Newton Alderman and Massachusetts Sierra Club director Emily Norton is traveling and sent the following, at Village 14’s request, in response to a question raised by a TAB editorial about her opposition to the proposed mixed use project at 28 Austin Street. I believe her comment deserved its own thread.
I have concerns about the ASP project. I thought the Metro West proposal had many benefits without so many of the negatives of the ASP project. Much smaller (25 units), 100% affordable, 3 stories high, looked like townhouses, no underground garage, meaning less disruption for existing businesses.
In terms of the environmental benefits of the ASP project, or any project in a village center, I think we need to be realistic and realize that even those living in or near a Newton village center will still have cars.We are not downtown Manhattan with subways at every corner. Our public transit options in Newtonville are really best for commuting back and forth from Boston during standard commuting hours. In addition the Newtonville commuter rail stop is accessed via somewhat rickety wooden stairs that are open to the elements, so completely inaccessible to the disabled, and difficult for the elderly, people with children, or anyone when they are covered in snow or ice.And then there is the issue of reliability – unfortunately the train is often late, especially but not only in bad weather. There are those that think making it harder for people to find parking will magically cause people to walk and bike more… I think instead what that will do is just get people to drive elsewhere for their shopping. And that is why our businesses are opposed to the project.So I think we need to be careful with this or any project that the benefits are not outweighed by the negative impacts on the community. When it comes to getting people to choose public transit more often, I think it will take more comprehensive and reliable public transit as well as much higher gas taxes.In short I am an environmentalist but I’m also pragmatic.
So, the environmental criteria being advocated for this project (by Emily) is that people who might drive cars should not be able to move there, because people in Newtonville (like Emily) are already doing that?
Has anyone done a professional environmental impact study on this project?
Bill, to respond to your first question: I don’t think that Emily is advocating for the environmental criterion you stated. I think she is saying that, while there is some public transportation in Newtonville, it is limited, and until there is public transportation that is safely accessible, reliable, and convenient, the environmental benefits being promoted for this project will not be sufficient to offset the negatives she sees in this particular project.
While the TAB (and those who quote it) can point out the supposed irony of an environmentalist opposing a project that is labeled as “energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, transit-oriented development,” that doesn’t mean that the purported environmental benefits should trump all other considerations.
Future environmental benefits may very well be achieved with this project when public transportation is improved. And that very well may happen within the 198-year term of the proposed lease-plus-renewal. 125 years ago, Newtonville had 50% more frequent train service and the Walnut Street streetcar. It can happen again.
Bruce: To be clear, I take issue with Emily’s logic, and whether what is being espoused is fair or realistic. Nobody knows whether the people who would move into these units would drive, walk, bicycle, fly, etc. But what we do know is that a.) people do now drive in Newtonville; and b.) they could take the commuter rail to Boston if they chose to do so (imperfections noted). That is more “smart” or “environmental” than not. And I think you and I agree that it should not be a gating factor regarding this project.
Bruce:
This seems to be an odd statement in 2015: “that doesn’t mean that the purported environmental benefits should trump all other considerations.”
What other considerations are more important right now?
And, per Bill B., the environmental case is easy to make. The commonwealth is not building any more rail soon, except, possibly, in Somerville. Any unit of housing that is within walking distance of transit, however sub-optimal, replaces the demand for housing that is not within walking distance of any transit.
If we’re not going to bring transit to more people, we need to bring more people to transit. Of course, this is a benefit that considers more than the strict borders of our fair city. And, has an impact borne by incumbent residents. Let’s be honest, it’s likely to cause a decrease in motor vehicle traffic in the region, with an (only partially) offsetting increase in motor vehicle traffic in the village.
Emily, methinks, is trying to think globally and think locally at the same time.
Although I disagree with her reasoning, I don’t fault Alderman Norton for being a pragmatist. But –whether Austin Street passes or not — I hope City Councilor Norton will become more of a champion for smart growth in Newton because its something we desperately need.
And if Norton hasn’t done so already, I hope that includes reaching out to Rep. Kay Khan and other state leaders asking for their help improving the Newtonville commuter station.
Kahn helped secure funding to redesign the Aubrundale Station, a process that’s presently underway. Raising the many millions needed to do the actual work in Auburndale will be harder but it’s only going to happen if we have a critical mass of users and private sector support.
Leading the effort to create a public-private partnership to create transit improvements in Newtonville seems like the perfect cause for our Ward 2 City Councilor to champion sand would have far better environmental upside for our community than any ban.
