the city doesn’t like what the report says, it’s the city who decides who to use or not use and I am sure the MAPC is aware of it. I am very cynical when it comes to this.
Hey folks: MAPC is a nationally renowned operation that does important work. Just because you haven’t heard of them only means you haven’t heard of them. Suggesting that they’re not qualified because they aren’t elected, is well, comical.
As for those who criticized the recommendations because they will cause traffic, I have to ask if you’ve read the report, since it clearly acknowledges the need for mass transit and a second exit out of the park. (And by the way, so does the developer of 135 Wells Ave.)
@Tom: Do you have “problems with reports like these” because their recommendations tend to be ignored or because they must not be good since their recommendations tend to get ignored? If it’s the former, we agree. But don’t shoot the messenger.
@Simon: Yes, the MAPC recommendations do not align with that part of James Freas planning dept memo that you quote. I disagreed with that planning dept memo when it came out and took strong exception to the statement that it didn’t align with “the goals of the N2 Innovation Corridor.” Totally not true.
And with all due respect to all the hard work and considerable thought that went into the creation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, I’d propose that market circumstances have changed in ways that could not have been anticipated nearly a decade ago. The old model for office parks no longer works.
Tom,
I’m glad you are cynical.
A little more investigation into MAPC
http://www.mapc.org/about-mapc
Agency structure
Established in 1963, MAPC is a public agency created under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B Section 24. MAPC is governed by representatives from each city and town in our region, as well as gubernatorial appointees and designees of major public agencies.
Putting aside the fact that the report clearly states that it is a market study and not a comprehensive one…
The report made it very clear that the insulated 1960’s office park concept is doomed and that mixed use is the future. However, it used the word “or” when it came to residential. Significant caveats were included about making residential work at Wells Ave, many (already discussed here, including layout and setbacks of existing buildings, critical mass of residential to support retail, and the isolated location) would be difficult to overcome without a complete overhaul and a more comprehensive approach. For this to work, 135 Wells would just be the beginning. If we’re worried about the impact of one residential development on our city services, how many more rental units must we be prepared for to make the live-work-play concept work at Wells Ave, since it’s so isolated from everywhere else?
Greg, it’s a market study. The scope of the report was apparently to look at market value of development, not how to make it function. I skimmed the report and it recommends “robust” private shuttle buses (not sure what that is, but perhaps it’s more than a 30-minute headway 128 business council shuttle or something that carries a few dozen people each day) That’s a far cry from mass transit, and that’s exactly the point. Even if the state were willing, you need more demand for the kind of public transit that’s really going to make a difference. Needham Street isn’t going to get mass transit anytime soon, much less Wells Ave. Even holding on to our minimal bus service in Newton has been quite a challenge.
Plus, the report points out that building a new entrance through conservation land is going to be a challenge… also just how terrible a pedestrian environment it is with the current layout and setbacks.
For the benefit of those who haven’t read this (which appears to include some of the folks jumping to conclusions here) the MAPC does not weigh in on the specific 135 Wells Ave project. It simply states that the park needs a mix of uses (along with other improvements) to stay vital.
@Adam: My bad. “Mass transit” may be over stating it. Transportation alternatives is certainly part of the recommendation.
Good shuttle bus service can work quite well if implemented properly. A lot of people use the shuttle buses in the Longwood Medical Area to connect from various transit lines so they can avoid driving.
Hey Greg,
I don’t see why you have to make nasty remarks simply because I pointed out that the MAPC is an unelected, unaccountable, regional planning bureaucracy that derives its sustenance from the taxpayers. Last I checked, they endorsed the Big Dig project, which has been a $22 Billion White Elephant. So, I don’t think their track record on projects is very good.
I just realized something, the MAPC receives taxpayer funds to carry out its operations, and Newton paid them money to produce a report in which they tell us to approve a project that will go down in history as Setti Warren’s Avalon Bay Redux and will cost Newton taxpayers another $1 Million annually net of taxes collected. I think if anything, it is symptomatic of how out of control our government is at all levels.
There are obviously two sides concerning lifting the Deed Restriction to this extent.
In October the City Solicitor determined the Deed Restriction was “an interest in land” and the ZBA did not have the authority to lift it for residential use. The lawyer for the developers disagreed, of course.
