Here’s the results of a survey from close to 200 respondents conducted by the Newton-Needham Chamber.
Here’s a link to a letter to aldermen signed by 34 Newtonville business.
And here’s a letter to aldermen in response to the Newtonville letter from one business owner.
Dear 34 Newtonville businesses,
If you care about the future of the your business and the city (not to mention the planet), you need to figure out how to shift your model to become less car-dependent.
Sincerely,
Sean
Is this the V14 Sean or a new Sean? If it’s the V14 Sean, welcome back. If it’s a new Sean, welcome to V14.
@Jane: That is V14 co-founder Sean, who last commented on Nov. 11 of 2014 (not that anyone is counting). Welcome back Sean.
Sean,
Isn’t that for city / MBTA to figure out?
Very interesting how this thread includes 2 pro-development items and buries the local business owners’ staunch anti-project stance in the middle. 🙂 That’s how the pros do it!
The key here is to look at the stakeholders that are physically closest to the proposed project and see what they are saying.
It appears the petition from the 34 businesses is focused on the short-term issue of parking availability during construction. I agree that should be addressed somehow, but I don’t see how that should be a dealbreaker, or why would we do any construction at all? We are having our gutter repairs, and while it meant driveway access was temporarily impaired, that did not mean we shouldn’t repair the gutters to improve the house.
Charlie, you know as well as I do that the way the questions were asked matters here. I saw the questions in the Chamber survey and they were neutral (it would be great if those were shared here as well).
I don’t know how the questions were asked of the businesses. When they were asked in a neutral way by the city, local businesses showed support (http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/10/gifford-newton-is-getting-a-fair-financial-deal-on-austin-street/#comment-61191). When asked by opponents, they came out against it.
That tells me that the questions affected the results. If a person is standing in front of me saying “the project may put you out of business, will you sign this to block it?” then my answer is different than someone saying “this is going to bring new people to the neighborhood, are you for or against?”
Neither one is neutral, they will both produce different results. It also matters who is asking the question. Is it a local leader? Or a random person they’ve never met.
The developer and the City are working hard to address the issue of parking during construction. The local merchants have all been asked for input and should, therefore, know that equitable plans are in the works. If they do not know this, it simply means that they are so busy saying “no no no” that they aren’t paying attention to those attempting to find solutions rather than problems.
If their low level of preparedness and their inability to answer the aldermen’s questions yesterday at the Austin Street site meeting is an example of the developers “working hard”, then I question how much effort they are expending addressing the issue of parking during the construction period. The best we can expect would be a 2D diagram of temporary parking spaces that is barely associated with reality.
@Chuck- I absolutely agree it matters how things are asked. Perhaps a public meeting where it’s completely transparent would be helpful…as long as there’s a genuine open mindedness by all sides to be responsive to the results.
Interesting discussion these past few days. Looking forward to jumping in when time allows. For now…
@Charlie: We all know that the people who attend public meetings tend to be those most passionate on either side. Suggesting another event would provide a clear ability to judge consensus one way or another is a pipe dream. But that’s why we have elected representatives. I doubt any of our aldermen will tell us they are suffering from a lack of input on this project.
Patrick, some details about what upset you would be appreciated, as without those details it is hard for the rest of us to evaluate the development team. Not everyone could make the event.
Charlie, I think the issue with public meetings I’ve been to is that the opponent side has had a few very loud and very upset folks there. But from my experience they’ve certainly had ample opportunity to be heard. Plus, the developer did a fair amount to address their concerns. One less floor, a bunch fewer units, less commercial, more parking, same price. You might not feel that is enough, but those are all direct hits to the developer’s bottom line. When one party says “NO DEVELOPMENT EVER” and anchors on that concept, it is isn’t really a discussion, it is a chance to be berated.
To get back to the original context, I’m pretty surrpised at some of the names on the business list. But we need to put everything in context as usual. First of all, how many total businesses are there in Newtonville. By my rough count, we are talking more than 90 (Yep, go count, it is a LOT, once you include Washington Street and the side streets, which many of the signors of the petition are from.). So one third of the businesses don’t support the project. I wonder how many are more eager to support it once they hear about business concessions to loss of parking during construction, the city’s parking plan, etc.
I was surprised by a few of the names. Several of the recent businesses opened knowing about the project, and several others I’m sure told the zoning side of things that they didn’t need to meet parking requirements due to foot traffic, etc. I didn’t realize that the folks from Rox and Brewer’s coalition were against the project, I’ll need to ask them about that the next time I’m eating there.
All that said, I do want to take these businesses concerns seriously, and I’m hoping someone from the city or the developer reaches out to them to ask them what can be done to help.
The parking presentation was confusing. I thought it was settled, in the proposal, that there would be 127 public parking spaces and underground designated resident spaces. Now they are talking about 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, when others say Star hasn’t made a decision for use during construction.
As for the mitigation plan, this includes the working group has proposed so far. Attachment A http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/69102
Includes Austin St being one way creating 13 parking spaces. Bram Way being one way to create 3 spaces. A shuttle from Aquinas for employees, construction workers, etc. which many said wouldn’t work. Star Market lot.
What about ASP’s stated plan to provide partial parking on the construction site ? Is that still in the cards?
All we know from the Chamber survey is that 200 businesses responded to an email survey. We don’t know the questions or the multiple choices available. Not only are surveys biased by how they are written, but the statistics are used to support that bias.
For example, of chamber members who responded (#?) it says 57% support approval of the special permit, but breaks down the other replies so that only 18% oppose it. But there were actually 44% who either wanted it rejected, wanted the proposal modified further or were undecided.
(57% support, 44% modify, reject, don’t know)
It says support among overall respondents (200) outnumbered opposition by 2 to 1, with 47% supporting and 21% not supporting. But with the additional responses representing 32%, then it’s actually 53% who either want it rejected, want the proposal modified further or were undecided.
(47% support, 53% modify, reject, don’t know)
With the questions concerning the reduction in retail or housing units, we don’t know all of the choices available.
The stats given say for lost retail:
33% didn’t want the retail reduced, 34% say it’s an improvement or it’s still not reduced enough. But 33% chose another option that we don’t know.
The stats for lost housing units:
26% didn’t want the housing reduced, 45% chose it is an improvement or it is not enough of a reduction. But 29% chose another option that we don’t know.
These stats don’t automatically lead to this conclusion: “Generally speaking, business owners in our market see this mixed-use transit oriented project as a way to bring more customers to our local restaurants and retailers and to provide needed rental units for employees,” Reibman said.
Here’s the survey responses from all businesses.
