Ever since the financial terms for the proposed Austin Street project were announced by the city, questions have been circulating about whether or not Newton’s taxpayers were getting a bad deal.
Well last week in the TAB, Rob Gifford, a Newton resident,president and CEO of AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corp and a guy who clearly understands these things far better than any of the arm chair critics or defenders of the project possibly could, analyzed the terms of the deal.
Gifford’s conclusion?
..I recognize and respect that there are different perspectives and concerns being discussed and debated by the community and the Board of Alderman. However, we should take the questions surrounding project economics and city fiscal benefits off the table. This is a fair deal resulting from a thorough planning process, resulting in manifold benefits to the City of Newton.
Read the whole thing and let’s discuss.
Hmmm. For a topic that’s been brought up many times here, I would have expected a spirited debate by now.
Especially interested to learn what Jake Auchincloss and Mike Striar think about this.
Here’s what Gifford is missing… Most apartment buildings developed under 40B, dedicate 25% of the housing units “affordable” as defined under the statute. That’s the same percentage of affordable units included in the Austin Street proposal. BUT most 40B developers pay fair market value for the land on which they build. Austin Street Partners [ASP] was given a substantial discount, and therefore should have been required to dedicate a larger percentage of affordable units.
Secondly, Gifford mentions the 5000 sf of retail space associated with the project, but attributes no specific value to it. Austin Street Partners should have been required to offset the additional value of the retail space, with a higher percentage of affordable units.
Gifford says this constitutes a “fair” deal. Obviously that’s a subjective term. Part of his reasoning lies in the money ASP will be paying in off-site infrastructure improvements. BUT these types of improvements are routinely required of most large apartment building developers. For example, Avalon acquired their land on Needham Street at fair market value [not a discounted price], built a large apartment building under the 40B statute, AND paid more in off-site infrastructure improvements than is being required of Austin Street Partners.
Additionally, Gifford uses the $300K building permit fee associated with the Austin Street proposal to support his opinion that the deal is “fair.” BUT any developer would be required to pay a building permit fee. It’s based on construction cost. ASP is paying no more or no less than any other developer looking to build the same structure.
What bothers me about Austin Street is not the size or height of the building. Nor is it the fact that the developer is going to make a bundle of money. The thing that bothers me the most about Austin Street, is the percentage of affordable units is too low for the value the developer is receiving.
Everything should be on the table. The city of Newton did not take bids on the land and sell it to the highest bidder. It is more complicated than that.
I have no reason to believe that THIS deal is not on the up-and-up. That being said zoning, property development, government sales of property in non-first price auctions, and the granting of liquor licenses have always been areas that lend themselves to corruption and fraud at the local level. This deal has 3 out of the 4. Who knows maybe there will be a liquor store or a bar, which will give us 4 out of 4.
If this is not enough, developers have abused 40B for their own profit. Recently, the Inspector General of Massachusetts helped negotiate millions of dollars in settlements against 40B developers.
If there is any deal that deserves maximum scrutiny, it is this one. Anything less would not be prudent.
Thanks Mike, your comments are most valued by us Newtonville residents who believe this project should never be approved.
Mike, to play devil’s advocate, no 40B would be required to keep the parking lot. That parking lot is in the control of the city, the city gets the proceeds, and a redeveloped lot. You didn’t mention that in your analysis. None of the 40Bs you reference had to give up first floor control except for 5000 square feet of commercial. That is a large expense and a large concession.
Not saying that the price is “fair”, but that needs to be taken into consideration.
I don’t interpret Mike’s comments as saying the project should never be approved (in fact he quite clearly states the opposite)- he is merely questioning the financial deal vis-a-vis the land (though I should let him clarify that himself).
Is it apples to apples to compare a land purchase to a lease agreement? Is ASP assuming risk in not buying the land outright? Should 40B commitment be tied to the price/lease cost of the land? I think there are a lot of questions that muddy the true “is it good or bad deal” calculation.
Could someone post on Village 14 the petition from 34 business owners who oppose the Austin St project for very cogent reasons, including the following:
– The development will add pretty much zero to their customer base which largely comes by car
– The parking impact of the project will severely impact their customers
– The financial impact on their business will severe to the point that business closures may result
These folks are the ones who have actually made a difference!