The Tab incorrectly says the BOA put the restriction on the office park in the 1950’s when the office park was built.
In 1960, the owner gave the city an option to purchase a 30.5 acre parcel of land on Nahanton Street at a reduced price as long as the city imposed controls on the development of the rest of the property. In 1969 the city exercised that option, purchasing the property and issuing a Deed Restriction, restricting many types of development including residential and protecting the wetlands, as required as part of the purchase. These were in addition to zoning controls, not a part of them.
The developer’s second exit cuts through the wetlands and they had already planned to redo the intersection.
The MAPC is an extremely reputable organization. It provides tools and helps communities who want to revitalize. It is dedicated to Smart Growth. It also advocates planning and design, including having transportation and transit infrastructure in place before mixed use developments.
I don’t profess to know the solution here, but it helps to have facts rather than partial truths to form an opinion.
Marti,
What you call “Smart Growth” should be called Smart Greed for Politically Connected Developers.
Another important fact about “so-called smart growth” is that it is part of the UN’s social engineering program known as Agenda 21.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
Not only did MAPC support the $22 Billion Big Pig Project, they were also part of the coalition that supported the automatic gas tax, which was repealed by the voters even though politically connected businesses spent over $3 Million to defeat Question 1.
The 128 Business Council, a Transportation Management Association, currently provides an employer funded shuttle service from Newton Highlands T Station along Needham Street and into the New England Business Center.
The MAPC was asked by Newton and Needham to look into a one lane rapid shuttle service, with bike and pedestrian, from the NH T stop along the old rail bed, across the rail bridge being torn down, to the Needham Heights T Station. Newton purchased a RoW lease from the MBTA, but Needham has not. The study determined it would be difficult and expensive.
Joshua Norman, I was just providing facts, not determining value. Smart Growth is a commonly used term with a known definition.
Never said I agreed with it or not. It seems a bit overused to me.
@Marti, the MAPC bus study was discussed on V14 a while back. Needham sought not to extend the study across 128. Not only was the shuttle deemed expensive, ridership projections were dismal and there was virtually no benefit to Newton.
@mgwa, Longwood shuttles certainly are more popular, in part because of the density and lack of available or affordable parking. Very different story there.
@Greg, another shuttle bus is fine, it just seems like more of a perk or an enabler for a small set of people than something that’s going to have any meaningful effect on traffic.
Is there some way to revitalize Wells Avenue with mixed use but without adding residences?
I do beleive Wells Ave does need to be significantly updated to remain competitive. I do beleive employees and employers do want and expect nearby amenities of vatious sorts.
Despite 4he fact that it keeps getting repeated in various media I haven’t seen a bit of evidence personally that would suggest that housing within a suburban industrial park has any measurable benefit or value to the businesses there. Though that’s not to say there might not be some other value to having housing there.
In the nearby industrial area in Needham there is,a large apartment complex. I’d be very curious if you were to survey the local businesses there to see if even an insignificant number of their employees lived there. I haven’t seen any evidence of it personally, though I could be wrong.
I know a few people in that large apartment complex that Jerry is describing and they are all retired. I think it should be an office park, business and retail, no housing. We can’t keep adding all of these people and their kids, we just don’t have the room anymore. I know people claim that small apartments don’t attract people with kids, but it’s not true. I personally know of one family who squeezed into an apartment at the Avalon so the kids could go to good schools here in Newton, and a single mother who raised her kid in a studio apartment at the Avalon so her kids could go to school here.
Lassy, there are almost 10,000 homeless kids and their families who live in motels or shelters in Massachusetts. Not to mention many other families of all incomes who would like to live here too. But you and a lot of other people seem to be saying there is “no room at the inn” here in Newton.
I think I may have heard that phrase somewhere before. Something really good came out of that story. Maybe something good will eventually come out of it here in Newton, too.
“The report claims the age of the buildings and design of the park will make it “functionally obsolete” and less attractive, particularly since other mixed-use projects are being planned in the vicinity.”
I think that is an important point in the report. It seems, from this and other statements, that the entire office park needs to be revitalized and redesigned.