Greg, how were the businesses selected? Local to Newtonville? Newton/Needham?
@Fig: The survey was sent to Newton-Needham Chamber members as well as other business owners and recent attendees at Chamber-sponsored programs and events over the past three years.
Thanks for posting the pdf of the survey responses from the businesses.
Lots to discuss but the thing that absolutely leaped out for me was the 24 people that thought reducing the structure from 5 to 4 stories made the building “not tall enough.”
sheesh….Either they wanted the other story for further apartments or retail space Or
they’re desirous of a building tall enough for an observation deck similar to the Prudential Building so we can walk in 360 degrees, soaking in the beauty that is the Mass Pike.
@fig– “One less floor, a bunch fewer units, less commercial, more parking, same price. You might not feel that is enough, but those are all direct hits to the developer’s bottom line.”
Not necessarily, fig. I contend that the developer is not dedicating enough affordable units. So that bunch of fewer units does effect the developer’s bottom line, but not in the way you suggest. Fewer affordable units = more profit.
But let me ask you a question. This developer received a substantial discount from the city. He also gets 5000 sf of retail space. But despite the reduced price and the addition of all that retail space, this proposed project offers no more affordable units than a traditional 40B. In your opinion, does that constitute a good deal for the city?
We still don’t know how many of the overall respondents were members of the chamber. The results are further complicated because any number of respondents might not live in Newton. It seems irrelevant what those businesses outside of Newton think about these particular, detailed questions, specific only to the project proposed in Newtonville. It was not a survey covering the business climate about retail and housing in the region. The selection of businesses emailed the survey and the anonymity of the business locations of the respondents (are they stakeholders?) has lead to very misleading results in the article.
Do you know where the respondents businesses were located?
It seems both sides of this discussion are using quite biased, misleading methods.
Mike, I think you misunderstood my point. The affordable units went down, but by a percentage of the whole. So yes there are 2 or 3 less affordable units, but statistically more market rate units were removed. Everything else was constant, so of course the developer is making less money. For you to say that the developer’s recent concessions actually save them money doesn’t make any sense.
And to answer your question, you need to look at what else the developer is throwing into the pot, namely the full parking lot, public space, etc. In a typical 40B, we wouldn’t be getting a parking lot or any of the other items. As for the price of the lot, as undeveloper real estate I’m sure it would be worth far more than 1 million. But the city didn’t market it as undeveloped real estate. The city put out an RFP that limited height, units, mandated affordability, required the parking lot, etc. Every one of those requests lowers the FMV of the parking lot on the open market. There is a reason why 4 out of 5 had market values of $1,000,000 or less. They didn’t collude, there were limits to the value due to the requirements of the RFP.
Look, I’m also sure the developer is making a hefty profit. Of course they are. Why would anyone want to put themselves through this abuse if there wasn’t a good reason….
@fig– I understood your initial point. I was just trying to get you to look at it from another perspective. A business perspective.
But you didn’t really answer my question about whether you think this is a good deal for the city, based on the discounted price and the 5000 sf of retail space. You took the same approach Gifford did in his TAB commentary by pointing out what “the developer is throwing into the pot.” I’ll tell you what he’s NOT throwing into the pot… The six additional affordable units that would be a fair tradeoff for a discounted property price and additional retail space.
“Generally speaking, business owners in our market see this mixed-use transit oriented project as a way to bring more customers to our local restaurants and retailers and to provide needed rental units for employees,” Reibman said.
Greg, what is the wording of the survey question on which your statement is based?
Greg, thanks for doing the survey and more importantly, sharing the raw data. There are many unwilling to do that.
My main questions/concerns are with the participants. Assuming its an anonymous survey, I gather we don’t know how many respondents were from Needham vs Newton. But possibly a more interesting take on this is what to businesses outside of Newtonville have to gain from development. Let me frame it this way – if consumers can’t park in Newtonville for a year, that doesn’t mean they won’t stop shopping/eating, they’ll just go somewhere else. If you put Newtonville businesses at a competitive disadvantage, by definition you are giving other businesses an advantage.
Regarding Mr. Sussman’s letter, while he is fully entitle to his opinion, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He is a single employee, non-profit consultant. As such, he doesn’t rely on customers who are walking around. As a consultant, most of his meetings are probably at the client site and if not, they are coming for a very specific non-retail visit. As such, I don’t think construction will impact him one way or the other as a business. As a resident, I respect his opinion and what he envisions gaining from it.
Mike, the city set the business deal on the affordable units in the initial RFP. There was a minimum percentage required. The only ones who exceeded that percentage from my recollection were the ones relying on outside funding from the state/federal govt which may not have ever materialized.
And I’m already on the record agreeing with you that I think the city could have squeezed out an extra affordable unit or two, or more concessions from the developer. But six would have been a stretch I think. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good deal for the city, just that is isn’t the best deal. The best deal rarely materializes.
I look at Columbus Center in Boston as a good comparison. The local neighborhood held out for more and more concessions, delayed the project so much that construction costs skyrocketed, and the entire project went away. What was better, finally building over the Pike, or holding out for the “best” deal? I’m sure the Pike will get built on in Boston. 20 years from now it will all be filled in. But that is a long time to wait.
Same with us. Something will eventually happen with the Austin Street lot. Some folks think a best deal exists and that we should delay until we get it. I think that good now is better than perfect later. Just two different perspectives.
Look, you and I have no financial state in this. My personal goal is get a revitalized village center out of this and some affordable housing. Nothing in real estate development is perfect.
And Jeffrey, didnt’ Greg post the source questions early in the thread. About 9 posts up. I thought most of them were fairly worded, although granted you and I might not agree on that.
Fig– We both know deals are seldom perfect. And if the argument were truly between taking the “good” deal now vs. hoping for some “perfect” deal later, then I would completely agree with you. But because this Austin Street proposal is subsidized by a reduced price for the land–and includes 5000 sf of retail space, the low percentage of affordable units makes it a bad deal for Newton. I believe the discounted price of the land is worth 4 more affordable units. I believe the retail space is worth 2 affordable units. So if this project included 6 more affordable units, then I would agree it was a “good” deal. In my opinion, the choice is really between accepting a bad deal now, or renegotiating for a good deal.
Fignewtonville, thanks. I did not see the survey. After reading it, I understand why Greg did not answer the question.
Greg says, “business owners in our market see this… project as a way to bring more customers to our local restaurants and retailers and to provide needed rental units for employees.”
The survey does not ask, “Do you think this project will bring more customers to our local restaurants and retailers?” or “Do you think this project will bring needed (“needed” is Greg’s interjected opinion) rental units for employees?”
