TAB editor Andy Levin had already been vocal about his support for Austin Street so the paper’s endorsement is not a surprise. But it’s a must read for many reasons.
A couple of excerpts:
Opponents of the plan — a vociferous and well-organized minority in the community — have expressed legitimate concerns, resulting in the project being scaled down from its original size. However, rather than play a constructive role since the special permit application was docketed this past spring, the opposition has demonstrated its answer all along was going to be “No way, not here, never.”
and this
…Newton is a special community that has traditionally led, not reacted. We have never been paralyzed by fear of change, but instead sought to be bold in the face of it.
Read it and come back here to discuss.
Thanks for posting this Andy.
I particularly liked this quote: “The introduction of more apartments into a market puts downward pressure on existing rental prices by increasing supply.”
Is there a point at which too many charter commission members commenting on a thread might potentially violate the OML?
@Harry, OML applies to “deliberations” on topics of the committee or commission. I would think that comments would be OK but any conversation back and forth would be a problem. I also believe it needs to be a majority of the member in the deliberation. Look out if four more members jump in and start commenting on others’ comments. Perhaps one of the recently trained CC members could clarify.
Groot has it just right.
So Andy has drunk the cool aid too.
Claims of Newton’s exceptionalism sound oh so familiar, and as we know can get a political entity into great trouble. Austin Street should it unfortunately go ahead will be a very graphic example of mistakes that can be made in the name of political leadership. To pile together an outsized bunch of mobile homes in the name of progress, and community advancement would be a joke if it were not such a major blunder. Newtonville is a village that has evolved over centuries of incremental changes. To somehow expect that building a huge new blunderbuss in the middle of a well functioning community entity would be progress, is to demonstrate the height of arrogance, hubris and city wide narcissism that cannot be recognized historically as anothing than what it would become,.. A mistake!
These ‘visions’ ( hallucinations ), of village densification that our political leaders , in hand with grasping developers, would have us to believe are necessary for the ‘progress’ of our community are nothing more than opportunistic, self agrandizing opportunies that are being foisted upon the citizenry in for their selfish benefit.
It’s time for grass roots action, starting with the taxpayers of this city to take notice, rally behind their ward aldermen, and put a stop to this nonsense !
What I just sent the Tab:
An Insult to Your Readers
Re. today’s editorial (Time to Build on Austin Street, 12/2/15): What an incredible insult to your readers. Characterizing project opponents as “not playing a constructive role” and Newtonville business owners as being manipulated, simply misstates the facts. No amount of tinkering at the edges, or “mitigation,” can fix a project that was ill-conceived from its very start. Every time this City has sold off, or “surplussed” public property, we have lived to regret it. Creating a new zoning category, for a specific project, has been ruled illegal “spot zoning” by the land court – let’s just wait for the legal bills to hit. Creating plans to justify the project, after-the-fact, is just plain wrong. If we want affordable housing, start by encouraging construction of 2- and 3-family units, and stop approving construction of McMansions. The plan is simply wrong-headed, and the actions of our appointed and elected officials to promote it border on malfeasance. “No way, not here, never” is exactly the right response.
Miles Fidelman, 130 Austin Street
@Miles:
I’m wondering about your statement about how to get affordable housing. Are you saying that instead of allowing McMansions to be built, the city should rezone neighborhoods with only single family housing to include two- and three-family units?
Andy makes statements to support his opinion that are both hyperbolic and foreboding. I have a hard time understanding why supporters, and opponents, feel the need to resort to underhanded statements when generally there are good verifiable reasons to support, or oppose, a position.
It’s a real foreboding stretch to say, “Without the development, many Newtonville businesses could eventually wither on the vine, negatively impacted by online competition and more-dynamic shopping areas.” Operative word is could. They could or could not but to tout this project as the protector of Newtonville’s businesses is a tad presumptuous unless you can see into the future.
“Opponents of the plan … have expressed legitimate concerns, resulting in the project being scaled down from its original size.”
There have been a large number of residents who see flaws in the plan and are still working to make sure the final Board Order cleans up more of them.
“Persuading some Newtonville business owners that their shops and eateries wouldn’t survive the construction period was particularly objectionable,” Who took place in is this manipulative deception. I haven’t seen any proof of such goings on. Are you really saying our Newtonville business owners are that naive?
There are actually enough positives about the project in the editorial to stand on their own.
Gail, Miles doesn’t say to combine rejecting special permit waivers for building McMansions and advocating for building 2 or 3 family homes. So why would you?
Miles, I don’t understand what plans you are referencing with “creating plans to justify the project after-the-fact is wrong.” It’s really more like “creating a new zoning category” and then putting together a “specific project” to fit the zoning category wasn’t it?
Although it has been weird that the decision to build multi use housing came before the decision to surplus the parking lot – or rather 3 or 4 parking lots.
Marti: Maybe I misread Miles’ comments.
I read this statement as two related thoughts: If we want affordable housing, start by encouraging construction of 2- and 3-family units, and stop approving construction of McMansions.
