Today’s Newton Tab features a commentary column by Kathleen Koril Grieser, arguing against the proposed Austin St development project. Various other voices, here and elsewhere, have objected to one or more aspects of the project. Much of that criticism has been constructive and has focused on how to make this a better project.
Ms. Grieser’s column is something different. It’s clear for her there can be no improvement, no compromise that could make this project acceptable. She objects to the project because “Newton has surpassed state requirements .. for affordable housing”, because of traffic, because of parking demand, because of overloaded infrastructure, overcrowded schools, loss of green space, rising taxes, walkable schools, because we cannot give up our cars, because we need parking, because “the Austin Street parking lot is essential to the health of the village”, because its too tall, because its on pillars, because it’s “for profit”, because it has luxury apartments, because it doesn’t have enough affordable housing, because the commuter rail isn’t a regular T stop, because the station has steep stairs, because of the scale, because of the shadows, because of the process, because of the price.
Even more startling, she then links this to virtually every other development project in the city – Riverside, Court St, Rowe St, Wells Ave, Goddard St, St Philip Neri, Crescent St.
In summary, her policy recommendations seem to boil down to “no development, never, no how, no where”.
Clearly development is a big issue in the city and there’s plenty of healthy disagreement among the citizenry about the details of individual projects and the overall pace and level of proposed new development. Ms. Grieser’s column doesn’t add to that discussion. It just appears to be someone holding their hands on their ears and answering every question with NO!!
Yes, she is very unhappy with the large scale development plans in Newton village centers. There is a large parking lot in Upper Falls which could also be a target for developers. What would local residents think if a multi-storied building was proposed there?
As far as I’m concerned, the minute someone say *no* to all development (never, no how, no where, …) they’ve lost all credibility.
@Colleen Minaker – I’d bet that some folks in Upper Falls would be very much in favor of the right project and some would be vehemently against – pretty much the way it is for any development project in the city.
Personally, I think the right kind of project on that parcel could be exactly what the small and struggling Upper Falls village center needs. Obviously though, others would disagree based on concerns about increased traffic, etc.
@Jerry,
I just re-read that article. “No development, never, no how, no where” – Its a little over dramatic do you think?
In fact, in the final paragraph she says “They want our elected leaders to find ways to preserve and extend housing affordability, accommodate seniors, and help Newton residents in need – without increasing density”.
Jerry, there is actually an acronym for people who oppose development altogether: BANANAs, i.e., Build-Absolutely-Nothing-Anywhere-Near-Anything.
What is most disturbing about the commentary is the statement that
“Newton has surpassed state requirements for providing
Subsidized housing to those in the region who quality for it.”
The state has rejected twice that the city has met its requirements.
@Rev Haywood,
The state has rejected Newtons Claims? You mean DHCD, who claim that Newton didn’t provide enough information? It was a given DHCD would reject it.
When it is confirmed Newton has surpassed its 40b threshold, that will not preclude it from 40b housing. It simply means the city will more control. As a consequence of more control, the ZBA will be able to ask for a greater percentage of affordable units for example. So its not troubling at all.
Oh, and it might also allow the city to decide where to put high density living – in areas zones for it, and maybe not in single residence zones… Thats why we have zoning don’t we?
Does the Tab publish every article submitted, even repetitive, reiterative, redundant, reductive, resistant, relentless, ones from the same people? Everytime? Isn’t it time to just wrap up taking space with ludicrous articles or at least create a new weekly cartoon section for their content?
There’s a common opinion in Newton that construction is bad. That reputation has been well earned by bad construction projects. Avalon on Needham Street serves as an example.
In my oft expressed opinion, the Austin Street proposal is a bad deal for Newton. Mayor Warren is selling the city short. Affordable housing was the driver behind the Austin Street project, and the Mayor’s lack of business skills resulted in his losing the negotiation over price, and more importantly over how many affordable units will be included in the new building.
Every major construction project holds the possibility of both risk and reward for Newton. The City needs a better negotiator who knows how to mitigate risk and increase reward. Someone more familiar with large scale development who can go toe-to-toe with developers. Not hand-in-hand as Setti has done with Austin Street.
I also don’t understand the accusations that certain Aldermen support developer, they don’t have right to support housing and be of different views than others. Tha Aldermen she mentioned have served the city well and deserve our respect and gratitude for the personal sacrifice they make on behalf of all off us. I have equal admiration for the Aldermen that different views than mine.
When one’s opinions become so fixed and one-sided, others stop listening, and perhaps miss nuggets of wisdom. If getting “heard” matters,…
Jerry, I would have expected such an evaluation of Kathleen’s OP-ED to have come from Greg Reibman, not you.
Howard, Newton has 1.88% of its land devoted to affordable housing, easily surpassing the requirements of 1.5% by the state. Unfortunately, your protege Setti Warren has been an enthusiastic promoter of 40Bs and thinks the mayor’s job is selling Newton residents on 40B housing projects and as a result, Newton’s government did not do the best job of letting the state know that it complied with the 1.5% land area standard.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20090814/News/308149173
Another reason why Howard Heywood is a relentless cheerleader for Mayor Warren’s agenda of 40B housing projects and overrides is because his firm Kleinfelder got a $500,000 contract from the City of Newton, even though another company was ranked first by the city committee that managed the application for that contract.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2011/06/setti_warren_awarded_city_cont.html
Joshua, what can I say, best I can think of at this time is that I will pray for you.