Greg is using the survey to reinforce his own opinions.
Here is another interpretation of the survey–most of the businesses surveyed are not in the Austin Street neighborhood. The surveyed businesses are competitors with Austin Street businesses, and they think they will profit from customers fleeing from Austin Street. Do I believe my explanation? Not really, but I think it is better than Greg’s gymnastics.
Contrary to the blog title, businesses don’t feel. People feel.
Greg did not ask businesses to fill out the survey. People did. Most people don’t live or work close to Austin Street and they don’t really care about Austin Street. As such, they tend to give civic leaders the benefit of the doubt.
Marti. Sorry for saying what you already said, but not as well! Sorry to everyone for writing before reading.
In reading the various comments I’ve seen a growing separation between the “neighborhood” and the greater city of Newton. This is not unique to Newton, but it is an interesting concept to explore and that is: where do the desires of the local community converge and diverge with the needs of the city as a whole?
We now have information that looks at the greater need to the broader city of Newton and the local desire, from the local retailers. Steve’s comments about the short-term impact are valid. We know there will be some disruption, the question will be “how much?” Will it put businesses under stress? Possibly.
While businesses look at the short term (12 to 24 months) the city must look at the long-term (10 to 20 years). The reality is that any business can leave Newton (or move from one village to another, as Newtonville Books did). But the city can’t leave the city. What happens here stays here, and what doesn’t happen could impede growth.
It sounds like the real question here is: how do we balance the short-term needs of the local businesses to ensure their survival so we achieve long-term growth in the city?
I share these concerns stated above…
The letter to the BOA is signed by 34 Newtonville business owners. Chuck suggests it is the result if a survey. Was it a survey with questions whose answers were summarized and culminated in this letter? Or were copies of the actual letter shown to business owners who then knew what they were signing? It is difficult to tell from the link what was on the paper with the actual signatures.
How many businesses were approached for signatures? Did the ones who didn’t sign disagree or were they not approached?
Even if they were given the actual letter, they would see statistics that I’m assuming would be presented without verification and statements without confirmation (scare tactics) that convinced them to sign. Without expending effort I don’t know if the 68 units would be “less than 2% increase of those within walkable range” or that “the project’s long term disincentive to the vast majority of our loyal customers dwarfs any minor increase in customers …”
It does need to be discerned what these business owners actually think about the project instead of just tossing it aside as happened at the hearing. It’s also wrong to just assume, as Native Newtonian did, that business owners who are concerned about the disruption during the construction period are just not paying attention to the work being done. It is a valid concern surrounded by much confusion at this point.
Did 34 businesses close to the project, stakeholders, know they were asking the BOA to “vote down this project?” If so, I’m surprised at some of the signatures, as Fig said, and am checking in with a few today, including some names whose businesses I am surprised think they would be affected one way or another. Maybe they just want to support those who would.
Why am I not suprised the survey results show this? Newton Chamber of Commerce is always pro business, anti resident. We saw this on another issue, the leaf blowers. Yeah, Chamber of Commerce says rev them up full volume like airplane jet engine, no need to regulate, who cares what Newton residents think?
They also have newton tab in their pocket. Often front page. So much for independent news papers.
@Jeffrey-
I agree. It appears to be a “push’ survey constructed to be self serving.
But the larger question still remains…our schools are overcrowded and we just keep building and building and building… trying to pass more and more overrides…and are forcing out those who have been here for years and can least afford to stay. All in the name of bringing more people in. It’s entirely backwards thinking and disloyal to our current residents.
I don’t draw the same conclusion as Chuck does, after reading the comments. I quickly skimmed them just now and don’t see any comments that pit Newtonville (neighborhood) against the city of Newton.
There are discussions of the financial aspects of the deal made between ASP and Newton, discussions about biased surveys/letters and conclusions drawn, comments about including Needham businesses in a survey, etc.
I don’t think businesses in Newtonville are being short sighted and stakeholders are normally the ones consulted in any project. I’m surprised that Chuck questions the validity of the concerns, particularly from the entrepreneurial businesses, about surviving more than a year of lost parking. Without a good mitigation package they will lose business and with the exorbitant rent charged by the building owners, very likely will have to close. That is a city of Newton concern that has not been accomplished at this point.
How do we balance the long-term needs of all of our current, local (Newton) businesses to ensure their survival with the long-term growth of the city (Newton) is a much better question.
Charlie, can you answer the questions about the letter signed by the 34 business owners?
I’m not feeling the Newtonville vs rest of the city bit – the entire city has a stake in this, I don’t know if anybody is successfully pitting the village vs the rest(?)
As for the local businesses, I wouldn’t go so far as to characterize them as short-sighted, but the letter signed by the 34 is purely about short-term effects, and I don’t interpret it as anything more than that. If the businesses are saying “scrap the whole thing because of short-term disruption”, then sure that’s short-sighted, but are they really saying that? Are there any of those business owners lurking here who would like to comment on the letter and what they would like to come of it?
@Marti-
The only thing I know about it is that 34 business owners chose to go out on a limb and publicly state their opposition , and it’s a public document that was sent to the BOA. I did no research on it other than to read it.
But again… as important as the business owners objections are, and the objections by large numbers of village residents have been…I would refer you to the earlier post at 1137am for the deeper concern.
“the letter is purely about short term effects ..” I don’t know how much weight to give this letter but that statement is clearly not true. There is a paragraph about the short term effects but how can it be “purely” about them when a previous paragraph is totally about after the project is completed?
The 68 units would be “less than 2% increase of those within walkable range” and that “the project’s long term disincentive to the vast majority of our loyal customers dwarfs any minor increase in customers …”
I agree we need to know what they are actually saying.
Just to clarify, I’m not trying to dismiss the business concerns as ONLY short term. The short term is very important to their long-term health. If they can’t survive there is no long term. I’m just trying to point out that the decision factors are different depending upon perspective.
And @Dough, what I read in some comments (including from Charlie and others) is that the local concerns trump the greater concerns around the city. By asking for a binding local (Ward 2) resolution, that’s exactly what people were saying.
No single building is going to add tremendously to the number of people in any situation (remember, the number of units here was reduced), but over the long-term by taking on projects, we could have a much bigger impact on the walkability of Newtonville and of other villages too. The Orr property is next and I expect we’ll have a similar debate. I’m sure we’ll have this again when another property comes up in another part of the city.
I would say that the building going up on a formerly vacant lot in W. Newton is notable for the lack of concern I’ve heard here. I’m eager to see what happens to the streetscape there once that’s complete.