Those 2- and 3-family units have to go somewhere, and I assumed he meant on the lots where McMansions are going up.
@Blueprint
In reference to your comment
“Newtonville is a village that has evolved over centuries of incremental changes.”
I guess those incremental changes would include the forced eviction of all the residents of Austin St. That would include the taking of homes on Austin St in 1947 by eminent domain for a parking lot against the strong objections of the homeowners. And… I guess that would include the taking of the rest of the homes on Austin st. later when Turnpike was built also against the wishes of the homeowners.
So I say it is 100% appropriate to re-poplulate Austin st. with homes in honor and in memory of those who lost their homes over the last 60 years of not so wanted incremental changes.
Susan:
Really? I didn’t know that. I knew about the Pike, but not the lot.
Does anyone know a good book about Newton’s history?
Susan,
So now after 70 years or so we are finally building a monument to those who lost their homes to the taking of property at Austin Street? And just how many were taken ? 2 , 3, 4? And we’re memorializing them with 68 ! Not exactly an incremental change in my view .
One incremental change that might best be a monument to the devastation that was caused by the introduction of the turnpike would be the reunification of Newtonville’s two halves with an air rights development over the turnpike. You might recall a sketch I did , submitted to the BoA, showing same. ( Yes Greg, occasionally This ‘curmudgeon’ can make a positive suggestion ).
Such a change would be more than facilitated by the use of the ‘useless parking lot’, as a major staging area for the construction of same. With the presence of the mobile home pile on the site, the realization of such a ‘vision’ becomes ever more remote.
When I read comments about the “reunification” of Newtonville, I sort of have to scratch my head. Leave aside the prohibitive cost of building a deck across the MassPike. The state owns the air rights, which are not going to come cheap, and the cost of the infrastructure would require development that would dwarf the Austin Street project (think Newton Corner and the hotel over the Pike and then double that).
Newtonville was farm land until the railroad and the street car lines came along in the mid to late 19th century. There was literally no “there” there until people started building houses, commercial buildings and churches along the railway running parallel to Washington Street and the streetcar lines running along Walnut Street. The railroad, which was four tracks wide at the Newtonville Train Station, was placed below grade, as both the railway and the MassPike are today, cleaving a huge chasm between the north and south sides of the village.
So this whole notion of “reunification” is a nostalgic canard that has no basis in history or fact. If it weren’t for the railroad and streetcar lines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there would never have been a “village” in Newtonville at all. Which is why transit-oriented development in this location makes a whole lot of sense.
Yes, public transportation, particularly north-south where the street cars used to run, has to be beefed up. But that is true throughout Newton and the greater metropolitan Boston area in general. And the Hubway and Zipcar systems needs to expand at well. But that is not going to happen without sufficient density to justify expansion. It would be a shame if the Board of Aldermen were to lack the vision to approve Austin Street and pave the way to the future (without having to lay down more pavement).
There is a 1929 map on the city’s website. It is hard to read but it looks like there were about
25 homes on Austin St. There were about 9 homes involved in the taking – and the abutters to the lot came to the Board to object to the parking lot. Smart Growth principles -espoused by the Natural Resources Defense Fund and the Sierra Club would offer that a better solution then sprawling the housed down the street (which isn’t possible any more anyway) is density for more efficient and effective land use. So – don’t sprawl out the homes the way they were on the street but concentrate the land use so it can be used for homes as well as a parking lot, a public plaza, and a small public pocket park – for example. And put this density in a village center where the people can walk to everything – for example in a place like Newtonville where the walk score is 81 “Very Walkable Most errands can be accomplished on foot.” according to Walkscore.com.
I don’t call 28 Austin St. a monument – I call it an apartment building. And Blueprint – you are not the first or the only person desiring the reunification of Newtonville. The Sasaki study done in 2008 advocated the same thing. Maybe you’ve seen it? It is online on the city’s website. I hold out hope that some day MassDot will entertain more projects across the pike.
@Susan: Thanks for bringing up the Sasaki study. If I recall it was a 2 week charette with interns from Sasaki that were charged to look at the following issues: 1) Providing connectivity between the neighborhoods on the north and south ide of the pike; 2) look at a potential transit hub or mixed-use development with the caveat that parking supply in Newtonville was limited; 3) look at potential for mixed-use development with a residential component; and 4) look for opportunity sites for consideration to include, but not limited to the city-owned parking lot adjacent to the Shaw parking lot, the Shaws supermarket itself, the air-space over the Pike and the commuter rail stop. See this link for the full scope of work: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30815.
What I can’t seem to find, is any suggestion by the Sasaki folks of actually getting rid of the parking lot on Austin Street. The link to what looks like Part 3 – Principles – section of their report is here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30778. From what I can see, it looks like their recommended plan maintain the parking lot but increase density in other areas. Do you know if there is a more robust report on their findings that may have explained why they didn’t recommend developing the Austin Street lot – even though it was explicitly among the parcels for consideration in their project scope?