Newtonville has rejunevated through their efforts over the last 4-5 years.
This input from the business owners shows even further that the Austin St project is being forced on the Newtonville community for their great pain and loss, while the benefit to the larger city seems entirely questionable.
The Austin St project seems to serve political objectives which have little to do with improving Newton.
It’s time for the conservative democrats in Newton to abandon this project and support projects which will actually benefit Newton neighborhoods.
Voters would be well advised to vote for any alderman candidate who brings fresh perspectives to the job of charting Newton’s course into the future.
We need to get away from these politically constrained building projects!
Geoff,
I know the signers of the petition were told that this would add little to their bottom line, but I’m not sure that’s entirely true. It’s been demonstrated again and again that bringing in residents along with the associated vibrant streetscape and foot traffic does increase business in the long-term.
I know there has been some discussion with the developer about aiding local businesses during construction and I think the businesses need to learn more about that. I’m assuming that would add to the cost and could be considered when you look at the scope of the deal between the developer and the city.
Yes the changes in parking will cause some disruption. But that will happen no matter what we do with that property, other than just leave it as a parking lot. I’m not sure anyone believes the current parking lot is the best use of that parcel.
Also, while there are many businesses that rely entirely on convenience for their business, others in that area are destinations and customers will often endure a certain amount of hardship to get there. Today when the spots in the lot nearest Starbucks were blocked off with the public hearing, people just parked elsewhere. In fact, the entire time I was there there (7:45 to 8:40) the spots on Austin Street itself immediately in front of Starbucks remained vacant.
The unknown is scary, and I don’t want to minimize the impact this will have on small businesses. But there are many factors, other than this, that can also impact their survival. I believe that adding diversity, foot traffic and density to the neighborhood will, long term, have a much more positive impact.
NEWS: Extensive list of Newtonville business owners petition to deny project.
It is certainly worthy of conversation. I look forward to it being posted.
@Chuck-
You could be right. Or not.
But, basically you’re saying “…yeah, we hear you, you don’t want it, but we know what’s best for you, and trust me, this is best for you.”
It just seems like when an entire business community speaks up, and the local residents speak up, and the city essentially just blows them off….maybe, just maybe, there’s a problem ?
Charlie,
First, not what I’m saying. But I also know enough to realize that the opposition tends to be loud, even when they’re the minority. So forgive me for taking all the hand-wringing with a grain of salt.
As for the businesses, I believe they made the best decision given the information they were provided. I just happen to also believe that the information the were provided was woefully incomplete.
And I say that last part as a communications professional.
@ Geoff,..
Yes but ,.. In today’s TAB the headline on page A4 reads ” Proposed Austin Street project has business community support, survey shows “. Underwritten by Greg Riebman ” for additional information”,..
Then on the next page there’s a full page ad Listing 27 Chamber of Commerce newest members. Huh ????
@Chuck-
I don’t see any evidence that the opposition is in the minority. Please direct me to it. I’m open-minded enough to view it.
…and yes… that is exactly what you’re saying.
30+ local business signed because they were only given limited info and they were not paying attention to the past year and were just simply not informed properly?
Tough sell on that one. Even for a fellow communications professional 🙂
We have some pretty smart business people in Newtonville. I would leave open the distinct possibility that they understand and simply just don’t want it.
Geoff is so right and I thank him for helping us out here since he now resides outside of Newton. The push for rezoning, what’s that all about? Rezoning is supposed to protect the quality of housing in our villages. Instead the Austin St. land was rezoned to a multi use status. That completed the city tries to sell the land and develop it for high rise housing. To further alienate the community it does so without clearly stating its purpose. So residents beware as phase 2 of rezoning kicks off through out Newton.
The Austin street project is solely based on political objectives which does not serve the public good. Especially if the private owners of the Orr building successfully build another apartment building on Washington St. Then parking becomes a greater problem.
What also bothers me is the idea of reconfiguring the traffic patterns on Austin St., Newtonville Av. and the prospect of narrowing Walnut St. at Austin. That is a traffic nightmare in the making. Also, no studies have been done to project the traffic congestion 5 years into the future post construction.