All those extra people on the sidewalks will negatively impact the village’s walkability.
Sorry, I needed an outlet for my need to mark last week’s passing of Yogi Berra.
Marti, I re-read the letter and see the long-term references more clearly. I must have interpreted and decided to see the short-term concerns as a more sensible (but solvable) complaint than the perceived long-term loss of parking that according to the plan won’t happen. So that brings me back to not understanding the line of the letter at all. The public parking isn’t going away.
@Chuck-
I think the word binding was too strong. I did not mean legally binding.
My point was and is that the immediate village stakeholders input should be given substantial (if not primary) weight in decision-making. That doesn’t mean total…but it should clearly be more than lip service.
@Chuck, I think you’re absolutely correct that if these businesses can’t survive during the short-term construction period, there is no long-term for them. I looked over the Memorandum “Attachment A” and have a better sense of the apprehension expressed by the 34 business owners. Star has not committed to providing 20 parking spaces. Perhaps they will, perhaps they will not. I did notice a large sign in their parking lot warning that they will tow cars not there to patronize the market, so I wouldn’t count on their largesse. Other than Bram and Austin St. (13 spaces) most of the spaces identified in the memo (Elm Rd., Senior Center, Lowell Ave.) are limited to nights and weekends. I don’t view the Aquinas lot as a viable solution because I don’t believe patrons will take a shuttle to Newtonville. Honestly, if I can’t get a parking spot I’m going to keep on going.
I confess, I don’t know how many patrons arrive in Newtonville by car versus by foot or bike. I do believe that these businesses understand their profit margin, their monthly bottom line and can anticipate how much reduction of income they can tolerate before going under.
I will also add that presently I am somewhat agnostic about this project. I agree that the parking lot is an ugly eye sore, and that Newtonville needs a shot of revitalization. I just hope that the cure doesn’t kill 34 patients.
I admit that the 34 signors have given me some degree of pause. One of them made me happy. Does Bread and Chocolate signing mean they are coming back to Newtonville? If so, best news today! Love those guys.
Short term parking is a major concern. My take is that I would move ALL of the commuter parking down one block on washington street, which is now usually empty during the day (the commuter rail exits onto walnut and harvard, so no need to park so close to walnut. That will gain you 20 or so spaces on the washington side. Also, I’d explore more parking on the side streets and Lowell. I’d definitely ask Shaw’s for the spots, even if you need to rent them or put temporary meters at those spots (which you will, since otherwise commuters will take them). Shaw’s also has a lot behing their store, perhaps that can be used. Make certain streets one way is an excellent idea as well. Signage would be important. The city/developer can also make some degree of mitigation payments, as well as pay for a discount or advertising program to spur sales.
Frankly, on nights and weekend couldn’t folks park in the Newton high school parking lot. that is one block away and empty every night… Same distance to Rox and Brewer’s coalition.
I’ll also note that many of the business who signed have their own parking lots. In which their employees park. You could arrange for employee parking on Lowell instead (or some other local).
I’m also surprised that some of the very vocal opponents of the project didn’t sign the letter. Is a second letter coming out?
If nothing else, the letter forms a useful group of names for the city to approach to figure out what they need to make this work. I hope the city does that. Or the developer does that.
Jeffrey/Charlie, while I limit the value of Greg’s survey due to the audience outside of Newton, I can’t see how it is a push poll. The only example of that is the time where it says that the 127 spaces are equal to the public spaces not available.
Anyway, frankly I think all of these petitions/surveys are somewhat limited in value unless conducted by a true third party entity. Interesting to read, but I hope the city makes its decision on the merits and the long term good of the community, and uses these surveys/reports/editorials/letters are just a small part of the greater whole.
Mike:
This is a bit of an academic exercise, but I think we might be able to figure out which of us is closer to reality. The Orr building complex that is being proposed on Washington Street is going to be a 40B, correct? That was market rate acquisition, with MAJOR commercial space. It shouldn’t be too hard to compare the costs paid for the land/buildings there with our project, and back out the incentives/money given to the city, and multiply it by an agreed upon ratio for a comparision of the different sizes of the project. It would be an interesting data point. If you are interested in doing that at some point once more of the information becomes available on Orr, let me know.
The Mini-Austin Street
Chuck writes:
“I would say that the building going up on a formerly vacant lot in W. Newton is notable for the lack of concern I’ve heard here. I’m eager to see what happens to the streetscape there once that’s complete.”
Coincidentally, I was planning on writing about this for awhile now and just sat back down after a visit there moments ago.
As Chuck has astutely referenced, on Elm Street in West Newton is what I call a ‘mini Austin Street’ being built, matching the building next to it for height of 3 stories. The plan is to have retail stores on the first floor and apartments above.
*This makes the block look very Brookline-like and is not a village setting in the least.
In answer to Chuck, there has been real concern about this for months as the construction as worn on but it has been flying under the Austin St radar.
As I’ve said for over a year to my neighbor Ted H-M who championed this project, there is NO parking in the lot now, never mind when this is completed. Plus, because of the construction crews also parking on side streets and heavy equipment blocking access to the road often times, it is a free for all in a free fall.
– The restaurant, Paddy’s is popular (bless them) but they take up all the spaces now. ALSO, FOR SOME REASON, there are NINE (9) police cars taking up 9 or more spaces in a row. (10/9 1:30 PM)
– Went into a business. This business was EMPTY and the staff assistant told me they have had hardly any customers today and have watched it dwindle for weeks. One of the few customers that did come in TOLD her that the parking was horrible and that if they had to circle the block one more time, they were going home.
I myself had to drive around for 10 minutes and go up and over the turnpike and circle back.
– Another business said the dust and debris is killing them and their business.
– Six months ago, I gave up going to our favorite Chinese Food place in the Square. There was NEVER parking literally 8 times out of 10. We go to Waltham now and park in a big lot.
– One fellow said to me that he didn’t feel the construction would be bringing in new customers.
(Side note: People are telling me these things unbidden, I don’t bring this up first so it’s obviously in the front of their minds).
When this project is completed, there will be even less parking spaces. Will the 50 people that will live there replace the amount of people such as myself that can’t walk there during the cold winter months? That’s six months out of a year.
Again, there is no parking NOW and the businesses are hurting. Will it even out?
Wow. My apologies for taking a while to respond. I’ve had other items on my plate. I realize that has fueled some speculation among conspiracy theories that I’m ducking their questions. That’s never been my style, here or elsewhere. So shake the ants out of your pants folks. Here goes…
@Mark Marderosian: Yes there are people who wish the building was bigger, who wish there was more housing and more retail space.
