One argument that keeps coming up from Austin Street opponents it the issue of time. They say that we need more time to make sure this is the right deal for the city, or we need more time to see if there are other options.
This process has taken years, just since the point at which the city called the lot “surplus.” Never mind all the years of having the lot itself. The vetting is done, the arguments were had, this is the project in front of us. And personally, I’m not convinced that a secondary vetting process will yield a substantially better project. This is why I still believe that a vote of “No” is a vote in favor of the parking lot.
The photo above is from 1948, a few years before the Mass Pike cut through the city. At first look, it seems that very little has changed. Walnut Street has many of the same buildings, the railroad cuts a path right where the Pike is today and many of the houses look almost identical. (you can examine a much larger version here.)
But look again and you can start to see the increase in parking. Two buildings that sit at the corner of Austin Street and Walnut Street were removed, replaced by a parking lot. The Star Market that existed on the street front has moved back a block and now hangs over the Pike.
Look at the top middle of the frame, extending to the left. All those trees are gone, replaced with offices and parking. The Austin Street lot itself has grown, taking over plots of land on the northwestern edge and on the southwestern edge. Also, a grassy area that is immediately behind where the Rox Diner sits today has also been removed in favor of more parking.
Newton wasn’t alone in making these car-based decisions through the latter half of the 20th century, cities and suburbs around the country did the same. Now we have an opportunity to turn that tide and move to a more sustainable way of living. This project is just one piece of that.
But here’s the thing: the city has had at least 60 years to decide what to do with the Austin Street parking lot. It’s been a slab of asphalt for that long and, if this project gets voted down, will be a slap of asphalt for a lot longer.
Storage for cars versus habitat for people.
@Nathan Phillips: I know, right?
Oh, I missed a couple. Behind the building where Brewer’s Coalition is now, another building was torn down to make way for parking. At the top right of the frame you can see a box building behind the Orr building that was also torn down and replaced with parking. Finally, all the way in the top right corner is a building behind were the Paint Bar is now that was torn down and replaced with… wait for it… parking.
And just over on Beacon Street, 3 modest size homes will come down for what……parking.
Perhaps someone who is opposed to the project will be given access to start new threads to represent a different viewpoint?
Amy – Let’s be clear. The 3 houses on Beacon St. will provide for an expanded site for Zervas School for decades to come. The additional space will provide parking for staff who cannot afford to live in Newton, but provide services for Newton children.
It’s not accurate to compare staff parking (with no alternative) to parking in a village with numerous lots and spaces for people to complete chores.
Good Grief, Charlie. They have posted every article and opinion piece written by opponents to ASP’s development and they have been numerous. Plus opponents have been posting here and everywhere else for years now.
@Jane: I attended a recent TAG meeting where they invited the SC to join them to discuss the issue of site planning and developing a transportation policy. Point is: Parking is important. Housing is important. Not a black and white issue to say Housing is more important than parking without nuancing the specific situation. Clearly in the case with the expansion of Zervas, parking was a more important than housing in developing and approving the site plan for the school, at least for some of the Aldermen. #255-14(2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE petitioning, pursuant to Sec 5-58, for
schematic design and site plan approval of a new elementary school to be located
on the existing Zervas Elementary School site at 30 Beethoven Avenue and the
city’s three newly acquired properties at 1316 Beacon Street, 1330 Beacon Street,
and 1338 Beacon Street.APPROVED AS AMENDED 16 YEAS, 6 NAYS (Ald. Blazar, Cote, HessMahan, Norton, Sangiolo, Yates) 2 ABSENT (Ald. Ciccone & Johnson).
@Alderman Sangiolo: I’m trying to figure out if your comments about Zervas are linked to this Austin Street discussion (especially because the 28 Austin Street adds housing while keeping 128 public parking spaces). If so, please help by connecting the dots. Thanks in advance.
What Marti said! The opponents of Austin St. have used V14 as their platform.
Village 14 has and does accept guest posts (no pseudonyms) . You can reach us through the contact button on the top right.
@Greg: My apologies. My comments about Zervas were supposed to address the comments made by my good friend, Nathan: “Storage for cars vs. housing for people” which were also agreed to by my good friend and colleague, Ted Hess-Mahan who wrote, ” I know, right.” Three houses were taken by the City to provide parking at Zervas. I am not making any comments on whether that parking was necessary or not. It is a fact. Existing housing taken for parking. Ted did not support it.