Actually Charlie, you bring up a very good question. What do the Newtonville merchants know about the project? Have they heard from both sides? Did they understand the different arguments?
You make an assumption that they’ve been receiving unbaised information for the entirety of this process. Having been to meetings and listened to the opposition, I’m not sure it’s true. I hear more passion and less fact, but that’s just me. I’m a focus group of one.
Perhaps an unbiased survey done by a third party can tell us what people understand, then we can look at fact vs. opinion and understand whether the signatures were based on good information or the fact that the person on front of them at the time was imply passionate about their opposition.
I think that would be a great idea, Chuck. But rather than 3rd hand surveys, have a full public hearing where info by both sides is presented…again. But this time… everyone’s paying attention!
Provide opportunity for a Q&A, and then have a binding ballot question specifically in Ward 2 that allows folks to be even clearer about their thoughts about what the city has planned for their village.
Interestingly enough, I’m not actually opposed to “something” being built there. But this process has, in fact, been shoved down people’s throats.
Let’s talk about that “something.” We now have a proposal that has been through 5 years of process. There were multiple bids and it was scaled back when the public asked. It is now, according to the article at the top of this thread, on the light side of profitable. It has little room for error.
It’s a proposal that provides cash for the property, keeps the existing parking (and its associated revenue), gives the city affordable housing, adds foot traffic to the neighborhood and includes retail. It also includes public space and improvements to the existing lot.
So I ask, for those who oppose this particular vision, what is yours? I’m eager to hear what you would propose that would have as much upside for the city and the community.
But here’s the catch: Please do not refer to things you don’t want. In other words, don’t make your idea in opposition to what is there, but offer the merits of your own. No relative sizes (larger/ smaller/ more/ less/ etc.). Let’s talk size, scale and scope.
And let’s assume that the current usage is a clear under-utilization.
What is better for business depends on what would have happened to the lot otherwise. One alternative is an all commercial building with office space on top and retail on the bottom. Office space, per square foot, holds more employees than housing holds inhabitants. Office workers also like “transit oriented” office buildings. Office workers would be around during the day when the neighborhood is dead. At night, the office parking would be free. Was this option considered?
“And let’s assume that the current usage is a clear under-utilization.”
Not a valid assumption.
Emily, just so I understand. You’re suggesting that the current utilization, which is an open asphalt parking lot, is a best-case for the land?
And, if that’s the case, why wouldn’t a utilization that offers both that AND housing not be a better situation?
People are busy. People in Newton are hyper-busy.
Nobody (other than policy wonks) pays attention to anything until it’s right in front of their face and about to impact their way of life.
If it was such a great process, we would not be in the situation we’re in right now. There would have been community support built, the business owners would not be tagged with a label of “uninformed objectors”, and most, (but never all), would have been at least reasonably content…even if not thrilled.
There is a disconnect. If folks are so confident about having a discussion and informing people…then let’s make it happen. Embrace the idea.
Not everything has to be based on a monetary ROI in life. A lovely park, with trees, open space and some parking could be lovely there. That would have value, and upside, as well. In fact, it would be a lovely and full utilization.
Why wouldn’t a utilization that offers both that AND all commercial not be an even better situation?
Charlie, as I understand your vision, it’s a park with some places to sit, nice trees, etc. And about 25% to 50% of current parking, given the size of the property.
And Jeffrey, you ask a good question. I’m hoping that someone with deeper knowledge of the proposals can answer the commercial vs. residential question.
I remember a similar argument being made around the use of the Cronin’s Landing property back in the 1990s, that commercial would bring more life to downtown Waltham than housing. Though, that’s a far different community with other building and construction issues.
Jeffrey:
I don’t disagree that office/retail is a better use for the city’s coffers due to the property tax levels and overall use of schools. But I disagree regarding the need. You’d have trouble getting financing on an office/retail concept at that location, and 4 floors is very low for that use. Office uses are also dead at night and weekends, don’t provide foot traffic except for lunch, tend to be much more bland from an architecture prospective, etc.