Did anyone watch Chronicle last night? They did a segment on Millenials and what they are looking for in jobs and in the office spaces that they work out of. If I owned a building in Wells Ave I would take a look at that segment. I guess Millenials do not like to be stuck in cubicles and they like to collaborate a lot so as a result places like Hub Spot have designed their offices to have ping pong tables and work out areas and kitchens and living areas in the work space. Another company featured has done away with cubicles completely and on any given day an employee can choose where they feel like working within the space depending on the type of work that they are doing. They charge a minimum of $30 per square foot currently for office space in Wells Ave. The spaces are old and outdated. It is time that some of the building and management companies start innovating a little more. Wayfair was another company featured on Chronicle last night and they are also very forward thinking in their approach to office space.
Ted, sometimes there really is no more room at the inn. We have been building a lot, it may be time to stop with all of the housing, is there something wrong with that? Perhaps there are other communities that still have more space where it makes more sense? Is Newton responsible for the 10,000 kids and their families? It’s not like Newton doesn’t help, we have Metco, we have other affordable housing units, I know I give of my time every week volunteering in schools in Brighton, I know both of the Newton Avalons have afforable housing. There is a big difference in traffic and the time it takes to get from one end of the city to the other because there are so many more people here. I would be fine through creating more affordable housing by letting peoplem have “in law” apartments, too.
I hear this a lot. Is that a valid conclusion? Newton’s population has grown only 6% in the last 15 years. Traffic certainly is getting worse, but I think it’s a mistake to assume it’s because of population growth. Consider also changing driving habits and the impact of congested highways.
Adam, Newton was already a densely populated city at 4,500 people per square mile back in 2000. Although its population growth of 6% does not seem like much, it has added another 300 people per square mile to Newton.
It would be nice for Newton to have a mayor that put the interests of Newton residents first, rather than politically connected developers like Scott Oran, the Englers and the Dohertys
Yup it’s about time that we hang a “No Vacancy” sign on the Newton Inn.
Adam and Joshua. I think you both have a point. We had as many if not more people in Newton when I was growing up here during the 40’s and 50’s, but almost all homes had larger families and only one car. Now I see 3 and sometimes 4 cars in many of the same driveways that used to contain only 1. Few use the garage to park vehicles; almost all use the space for stuff that won’t fit inside the house.
I also want to say that I’m not against homeless kids or people of low income – if you told me you were building another giant apartment complex that only rich people could live in, I wouldn’t want that either. I just feel like there has been too much housing development with a lot of apartments. Somehow not wanting more development is getting entangled with me not wanting to help the homeless.
“sometimes there really is no more room at the inn”
Wow….so when a young person who grew up in Newton wants to move here after college, or someone wants to downsize but stay in the town they raised their children, our answer is, “Sorry, go away”? Every city and town needs to contribute to new housing in this state to help make it affordable. It’s vital to handling our changing demographics, and to the MA economy that we all rely on.
Take a look at Table 32 in the report. Newton has not issued a building permit for a 5+ unit structure since 2007. So….unfortunately, it’s clear to me that the track record here is “no vancany”. Hopefully we see some progress soon.
I have a serious question for the people who want to keep building until demand is satisfied. How many housing units will be enough? When can we stop? 50,000? 80,000? Just tell us your limits so we’ll know.
There is no limit Julia to what they will build if they are allowed to. They would fill up every square inch of space with housing if they are making profits doing so. Avarice is an extremely powerful emotion that doesn’t self check itself.
We only have so much space to fit people. I know many people who would like to “age in place” and stay in their homes and “downsize” via adding an “in law apartment” – it’s affordable for new people and allows older people to stay here. It accomplishes the same thing without taking up more of our space and it does not create those giant complexes. There are other ways to do what Eric is saying.
@Greg- I agree with your statement regarding the Comprehensive Plan from 2007 being less relevant today due to market changes.” But wouldn’t that also mean it also extends to residential and to density as well?
Also, the Globe article mentions that office rental rates are lower than other areas.
I would argue that this is a good thing as it allows smaller and midsized business access to Newton office space and location, and makes it easy to attract local residents to jobs right here in Newton.