Jerry Reilly’s second paragraph got it dead on right. I couldn’t agree more ! What a breath of fresh air !
” No development, never, no how, no where ” ? What about the Political Insider Groups who in contradistinction to Ms Greiser and a growing citizenry – disgusted with and concerned for the impact of proposed and extant development all over our city, ( Austin Street, Kessler Woods, Avalon, Woodland, Riverside, Rowe Street, Crescent Street, Turtle Lane, Coyne Road, St Philip Neri, and affordable housing hither and yon, being demolished and Mc Mansionized at an undiminishing rate ), keep calling for “More Development, Anywhere, Any Size.,Any Time, at Any cost ” !!
Kathleen speaks for a large body of voters who are frustrated by what they see as a threat to their investment in this community. Traffic jambs are getting worse, green space and trees are being lost, schools are threatened,.. In general a way of life is going the way of the dodo bird and she recognizes and speaks out for it. Brava Kathleen Greiser !!!!
What group is that?
Joshua,
I’m not sure who is the more deserving of prayer here, the ‘ good ‘reverend ‘, or you for standing up to these Political Insider Groups. If I were a praying man, I’d pray that you will continue to call em as you see em, keep the fresh air flowing, and the lights on.
Bill, I think Howard Haywood was worried because I made an uncharacteristic error in my response to him. I made a typo in which I spelled his name Heywood. He must have been worried that
Howard, How kind of you to pray for me. I’m thankful that G-d blessed me with a strong eidetic memory, analytical skills, knowing right from wrong and sensitive empathy towards others, amongst many other blessings.
@Greg,
I think blueprint bill missed out “Affordable Housing”.
Not sure whether deliberately or not, but earlier references to payers … may he didn’t fancy dancing with the devil!
So these comments reflect the new Newton. Greg if I were to hear of a company thinking to move to Newton I would let them know that their employees will not be welcome to live here. They might need to rent or find reasonably priced housing and they will find neither.
Rev. Haywood: Lucky for us, you and I and most others in this community know that the comments of a few trolls here do not reflect anything more than a very cranky minority. Newton as a whole is far better than these folks.
@simon
no I don’t think so Simon. The entire column makes very clear that she doesn’t support any development project on Austin St other than a landscaped parking lot/park. Likewise, she brings up every other significant development project in the city as also being problematic.
Ms. Grieser is certainly entitled to that opinion and she is definitely not alone in that – just ask blueprintbill. My point is that there is a significant group of folks who are against ALL development and that they are quite distinct from the many folks who have specific questions or concerns about details of this particular project.
@Joshua Norman – I’m not sure what you think I got wrong in summarizing Ms Griesers’s column, other than I remind you of Greg Reibman. Nothing in your comment seemed to relate to anything I wrote.
As I said above, It appears from what she’s written that Ms Greiser is against all new development in Newton, that’s certainly her right. I strongly disagree with that stance and think it’s not a very tenable position. Her last paragraph begins to appear as if she might be in favor of some kinds of additional development until it gets to the final phrase “without increasing density”. I think that’s pretty clear.
@Rev Haywood
If you know of a company who wants to setup shop in Newton, check out this link
http://boston.craigslist.org/search/hhh?query=newton
Presumably they will not be requiring DHCD version of “affordable housing”.
You’ll find a number of options for places for rent – a lot more affordable than the Austin St.
I listened a lot last night.
A Senior had the belief that should this complex go up, house prices and rental fees within the vicinity will also increase. Their taxes will also increase. What is your take on this?
Howard Haywood, it seems there is a new bearer of the title of being “a little over dramatic.” This tiny minority is always making a big noise.
@Marti,
I think this year will very interesting come election time.
I have noticed a lot of people who would normally have very little interest in politics are taking notice.
Some of our Aldermen are walking a very fine line regarding this development, and they know it.
Jerry, I disagree with your conclusion that she’s against any and all new developments in Newton. That’s not the read I got from her column. She seemed to thoughtfully express the concerns that many Newton residents have regarding the unchecked 40B developments that have been proposed for Newton.
Kathleen did a great job of highlighting how this project fails to satisfy the transit-oriented objective that Scott Oran and Bob Engler have been pitching.
She also noted that as 75% of the units are luxury apartments even though this has been touted as an “affordable housing project”
Finally, she demonstrated that this project would be a net losing proposition for Newton taxpayers, just like Avalon Bay last decade.
Government shouldn’t lie to its citizens. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard one honest word from Scott Oran, The Englers or anyone who supports the ASP about the ASP project or any of the other 40B housing projects.
@Joshua Norman – and how do you square the phrase “without increasing density” with any development other than home remodeling?
Jerry, in a previous thread, she specifically mentioned that she supports commercial development.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/04/newton-village-alliance-appears-to-be-backing-two-city-council-challengers/#axzz3c2YWTumb
Not sure if you’re aware, but guest-columns only have a 750 word limit. The hardest part of writing one is saying what I want to say while complying with the word count. Fortunately, it gets easier with experience.
As Newton is a mature, high-density community, I believe its Economic Development Commission should be working to recruit commercial development and redevelopment that will employ people at good permanent jobs at good wages and generate commercial tax rate revenues without generating significant additional demand for city services, instead of 40B housing projects that privatize profits for developers and socialize costs to taxpayers.