My gut tells me that NEwton Corner (which is largely office in the big buildings) is not a desired look or use. And Newton Corner has a lot of empty office space right now (or at least it did a while back).
Not saying that office doesn’t have its place. But I’d generally look for a critical mass of office and prior lease rates to justify that type of project. Not sure how well it would underwrite in this location.
Charlie, do you really think another meeting will change anything. I’ve been to so many I’ve lost count. I think an independent survey would be a fine idea for the business owners. I’d also love to see the petition itself. Most of the business owners I’ve chatted with over the past 5 years have seen the good and the bad. The bad is obviously the short term effect of losing the parking….
Emily, so a parking lot is its highest and best use? so its future use as a 127 space parking lot should make you happy, no? What size project would you accept? Do you need it to stay a parking lot forever?
As part of its Fiscal Impact Study, RKG did a walk through in August, 2015 talking to all of the businesses on Walnut and Austin Streets in Newtonville Sqvuare covering a variety of topics, linked to on V14. I don’t know when these 34 businesses signed some petition, what the petition said or where the merchants were located, but this isn’t what came from actually conversing with them.
“– The development will add pretty much zero to their customer base …” “– The parking impact of the project will severely impact their customers” “– The financial impact on their business will severe to the point that business closures may result” These seem more like erroneous assumptions and conclusions used to serve the anti-development purpose.
The visits produced something else.
They are expecting a good mitigation plan during construction, both of the infrastructure of Austin Street and the proposed building, because without one, 18 months would impact their customer base and could force some to close, but they did not expect those problems after completion of the project.
Nearly all respondents indicated that they would welcome stores that brought additional customers to the area, several noting that the proposed additional residential units would in fact offer up “new” customers living right in Newtonville.
As for the mitigation plan, this includes the working group has proposed so far. Attachment A http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/69102
@Chuck-
No, that is not my version. The best bet would be to ask the Newtonville residents and businesses their opinions. But you have to actually ask and have respect for their answers.
And if they say they’re OK with the parking lot, then that should be respected as well.
Geoff, what are the types of projects that “conservative democrats” should support to actually benefit Newton neighborhoods, after they abandon putting housing on a parking lot? What is the great pain and loss we who actually live in Newtonville will suffer if this project is built? What are the fresh perspectives you are looking for? And since you and your group are constantly saying that all of the proposal’s supporters don’t live in Newton, maybe it’s time to accept that you don’t and you can start telling your new town what is best for them.
Colleen, obviously people do not agree on the meaning of “public good.”
Charlie, you sure had me fooled. You and your cohorts, including the NVA and Emily now I see, have never wanted anything built there except maybe benches, gazebos or fountains with trees, leaving little room fir parking.
And you tend to be a bit contradictory when you chastise Chuck for implying that business owners could be fooled by a petition, when given incomplete information and then defending residents who didn’t keep up with the progress of Austin Street because they are too busy. I would venture that “being very busy” would be reasons for both.
What’s the Mayors logic in all of this?
I touted the Mayor, 6 years ago, as someone who would be able to sit down with both sides and work it out…I guess I was wrong.
I am sure he’s for it, but whats his reasoning. It seems like once things get controversial he backs off. Whats up? He should be in front of all of this and we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in.
Also,
Going to a couple of open meetings is not being in front of the issue.
“The best bet would be to ask the Newtonville residents and businesses their opinions. But you have to actually ask and have respect for their answers.
And if they say they’re OK with the parking lot, then that should be respected as well.”
I’m actually getting tired of hearing how the only viewpoint that matters is that of Newtonville residents. Honestly, maybe I should no longer shop in Newtonville – if my opinion doesn’t matter, then my spending dollars also should not matter! Aren’t we one City? Maybe when people park in front of my house to run along the carriage lane of Commonwealth Ave, I should tell them to go back to their own village and not impede the traffic in front of my house.
This is getting silly already. Not at all the City I grew up in….
After the parking presentation, I’m confused. I thought it was settled, in the proposal, that there would be 127 public parking spaces and underground designated resident spaces. Now it’s sharing spaces between residents and the public. Residents are not guaranteed a parking space. Customers can park in resident spaces. Residents can leave home and not have a space when they return? They are claiming it is OK to park at Star Market lot? What the heck is happening.