And Greg, the Austin Street development proposal keeps 124 spaces – not 128. The October 22nd site plan had 127 but the Land Use Committee voted to eliminate 3 spaces to add to the public plaza space with the caveat that should those spaces be needed in the future, they could be re-added to the site thereby providing 127 spaces. This should be in the latest draft of the board order: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70568
@Alderman Sangiolo: Thanks for the clarification and correction.
@Greg: Oops Misquoted my friend Nathan . “Storage for cars versus habitat for people”. Sorry.
Amy – “Parking is important. Housing is important. Not a black and white issue to say Housing is more important than parking without nuancing the specific situation.” I think we’re in agreement.
@Jane: On that statement – we are.
Yes, it is all important. But I also think we need to recognize how much parking we’ve put in over the years and what that means.
There is a LOT of parking in Newtonville and a LOT of the village has been given up to cars. I believe that in this place it’s time for us to focus instead on bringing in people, not just their cars.
@Chuck: This proposal will result in bringing more people and more cars. With regard to parking, the folks that want to maintain the spaces (businesses and residents) are concerned that development of the site will make it more difficult (waiver of the size of the spaces) and reduce the number of spaces currently available.
@Alderman Sangiolo: Sounds like you’re channeling Yogi Berra. You know, Newtonville will be so full of people that no one will got there any more.
@Ald. Sangiolo, I understand the concern, but I also think that it’s through a very specific lens. People see it through the idea of parking within steps of their destination. However, there is plenty of parking if people look just beyond the areas right near the shops. In many situations people have no trouble walking a little farther. I’m not talking about walking a mile, but a block or two.
For example, if you have a reservation at a nice restaurant, you’re not going to drive away because you couldn’t get a spot. You’ll either park a little bit away or the restaurant may offer assisted parking. Just as the housing and parking aren’t black and white, this isn’t either.
When this is done there will be parking for both residents and businesses, there will be shoppers and there will be additional life on the street.
But if you believe that parking alone is what’s most valuable, then you should vote for the parking lot.
@Greg: No – just stating that if you add development and parking – you will get more people and more cars. I’m not saying that the proposal is bringing in more cars than would otherwise be required under this new zoning. I am not suggesting that no one will be able to get there any more. I was simply expressing what I believe folks are concerned about in terms of losing the existing parking lot in its current configuration to this development project.
It was stated that this is about storage for cars versus habitat for people. But the habitat for people doesn’t come with no storage for cars. This project is about not only storing cars – for the existing needs (and that is debatable) but also about adding to the storage of cars and adding habitat for people.
@Alderman Sangiolo: And I’m saying bringing more people to Newtonville — which in turn means more customers for Newtonville businesses — is another great reason why I hope you will vote “yes” next week.
A “no” vote is a vote for a parking lot. A “no” vote is a vote for fewer units of affordable housing in Newton. A “no” vote is a vote against diversifying our housing stock. And a “no” vote is a vote for long term economic stagnation in the Newtonville center.
Hit submit comment too soon. Sorry. The Zervas vote, on the other hand, was about taking away existing habitat for people for storage for cars. I happened to disagree with that policy decision but respect that was a decision based on a stated need and purpose.
@Chuck: “For example, if you have a reservation at a nice restaurant, you’re not going to drive away because you couldn’t get a spot. You’ll either park a little bit away or the restaurant may offer assisted parking.” – I guess that depends on the restaurant and how far away I would have to find parking and whether the restaurant offered assisted parking and whether I wanted to pay for that assisted parking on top of my meal. Moody Street works for me – because there are plenty of surface parking lots and street parking. But if the lots are full and there is no available nearby street parking – I would likely cancel my reservation (unless I’ve already missed my reservation because I was looking for parking) and go somewhere else or go home.
I don’t think parking is necessarily more valuable but I don’t dismiss the value of parking either.
Or… A no vote means you’re not happy with giving away city property, adding to traffic and density, and adding to school overcrowding, and you’re being responsive to the local businesses and residents of the village.
But Greg certainly has the better slogan with that parking lot 1 liner.