Howard, I’m a lifelong, mulitgenerational resident of Newton who is tired of seeing his once vibrant hometown being turned into a stale, sterile, socialist Stepford of a school district.
I’m sick of left-wing extremists moving in to our community and pushing their left-wing social engineering agenda! I’m tired of people moving into this community, taking whatever they need and sticking long-time Newton residents with the bill! They don’t have to pay the full costs of the decisions they make.
I’m tired of the lack of honesty and candor from Newton’s elected officials and their supporters!
I’m appalled that Newton’s elected officials think they know better how to run our lives than we do!
I’m outraged that Newton’s elected officials have nothing better to do than to push destructive policies which result in more burdensome taxes, more wasteful government spending, more reckless government borrowing, and more draconian, repressive control over our daily lives!
I’m disgusted that Greg Reibman and his cronies resort to snarky little smears whenever someone speaks out against their left-wing narratives!
@Joshua Norman – I took a quick look at the link you sent but didn’t see anything in there that suggested Ms Grieser was in support of commercial development. I’ll take you on you word about that.
.
My post was in response to the clearly written Commentary column in today’s Newton Tab, not in response to what you believe about development or what Ms Grieser has written elsewhere.
If you are referring to me in the “Greg Reibman and his cronies, I’m at a loss as to what you could have taken as “a smear” in anything I have written.
I think Ms Grieser has been very clear about what she thinks about development in Newton. She took the very public step of writing a column in our local paper to advocate for her point of view.
I responded only to what she wrote and have made not even the slightest attack on her personally. In fact I’ve spoken to her and found her to be a very intelligent and pleasant person. I just happen to disagree with her. That’s not “a smear”
Jerry, Kathleen said in the previous thread she’s “looking for leaders who will protect our seniors; promote the walkability of our villages, preserve our neighborhoods and green spaces; enhance our commercial tax base with high-skills employers;”
Read more: Anti-development activist Kouril Grieser appears to be backing two city council challengers | Village 14 City of Newton, Massachusetts http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/04/newton-village-alliance-appears-to-be-backing-two-city-council-challengers/#ixzz3c2fDdLxY
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
The last part of her sentence “enhance our commercial tax base with high-skills employers” signals to me that she supports commercial development.
I have to agree to disagree with your conclusion about Kathleen’s column. She merely expressed opposition to the high profile 40B housing projects.
“If you are referring to me in the “Greg Reibman and his cronies, I’m at a loss as to what you could have taken as “a smear” in anything I have written.
I responded only to what she wrote and have made not even the slightest attack on her personally. In fact I’ve spoken to her and found her to be a very intelligent and pleasant person. I just happen to disagree with her. That’s not “a smear””.
The Greg Reibman and his cronies post I made was in the post directed as a response to Howard Haywood’s last post. Howard Haywood made an arrogant, condescending, patronizing post about people he saw as “the New Newton” and Greg Reibman referred to people questioning the merits of the project (such as Kathleen and myself) as trolls.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/06/no-development-never-no-how-no-where/#comment-57220
I have “cronies”? Who knew. And where does one get cronies anyway? Do they stock them at National Lumber?
Oh and cha- ching!
@Joshua Norman –
Fair enough Joshua, so that should have read “doesn’t support any new residential development”. If you only support residential development that “doesn’t increase density””, that can only mean you support no new housing at all – just improvement of the existing housing. I”m hard pressed to see how you can combine no new housing development with a desire ” to find ways to preserve and extend housing affordability, accommodate seniors.”
One overlooked way to preserve and extend housing affordability is keeping the property taxes low.
If we want to keep Newton diverse, we need to keep it affordable.
To help keep it affordable, city government needs to stop nickel-and-diming property owners with higher taxes and fees.
To keep taxes and fees from becoming overburdensome, we need Newton government to address its structural spending problem, particularly its refusal to address the lavish compensation and raises it gives to the unions.
Take a guess at which Newtonian said this quote: “80% of our expenses are to compensation including benefits. 5% is debt service. Simply trimming or “zero-base-budgeting” the remaining 15% that funds all city services won’t solve the problem. It’s going to take real leadership and strong communications skills to make real progress for the future of our city”
A) Brian Camenker
B) Len Mead
C) Bill Heck
D) Joshua Norman
E) David Spier
F) None of the above
Joshua, the first three paragraphs are hers, but she wastes her 750 word limit by quoting the complete, ridiculously long petition opposing the development, although she may have written that too. The petition makes sweeping statements about what Newtonville residents believe regarding the Austin Street parking lot not backed by evidence.
But before she starts quoting, when speaking of affordable housing, she says other towns “should do their share before Newton adds additional, unwanted high-density projects.” This is a pretty all encompassing statement against adding housing.
She is of course entitled to her opinions but to suggest she is for any housing development at all is a stretch.
What was on the site of Avalon before it was built, and why has the development there been regarded as a failure by so many who post here?
Wow. This is such a battlefield.
I wonder if the city has actually developed a policy which is being used to guide all of this development.
Does anyone have a copy? I’d like to read it to figure out what plan we are following!
@Geoff: Here you go.
Carry, Avalon has been a failure because it pushed up the enrollment in Newton Public Schools by approximately 100 students annually, which costs Newton taxpayers over $800,000 annually net of incremental tax revenues.
http://www.newton.k12.ma.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=4622&dataid=6074&FileName=Enrollment%20Analysis%20Report%20-%2011-24-14_0.pdf
*** a comment has been removed *** as inappropriate
@Geof
This is a link to our Charter
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45807
Sec. 7-1. Department of Planning and Development.