BTW, that’s kind of the point Chuck Tanowitz was making here, although the suggestion of a public-private partnership to improve mass transit was largely lost among the no-growth folks who want Newton to remain forever embalmed in a snow globe.
I would add that I know little of Emily’s environmentalist creds, and I don’t mean to single her out for criticism. What I take issue with is this “environmental” activist approach to policy decisions. Righteousness and sloganeering do not necessarily good policy make. Good policy requires goals, logical process, measurement, and yes, consistency. The same applies to the plastic bag ordinance. Making consumers and business change behavior and not informing them of the results of said efforts is highly incomplete.
Does Newton have a stated policy regarding environmental standards for new projects? By that, I don’t mean the activists’ standards. I mean the City’s. If so, have those been met?
I understand that Ald. Norton liked one of other proposals better (though, I heard that the financing on that proposal wasn’t solid) the fact is, that proposal was rejected and is not in front of the board.
So a vote of Yes by the board means that Newtonville gets additional housing, additional affordable units, additional retail space, the same number of parking spaces, more life on the street and more potential customers for local businesses.
A vote no is essentially a vote for a parking lot.
Who wants to tell me that the parking lot is a better use of the space? Because I’m just not seeing that.
Is 100% affordable units pragmatic? Who is paying for the subsidy? Wall St. Journal had an interesting article yesterday about how Cambridge is trying to keep it’s middle class with below-market rents:
“Cambridge, Mass., a hub for prestigious universities and biotechnology companies, is setting aside apartments to help an unexpected group of people find lower rents: families with incomes topping $100,000.
The city recently held a lottery for 15 units with below-market rents, in a new building a few subway stops from downtown Boston. A family of four with an income well into the six-figure range—a maximum of $118,200—could qualify for some of the apartments. The city received at least 45 applications.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/some-families-earn-six-figures-and-still-need-help-with-the-rent-1448996304
MetroWest’s proposal would have been 100% affordable, but with very deep subsidies from local, state and federal sources. The acquisition price was the same as ASP–$1 million–but MetroWest needed $950,000 in HOME and CDBG funds and another $800,000 from CPA funds, in addition tax incentives and other funding sources. Given the exorbitant housing costs in Newton, there are really only 3 ways to create affordable units: (1) mandates like the 15% inclusionary zoning ordinance; (2) incentives like Chapter 40B, which allows developers to circumvent density restrictions; and/or (3) public funding, such as CDBG, HOME and CPA funds and tax incentives. It is just not realistic to expect developers to create projects that are 100% affordable with very deep public subsidies.
Bill, Bill, Bill. Air quotes? Really? Has it come to that?
Goals, measurement, good policy would be nice to have, but are we consigned to the status quo in their absence?
We have a crisis. Municipal land use policy — municipal land use decisions — are levers with which we can slow climate change. It’s not really disputable by reasonable people. Density, baby. Density.
Unfortunately, there are powerful (and, quite frankly, understandable) political dynamics resisting density, protecting the planet-heating status quo. Please forgive me if I diminish the debate with calls to action and reasonable rhetoric that don’t follow the civics seminar playbook.
Sean: I’m with you on density. I’m there. You know that. As well as on the public transportation concept. It’s all good.
The air quotes refer to interpretation of “environmental” (and did not necessarily refer to you). You know, theory vs. actual practice. The let’s give everyone some standards, and not create arbitrary requirements out of thin air thing. And nothing is more compelling than evidence. It helps support future efforts. Allows refinement. Some might even call it “intelligent.” Yes, I finish with air quotes.
In this case, i kinda see “pragmatic” to be recognizing that no proposal is perfect, but that an ugly parking lot as the alternative is far more likely than any 25 unit look alike to the one not selected.
Mixed income housing, but particularly mixed use, mixed income housing, is a far better environment for the people who will be living in the parking lot .. I mean in the development. We don’t need a throw back to the public housing days by segregating housing by income.
I have definitely brought up reasons that could be used to deny the special permit, but I hope most will be defined better in the actual Board Order. In addition, I wouldn’t call Newtonville, with a walkability score of 37, a transit oriented village.
But I disagree with Emily’s version of being “a pragmatist.” As a pragmatist, I think this development is environmentally sound with LEED certified building materials with Oaktree, a garden rooftop, a public plaza and a pocket park. The construction on site is less disruptive since the (ugly little) boxes are made off site. It provides a shared work space that can be used for community gatherings in the evening. It widens the sidewalk. It provides new trees and plantings.