Chuck, thanks for framing this from a historical perspective. Those who claim anti-development positions based on nostalgia are really just arguing for a freeze after a long period of decline in our village centers. I suspect Newtonville is not alone and that Newton’s other village centers would show similar trends over the past century with both increasing parking and decreasing density — not just as a tradeoff of structures for parking with the rise of the automobile, but with the loss of older decaying structures replaced by smaller and cheaper “taxpayer buildings”
I think a more inviting streetscape connecting Walnut Street and Austin Street would help balance the demand for parking and make that extra block feel a lot closer when looking for parking. Amy, that foot traffic, as well as life from that new habitat, is all good for business, something those folks you talk to should be most concerned about.
Jane,
There certainly are alternatives to parking spaces on school property, especially where there’s ample public on-street parking nearby. Village centers can be more challenging, but in all cases parking is a resource which must be managed and there’s a cost — a substantial cost — to dedicating land exclusively to car storage.
Zervas: storage for cars versus habitat for people.
@Charlie – Or a no vote could mean you have some understanding of economics and want to broaden the City’s tax base while creating additional affordable housing.
Or, a ‘no’ vote means giving in to pressure from a vocal minority which does not.
There are numerous parking lots in and around Newtonville. There is one parking lot near Zervas School that must accommodate staff, parent, and visitor parking.
No, Jane, all staff, parent, and visitor car storage must not be be on site, in a parking lot.
Lets clarify something. This is not storage for cars vs. habitat for people, because the number of parking spaces will not change.
Bryan, that’s what’s so interesting about the opponent’s argument. No, the storage for cars WILL NOT change. So they’re really arguing about parking during the time of construction, which will happen if you make any change whatsoever.
Which again, brings us back to this idea that they’re voting in favor of a parking lot. They’re voting for the status quo.
The other argument the NVA has made, that people moved to Newton for the “tree cover” and that’s a reason to oppose this site is bunk on the face of it. Those trees were long gone. The pretty vision of a tree-lined parking lot is entirely ridiculous. You can’t do that AND maintain the parking. It’s all a circular argument that brings us right back to the beginning.
@Greg:
As 34 Newtonville businesses have pointed out to the Board of Alderman, there are 3500 housing units proximate to Newtonville’s village center. Adding 68 housing units (2%) to those within walkable range at the expense of convenient parking risks turning away their larger customer base, which is largely dependent on car travel.
On Saturday afternoon I had to drive two round trips to West Newton to drop off and pick up a family member for an appointment. There probably were several spots that could be searched for, but you don’t know that until you get there or if you know the area well enought to look in the right spots.
We really love several businesses there like the West Newton Cinema, Coney Island, La A’roma, Sweet Tomatoes, and more; but you are always a bit discouraged from making a discretionary trip there for lack of municipal parking and the towing threats in the private lots. Ted’s idea of having maps in businesses guiding customers is a very good one as is experimenting with shared parking.
In contrast Newton Highlands municipal lot is small, but enough that you don’t worry about a parking issue when you head to Bread and Chocolate or 51 Lincoln (or the Rox when it was there).
In many years living of living in Newton, I only recall 1 discretionary trip to Newton Corner besides trips to Bertuccis (which has its own parking). I know there is parking there behind the buildings, but it doesn’t invite you in, and probably yields safety concerns to some, at least at night.
When Newtonville residents do the math on the Austin St. lot, the see a starting point as 164 spaces (according to ASP). They see that reduced to 124 narrow spaces as part of the project. They see the project asking for a parking waiver of 80 spaces vs. zoning requirements, and they see the project driving Star Market to restrict its parking and push 30-40 illegally parked cars out of the lot and into the Austin St. lot. So 164-40-80-30 = 14. Of course this is a worst case picture, but when you contrast it with statements like “nothing has changed, you still have 127 spaces”, you can see why groups are talking past each other.
The new lot will not be full all the time, but the typical best case scenario will be to find a spot where the goodwill truck is now parked. That will impact discretionary trips to the current businesses. Metering will likely have to be put in place on at least Saturdays, which will raise the cost of frequenting the businesses. The businesses are going to have to live through the site construction, the undergrounding of utilities, the upgrade of sewer/water needed to serve the development, and finally the long needed upgrade of Walnut St. itself. The Walnut St. upgrade be disruptive and difficult for the businesses.
It is a confusing contradiction why the NNCC is not supporting the Walnut St. businesses, or at least not presenting a more balanced view of the project’s impact. Is it that they are not dues paying members?