There shall be a Department of Planning and Development.
Sec. 7-2. Comprehensive Plan.
(a) Content—There shall be a Comprehensive Plan setting forth in graphic and textual form policies to govern the future physical development of the entire City. Such plan shall cover the entire City and all of its functions and services, or shall consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas.
(b) Adoption—Upon receipt from the Mayor of a proposed Comprehensive Plan or a proposed modification of the existing plan, the Board of Aldermen shall refer such proposal to the Planning and Development Board, which shall within a time specified by the Board of Aldermen report its recommendations thereon. After receipt of the recommendations of the Planning and Development Board, the Board of Aldermen shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan or the proposed modification thereof and shall by resolution adopt the same with or without amendment. The Board of Aldermen may thereafter from time to time modify the Comprehensive Plan.
(c) Effect—The Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide to all future action by the Board of Aldermen concerning land use and development regulations, urban renewal programs, and expenditures for capital improvements.
This is a link to the “Comprehensive Plan”
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30752
Ms. Grieser articulated probably one of the most cogent commentary piece in the Tab. She speaks for 2/3rd of Newtonians who want direct say in their development and dont trust alders to reflect their view.
It was genius of her to together point out each of these development that faced stiff local resistance. In an amazing way, she shows the Newtonville people are not crazy but rather part of the mainstream thinking happening locally in each villages. Ironically, these locals (incl me) care only about their backyards. The political class and these blogs make them look shallow and selfish, and push these developments.
The 40R proposal from the mayor should be a reason enough for these “NIMBYs” to band together. I oppose high density development in my village, without opposing affordable housing. There is no truth to the promises made to justify them (ie its for Seniors, Young people or police/fire fighters).
If Ms. Grieser or someone else becomes a visible leader for the 2/3rd majority of Newton, I and many others would rally behind them.
Carry, more likely “Avalon is bad” is being posted repeatedly by the same people.
Joshua links long reports but posts only his “conclusions.”
Such as: “Avalon has been a failure because it pushed up the enrollment in Newton Public Schools by approximately 100 students annually,”
This is from the 115 page report:
11/24/15 School Enrollment Report
“Avalon at Newton Highlands, a 294-unit apartment complex opened in 2003, has a population of 98 students enrolled in the Newton Public Schools, less than last year.
Let’s also remember that Avalon is also home to people who have just as much right to live on our planet, and in Newton as we all do.
Just catching up here:
@THM: Shame on you for making fun of a person’s opinion. It is completely unacceptable for anyone but even more so for an Alderman to create insulting names. You have been elected to represent people and listen to/ respect their opinion.
@ Jerry, Greg and others: KKG is not alone in wanting parking and a much smaller building. Her petition has more than 200 signatures.
@Sam S: there is already a coalition of people from all villages who are appalled at the increase in density in Newton; it’s called the Newton Villages Alliance. Please check the website: http://www.newtonvillagesalliance.org
@Carry, As far as the cost of adding 100 students to the system…NPS spends about $200 million per year, or $16,000 per student. But adding 1 student adds $0 in expenses–it just reduces the cost per student.
Estimating the cost of +100 students in one elementary zone is not simple. If spread out evenly over 13 grades, that’s fewer than 8 students per grade (which could be 2-4 students per classroom in elementary). That might, in one or two grades, mean the tipping point for adding a classroom. But it won’t result in any additional administrators, heating costs, building maintenance, etc., all of which factor heavily into the $16,000 per student.
I also do not believe that I have a moral obligation to help everybody live in Newton. I chose to live in Newton for its grass and trees (and schools). Let people who like density live where there already is density.
My moral obligation is to help others improve their lives; that’s what charitable contributions are for.
Thanks, Greg, for the link to the Newton Comprehensive Plan.
I looked through this and it is based on the 2007 data where student population is projected to fall.
Given that there has a dramatic reversal of that, it seems time to update the plan to include to very significant impact that rising student population is having on the city.
It is a huge factor.
When planning any development with residential components, there should be clear guidance from the comprehensive plan on how to proceed to mitigate negative impacts on our schools.
No wonder we are in so much trouble with school capacity and higher density development when the plan guiding us is so totally out of date.
Isn’t it time to fix this huge problem with the Newton Comprehensive Plan?
It seems that all of the developments including Austin St., Court St., Wells Ave., Riverside are simply adding to the capacity problem of the schools, and one thing is absolutely clear.
The planned added capacity at Zervas is completely in the wrong place to serve our capacity needs.
The Zervas project need to be scaled back and the money saved from that deployed to smaller scale school expansions for some of the other smaller schools (Williams, Ward, Underwood, Lincoln-Eliot, Peirce) which would also benefit by being moved from 300 to the 400-425 sweet spot for elementary school operation which principal surveys supported back in 2008, ensures that music and art teachers are full time, keeps the schools walkable, avoids the need for assistant principals and allows the principal to still know each student by name.
If you look at the map of the Newton elementary school districts:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/38731
those schools abut pretty much every other school other than Countyside and Memorial-Spaulding. So expansions and buffer zones could serve the population expansion we are seeing. No need for redistricting.