Businesses need more housing options for their employees and future employees. Housing stock is important when recruiting new employees. And I don’t only mean affordable housing. The innovation economy has given rise to good paying jobs, including at companies in Newton. But the millennials who are being recruited for these positions don’t necessarily want to live in a house with a yard and garage, nor do they necessarily want to own their home or condo yet. Many can afford market rates but they also want to be near amenities such as those that exist in Newtonville.
So yes, we need affordable housing but we need market rate housing too.
@Mike Striar: We’ve been through this before but you keep ignoring the fact that Austin Street Partners is essentially acquiring air rights from the city, which, to me, you should at least acknowledge this every time you repeat your concerns about the terms here.
@Jeffrey Pontiff: That quote from me – as well as the equally important quote from me about businesses being worried about short term parking – is my analysis of how businesses feel about this project, based on this survey and conversations with the business community. I stand by my comment as an honest assessment of how many of the business people I’ve spoken to feel.
@Steve Feller: The suggestion that businesses not located in Newtonville support the project because they hope to pilfer Newtonville customers during the construction seems a little paranoid to me and frankly disappointing from the chair of Newton’s Economic Development Commission.
Is that really what you meant to say?
I’d suggest instead that you refer to my response to Mark above. Businesses outside of Newtonville want more places for employees and customers to live. They want more people shopping, dining and banking locally. They also know that the people who live in Newtonville may very well patronize their business too even if located in some far away area like, say, West Newton.
@Marco writes…
Duh. Guilty as charged on the first part! That is after all the idea for our existence.
Anti-resident? Actually residents = customers. And customers are really kind of important to our existence too.
Greg wrote:
“They also know that the people who live in Newtonville may very well patronize their business too even if located in some far away area like, say, West Newton.”
See my long report above. If they live in Newtonville and wish to patronize a business in West Newton, they’ll be hard-pressed to find a parking space.
Mark, I am actually very pleased to see how the West Newton development is taking shape. It replaces a former eyesore of an empty lot, and adds just the kind of compact transit oriented development our village centers need. I’m afraid raising this as a spectre of an apocalyptic Austin Street may actually make people more comfortable with Austin Street.
Star Market has evidently been offerred a newly paved parking lot if they allow 20+ parking spaces to be used during construction. Don’t know the outcome.
Alderman Laredo and others are still concerned about parking both during construction and afterward. Land use has asked for answers on turning radius, accessibility, sharing spaces, dead end parking, etc. by Oct 20.
Ward 1 Alders think they should be involved in deciding temporary parking and question the use of Aqinas.
Unless something has changed since the last meeting, the proposal of parking during construction has some 1 hour meters close to stores, 2 hour meters farther out and the rest would park at Aquinas. That would mean attending dinner, shopping, a game at Brewers, etc. could be no than 2 hours unless you took the shuttle.
Since the construction includes digging an underground garage and a wider sidewalk, I don’t see parking on Austin Street right beside it,
Parking on Lowell on Weekends would need to be longer than 2 hours.
Greg, what percentage of Newton residents work in Newton? If you don’t know, that might be a great survey question. The answer is essential for your logic to work, and I don’t think you will get the answer you seek.
In my neighborhood of 30 people, I am the only person who works in Newton. I don’t think this is atypical. Proponents of high density make statements like this, “We need to build housing for the employees of Newton businesses.” The flaw with this company-town myth is that when you build a new apartment building with 30 new residences, occupants of 29 of the residences work elsewhere and only one occupant works in Newton.
@Jeffrey: I don’t have a way to survey Newton residents to ask them that question.
But have surveyed and talked to business owners and recruiters here and many have good jobs at good wages but trouble filling them because the workforce with the skills they need to entice can’t find a place to live here.
Us baby boomers often make the mistake of assuming that everyone wants the same thing we want: a house with a garage and a yard and are willing to spend upwards of an hour in our cars commuting (yes we’ll complain about it but we are obviously willing to do so).
I’m not an urban planner, but there is something Berra-esq about complaining that you can’t get to a place because parking is so bad. In the case of the Austin St. lot being under construction and there being a reduction of spaces, yes. I get that. But in terms of general usage it’s essentially saying “those successful businesses are stealing from the rest of us.”
I’m not saying to throw up our hands, but maybe there are alternatives to just putting in more parking. Maybe it’s in the businesses encouraging parking a block or so away. Maybe it’s in deals with the businesses that have lots for after-hours parking. Maybe its in finding better transit options. Maybe it’s in lighted walkways so people can get from the lots in the smaller industrial buildings off Rowe Street to W. Newton.
Maybe its in the mix of businesses in the area. I’m guessing if you have a reservation to Lumiere you’re going to be willing to walk a little father than if you are trying to run in and pickup takeout. How do we balance that so there is adequate parking for both businesses and for the individual purposes?
As for the police, I believe that is a temporary thing as the work on Cherry Street happens. That work is done in mid October.
Every time someone says “transit centric” in relation to the Austin Street Project, I have to laugh (or be disgusted, maybe both). The development at Woodland is transit-centric – adjacent to a green-line station, bus service to metro-west. New Balance’s new offices, in Brighton are transit-centric – they’re building a new commuter rail station and cutting deals with the T to increase service. On the other hand, service to and from Newtonville is atrocious – half of the commuter line trains don’t stop, because only one track has a station; evening and weekend bus service is horrible. We’ve had one business – Newtonville Books – explicitly state that they moved to Newton Center because their customers couldn’t reach them by T.
Now if the developers, and the City, were serious about “transit-centric development” in Newtonville – the first commitments on the table would be to rebuild the commuter rail station (accessible, two platforms) and a deal with the T to increase service. Otherwise, it’s a joke.
Miles Fidelman
Newtonville Resident
Candidate for Charter Commission
@Greg– I assume your “air-rights” comment is a reference to the land lease. While a century long lease does not technically transfer ownership of the land, it effectively transfers it for our life times and perhaps the lifetimes of our children. The value obtained by the developer through a 99 year lease is essentially the same value as a purchase.
Additionally, I’m not a tax expert, but I believe a lease payment is deductible in the year it was made, as opposed to the much longer term prospect or recapturing value through annual depreciation. That immediate deductibility could be of substantial benefit to ASP.
But again, Greg, I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to developing the Austin Street lot through a public-private partnership. In fact, I proposed a similar mixed-use, public-private partnership on Willow Street in Newton Centre. The difference was that on Willow Street the city’s partner was offering a new $8M fire station. You tell me, how does that compare with ASP’s offer for Austin Street?