And it will house 68 singles/families who can walk around Newtonville, walk to elementary or high school, take the express bus to Boston, ride the commuter rail, bike in the Tour de Newton, run a 5K every weekend and have a place to park their cars when they come home from any other village they’ve driven to – maybe from the Turtle Lane Playhouse.
The choice is simple for me. I want all of the above rather than an old, ugly parking lot. I’m going to hate the torn up streets, noisy construction vehicles and the inconvenience until it’s finished but I will still be frequenting the Newtonville businesses – even more so – during the mess and afterward. So I’m really hoping it gets its special permit.
I reread Emily’s statement because I still couldn’t understand why she is opposed to this proposal, because wishing it were different, isn’t a reason especially since she’s been against it from the beginning.
It seems her reason is PARKING – losing the “easy”parking in the parking lot.
“There are those that think making it harder for people to find parking will magically cause people to walk and bike more… I think instead what that will do is just get people to drive elsewhere for their shopping. And that is why our businesses are opposed to the project.”
In reading Ald. Norton’s statements above, she is right about several things:
1) People will still need cars;
2) We need to increase the gas tax;
3) The commuter rail stop is, in fact woefully inadequate; and
4) Public transit use should be encouraged.
In looking at the current Austin Street proposal it does address 1 and 4 on that list. It offers parking to residents and maintains the public parking currently available. The city itself can’t address #2, but we can look at #3 in terms of a public/ private partnership when it comes to other development (Orr). Also, the greater the density of Newtonville the more we can put pressure on the MBTA to increase service. That, however, is a long-term issue.
Which brings us back to the issue of the vote. A vote of “no” is a vote for a parking lot. Personally, I believe that the lot can be better utilized than it is currently. The city went through a process of choosing a proposal and this is what we have, this is what the board can vote on. They’re not voting on what was already rejected. Let’s be real here, if this gets rejected what makes us think that developers are going to come back with better proposals? Who is going to want to take on this fight?
Ald. Norton has, in the past, suggested that the current usage is a proper utilization of the property. Which means, if I’m going to understand it correctly, that she believes driving and parking is preferable to housing and retail.
The battles over the size and scale of the project have already been fought. This is what remains. Are we going to let it slip away?
Well said, Chuck. I wish every alderman would read what you wrote.
“A vote of ‘no’ is a vote for a parking lot” says it all.
The cost of a fully accessible train station is staggering, in the $15-25 million range. Realistically, it is going to require a public-private partnership. I have spoken with developers who have done this elsewhere and a big part of what makes it work is, yes, adding density near the stations.
There is a DOT site inside the Exit 16 off ramp in West Newton that would be a prime spot for private mixed-use/residential/transit-oriented development that could subsidize the cost of an accessible train station, while preserving the existing amount of parking at the site and providing parking for the residential component as well as easy access to public transportation, including the commuter rail and express buses that pass through West Newton. Imagine you are a millennial working in Boston and living in West Newton with a fully accessible train and bus station literally steps away. Hopefully, DOT has the vision to take a currently underused parking lot and convert it to a mixed-use/transit-oriented development (even if some of our “pragmatic environmentalists” on the Board of Aldermen do not).*
The only question in my mind is whether my colleagues on our City Council will have the vision to support this kind of smart growth development. The vote on Austin Street will give us some insight into who has and who lacks that vision.
*Apologies to Sean for using air quotes.
*** More parking!! Less housing!!! ****
VOTE NO ON AUSTIN ST
Chuck nails it- density and commuter service is a bit of chicken-egg, and probably will not come without pain, but I am hopeful that greater density in a walkable, thriving village center will help put pressure to improve the transportation options there (yes, long term)- and the cars are still serviced (keeping existing parking) once the project is finished. There will be a lot to talk about with the Orr building proposals and I hope we get sick of that topic when the time comes (meaning, options are openly discussed, debated and a sensible plan is put in place that works with the existing village and a vision of the future).
And to a point Chuck has already stated twice- we will be stuck with this bomb-crater of a parking lot for many years (or indefinitely) if there is a vote to go back to the drawing board (“They’re not voting on what was already rejected”).
I am so stealing this for next Tuesday night. ;-)
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: What size do you need?
Here’s a really interesting report on relationships among parking, transit, and mode choice. The UC Berkeley study finds that transit availability doesn’t have a huge impact on the decision to drive or take transit. An abundance of parking does, however.