Charlie – Are we one city or thirteen separate villages?
Count me as one Newtonville resident (I live close enough to see the Star Market from my kitchen window) who’s 100% in favor of the project and thoroughly disgusted with the NIMBY crowd and the businesses who signed that petition.
Guess what: Newtonville’s village center already is a dense commercial area where people have to navigate for a couple of minutes to find parking. I go there, on foot or by car, virtually every day. Needing to drive around the block to park hasn’t deterred me, because I’m not under the delusion that I live in Sudbury or Lincoln.
I was one of hundreds who signed on to say we’d continue to patronize Newtonville businesses during construction. Now that the businesses themselves have told me the only relevant consideration is having easy parking at my fingertips, I see the error of my ways and I’ll take my business elsewhere.
@Robert-
So, your answer when confronted by alternative ideas is to be punitive towards the very businesses you say you care about when all they are trying to do is survive?
If so, it completely undercuts your credibility. Therefore, one must assume that it was an overreaction and you didn’t really mean it.
Jane-
We are both. That’s the beauty of how it’s worked since before we were alive.
Charlie – This is your quote: “have a binding ballot question specifically in Ward 2 that allows folks to be even clearer about their thoughts about what the city has planned for their village.”
That’s a clear indication that you think we’re 13 separate villages as opposed to one city. If villages can have binding ballot questions, then what binds us together as one city?
Binding ballet question for Ward 2 only? So the folks who live in Ward 3 a block away don’t get a say?
Hmmm…how about when the Ward that has the recycling center decides it wants a binding ballet question on closing the center?
…or when Wards that border our neighboring communities decide those areas are a better fit?
…or when the Ward hosting the Carr School (Ward 3 or ward 2) decides that they want to close the Carr School to outside wards?
…or when a ward votes to install traffic lights/calming on a street between wards?
…or when a ward votes to require no teardowns in their ward?
…etc, etc, etc.
Disregarding the fact that I don’t think our charter would allow it, a ward only vote for anything but a ward representative is a bad idea. Sounds good on a blog, though. What makes Ward 2 care more about Austin Street than Ward 3? How will you stop other wards from disrupting city services or asking for other ward only votes.
The only village we allow to act as its own fiefdom is the grand old Kingdom of Waban. 😉 (I’m kidding, I’m kidding)
Charlie I live in Newtoville very close to the Austin Street site and I support the project 100% many of the Ward 2 residents who oppose the project don’t live near the center. Believe me the businesses that would make the decision to move out would be making a huge mistake other businesses will move in and take advantage of the increased vibrancy created by this great proposal. No one village should have right to make decision that has city wide benefits. This issue has become a political volley ball that corrupts the decision making process. Is everyone for getting that Newtonville survived and thrived after the years long construction of the Turnpike.
Charlie I have supported and voted for you in the past but your post on this issue makes me believe that you would not be a productive member of the Charter Review Commission.
Sorry to hear that, Howard.
You still have one of my votes because I look at things from a broad perspective and never allow myself to judge someone on just a few disagreements in specific policy items.
I think you’d be a valuable member with lots to contribute to the process.
Charlie, I appreciate your graciousness considering my criticism I hope the Newton voters agree with you regarding my candidacy.
Charlie – I’m not a lawyer (and I hope one will weigh in on this) but what you’ve proposed most likely isn’t in keeping with Massachusetts state law.
To get on a blog and propose what might be a politically popular position to a small segment of the city without first checking out whether it’s a legal option is a concern. Did you check out your proposal with a lawyer before suggesting it?
Jane- please go back and re-read the context. Thanks.
I lived in Newton Corner for 22 years.
But I always went to the ATM in Newtonville because it was safe at night and there was parking.
I always went to the CVS in Newtonville because parking was easy.
Then Aji turned up and we switched from New Ginza to Aji, because it was a great sushi place and the parking and traffic was easier.
Then Rox Diner opened up and we started to go there because it was good value and the parking was easy.
In all of this the crucial factor was easy parking.