I know there are a lot of people who want this specific project to be built. In my opinion, every one of them is willing to sell the city short for the sake of expediency. But as I’ve mentioned many times, what bothers me most about the Austin Street proposal, is the lack of affordable units in exchange for the value received by ASP. It’s a correctable shortcoming. It requires some renegotiation. Unfortunately the Mayor’s political aspirations are wedded to this project, and frankly he doesn’t have the business skill to negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
No Mike my “air-rights” comment is a reference to the fact that Newton gets to keep exactly what so many people, pro and con, agree is the most important thing about that parcel right now: 127 parking spaces.
Mark, the new mixed use building on the corner of Elm and Border–which has a total of 4 residential units and 3 commercial space–will have its own parking behind the building. And, yes, I am proud of this project and had a lot of input into the design. It is similar in height to the building next to it and steps down from three to two stories with a rooftop garden. It will add commercial space (and revenue) and completes the commercial block that includes Judith’s Kitchen, a nail salon and Mango Thai, and continues on the next block with the mini-mart and Paddy’s. And it is a darn site prettier than the vacant lot that was there before, which was overgrown with weeds and surrounded by a chain link fence.
If parking concerns are deterring anyone from coming to West Newton, it sure hasn’t affected business for all the restaurants and shops, not to mention our Farmer’s market on Saturdays, which has more customers each week (900+) than the former site at the Post 440 brought in all summer! The late Yogi Berra might well have said “It’s so crowded that no one goes there anymore.” Commuters were taking up a lot of the spaces, but the commuter lot inside the Exit 16 off ramp, which used to be virtually empty, is now almost full everyday, which takes a lot of commuters off the streets in and around West Newton Square.
Would more parking be a benefit? Sure. Actually, I would like to see more shared parking, as some of the private lots are empty in the evenings and could be used by restaurant and cinema patrons.
Greg, my point is that the “solution” of building high-density housing is not a solution since the people who move to Newton don’t normally work here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
I am GenX. I agree that we should not assume that the you or the government knows where people want to live or the type of dwelling that they want to live in.
OMG Jeffrey! I agree with you one hundred percent! No make that one thousand percent!
We should leave that to the private sector, specifically to the developers and investors who have done the research and are willing to put their careers, money and their ability to support their families on the line by betting on what kind of housing and demographic wants to live and work here. (Cabot, Cabot & Forbes for example is certain there is a market for rental apartments for millennials at Wells Ave.)
Now before everyone jumps in and says I’m saying we should just let developers do whatever they want, let me be clear that’s not what I’m saying.
I’m just suggesting that they know best what the demand is.
Hi Ted,
Not to hijack the thread but you wrote the following and it’s something I’m curious about and would love to learn more. I think it relates to shared parking elsewhere too including Newtonville.
“Actually, I would like to see more shared parking, as some of the private lots are empty in the evenings and could be used by restaurant and cinema patrons.”
Last week as I drove around around the Square block numerous times in a vain attempt to simply get some soup from Carmella’s, I noted with interest that the Bank’s parking lot at 1314 Washington Street was largely empty at 7 PM. I know they jealously guard those spaces during the day which is their right but they also seem to guard them at night. ??? Do they still rent out at night to the Theater? Seemed such a waste to have 30+ spots simply lying there while parking on the street was jammed.
It is completely inappropriate for Needham to have any voice concerning a development in Newtonville.
I’ve said before that Greg has sold out the city by taking a role as a lobbyist for pro-business interests as head of Chamber of Commerce. That’s the reality of the role. This is a prime example. There is absolutely no justification for Needham to have any voice in this project.
Shame on you Greg.
@Ted-
4 residential units and 3 commercial space and it’s own parking… that’s a very modest and perfectly reasonable incremental increase and a great use of the space. It’s win for everyone.
Of course, the build it huge folks will tell you it’s not fully utilized. You really should have gone up 4 or 5 floors with an underground garage and 100 units above. Don’t worry about school crowding… we’ll just build elementary schools the size of high schools. We can save lots of money that way. *Rant off*
Greg – Sorry for going off topic, but is there a V14 guidelines for candidates in regard to the use of anonymous names?
@Jane: The Commenting Rules are here. I believe you are referring to No. 4.
I agree with Mark about West Newton. Not only is parking a problem but the idea of walking around the square is most unpleasant as Watertown St. and Washington St. merge. Just crossing from one side to the other is not fun. The lights cause a complete bottle neck of cars and the rush hours are a nightmare especially in bad weather.
West Newton is not a first choice destination and I seldom go in that direction even though it is as close to me as Newtonville.
I dread the thought of high rise housing in the center of Newton villages. Traffic problems simply become unbearable. I do ride my bike in the warm seasons; but that is not much fun once I get to the village. I just walk then but don’t stay longer than is necessary.
Greg said: “Newton gets to keep exactly what so many people, pro and con, agree is the most important thing about that parcel right now: 127 parking spaces.”
Can someone explain to me why people are not talking about the REAL number of spots, which is 159 +. I know, I counted them. Do people still count those NON_EXISTENT High Shool spots? Go see, they are NOT THERE!.
isabelle, it does no good to keep this up. You are shouting about numbers of parking spaces when you know exactly what has happened.
The high school restrictions were removed to build the proposed building in order to keep the 127 spaces that were available to the public up until this fall. The spaces had to be reclassified to public before school started so a new parking plan could be in place for students. And so they would be available to include them in the proposal. The proposal couldn’t go forward promising 127 public spaces if the Tiger permits were still in place, because those spaces couldn’t be included if they were not public.
It is a shame that Ald Norton has joined with you, the NVA and others in this total disregard of the truth as she interrupted the hearing numerous times to attempt to correct the speakers, other alders and anyone else, concerning this ridiculous #.
As I’ve said before and as can be seen in the comments on various threads, there are plenty of factual pieces of this proposal you could be questioning instead of continuing to harp on this number.
@Marti: I guess I will have to go back and look at the RFP as well as the JAPG report but while doing some decluttering I came across the appraisal that was done by Clifford Appraisal and Consulting and they used 159 space public parking lot in their assumptions for their $2,150,000 2012 appraisal of the property. See page iv. Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions from the Complete Appraisal Summary Format – Parking Lot Located At: 28 Austin Street, Newton, MA – Effective Valuation Date: December 27, 2011 – Report Date: January 13, 2012.
From RFP dated Feb 14, 2013: “The primary use of the Parcel is as a public parking area with 159 spaces.”