A Yes vote is a vote for crony capitalism, giving publicly owned property to politically-connected friends of and fundraisers for the Mayor, at bargain prices.
A Yes vote robs the City of the opportunity to unite Newtonville, create green space, or preserve the convenient parking that the village needs
A Yes vote will also strangle all Newtonville businesses during construction.
A No vote is a vote against this corrupt and misguided process.
Jack P., parking in Newton Highlands isn’t a problem because only a handful of businesses there are thriving, and there are still empty storefronts. That’s certainly one solution to the parking demand problem. Newton Corner is not a welcoming pedestrian environment, like it once was. People like you say go there, sometimes reluctantly, to visit a single business, then leave. Certainly not something to emulate.
Bryan: yes. Storage for cars, versus habitat for people plus abundant storage for cars.
Matthew – Your reason that building 28 Austin St. would close of options for reuniting Newtonville. Why? The Sasaki interns proposed a building in the parking lot and the reuniting of Newtonville. They are two separate ideas – both good. One is under our control and we can do it now. One has many obstacles to achieve – worth pursuing but not easy by any means. I believe that the Newtonville businesses are already being strangled. As vacancies came up landlords rented to banks – one after the other . One owner even evicted shops so that he could rend to a bank. We lost the diversity of shops that Newtonville used to have. The businesses need a critical mass of people and shops to be successful.
The people who admit that parking vs housing is not a black and white situation are being truthful. It’s very hard for me to understand why anyone thinks teachers and other staff at an elementary school shouldn’t park in a parking lot. And increasing the size of a school should, imo, come with increased parking. I would be uncomfortable parking on neiborhood streets all day, particularly because no one in the neighborhood wants you to. Most of our school employees cannot afford to live in Newton. These aren’t shoppers and restaurant goers, these are people going to work.
But this goes along with “magical” thinking that getting rid of parking will mean people will automatically find another way to get there.
There is absolutely no way to accurately predict the economic profit or loss that will be experienced by merchants during construction or after. There are theory’s that more people living near the center will largely increase profit, that the parking plan during construction will work and the one afterword will not cause problems.
There are also theory’s that there will be a loss of business during construction that the mitigation won’t cover and that afterward there may be just a 2% gain in business that won’t be large enough to make up for the loss. That the interim parking plan may not come together as planned because parking in the lot during construction depends on getting insurance to do so, low paid employees might not be able to add the 30-45 minutes to their commute and it’s still not settled whether the 20 spaces will be in the Star lot or on a one-way Austin Street. That after its built parking will be difficult for many reasons and regulars will stop coming.
All of these theory’s have facts that support them. Basically it will be a decision between which theory seems better supported than the other one. An alder who votes no is not necessitating voting for a parking lot – although that has a nice ring to it. They might just believe this project will be detrimental to Newtonville.
A vote to approve the special permit is a vote based on the theory that the project will work as theorized, or just a vote for affordable housing.
I’m hoping for this outcome but that doesn’t mean others don’t have reasons for their viewpoint.
Marti, because it’s not black and white. There should be parking for staff, some or most of it on school property, and generally a larger lot when the school gets larger. But there are constraints. Those who say every single car needs to be accommodated on site, thus reducing the space for programming and/or recreation, are taking the black/white approach and squandering precious space and funds. The streets belong to the public. There are ways to manage parking such that the entire street isn’t parked up all day (see Waban’s new parking plan); leaving them empty because abutters treat it like private property? Again, black and white thinking.
Susan – no, you’re reading what you want to read in my comment.
The key point, and one which I raised to you nearly two years ago at the Newton Art Center, is that this is public property. Giving it, for a song and a dance, to a private developer is dumb. Giving it to a private developer who is close friends with the Mayor, who was selected by the Mayor, who raises funds for the Mayor – and perhaps for Alders?, and who helped run the Mayor’s transition team – all of that stinks of corruption.
“Your reason that building 28 Austin St. would close of options for reuniting Newtonville. Why? The Sasaki interns proposed a building in the parking lot and the reuniting of Newtonville.”
No: it’s not that constructing a building will, in the abstract, close off options for reuniting Newtonville. The problem is that handing control of the lot and building *this* building, at the edge of the lot, does close off options for reuniting Newtonville. As does any handing of the property to a private developer. Let alone this developer.