Essentially, it’s already affordable business housing. Why do something that will jack up prices and make it tougher for business while putting even more pressure on the schools with tons of new residential? Haven’t we learned our lessons from Avalon?
When office rents and values get cheap enough, nonprofits move in and take the property completely off the tax rolls. Quite a few have moved into Wells Ave recently. Like a school and a grad school.
Joshua’s post says that we have added over 300 people per square mile here in Newton, that is A LOT of people, and our roads and schools are basically the same. Seems like we have been very fair with adding housing and now we need to say that we have enough development. There is nothing morally wrong with recognizing that we have had enough. Nobody is saying others can’t move here, that is an exaggeration – there is always a natural turnover anyway. And we truly have added a great deal of housing.
@Eric-
Could you elaborate on your point please?
I was unaware that a non-profit (other than religious) can avoid paying RE taxes.
Do they need to own the building? or just rent it?
Isn’t it still a commercial building?
Please explain. Thanks.
@Charlie – non-profits do not have to pay taxes, but it’s a moot point if the building is rented as you imply in your question. The landlord is a for-profit business and is therefore subject to taxes which gets passed to the tenant in rent.
Some non-profits do own their properties and do not pay property tax (example: BlueCross Blue Shield in Rockland, MA). To my knowledge this is not the case for any of the current Wells tenants.
@Charlie: I’m a little surprised that a former alderman wouldn’t know that non-profits do not have to pay property taxes. The Hospice of the Good Shepard at 94 Wells Ave (accessed value $1.8 M) , Solomon Schecter at 125 Wells ($16.5M) and possibly Newton-Wellesley Hospital at 159 Wells ($9M) all own their properties. I have not looked to see what, if anything, they contribute in property taxes. As I understand it, all would have had to have been recipients of a lifting of the deed restriction at some point by our aldermen.
@Greg is correct and I am most certainly wrong in my original post. I had a nagging question after my post (which admittedly I did not get back to until Greg posted). Hospice of the Good Shepherd and Solomon Schecter both own their properties. It’s less clear on the hospital.
As non-profits, neither is directly subject to pay property tax. In practice, many communities will negotiate a payment in lieu of taxes (a PILOT) with non-profits like what we have with Boston College. I do not know for certain whether the non-profits at Wells had PILOTs negotiated as part of their deed restriction negotiations, but I’m sure there’s an Alder here or two who could provide clarification….?
@Greg- Thank you for answering however I was asking for clarification regarding non-profits which rent office space in a commercial building. It related to the price depression mentioned earlier.
The point being that it could be very helpful to have some affordable office space for rent in an otherwise commercial building to give smaller non-profits and small businesses access to a great Newton location.
As the Pres of the Chamber, which has substantial small and mid sized businesses as members, I’d hope you (Greg) would support that concept and practice. The Trip Advisor’s of the world are doing quite well. I’m more concerned about helping small business thrive.
@Charlie: As “Pres of the Chamber,” I’m concerned about large, mid-sized and small businesses and so are many of the chamber’s non-profit members and you should be too. We need an ecosystem of different price points of office space and we all need those big companies to pay property and excise taxes so our city can afford to function (and even so we can support non-tax paying, property owning, non-profits).
You may not be “worried” about big companies like TripAdvisor or Clark’s but you should be and I can tell you our non-profits “worry” because they look to successful companies to provide philanthropy and provide volunteer talent to serve on their boards and in other capacities.
Oh yeah, and big companies hire our neighbors and friends and kids who eat and shop at our local restaurants and shops. etc. etc.
You can bet that small businesses in Upper Falls are “worried” about losing Clarks. You can bet the same about the small businesses near TripAdvisor.
So please don’t compartmentalize your “concerns.” It takes a village.
Yes, we should all be concerned about a sleazy company like Tripadvisor which makes up its mind to relocate one mile away to Needham and then snookers the incompetent and starstruck Needham selectmen into granting them a 76 percent exemption on property taxes for five years. It takes a village, indeed – just don’t expect the companies worth $11.8 billion to pay even one-fourth of the real estate taxes per square foot that say, Needham Bowl-a-Way does.