“…the presence of a nearby rail station doesn’t have that much of an impact on whether people own cars or drive to work. What does make a difference is the number of parking spaces they have available to them, whether those are on the street or in garages or driveways.”
http://cal.streetsblog.org/2015/12/03/is-rail-that-important-for-transit-oriented-development/
If any decision-maker honestly believes that a no vote is exclusively a vote for a parking lot, then that proves the point that many Austin Street opponents are not legitimately being listened to. In my time following Newton city government, Board members have consistently explained that they are relatively powerless over the Mayor. In that case, Monday’s vote could be viewed as an opportunity to hold the Mayor accountable and to demand better for the people of Newton. With better leadership comes better results.
Tom, didn’t BlueprintBill in a recent V14 blog post state that the NVA’s desire is for this to remain a parking lot?
Tom Davis:
While I certainly understand the frustration folks have with the mayor, those of us who have been around for a while are aware of how long this process took, and the amount of time and money developers invest in getting projects to this stage. I suppose the city could put the project back out to RFP. But I think it is highly likely it stays a parking lot for a decade.
It is all fine and good to say this is about the mayor, but the special permit process is supposed to be about the project itself, not the political process that led us there.
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, many of my neighbors think that if the building isn’t built, that MORE Affordable housing, a larger park, more community benefits, etc. are just around the corner. I like to call that the luxury of infinite possibility. Call me cynical based on experience, but in the real world, no politician or developer is going to touch this project for a decade. I call that the pain of pragmatic reality.
Perhaps the aldercritters and the mayor will surprise me. But they’d also need to convince a developer to go through the pain of a process with limited chance of success, and the ability of a minority group of aldercritters to block everything via a special permit process which is supposed to be impartial, but it is clearly political in nature.
Jerry, say it ain’t so….I thought you were ok with the project.
Blueprintbill: “a redesigned, tree lined, parking facility…is being advocated by the NVA”
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/12/tab-calls-out-environmentalist-emily-norton-for-opposing-smart-growth-project-at-austin-street/#ixzz3tMflS34i
I’ll also note that if the project fails, does anyone expect the city to have the money to follow through on the Walnut Street redo? I’ve always viewed the village refresh and the project as being connected.
Folks still think this is all about the parking. If the opponents could assure me I’d still get my pocket park next to the parking lot, my narrowed Walnut street with sidewalks, plantings, seating areas and historic lighting, I’d be less upset. But it is far easier to advocate for nothing changing that it is for actual improvements.
What a shame.
@fignewtonville – #satireamme
@Tom Davis – opponents have indeed been listened too. Various concessions have already been made in response to concerns that have been raised by opponents.
What chuck is pointing out is that from a pragmatic point of view, the up coming vote is effectively a choice between the current plan under consideration and the status quo (a parking lot) for the forseeable future.
So talk about a park, 100% affordable housing project, etc are now beside the point. Those are not on the table.
“Luxury of infinite possibilities.” Fig for the win.
Anybody who doesn’t think this is about parking, please re-read Emily’s statement. It may not be about the specific parking lot … preserving the Austin Street Lot as a historic monument in its current condition … but, as many others apparently do, I read it as opponents wanting to preserve a quantity of parking, or access to parking, they feel will not exist post-project. If retaining an ugly parking lot is the cost of preserving parking, that’s okay.
Jerry, sorry, I’m tired and my sarcasm reader malfunctioned. I blame lack of coffee.
Regarding preserving the quality of parking, I do think parking under a building is less desireable than an open air parking lot. Until it rains. Then the covered spaces somehow become plumb awesome for those of us who forget umbrellas.
And I do hope something happens on Walnut street if this fails. I hope the city finds a way to make it work. I care about the village far more than being right. I’d like my kids to have a place to eat their ice cream on summer days (really, Ranc’s is terrific, but the senior center benches feel like I’m trespassing, which is crazy I know).
Btw, as a tangent, I love the Senior Center outdoor redo. Love it. CPA funds in action baby. Kudos to whomever pushed that through.
The NVA is indeed advocating for a tree lined parking lot (see the example they use on their website and email alerts). Ironically, pragmatic environmentalist Norton favors both the lot and a leaf blower ban, which if we adopt the NVA vision frankly isn’t very pragmatic.
I love that parking lot photo. Very pretty. Where is Julia where we need her for me to ask her how difficult it is to grow large trees in parking lot islands. My guess is that you’d need to loose a fair number of spaces to make that work.
So after all the talk here about the “ugly parking lot”, when Austin Street fails, where will the V 14 come down on the remediation of the situation? Will everyone then say FU Newtonville go fix it yourself ? This will be fun to watch .