There should be clear guidance in the Newton Comprehensive Plan along these lines.
Maybe a new thread could be started on that topic.
I met a friend for lunch in Dedham yesterday. The little village was booming. It wasn’t just nail salons and banks, but boutiques, unique gift stores, food and ice cream, clothing, jewelry. There were customers in the stores and people in the restaurants. And, guess what – there is a large, FREE, parking lot for people to use. The stores are better than ours, the parking is better than ours, and it’s all pleasing to the eye with no high rises. People should check it out.
Lassy: You’re right. Dedham Square Circle is a great little shopping village. But I think you are oversimplifying why it’s successful. For example, did you know it has its own economic development operation (and newsletter) funded by Legacy Place? (And they have a movie theater and its right down the street from the court house and other buildings, which brings lots of foot traffic.) Clearly it takes more than a parking lot to make a village center vibrant. After all, Newtonville has a parking lot now, but in recent years the village lost its book store, pet store and other beloved businesses.
PS I am not against growth. I was all for it many years ago when there was room. I am against making us more and more dense at this point because I feel like now we are squeezing in apartment buildings in every available space we have.
Isabelle, making an accurate statement about a person’s opinion is not “making fun of ” it. If the acronym fits …” (My comment is not to insinuate that THM can’t skillfully explain himself.)
“KKG is not alone in wanting parking and a much smaller building. Her petition has more than 200 signatures.”
So she did write the petition which states it’s purpose clearly there should be ONLY a beautiful parking lot and NO building of any kind. (Many of the signers gave reasons that included wanting a different building.)
And about that “coalition,” only 2 members, that I know about, have semi identified themselves as members.
Geoff,
I agree with you about Zervas. It ought to be renovated and kept as a small walkable school. If Aquinas is renovated, then the northside over crowding is solved. Carr will be used to ease the north side growth as well.
I listened to parents from Ward speak against the proposed new buffer zones and the attempt to redistrict the many north side schools. What a mess that administrative nightmare is beginning to become.
Isabelle, I cannot take credit for the acronym. Like NIMBY, BANANA has become an increasingly common acronym used by urban planners to describe opponents of smart growth development. It is not merely an American phenomenon, either, as the first use of the term I could find was in 1991 in the United Kingdom. Other similar “plannerese” acronyms include Citizens-Against-Virtually-Everything (CAVE People) and NOPE (Not-On-Planet-Earth). I call ’em as I see ’em, and in this particular case, I think the acronym fits.
Greg is right that the people who live at Avalon on Needham Street are welcome members of the community. My comment about Avalon was not aimed at the residents, but rather at the manner in which Avalon was approved by the City [“friendly 40B”], along with the economic consequences and impact on Newton schools. Should anyone ever doubt the practical effect of Avalon, they simply need to drive by Countryside School and look at the modular classrooms bolted to the side of that building as a direct result of increased enrollment driven by Avalon. The problem with Avalon, like the problem with Austin Street, is that City leaders cut a bad deal with those developers, giving up too much and getting too little in return. City leaders need to acknowledge the mistakes of the past, strike a better deal at Austin Street, and fight harder to support the City’s contention that we have met our legal obligation under 40B.
@Geoff,
You mention updating the comprehensive place.
Is it in your opinion that of the city is not following the plan (or unable to do so 40bs etc), or that the original plan is flawed?
The modulars at Countryside predated Avalon by many years.
So as we are want to put forward acronynms in this debate, why not ” PIGS ” aka Political Insider Groups. We see any number these days as relate to the Latest Austin Street debate. We heard at last tuesdays hearing one of the last speakers real off a good half dozen with which she was familiar as argument for why the Board should support that project.
I gotta say this idea that calling something NIMBY or BANANA is offensive is laughable. Take a deep breath people.
For me, I’m not a fan of the business deal cut by the Mayor (Mike is right, although not to the degree of $4,000,000), nor am I a fan of the design of the project (it is ugly). But at some point I also walked past the parking lot, and I have to wonder, what the hell am I fighting for? The parking lot is also ugly, and the city gets more from the new use.
So as much as it pains me, I’d rather have the ASP project than the UAP (ugly *** parkinglot). 😉
But that support is still conditioned on other improvements to the village.
Has anyone done an informal polling of aldercritter support? Many of the opponents seem very confident that they have the votes locked up. Any truth to this?
@Fig: It was a little difficult to hear during that portion of Tuesday’s Land Use meeting but I thought someone from Austin Street Partners said they were taking feedback they’ve received about the facade seriously and were considering revisions.
Perhaps someone from ASP could elaborate.
@Mike – Not all Avalon residents feel welcomed. Its now a buffer zone, and new Kindergarten students are getting bused across the city to Angier @ Carr, instead of walking down the block to Countryside.
If all these high density housing projects that KKG points out end up costing the city money because the students they generate cost more than the taxes they add, and the infrastructure requirements cause more repairs and maintenance, why on earth would Newton that has a 50M and rising annual deficit consider adding any of these? Who buys more stuff when you owe money?
@ Greg, you are right that I don’t have all of the details. Just responding to what I see on this blog, is that parking lots are bad, meters are better, and meters that make it more expensive to park close are even better. I think the parking lot and nice restaurants like Isabella pre-date Legacy Place, but even if I am wrong – we have movie theaters and why couldn’t we have a newsletter, or e-newsletter?