So for my money, making the parking lot more attractive and maybe expanding the business customer areas towards the back to open out on a really attractive parking area with flowers, trees shrubs, grass etc would be a simple way to go.
I miss the Asian Market but that means to me that we could do with a few more businesses coming in to make the Newtonville village even more attractive.
I don’t get anything better if there are residential apartments added, except the parking will get worse.
If Newton could keep things simple and just make Newtonville village more attractive for current residents and businesses, that would be great.
Most people who drive in to Newtonville care more about parking than adding some minute amount of residential housing.
Village focus should be on drawing in the people who don’t live there, with great businesses and an attractive locale.
We don’t drive to the mall because it has affordable housing.
We drive to the mall, because it has nicely integrated businesses that serve us and that includes good eats. We should be driving to Newtonville for the same reasons and as it gets better great parking will only grow in importance.
Newtonville has grown organically without government stepping in to jigger up an ‘improvement’ no-one wants.
And, Marti, I don’t have a group and I’m not constantly saying much at all. So you will have to retire that set of hallucinations.
And you and your group ARE in the business of telling the rest of us what is best for us and to simply suck it up. Like the alderman who recently told an acquaintance of mine to stop discussing Austin St in the public arena. Shut up and suck it up.
If there were anything like a sound approach to development in Newton, we would not have such a ruckus every time the city starts jiggering up another scheme.
We have built an impressive portfolio of poor projects, from Newton North to mega Zervas, and Austin St would add to the serial mediocrity served up by the rein holders, whose reign needs to come to an end.
If real input was taken from the community and that means decent digital surveys, things would be very different!
Charlie – You suggested a “binding ballot” for one ward. Perhaps you need to be define the term as you used it within this context.
Hi Geoff,
Does the council person who told your acquaintenance to shut up and suck it up, have competition in November? If so, I think it’s only fair we should know his or her name. Please let us know.
Geoff,
I understand that you liked to drive to Newtonville. And it’s great, I’m sure the businesses appreciated it. And the proposal for the current site maintains the parking, that isn’t going anywhere.
But what makes an area attractive is the ability to walk. People get out of their cars and walk from store to store. This city has places that are car centric, but I’m not of the believe that our villages should be as well, they should be pedestrian friendly. The car-centric building in Chestnut Hill has been great for attracting big brands, but not as good at encouraging small business. There are exceptions, but for the most part our locally-owned stores and restaurants tend to cluster in the villages.
Also, while your personal experience is through a car, mine is not. My son bikes to school at Newton North and is often seen walking or biking through Newtonville. On days that it’s too cold to ride, he takes a city bus that leaves him off on Washington Street and he, like many other students, walk through town. I tend to go to Newtonville by bike. In addition, it has the potential to be much more pedestrian friendly with the inclusion of housing.
Then people can still go the shops, only they’re even more convenient than having to drive.
Not too long ago, I was staring at a wonderful old photograph of Newtonville at Newtonville Books (late of Newtonville, now of Newton Centre) marveling at the vibrant streetscape of years past. I was thinking how wonderful it would be if Newtonville again had that hustle and bustle of a really thriving business community.
Yet, I can’t connect that image to the present day Newtonville where I have, over the past 2o years, seen more businesses start and fail than succeed. I understand that the thinking is that more commercial space will attract more customers. It seems to me, however, that more has to actually mean *different* and not simply more nail salons, hair salons, or take out food. That something more has to mean really nice anchor stores that attract people. Sounds great to me, but I have to ask: what is the likelihood of attracting a Talbots, a Gap or an American Apparel to Austin Street? What is the attraction for that tenant to commit to that commercial space? Frankly, I feel like this is one genie that will not go back into the bottle; the ship has sailed and there’s little chance that this project will not be developed. Yet, I do fear that in the end we will be left with empty commercial space simply spread out over a larger area.
Lisap – I have the same memories of Newtonville that you do and agree that a variety of stores in any village makes it more of a draw. Maybe a different kind of anchor store is the key to success. When I think of other villages, they do have an anchor store of sorts plus a variety of other interesting shops.
