One of the biggest –and from my perspective most significant — concerns among merchants in Newtonville about the proposed project at Austin Street was the loss of parking spaces during construction.
Today the city sent to aldermen a plan that identifies 70 new spaces inside Newtonville as well as the use of 100 spaces (targeted for use by construction workers, commuters, seniors and village employees) at Aquinas School that would serviced by a shuttle bus.
The plans can be viewed here. (Starting on page 3) Here’s a summary of the added spaces:
100 long term spaces at Aquanis School, serviced by a shuttle bus.
17 new spaces added to Austin Street by temporally making the street one-way.
Three new free 30-minute un-metered spaces on Bram Way.
40 2-hour metered spots retained in the Austin Street lot during construction.
10 30-minute metered spots retained in the Austin Street lot during construction
All told this makes 170 “new” parking spots available during construction, but most notably there are 70 added spots inside the village.
@Greg- I can see why you’ve been so successful in building the Chamber to new membership heights. Your sales efforts are relentless!
Why Charlie, that may be the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me!
Shame on you Greg! How dare you use this blog to make it easier for folks to access subject matter!
Geez Charlie, it is not like Greg trumpted the 170 spaces, since the 100 spaces at Aquinas seems rather worthless. He didn’t editorialize or give his opinion. Pretty fair post in my opinion.
Or perhaps I should say, Charlie, I can see why you are such a successful host on NewTV! Your efforts to oppose Austin Street are relentless! 😉
It would be great to see some bike parking added. I bike there often and there is only one lonely little loop over by Starbucks.
Alicia, completely agreed.
I’d also encourage the city to move the commuter parking on washington street one block further away and make those meters 2 hour meters. Lots of folks don’t mind walking across the bridge. It is closer than the back of the lot to CVS! Plus I like Dunkin sometimes and the commuter rail folks take MY parking 😉
Greg,
There you go again touting city government propaganda.
Your argument for providing 170 new parking spaces is off by a minimum of 150 ! To think you are going to get construction workers to park their trucks a half mile away and ride a shuttle bus after a 45 minute commute from Everett is a joke. Completely ridiculous ! And somebody coming to Newtonville for a yoga session ?? Are you mad !
It doesn’t end there . General Contractors usually are required to provide a bond ,.. Essentially insurance against accident, mishaps, staging falling on pedestrians etc. I doubt very much that any Bonding Agency would insure a builder who allowed public access to his construction site for parking. Have you never seen a chain link construction fence ? What do you suppose they are for,.. Keeping employees on the job? Scratch that estimate down to maybe 20 cars and you might have a reasonable estimate .
@Bill: Don’t fall off your bar stool, but I agree with you about Aquanis. Although it seems possible you could require construction workers to park there, I doubt anyone else will.
But 70 “new” spaces in the village is significant and I really don’t see how Charlie or you and your fellow negative nabobs can spin it otherwise. That’s a lot of parking capacity during a transition that, in the end, will make Newtonville a much better place to live, work, play and shop.
Greg,
Here I sit on the floor continuing to try to explain to you and your readers that 50 cars will not be parking on the Austin street lot during construction. The contractor will not get his bond unless he keeps cars off the site. Simple as that. It’s not spin it’s construction insurance. Commerce.
@Bill: Ever visited a metropolitan area? Construction projects happen in all sorts of tight spaces so don’t tell me it’s never done or not possible. If the developer puts it in the special permit, they’ll be obligated to make it happen.
Plus, don’t forget one reason ASP was selected was that they “green stacks” meaning a fair amount of the assembly happens off site.
Greg,
Ever done construction supervision?
Oh sure the developer will put it in his special permit and the BoA will grant it. All special permits are granted by Land Use automatically these days 7-0. Were you at the last meeting. I digress. Sorry. But when the construction contract is written the the Contractor will say no way. ” I won’t be able to get insurance for this job, special permit or not” ! When those mobile homes come down the street with the crane waiting to lift them do you think the crane operator will want cars parking under his lift? No way! Unless maybe they issue hard hats to all parkers.
And when that happens Bill, Sarah Quigley will file the lawsuit. So we have nothing to worry about.
good night!
I’m more concerned about 6 families who are going to be denied affordable housing on Austin Street, because Mayor Warren [stop me if I’ve used this line before] couldn’t negotiate his way out of a paper bag. Setti has been used and abused in this partnership with ASP, but those six families are the real losers here. It has never made a lick of sense for the city to underwrite a project that falls so far short of any traditional 40B. This is so much more about Setti’s resume, than it is about affordable housing. “There’s a sucker born every minute!” I know I’ve used that line before. Truth be told, I just can’t help it. The words are PT Barnum’s. The show is Setti Warren’s. Bring in the clowns!
@Mike: Stop.