@Lisa Keltner _ Apples and oranges. The city did indeed instigate the Austin St project. All those other projects were not city projects and the city has very limited jurisdiction over them since they are 40B projects.
@Greg, sorry for the multiple responses – I was just thinking – if Dedham can have a great downtown with a beautiful, free parking lot because they get funding from Legacy Place, why can’t we do that? Legacy is a W/S development, same as the “Street.”
@Lassy: I’m not entirely certain of the circumstances there but I believe town leaders there negotiated funds for that that during the permitting process for Legacy Place, not unlike how our board negotiated road improvements to Route 9 during the Chestnut Hill Square process. (And they were improvements that worked!)
(And putting on my Chamber hat for a minute, I can tell you that WS Development has provided financial support for the Chamber’s Shop Local program and the Newton Cultural Alliance’s annual stroll which focuses heavily on encouraging shopping in our villages.)
Lassy has a point about there being different avenues to accomplish a more vibrant center. I’ve already mentioned two places that did a good job differently. There are more. The partnerships worked out with small and large business owners, building owners, housing authorities, civic associations, city government, etc. has led to a great and beautiful revitalization in Newburyport. It has open space, with brick pathways, old restored buildings mixed in with new ones that blend in perfectly, flowers, benches and 100’s of small local, interesting shops. The shops are separated by doors that lead up to the two to three stories above that contain both offices and housing. The buildings are around a brick plaza, with walking only streets plus driving ones with one big, open parking lot on the outside that charges 50 cents an hour. They fought developers and HUD wanting to use the new smart designs, boxes and glass, to keep the history while blending in the new, including violating the smart parking practices Lassy mentioned.
There have been some great open letters on the listserv with suggestions for solutions I wish I had asked permission to share. The Watertown, Waltham, Newton partnership along the river seems to be working on something that uses those methods, incorporating the mill buildings with riverwalks and landings. The complex further down the river in Waltham, close to Margarittas is also heading in the right direction.
These stories are everywhere, all over the country. Charleston and Savannah are two cities whose leaders, when needing to revitalize, fought to incorporate the historical into the new and made it work beautifully.
All of it took master planning grown from a vision. The comprehensive plan in Newton lays out guidelines. But without conceptualizing those policies into a specific, statistically oriented master design that incorporates the transportation and public services infrastructure needed, where to put the green, welcoming open spaces, mixed use developments and the other parts of the comp plan, there is no way to make it actually work.
But then, Boston is in the middle of the largest building boom ever. Their calling it a renaissance, with new skyscrapers, as long as they are shorter than the Hancock and the Pru, with luxury housing topped in the high $30 millions. There are also buildings with more characteristically priced housing units, new businesses, hotels, grocery stores, Converse Center, Congress Square, Ink Block, along with the cruise ship, sneaker building and T stop. There are a lot of glass and boxes too, most of it gorgeous but also some great renovation, such as the Burham Building which sat gutted and empty for 5 years, now has a wold headquarters for an advertising agency who moved from the Pru and a Roche Brothers on the first floor. Of course there will be no way to get there and no where to park if you do particularly with the renovation of the Government Center parking garage.
Greg, just because you keep saying that doesn’t make it true. It’s a fail for the region. They just moved the problem away from their development [with city approval and using state funds] and arguably made the overall problem worse. You haven’t noticed that the daily backups on Route 9 WB now routinely go from Woodward back to Parker Street (nearly a mile), when they only used to go to Floral Street?
Lassy’s point got me thinking about something I had read a while back
From this document http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30235 (the RFI)
“This exploration of reuse of this parking lot is not about gaining an ordinary piece of development to pay a little bit in taxes, it is about trying to make Newtonville’s village center a much better place. Anything less than achieving the “Excellence in Place- Making” repeatedly exhorted in the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan will mean a failure to have captured a special opportunity. Achieving that excellence will require that a variety of participants strive for it in every aspect of this effort, including this one.”
Affordable housing advocates etc.. Its a distraction, its only part of the solution!
@greg congratulations on the best stealth comment of the month:
“Clearly it takes more than a parking lot to make a village center vibrant. After all, Newtonville has a parking lot now, but in recent years the village lost its book store, pet store and other beloved businesses.”
Damn, I wish I had the brains to have said that. So let me play devil’s advocate here, or Prof. Stupid or whatever. Gee, if the Golden Key to unlocking the potential of Newtonville is PARKING, and the most important, most strategic step we can take is to protect our precious parking, against the rapacious developers seeking to put a project in to Austin St that will actually provide a few more parking spaces than currently exist, then . . . WHoa, dude, these guys are evil – we have to preserve our Parking since that is what will revitalize and energize and turn Newtonville into . . . . Oh, wait. We already have the parking, but the Village is not growing and thriving and pulsing with new life after the departure of the book store, the pet store, the ……..
Nice call, Greg. Looks like it went right over the heads of the crowd, almost went right by me for sure.
Don’t let it go to your head though.
@mike striar
“Should anyone ever doubt the practical effect of Avalon, they simply need to drive by Countryside School and look at the modular classrooms bolted to the side of that building as a direct result of increased enrollment driven by Avalon. ”
@susie heyman
“The modulars at Countryside predated Avalon by many years.”
Any fact checkers in the crowd? These statements seem pretty contradictory to my simple mind, but I’d love to hear some third party confirmation or citations or links or whatever. Not that I think there are any credibility issues here.