Nonantum is the one I often refer to: the hardware store is the anchor, but since I’m there, I might as well stop into The Antique Shop (a gem), pick up some fish for dinner from Steamers, and how can you pass Antoine’s without stopping for a treat?
What attracts (and keeps) stores, especially anchor stores, is traffic. If you have a large artery, like Route 9 or Route 128, you can build a car-focused retail environment like that in Chestnut Hill or Dedham. But Newtonville doesn’t have that. Yes, it has Washington Street, but that is not the major automotive artery that Route 9 is.
I don’t know of anyone who suggest that Newtonville the kind of place that we see in Legacy Place or in the various Chestnut Hill shopping centers, which means it needs to think different. The nature of Newtonville is pedestrian-focused, that’s how the infrastructure is built. And by infrastructure I don’t just mean the buildings, but also the feeder roads and transit options.
With all that in mind, it would make sense to increase the density to continue to build on the foot traffic and character of the village. That doesn’t mean eliminating parking and it doesn’t mean overbuilding. It means a building that makes the existing plot of land more usable, brings revenue to the city, brings people to the village and encourages more “life” in the area.
This proposal does all of that. I’ve not yet heard anything from the opposition that resembles a vision. So far I’ve only heard things like:
Make it a park;
Leave it as an asphalt parking lot; and
I like driving to Newtonville.
These aren’t visions for the village and aren’t going to help the local businesses there to grow in the future. If we do nothing, then businesses will continue to struggle and we’ll just have more banks and nail salons. If that’s your vision for the village then great, stand by it.
But if you want something more, then it’s time to support this development.
Yes, Lisap I missed Newtonville Books when it moved to Newton Centre. When it was in Newtonville I used to drop in there each time I was around for other business. It was an interesting asset. Once it moved to Newton Centre I never went there again.
Village centers are organic growing entities and the shops there, the appeal of the setting and its accessibility are the key features.
Having a bunch more apartments close by adds nothing for the people who actually make the village viable. Its great for the few living there but of no consequence for the many.
Building apartments has nothing to do with improving the village.
It has everything to do with a city wide housing policy which is being implementing without ever having had real community input.
Land in a village is precious and it should be used for great businesses, transportation to ensure people can conveniently get to the village and for beautifying the locale.
Using village land for housing is wasting a precious resource.
And, Chuck, I also love to walk and probably do about 10,000 steps a days, many of which are done after driving somewhere in my car. Most people walking around in Newtonville will have driven there. If the businesses had to depend only on those who lived within walking distance, they would die.
Access by car is critical because convenient, safe parking is an enormous draw.
Geoff,
I’m very confused how you can espouse the idea that people living in the village doesn’t help the village. On the one hand you’re pointing to “organic growth” but then you say that the growth comes from people driving there. Yet, when people drive they want convenience, which is why car-based development is on major arteries. Newtonville doesn’t have that.
If people are living in the village they’re using the village. Maybe not all the time, but more than if they’re not there.
You continue to say that parking is important, yet Newtonville Books is now located adjacent to a massive parking lot. Why doesn’t that attract you to Newton Centre? You liked the shop in Newtonville, it’s now even easier to park, but you don’t go. Why is that?
I don’t understand how the plan at Austin St makes parking harder, except that more residents might mean it’s busier- what I might call a “good problem.” As Chuck points out, we are not losing any public spaces (except during construction, a short-term issue that needs to be addressed of course).
I wouldn’t overstate the number of people who bike and walk to Newtonville vs those who drive there (I drive more myself), but I do believe that some density in a village center is not inherently evil, especially as it is not taking green space.
I know we have wandered a bit from the financial dealing topic of this post now, and remain curious as to how those numbers add up (per the questions I posed above).
Doug, if you had been able to attend yesterday’s site visit, you would have heard the aldermen’s discussion that the new parking lot can not be seen from either Austin Street nor Walnut Street thus making it harder for customers to decide if they will find an open parking spot prior to getting into the parking lot traffic. Also the parking lot spaces currently near the Goodwill truck will not offer a loop nor a second exit. These two factors make those spots much more difficult to navigate and use.