My concerns about the project relate to the flawed process and to the desire by some to add large scale apt complexes.
It’s a bigger issue than parking.
btw. People should read the suit with an open mind. It is possible that there is some validity.
Who knows who’s negotiated what here ? ASP gets their 68 units, ( profits ), and setti gets his resume pumped and polished, kissing up to engine 6 and the Political Insider Groups. All above board ? Sarah Quigley and company apparently don’t think so !
I’m once again struck by the disconnect between the specific issues raised by Austin St opponents vs their general opposition to the entire project. At different junctures over the last year, nearly all of the focus of the opposition has been on some specific aspect of the plan.
Earlier on the big issues raised by opponents were the size of the building and the loss of public parking – those were given as the primary reasons for their opposition. When the developer came back with a scaled back building and increased parking, it didn’t seem to dissipate even a bit of the opponent’s concerns.
This week I got a phone call. The woman asked me if “I has heard about a developer’s plan to destroy Newtonville with a project called Austin St”. I told here that I had. She said “all of the businesses in Newtonville are very worried that their businesses will be hurt by the loss of parking during construction”. I agreed that this is a very important issue that definitely needs to be addressed. She went on at length about how these mom-and-pop businesses are very vulnerable and could be hurt by a lack of parking during construction.
I suggested that while very important, this should be an eminently solvable problem. I suggested that so long as they could take care of parking during construction, once completed the project should help the Newtonville merchants long term.
At that point the woman shifted gears and said “they’re trying to bring Boston to Newtonville” and went on to say “you know they’re all going to be rental units.”
That seems to be typical of the opposition to the entire Austin St project. Specific reasonable concerns are raised by opponents, if the concerns are addressed in any way then the opposition shifts to some other aspect of the plan. The reality is that the specific concerns are beside the point, they are just against the entire project – period.
That’s certainly their right to be opposed to the project in general. I just wish that the opponents would stop obfuscating their general opposition. It seems clear that the opponents have no interest in sorting out the construction parking, or reducing the scale of the building, etc. They’re only real concern is stopping the entire project.
Did anyone ask the neighbors in the Aquinas area how they felt about shuttle busses coming and going all day in their neighborhood? Probably not…
I believe TheWholeTruth just proved Jerry’s point.
Some Aquinas neighbors may not be happy…
But, perhaps some of the Aquinas neighbors will be happy to have a free, convenient shuttle bus available for them to travel to and from Newtonville whenever they want to go there.
FYI, as someone living three blocks away from Aquinas I have absolutely no problem with shuttle buses coming to and from the parking lot to help ease the pressure for parking and make it easier for people to get to small businesses in Newtonville.
I learned a new word. Sharrows. So thanks for that.
I do wish the plans pinpointed where the parking spaces will be in the lot during construction like they did other places. I’m not trying to be difficult but, honest question, how do they dig out the garage and put in the new infrastructure while cars are parked in the lot? Maybe at night?
I don’t know who you’ve worked with Blue, but in my experience construction workers are used to parking off site and probably would welcome a shuttle instead of walking.
And I can’t imagine why shuttles from Aquinas would be problematic in the neighborhood. It will be mostly parking for commuters and construction workers so they won’t be frequent trips.
I have asked this question before on V14, yet I have not read an answer. I know the ASP is not a 40B project. My understanding is that all rental units in a 40B building project with at least 25% units priced as affordable qualifies all units to be counted towards the city’s quota of affordable units.
My question: Will all 68 units in the ASP count towards the city’s affordable housing quota?
I ask this question because Mike Striar keeps raising the issue that six more families could have benefited from access to affordable units if the mayor and his staff negotiated better. If my understanding of the situation is correct and all 68 units will count towards the city’s quota, then I doubt the mayor would do anything at this point; he already has what he wants. With the 25 / 75 split (17 units / 51 units in this case), the mayor gets credit for 68 units; the developers get to maximize their profits under a 40B model, and neither party really cares about helping the identified groups of people to gain housing in Newton. JMO.
Again if my understanding is correct, then extrapolate the situation to address the 800 unit goal set by the mayor. If all those units were to be achieved by creating rental units, then only 25% (200 units) really need to be developed at the below market pricing level. Instead of actually helping 800 families (or other intended inhabitants of affordable units), only 200 would be real affordable units. This is a true manipulation of the intent of the law. However the mayor will be happy and leverage his goal achievement towards his next career move, and the developers will be smiling all the way to their banks. JMO.
@Bryan, being three blocks away will certainly be nicer than living right across the street from the lot. You won’t be bothered by the activity right outside your door. I agree that it might be nice for some people to hope a free shuttle to Newtonville. Dare I suggest that this will become a parking nightmare for the neighborhood as commuters to Boston find that it’s easier to park on Jackson Rd and the surrounding side streets and leave their cars for the day while they hop the train to Boston? I would venture to say more people will use this as commuter parking and not satellite parking for Newtonville shopping.