I stand by my comment, and I don’t believe those two comments are contradictory.
Damn, I’ve already broken my new policy of not responding to people with fake names and hidden agendas. Sorry Admiral Dewey, that’s the last response you’re getting from me.
Susie IS the fact checker.
Avalon Bay Needham Street began leasing in 2003. Modulars were added to Countryside in 1991 and 1999.
For some additional color, Countryside enrollment was at 499 in 1999, the year the last modular was added there. It dropped to 446 in 2003 when Avalon opened and went as low as 437 three years later in 2006. In 2010 enrollment peaked again at 499 before a K class was moved to Angier. The numbers change over the course of each year as students move in and out but the Countryside enrollment is about 450 right now and projections call for it to drop to 430 by 2017.
In 2011, part of a Countryside K class was buffered at Bowen also.
Legacy Place is also supported by 2 huge apartment complexes behind it (advertised ‘3 min walk’), which were built around the same time. A description of the apt. complexes from Dedham’s Master Plan, Housing:
Jefferson at Dedham: Located on President’s Way, Jefferson at Dedham is a 300‐unit rental
development offering both market‐rate and affordable, one‐ and two‐ bedroom units. Developed
with a comprehensive permit, 75 units are set‐aside as affordable to households earning up to 80
percent of the area median income. Rents for affordable units range from $1,150 to $1,375.
Market‐rate unit rents range from $1,475 to $1,880 for a one‐bedroom unit and $1,925 to $2,165 for
a two‐bedroom unit. Currently, the development is 93 percent occupied. There is a one‐year wait
list for affordable units.
• Station 250: Located on Elm Street, Station 250 is currently under construction. When complete,
the development will offer 285 one‐, two‐ and three‐bedroom rental units. Permitted under
Chapter 40B, Station 250 will have 72 rental units affordable to households with incomes up to 80
percent of the area median. Rents for affordable units start at $946 for a one‐bedroom unit, $1,092
for a two‐bedroom unit and $1,233 for a three‐bedroom unit. The developer plans to list market‐
rate units starting at $2,022 for a one‐bedroom unit, $2,622 for a two‐bedroom unit and $3,432 for
a three‐bedroom unit. Phase I includes 30 apartment units and will be available for occupancy in
July 2008. Construction on the following phases will be complete thereafter. Applications have
been accepted for the affordable units, leasing of market‐rate units has not started.
@Steve Siegel– Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was Avalon. In 1999 I knew that a large apartment building was being proposed on the former New England Concrete and Pipe property. Presumably the School Committee knew that as well. Your enrollment numbers might suggest to some that Avalon had no effect on Countryside. However, there are at least two other comments on this thread suggesting some students have been “buffered” at other schools. Please clarify your point. Are you suggesting that building a 300 unit apartment building two blocks from an elementary school, had no effect on that school’s student population?
Mike, suggest what you like, but Steve is providing facts, and the fact is enrollment did go up (and down) and that rental properties not only added to the population but made it less predictable.
@Adam– I’m not disputing facts. Simply looking for an acknowledgement of the fact that Avalon added to the student population. The enrollment may go up and down, as it does at all schools. But if Avalon hadn’t been built, the student population at Countryside would be lower. I’m guessing substantially lower.
The traffic and parking at Legacy Place on weekends is a zoo. Cars going the wrong way, parked in the lane waiting on exiting cars, etc.
Just to clarify Legacy Place and Chestnut Hill Square are two different places. I think the two are being confused somewhat.
Also to clarify. Kathleen Koril Grieser did in fact speak out in opposition to the medical marihuana clinic in Newtonville, which was, of course, a commercial development. So “never” would not be correct.
I just spoke with Kathleen Koril Grieser about the post above. She pointed out that she has never spoke out against commercial development in general, only about higher density residential housing.
My apologies for the overly broad statement that she is against all new development.
I’ve changed the headline accordingly … though the new one doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
@Mike Striar – A bit odd that you’re “standing by my comment”
when the modulars pre-dated Avalon.
But yes to the larger issue, clearly a residential development like Avalon has impact on the schools – it’s just that those modulars are not evidence of it.
isabelle hit the nail on the head …
I welcome KKG’s opinion without having to read moral narcissists judging her in a blog. Thank you Kathleen for exercising the right express that she does not want the City of Newton to essentially give away public land for what the moralists say is the greater good – so-called affordable housing (BTW, Dinosaur will make a profit in this project.)
@Greg Reibman – that was “commercial development in general”
@Jerry– Why do you think they added modulars to Countryside, if not to accommodate and anticipate increased enrollment? Should they have waited until Avalon was fully constructed and occupied before planning classroom space for the children who would move there? Again, in 1999, people were aware a large 40B was planned for that site, just blocks from Countryside School. Your comment acknowledges that Avalon had an “impact on the schools.” And yes, the broader point I’m making is that large apartment buildings increase school population, and city leaders need to extract sufficient linkage from developers to cover the increased educational costs.
@Steve Siegel
“In 2010 enrollment peaked again at 499 before a K class was moved to Angier.”
What does that mean exactly? The Countryside school district had lines redistricted with some homes moving into Angier?
A different but related question:
Who within the City is responsible for estimating the number of school age children that would be added to the Cabot School district as a result of the proposed development?