The aldermen were also very concerned about the new entrance / exit near the Star Market. It will be narrower and covered (similar to the exit from the Star Market bundle pickup). The aldermen were concerned about blindspots in relation to the pedestrians. Also some of the public spots are right at that entrance / exit causing blockage for moving vehicles that would back up onto Austin Street. The cars entering the covered entrance will be transitioning from sunshine to a darker garage, which could cause poorer visibility and potential fender benders with cars trying to back out of their parking spots in their attempt to exit.
Also the customers using the parking lot will now need to interact with the retail stores trash and delivery trucks (unless all those added trucks will be parked on Austin Street, which would create a different traffic problem). And lets not forget the big moving trucks and residential trash trucks that will now be in the parking lot moving the residents in and out of the apartments. These are all new, added volume trucks using the parking lot as the path to their business destinations.
I believe others can also help you understand other factors that will make parking harder with this proposed development.
All fair issues to be addressed, but I was merely referring to the fact that the petition focused on objections to short-term, temporary disruptions- also a fair concern, but not a reason to stop the project altogether.
Doug, I apologize for my slow response; I have been busy. You commented the parking might be harder because more residents may cause a “good problem”. That led me to interpret your comment as dealing with the long term issues, not just the construction period.
Another aspect that I heard being discussed within the crowd during the site visit, that could make the parking experience harder, is that the individual spots will be reduced 6 inches in width from the current 9 feet to 8.5 feet. Maybe someone can confirm or clarify whether this is true. If it is true, it will make parking harder in a couple of ways. Drivers with weaker driving skills will struggle more to fit their vehicles into the spots without bumping the neighboring vehicles. I wonder what the insurance companies will say about the potential increased claims. Also people, who are less agile (older and/or infirmed) and/or more obese, will have a harder time entering / existing their vehicles when the neighboring spots are occupied.
You offered the comparative of “hard” in your question so I will let individuals more knowledgeable of the details speak to just how much harder any of these factors will make the future parking experience be if the lot is constructed as currently proposed.
I believe that 8.5 feet is the average size of a parking space in the US. 9 feet wide is considered large.
Chuck, you statement seems to be correct, yet possibly misleading. You state the average is 8.5 feet.
I am not the most adept internet researcher so I could not find the regulations for MA parking spots. I did find some information for places in CT. Your assessment is correct if there is a 50/50 split between standard size parking spots and compact size spots since. At least in CT the standard size width is 9.0 feet and compact size width is 8.0 feet. In CT only 1/3 of the spots can be compact size spots so that would raise the average. More standard size spots make sense since there is a growing number of SUVs and other oversized vehicles being used by shoppers in our villages’ retail districts based on my weekly observations over the last 10 years.
Maybe MA has different regulations. Maybe some of the spots in N’ville are compact and some are standard size already. Maybe I measured wrong when I checked a few spots last Wednesday. Maybe the developers have already figured out the best solution for the users of their proposed new lot.
Chuck, good news; bad news. The good news is that I have been able to find more specific information impacting the ASP parking lot issue. The bad news is that it does not support your position.
Bad news; according to the Newton zoning ordinance for parking facilities with over 5 spaces, Newton requires the spaces to have a width of “at least 9 feet” (page 92: Design of parking facilities >5 cars; 30-19 -h-(2)-(a)). There does not even appear to be an allowance for compact cars spots having a narrower width. While in the US, 9 feet may considered “large”, in Newton it is consider “required” (actually the verbiage states “shall be”, which I interpret as required).
More bad news: according to the current ASP proposal, they are suggesting 32 spots of 8 feet width (and varying lengths) and 95 spots of 8.5 feet width (again, with varying lengths). I did the math. The average proposed width for ASP spaces will be 8 feet 4.5 inches. (I will need to lose some more weight and aim my car a little better.)
More bad news: it appears none (as in zero) of the currently proposed spaces satisfy the at least 9 foot width requirement. I expect that topic will be addressed at the upcoming meeting.
Good news: today appears to be a beautiful autumn day.
Thanks for the info, Patrick.
Another issue brought up about the parking spaces is that the handicapped labeled spaces near the entrance from Bram Way are not accessible if approaching the lot via Highlnd.