” They are two separate ideas – both good. One is under our control and we can do it now.”
On that we agree. Building something there can be done well. This project is not done well: 1) it hands land over to a private developer; 2) for far too little money; 3) to build something we don’t need (luxury apartments) and not enough of what we do (affordable apartments).
Please, also, take a moment to note the terrible irony of you saying that this thing is under our control – while you work to remove it from our control.
“One has many obstacles to achieve – worth pursuing but not easy by any means.”
And you’re spending your time trying to make money for a private developer. Who do you work for?
“I believe that the Newtonville businesses are already being strangled. As vacancies came up landlords rented to banks – one after the other . One owner even evicted shops so that he could rend to a bank. We lost the diversity of shops that Newtonville used to have. The businesses need a critical mass of people and shops to be successful.”
So, do you think that making it harder for employees and customer to park there will help? Do you sincerely believe that adding perhaps 2% more people within a 10-minute walk of Newtonville, while making it a less attractive destination (because it will be harder to park, and that is how they get there) for the 60,000 other residents of Newton, will help?
If what we need is more people in Newtonville, then turn part of the space (like the footprint of the current ASP building) to green space and a playground and a water park, preserve the parking that’s there, and people will come from elsewhere in Newton and surrounding towns to enjoy the green space, playground, and water park, and then will shop in Newtonville.
You could add a small community garden too. I will volunteer time, seeds, and tools.
Matthew:
First, I’m glad you are posting here, and I hope you continue to do so after the project decision comes down. While I realize the project has raised tensions in our community, and I know that conspiracy theories regarding the mayor and ASP seem to be very popular, you have alleged corruption in a few threads now, and I respectfully put to you that unless you actually know of something, such accusations without proof are unfair. The mayor is friendly with the developer. There is a level of trust there. Perhaps it was a tipping point to why they got chosen. But the committee who evaluated the projects was filled with people I know and respect. Good people. People whose reputations are beyond reproach in my opinion. And this project/developer tied for first. The mayor may have had the final choice, but when you allege corruption you implicate a wide host of people by association. You are using your own name and I respect that. It is clear from your posts that you are upset about the project and I respect that as well. But your insinuations are unfair and in my opinion wrong.
As for your post, the only thing I will say is that I would welcome a park in Newtonville. I’ve love the pocket park in the proposal. If the option was between the project and all its benefits and drawbacks, and a park with a water park and a playground, I would be tempted by the latter, even if it doesn’t get me any other improvements to Newtonville or the affordable units. That is me being honest, as I hope you will be in your response. I just don’t see how we get there. Perhaps you have a plan. Perhaps you know of where we would get funding. Perhaps a new mayor would support just such a plan. But your park will cost a lot of money, money that the city does not have or would not be willing to give us. I know from personal experience how hard it is to raise $5,000 for local causes. How will we raise the $500,000 at a minimum it would cost to build your park?
I said in another post that opponents of the project have the luxury of the infinite possibility. Your proposed park sounds very lovely. Dreams always do. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But for me, having a real park, real affordable units, and a real revitalized village is better than a possible park in a decade. Or never.
I can’t say you are wrong since I don’t know if you have a plan or if you are better than me at fundraising. Sometimes the practical option is also the one that doesn’t dream enough. But I’ll post at this website every year if the project doesn’t pass. If we are both still in Newton, we can see who was right, the practical or the dream. If the vote doesn’t pass, I very much hope you are right, and that you will be working to make your dream a reality. I’ll miss having a park in the lot in the meantime.
Matthew – I think this is a great project that will bring homes back to Austin St., 17 of which will be affordable. Newtonville will have a public gathering place and other amenities. Your allegations about cronyism is ridiculous – a small donation was given by the developer before the project began and was given back after it was chosen. Of all the projects offered by developers this one had the more environmentally sound aspect and the quickest construction time. I know what the criteria were and I know that this project ranked highest on these important elements.
I resent your comment that I’m doing anything else other than representing the people of Newton in general and the residents of ward 2 in particular.
Housekeeping note: Two comments have been removed from this thread because they contain serious unsubstantiated claims of illegal/unethical behavior that even the person posting them admits are “from what I’ve heard.” If that person can substantiate claims, through links to public financing reports, other legal/public documents or media reports he is welcome to republish. But you can’t just point fingers based on hearsay.