Using the numbers from Avalon, where it seems that approximately 100 school age children live amongst 300 units, it would be reasonable to expect 20-25 additional students to be added to the Cabot School district based on 68 units. 20-25 students is adding roughly 5-6% more students to the population (400), and the redistricting analysis shows that under a number of the scenarios, Cabot school’s capacity is already at 95-100+%. Adding in Austin St, that would suggest that using the redistricting lines as proposed, coupled with the addition of Austin St., would put Cabot at above 100% capacity– and we haven’t even broken ground yet.
Again– who in the City is looking at this?
@Paul – I can answer the first question directed to Steve. Yes, a few years back they redrew the edge of the Angier/Countryside district line to move kids from Countryside to Angier. Rather than a full redistricting which is nearly always very disruptive they created “a buffer zone”. The way it works is that the first year, all incoming K students in that area go to Angier instead of Cside. the upper grade kids stay at cside. The 2nd year, it’s K and 1 are going to Angier, etc. At this point, nearly all the kids in the buffer zone now go to Angier.
It’s a slower, gentler form of redistricting that causes less disruption – i.e. no switching kids between schools
Mike,
Avalon absolutely has had an impact on Countryside’s enrollment — according to the November 2014 enrollment book Countryside hosts 35 Avalon residents, or 1-2 students in each of 22 classrooms. That’s not enough to have spurred modular installations, and even forward-planning officials in 1999 would not add them 4 years before they were clearly necessary — they only take 6-9 months to get in place. There are too many other factors that cause big fluctuations in student enrollment, as the numbers I shared should illustrate.
Paul,
If Austin Street were to generate students at the same ratio as Avalon Needham Street, it would produce 68/294 x 35 students = 8 new students at Cabot, or 1 in every three classrooms.
Paul,
With apologies, my post is misleading. Avalon houses 50 NPS elementary students this year, with 35 at Countryside, 12 at Angier, and 1 each at Burr, Peirce, and Williams. So my math should be 68/294 x 50 = 12 students, or 1 for every two classrooms at the new Cabot.
@Steve Siegel– Thank you for clarifying your comments, and acknowledging the impact of Avalon on Countryside. It appears I gave the then School Committee too much credit for being forward thinking, and recognizing that Avalon would mean an increased student population at Countryside. What a stroke of luck that they had already installed the modulars when Avalon opened. Reminds me of that old saying… It’s better to be lucky than good.
Greg, just because Kathleen opposed a marijuana clinic doesn’t make her anti commercial development.
If pot shops and 40B housing projects is the only kind of development Newton, they should get rid of the entire Economic Development Commission and replace those left-wing ideologue Democrats with citizens who believe in common sense and good government.
@Mike Striar: Would you care to help explain to one of our participants why a licensed medical marihuana clinic is not a “pot shop” and that the medical benefits of marihuana is a proven science, not unlike, say, climate change?
@Steve
My question wasn’t really figuring out the actual math (though that is helpful), but rather concern over the potential lack of coordination within the city. I’m seeking clarification if in fact someone is looking at this.
12 students sounds trivial, but its a 3% increase in school population. Given how the new Cabot school is planned to have so little buffer, which is already sub-optimal to start, using up 3% for this development could be a challenge.
Generally, the school is starting at something around 90% capacity (tight, but acceptable for capacity planning of new buildings), with plans to redistrict and bring capacity to 95-102% (this it too high).
Adding an Austin St development puts us at or over capacity, which is pretty poor for a building that hasn’t been constructed yet, and seems to preclude further development in the Cabot School district without requiring further redistricting down the road. I haven’t seen any analysis along these lines, and am concerned that they simply haven’t been conducted
Perhaps you can clarify if someone in the city is looking at how the concurrent processes of planning a new Cabot, redistricting and evaluating a new 68-unit development interplay with each other.
Hey Greg
I never denied the existence of climate change. In February, we had winter, now we have summer. That’s what I love about living in New England, year round climate change. I know that in Fort Lauderdale, they only have summer, summer and scorcher.
I merely said that there was no global warming or man-made climate change. Your buddy David Spier from the Newton Taxpayers Association doesn’t believe in man-made global warming either. I thought when I shared that link on Village14, you would have reacted in some way to it. By the way, I’m not the only person who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming either.
By the way, did you hear about how the government monkeyed around with temperature data to try to disprove the recent pause in global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
@joshua Norman – summer/winter, that’s called seasons.
@Greg– I’ll tell ya, at this point trying to explain the benefits of medical marijuana to those who are opposed, is much like trying to explain the benefits of starting high school a little later to the School Committee. Some folks just don’t get it–don’t want to get it–aren’t gonna get it. I have every confidence though that my position on both marijuana and high school start times will ultimately prevail.
@Mike – Might actually be moving in proper direction on the HS start time. Stay tuned.
The figures from last year’s school enrollment trends report gives the following figures for elementary, middle, and high-school students as each of these complexes for the 2013-14 school year and the prior year:
2012-13 2013-14
Avalon at Newton Highlands = 101 101
Avalon at Chestnut Hill = 78 68
Arborpoint at Woodland Station = 50 54
Woodland Park at 264-290 Grove St = 50 47
The figures are on p. 5
Jerry and Greg, “global warming” scaremongering has been berry, berry good for Harvard and Syracuse. Say whatever the EPA wants you to say, and you get beaucoup bucks paid for from the taxpayers.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/