Or was the RFP also guilty of “total disregard for the truth”?
Also stated in the RFP: “The parking needs created by both this new development and the displacement of existing parking must be met.”
fignewtonville, I apologize for my slow response to your 10/8 request; I have been busy. I would encourage you to watch the video when it is available. Pay attention to the tone of the BOA members’ voices as they ask questions and their facial expressions. Note the changes over the course of the meeting to what appears as either frustration with not getting answers or at least concern for lack of expected details. Multiple times Alderman Laredo instructed then sternly to have a greater level of detailed answers at the next meeting.
Here are some details backing up my comment that the developers displayed a low level of preparedness and inability to answer the aldermen’s questions
Regarding the lack of presentation preparedness:
1) Their primary audience was the BOA members; however it was a meeting open to the public so they should have anticipated a gathering larger than the aldermen and alderwoman. There were about two dozen people in attendance. Given it was outside, it was hard to hear the speakers unless you were one of the BOA members standing in the semicircle immediately in front of the speakers. The developers should have been using a microphone to project their voice beyond the front row, if they truly wanted to convey their information to the whole audience.
2) If using a microphone was against a city regulation, they should (and could) have spoken louder. The speakers made no effort to project their voices to include the entire audience.
3) The drawings they had should have been on taller tripods. Again, those not in the front row could not see what was being referenced on the drawings.
Inability to answer the BOA members’ questions:
1) The developers had laid out tape on the ground to indicate various boundaries. When asked to identify markers showing the height of the building, they failed to provide any useful data. This is a 3 dimensional project. They should have been able to answer the BOA members questions about the height.
2) When asked about the effect of the slope in the parking lot (about a 3 foot decline away from Austin Street) as to how it would impact the public patio and entrances to the side of the building near Philip Bram Way, the developers acted as if they were unaware of any slope. The building, as presented, shows no stairs to address the slope yet there will be some kind of requirement to address the varying heights along Philip Bram Way.
3) When the group was at the west end of the parking lot discussing the covered entrance / exit area, Alderwoman Leary asked one of the speakers how high the building wall would be at that point. The quick answer was 12 feet. That is an incorrect answer (either intentional or unintentional). The first floor of the wall (that which touches the garage) will be 12 feet high. However, there are multiple stories of building above the garage. That will be an intimidating wall for pedestrians walking next to it on the 8 foot wide path leading to the parking lot behind the building. Also, with the bank fence blocking any sideways escape away from the wall, snow or ice falling from the building will be a concern. Hopefully someone will be responsible for removing the snow from that path. Hopefully there will be adequate lighting for nighttime use.
The one episode that captured the cavalier attitude the developers presented at the meeting had to do with the Goodwill truck. They were asked where the Goodwill truck would go. The speaker shrugged his shoulders and said “Rumford Ave.” with either a tone of apathy or disdain. Given the emphasis they tout about their intent to include affordable housing unit in a development that does not require them, I found the tone of their comment insulting since some of the people who will be using the housing unit could also be benefiting from services offered by Goodwill. To me, that said their concern for helping people with affordable housing is nothing more than another line item on their proposal that adversely impacts their ability to generate profits.
Thank you for reading this long reply. I do have other comments if you these do not satisfy your request.
Patrick, thank you for the summary. I didn’t realize there would be video. But always good to get impressions from those in attendance.
One think I’m curious about is why folks think the slope is a big deal. 3 feet in grade over that large a distance is easily dealt with.
On the Goodwill truck, I can’t speak for ASP’s tone. But personally I think Rumford Ave is the perfect location for it. There have been multiple locations where Goodwill wouldn’t take one of my items for various reasons (kids toys and car seats for instance) and I’ve then had to bring them to Rumford. Plus the whole city uses Rumford. I really hope the city makes that happen, even if the parking lot stays as is. I’m a huge supporter of Goodwill, but that makes sense to me. Curious as to other folks thoughts.
Again, I appreciate the follow-up post.
Emily, how about posting the ENTIRE section.
“The primary use of the Parcel is as a public parking area with 159 spaces. The City acquired
the majority of the Parcel for use as a parking facility in 1947 through eminent domain. Of the parking spaces on the property, 32 are temporarily designated for use by Newton North High School staff, one is leased to a village business, and four are for persons with disabilities. A total of 121 spaces are available to the general public. The parking lot is also the location of a Goodwill trailer used to receive donated clothing and other goods, which will need to be removed by Goodwill Industries prior to construction. The Parcel includes the area marked as Philip Bram Way, which is a portion of the Parcel that functions like a roadway and is currently used by local merchants to access the rear of the several properties fronting Walnut Street and extends along the backs of these properties from Highland Avenue to Austin Street. Prior agreement
with the City established a right of way giving abutters rear access to their shops over the right of way. Thisright of way must continue to be honored going forward. “
Emily, that was a bit of selective editing on your part, was it not? C’mon now. Kind of left out that whole “A total of 121 spaces are available to the general public.”
Amy (and Emily), I’m hoping you understand why for appraisal purposes you’d need to examine the entire lot, even spaces that are specially designated for Newton North high schoolers. An appraisal would need to do that, but the parking study clearly identified that the only spaces being considered were the 127 metered spaces. And the various reports. And the city memos, etc etc. If the extra 32 spaces are included in the parking study, wouldn’t the under-utilization of the parking lot be even more pronounced. Can’t have it both ways, no?
So in the interest of keeping this civil, let me try and bridge the gap here. This is my attempt to lay out the facts (again) taking into account the positions of both sides.
What folks on the anti-Austin Street development are saying is that the parking lot is actually 159 spaces if you go look in the lot. I’m not denying that, there are 159 spaces in the lot.
But if you go by the 159 spaces, you are ignoring the remainder of the paragraph I posted above. The RFP was clear and what the various spaces were, and how many were public spaces. For many years the 127 spaces (including handicapped spaces) were all that we could park in. The rest were semi-occupied by Newton North students, with specially marked parking bags on the meters.
But hey, you say, I’ve driven by the parking lot RIGHT now and there are no specially marked parking bags, what gives? And here is where Marti’s head explodes, because those were removed from Newton North students on the off chance that Austin Street actually moves forward. The school needed certainty with its parking. So the bags were removed, and the spaces are now temporarily public.
But hey, the ASP folks say, the traffic study by the City, the GPI presentation (which includes the footnote that the 32 spaces were not included in any analysis on the first page) the RFP as listed above in the entire description instead of a small excerpt, the past 10 years or so of practice, everyone has only been able to park in 127 spaces total. Not 159. So how is ASP’s project making parking worse. You had 127 public spaces before, you have 127 public spaces after we finish. What gives on 159 being the new benchmark?
