TAB editor Andy Levin compares and contrasts Newton’s housing needs and attitudes between now and when Oak Hill park was constructed.
The demand for housing is just as real now as it was more than 60 years ago (though obviously Newton’s population is not going to grow by 20,000 over the next couple decades). There is no old gravel pit or former farmland to build homes on now, but even if they existed that is not what is needed today. Instead, clusters of smaller, more-affordable residences around many of our village centers are needed to meet the housing demand of 2015, as well as support the local business districts.
I’m sorry, Andy Levin is really not doing his homework here. Wow, things today are not what they were when Oak Hill Park was created. Doh, how could that happen? Try reading any of the excellent analyses ranging from Prof Bluestone’s report on Newton, the latest housing report card http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/2014%20-%202015%20Housing_Report.pdf, and so on. Better yet, on a Friday afternoon around 3 or 4 pm, if you dare, drive down California St or Watertown St through Nonanatum toward Watertown Square. Attempt to cross over Bridge St into Watertown, and take your choice, either left or right on the other side of the bridge. Good luck. Welcome to the New Reality. Having chosen right or left after making it across the bridge, observe the new reality along Pleasant St into Watertown Square, or in the opposite direction, new development from Watertown into Waltham culminating at Moody and Main. The train, and the plane and the bus and the taxi, have all left the station a long time ago, wake up and smell the coffee, my friend.
Andy Levin’s column actually didn’t make any point; for or against multi-unit high density housing. And he certainly didn’t propose any ways to retain naturally affordable (for some, not all and not state or federal AMI guideline affordable)
housing especially in an area like Oak Hill park, Newton Corner, Auburndale etc. There seem to be only two camps here; build multi-unit boxes that some feel all older downsizing adults, people needing universally designed spaces and millenials WANT to live or bulldozing all the naturally affordable housing, building out of scale McMansions so the 1% can continue to move into Newton (which is their right!). What’s needed going forward is a real definition of what affordable means to Newton, what diversity means to Newton and how best to ensure that those living here looking for different housing choices can find them and those that want to get in to a place like Oak Hill park and appreciate single level small scale living also have that opportunity.
I remember when Newton had higher density villages focused around the river and railroad cores when the economic futures of the villages were determined. These villages had schools, branch libraries , and polling places where the residents of the villages could work together to improve their lives. I seem to recall that the Federal populations of Lowell and Newton in the 1990 and 2000 censi were each around 85,000. Since then, Lowell has increase to approximately 120,000 in the most recent Federal Census while Newton’s has remained stagnant at approximately 85,000. Meanwhile the number of units has increased in Newton. Can someone double check these memories? How could this affluent city lost both population and the services that enable low-income people to improve their lives?
I’d look it up myself, but the library is too crowded.