Pushing the parking problem out of Newtonville into someone else’s neighborhood stinks. My point is simply that like everything else the City does, this will be shoved down our throats with no thought or consideration on how this impacts the direct abutters to Aquinas and the folks who live in the wider area.
City Ordinance: No vehicles to be parked on School Property>
John M, FWIIW, the Aquinas property is now listed on the city’s assessor database as being in the control of the public buildings director. The city has not turned the property over to the SC yet. I am guessing someone will use that rationalization to take the position that it is not presently school property (even with a school building already there and with the future purpose of it being a school). JMO.
Village 14 has obtained video showing the moment “someone” at City Hall realized they could “use that rationalization.”
Do the voters understand that Austin Street is but the tip of the iceberg as relates to just what this mayor and his supporters ( Density Deb Crossley, Ted Hess Mahan, Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson ) have plans for. There is Court Street Housing Project, St Philip Neri Housing Project, 1615 Beacon Street at Waban Center, the Newton Centre Village Green and Parking Lot Housing Project, the Rowe Street Housing Project, the Turtle Lane Housing Project at Auburndale Center, The Goddard Street Housing Project in Newton Highlands, the Kessler Woods Housing Project in Oak Hill etc etc.
Vote for the mayors supporters if you want to see this additional density added to our villages, or look to Julia Malakie, Jim Cote, Lynne LaBlanc, Brian Yates, or Chris Pitts if you think you have had enough and we need a change.
@Blueprint: Hess-Mahan is one of the “mayor’s supporters”? Where have you been for the past three-plus years?
All these comments, and nobody has taken Mike Striar up on his invitation to “stop me?” This place has gotten downright civil (JOKE)
Doug…I beg your pardon?
@Gail– Glad to stop, but just so you know… If I had 48 hours and the ability to shut down this project, I would deliver 6 more affordable units. If the Mayor can’t negotiate a fair deal for the city, he needs to have someone else negotiate on the city’s behalf.
“Do the voters understand that Austin Street is but the tip of the iceberg as relates to just what this mayor and his supporters ( Density Deb Crossley, Ted Hess Mahan, Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson ) have plans for.”
There’s going to be a lot of pressure on the city to increase development, since paying back our OPEB, etc is relying on new development.
Greg, thank you for responding to my latest comment. Now maybe you can answer my question from my penultimate comment: Will all 68 units in the ASP count towards the city’s affordable housing quota? I could not find an answer on YouTube.
Patrick: You’re welcome. And I don’t know.
Greg, I failed to acknowledge that you do appear to be trying to be less snarky recently. Creative yes; less snarky fortunately. It makes for a better role model. Maybe someone can get Josh N. to stress test you with one of his comments.
Tomsheff
You are dreaming if you think OPEB will be paid for by new development. If every unit of housing averaged only one child each, at $17,000 to educate each one, taxation will be coming up short in paying the bill for education. Add in new school buildings to accommodate them, additional city services, trash pickup, additional infrastructure expenses, greater numbers of governmental workers to service added population and we will be deeper in debt than ever.
If you want even greater problems stick with the status quo and vote for incumbents.
Greg,
Ted Hess Mahan is indeed a supporter of this mayor. They are the bobsey twins of real estate development here in the city. The mayor wants to build 800 units of subsidized housing in the next 4 years , do you see Ted opposing that ? The mayor has stacked the Historical Commission with developer friendly members so as not to allow any interference with the demolition delay process. Do you see Ted doing anything to interfere with that? Did you not watch his fight against the demolition moratorium ? Or his pathetic suggestion of a large house review that he knew would die on the vine? ( as it has). Do you see Ted offering the slightest difference with how the mayor has tried to slide Austin Street past the citizenry? Did you watch the mayoral debates 3 years ago when Ted tried his hardest to find some differences? That was opposition? That’s why he lost. Has he voted no on a single mayoral annual request for additional funding presented by the Aldermanic Finance Committee? I didn’t hear it the last go round ! Tell me please where he hasn’t supported this mayor. Which vote. I’d call that camouflaged support at the very least. There is a real alternative offered in this election and Ted and his twin are on the same side of the ticket! Vote for Julia Malakie and Jim Cote!
@Blueprint Bill: Engine 6. It didn’t come to a vote but Alderman Hess-Mahan pretty much lead that fight against Mayor Warren.
Overlapping support for a project that you have decided is the most important issue presently facing the city does not translate into a political BFF. I will not link to or even reference athe many times Ted has disagreed with the mayor publicly because I’m not going to help you rekindle a political rivalry at a time when the two men are trying to reach some accord about truly helping people in this city.