Little do those Needham selectmen know that most of those high-flying Tripadvisor employees are probably going to end up getting lunch back across the river, on Needham St. in Newton, because it’s a lot closer and a lot more varied than Needham Center. And if they want a new Briggs & Riley suitcase for their trip to Phuket? They’re still going to buy it from Leatherworld, because you can’t find one in Needham. And if they want a new pair of socks, or a new pair of underwear, there’s no place that sells either of those in Needham, alas. Back to Marshalls for them!
As for “hiring our neighbors and friends and kids,” did Needham somehow win an affirmative action quota from Tripadvisor where they pledge to hire Needhamites sooner than they would hire Cantabridgians? I missed that one.
If Clarks threatens to relocate to Waltham because they found what they believe to be a more appropriate space, should we offer them a 76 percent reduction in their property taxes to get them to stay?
@Michael: Luckily folks in Needham aren’t as narrow-minded or as provincial as your comment suggests you are.
The tax break Needham Town Meeting approved for TripAdvisor has already paid off in terms of sparking an economic boom in that office park. Go take a drive around that office park this afternoon, and then come back 3-5 years from now and compare the difference. Also compare the tax revenue Needham will be getting from that entire office park in 3-5 years, compared to today. Needham’s residential tax payers and school children are going to benefit from the wisdom of that one tax break for decades.
Of course Needham knows TripAdvisor employees will continue to shop, dine, bank and live in Newton. But they’re not losing sleep over that either because they recognize that the benefits of regional economic development and partnerships.
Newton has a choice when it comes to Wells Ave. office park. We can think broadly, introduce a mix of uses, change the zoning and revision and revitalize Wells Ave. (as Needham and many other municipalities are) and in the process help keep our property taxes in check. Or we can sit on our hands, argue about the next override, sit out this current economic boom and be grateful that people working and living in Needham at least buy their luggage here.
Nice speech. All true, and it impressively avoided responding to my point relating to the price of office space on Wells. When in doubt, cloud the issue with overarching generalities!
I love many successful large companies the same way I love many people who are extraordinarily wealthy. They work hard, do good things, make investments, and contribute much to the community.
However, small business start-ups and small non-profits also help enrich our community, and those are the folks who need a break the most.
Above was @Greg’s post
Greg,
You have a tendency to get testy and a little inappropriate sometimes: there is no need to call people names. Let’s keep it civil.
Ha. Thanks for the reminder Paul about my testiness. I actually thought I was being careful by saying Michel’s “comment” made him sound as narrow minded and provincial. I should have added that this is not typical of his many of his past comments.
Greg, I take issue with your characterization. As a lifelong Needhamite (until about a year and a half ago), I regret to inform you that yes, we Needhamites really are as narrow-minded and provincial as my comment suggests we are. Well, usually, anyway.
The focus of metropolitan Boston should be on the regional development that you mention – and we shouldn’t care whether a company locates in Waltham or Needham or Newton, because in the end the entire region will benefit. And in that same vein, local politicians shouldn’t be playing immature games of trying to coax companies across town borders with irresponsible tax breaks. Tripadvisor needed a new facility and the Needham location was a perfect fit. An $11.8 billion company should have had the class to construct the building without asking “Gee, I wonder if we can shake down the Needham Board of Selectmen for a 76 percent tax reduction.”
Having said that, on the original point of this thread, I do think that Wells Av. is a dismal, anachronistic dead-end that’s in need of major reinvestment including 40B housing. Also, we could leverage those improvements to subsidize the road infrastructure and maybe get a sidewalk on Nahanton St. for the first time in history.
But the Newton example is a far cry from the Needham example, because Cabot Cabot & Forbes is the one offering the city a few million dollars, rather than the other way around. Which is the way it should be – a long-term partnership, not a near-term parasitism.
And yes, I understand that there may be increased costs in the form of student enrollment but cities really can’t make policy decisions predicated on trying to prevent the proliferation of schoolchildren. At what point did that become okay? And the fact is that the Charles River Landing complex, the 40B development in Needham, led to a net increase of 17 students out of its 350 units, while generating $800,000 in tax revenue per year. So, despite the provincial Needhamites’ fears to the contrary, Charles River Landing generated $47,000 in tax revenue per new pupil. Versus the Needham school system’s $13,700 in per-pupil spending per year.