Here is where the anti crowd has a point: The city could always have taken back the 32 spaces yielded to Newton North. If the restaurant scene went nuts, if the various heavy parking users because super heavy, those spaces did exist, and the community could have risen up and grabbed them. That possibility is…well…possible. And there is some value in that possible reverter. Point taken.
Here is where the anti-crowd is being opportunistic: The transfer of the Newton North parking back to the public use wasn’t because of need. It was in advance of the project moving forward. To claim the full 159 based on that change feels like an attempt to deal with the fact that the ASP folks increased their parking requirement from the 85 spaces minimum to the 127 space public use. Instead of declaring a victory and trumpeting their impact on the project, the answer has been…not enough…now we want 159, even though the NVA’s own editorials referenced the 127 a few scant months ago. Hence my early posts about moving the goal posts.
Emily and Amy, you can disagree with my last paragraph. But I’ve stated the facts as I know them. You are clearly in possession of more information than me, and I realize this is a blog. But how about you go through your version of the facts, or let me know where I am full of it above. I’m a bit tired of this particular topic, as I now read through quite a few documents to come to my conclusion above, prompted by your posts above. I’ve made an attempt to post in full. Give us the courtesy from now on of doing the same.
fignewtonville,
1) That the developers did not reflect the issue of the needed grading in their drawings and presentation was what concerned me. I am not sure they were aware of the issue until it was raised at the site visit. Their handling of the question baffled me.
2) I like (and use) the Goodwill truck’s location in Newtonville. It does not need to stay in the parking lot; however Newtonville is more centrally located in Newton than Rumford Avenue.
Maybe my career in sales has made me more demanding of people making a presentation. I sensed the developers were just going through the motions as if the deal is already a fait accompli. If there was still competition for this project, maybe they would have brought their “A game”.
Patrick, you are correct in your assessment re grade differentials over the length of the parking lot.
As an attendee at Austin Street,.. and a retired architect who tried to bring up the issue of the grade change from the high point toward the west end of the site at Austin Street, to the lower point at Bram Way, and didn’t appear to have been listened to, it was apparent to me that this poorly conceived project has not been completely rationalized. The current design does not appear to have been taken into its construction documents phase yet, which when it has , will reveal problems at Bram Way that will have an impact on the imagined plaza, water fountain and its relationship with ground floor commercial / food service spaces. Should the Board of Aldermen believe that this is but a detail whose final outcome doesn’t warrant further review then they will just go ahead blindly, giving in my estimation, misplaced faith in the ASP,s ability to straighten out this issue in a fashion yet to be presented.
What has been presented is not what will finally be built at the ground level.
There are a number of issues like this , trash disposal, commercial space services, parking space dimensions, etc that apparently will be taken on blind faith by the Board because I doubt that they will be resolved / or rationalized in the next two weeks or before the vote comes up for a vote.
Let’s recall the awning / display window design at Chestnut Hill Route 9.
@fignewtonville: “the spaces are now temporarily public ?” – actually – you were more accurate in your following paragraph – that the spaces could always be taken back and used accordingly therefore they never left the “public” realm. But that’s not my point, as much as folks want to use the 127 number – there is enough justification to use the 159 number. Frankly, whether the number of parking spaces is 127 or 159 is not the make or break issue on this project – at least for me.
Fig, my head feels so much better after reading your explanation, particularly since I don’t have to do the research I would have felt compelled to do after seeing Amy and Emily’s comments.
Emily and Amy, it is truly disappointing that, as Alders, you would use such tactics to misrepresent the facts. The more you and your cohorts use erroneous numbers and cherry pick data, the more many realize that this behavior must apply to your decision making and discussions of more than this one project. We can no longer assume you would present the facts truthfully in other situations.
Emily, no the RFP was up front and included all of the data needed for developers to put together a proposal. It is you who is disregarding the truth and quoting a tiny section of the RFP without its context to try to back up your position, which just makes it worse.
Amy, perhaps you should “go back and look at the RFP and the JAPG report” so you can use actual facts in your comments. The appraisal would, as Fig said, have to include the entire property in its valuation including the space in temporary use. If this is representative of your understanding of appraisals, it colors all of your positions on housing in Newton.
As I’ve said before, if you are opposed to this project, fight it with facts.
@Marti: I am not trying to misrepresent anything. All I did was to report what was in the appraisal – and the number used for the appraisal was 159 spaces. I believe I wrote the following: “@Marti: I guess I will have to go back and look at the RFP as well as the JAPG report but while doing some decluttering I came across the appraisal that was done by Clifford Appraisal and Consulting and they used 159 space public parking lot in their assumptions for their $2,150,000 2012 appraisal of the property. See page iv. Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions from the Complete Appraisal Summary Format – Parking Lot Located At: 28 Austin Street, Newton, MA – Effective Valuation Date: December 27, 2011 – Report Date: January 13, 2012.”
Blueprintbill, there were definitely many areas of concern about the new parking lot discussed. I don’t know anything about grading but if it is a problem, I’m glad you continue to bring it up. The Land Use committee chaired by Ald Laredo is quite frustrated with the lack of information supplied by ASP. Many problems brought up in the comments here and more that are being discussed have not been sufficiently addressed by ASP. According to what was said by the Alders, answers are due by Oct 20. I have no idea how all of the problems presented can be solved within the scope of this proposal.
@fignewtonville: I just went through the parking study conducted in July 2014 and here’s what I’ve found:
“In addition to the 127 publically available spaces within the existing Austin Street lot, there are
currently 32 spaces within the lot which are designated for NNHS permit-only parking. These
spaces occupy the southwestern-most corner of the lot and were not inventoried as part of this
study, as they are not considered part of the public parking supply within the study area. It
should be noted that within this area of 32 Tiger Permit spaces a Goodwill donation trailer
occupies approximately six of the permit-only spaces, and therefore were not included in the available inventory for this study. Additionally, the NNHS Tiger Permit Only spaces are
signed/enforced 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM on school days only, therefore these spaces are technically
available to the public in the evenings and on the weekends, though they are seldom utilized.” – pp. 14 – 15.
Yet Table 1 on page 5 of the study totals the number of parking spaces in the Austin Street lot at 159 and includes 32 spaces as NNHS Permit Only in their total space inventory count.
I am not trying to misrepresent anything when I bring these numbers up. Just wanted to show that the 127 and the 159 numbers have both been brought up in various reports.
@Marti, @Fig, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.