As per our commenting rules, commenters who continue to post problematic material may eventually just be blocked from this site.
AS is a poor quality business deal, conceptually deficient in our expectation of our elected officials, and will inherently set precedent for a model of give-away sweetheart deals for future administrations.
I hope this comment serves to lower the heat rather than intensify it regarding appearances of conflicts of interest: that the developer is a Newton resident to start with might give some pause about his and the city’s ability to engage in a completely unconflicted process. The developer is both a citizen of this city and a business person potentially doing business with the city. Its almost impossible to disengage the numerous ways in which a person who has lived in and interacted with city government for many years from a potential business partnership. That he is friendly with the Mayor is difficult to parse in terms of these roles. Based on these considerations, some in good faith might suggest that a developer who lives in Newton should have prima facia potential conflicts and should be prohibited from bidding on development projects that involve city partnership. I wouldn’t support that, and to apply in this case it should have been raised years ago, but I am suggesting that this might be the remedy required for some of the concerns mentioned above.
For me, nothing better illustrates that this project is about what’s good for ASP rather than what’s good for the city, than hearing their attorney Alan Schlesinger say, at the November 12 Land Use meeting, that they’d agree not to lease to banks or nail salons for five years. If I hadn’t been sitting five feet away I would have thought I’d misheard.
Five years! That’s pathetic. Would you marry someone who promised ‘I’ll be faithful for five years’? I think not! This is land the city owns, yet what’s in the “Conditions” of the Board Order is not even a condition — it’s more of an observation: “ASP has agreed to not lease the commercial space in the Project to banks or nail salons for a period of five years from the date when such commercial spaces are first occupied…” It doesn’t even say “shall not lease…”
To me, this whole process seems like a giant, slow motion “bait & switch,” where we’re not getting what was envisioned when the property was surplussed, and when the RFP was written. Remember when 32 units of housing was said to be ‘aggressive’? And what are we getting for commercial? According to the Board Order “approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space” according to the Findings (not even in the Conditions). Up to 1,500 square feet of that can be the shared office space innovation center, and it appears that much of the remaining ‘approximately’ 3,500 square feet could be used up by an up to 75-seat restaurant. If there was one thing besides banks I would say Newtonville doesn’t lack, it’s restaurants. What happened to the retail we were thought we were getting?
What’s embarrassing is that a majority of the Board, and perhaps two thirds, will actually vote for this, and settle for the guy/girl who promises to be faithful for five years.
@fignewtonville: thanks for welcoming me.
I understand your desire to take a (IMO) bad deal for the City to get a small park.
But I can’t justify this bad deal for a small park.
Will I work to get a park built? Yes.
How will we raise the money? I think there are plenty of people in Newton who will donate time and money to make it happen. I will.
Am I better at fundraising than you? Hard to say, as you know my name and I don’t know yours… 🙂
@Susan: plainly you and I don’t agree on the merits of this project or its value for Newton, let alone Newtonville.
My primary objection to this project is that it turns over control of City-owned property for private profit. We’re about to get a large apartment building at the Orr Building – on land that is already privately owned. I do not have the same objection to that plan: that does not take public land away from the public, nor is that developer asking for a parking waiver.
I’m sorry that you resent my comments. While you may be voting your conscience, you are not representing the interests of Newtonville residents. This is not my opinion: take a look at the Beautiful Newtonville survey, and the Newtonville Area Council survey.
“How will we raise the money? I think there are plenty of people in Newton who will donate time and money to make it happen. I will.”
If this is true – why are the parks and trees in Newton in such deplorable conditions. As it is, much of the maintenance done on our parks and fields is done by volunteers. The newish pathway through Newton Centre was funded by Federal dollars (it was a shovel ready project).
Friends of Crystal Lake or Friends of Farlow Park have been trying to raise $s for their parks for years.
Though, park maintenance has improved since Mayor Warren took office. Greatly appreciate the working water fountains in Newton Centre!
off topic, but what pathway through Newton Centre?
Newton Centre park has a connecting pathway leading from the school playground to Beacon (past the tennis courts) and Gibbs St. Before the ‘shovel ready’ project, the path through NC park stopped midway thru the park.
Back to this project and the issue of time, I can remember sending reporter from the TAB to cover the first meetings about surplussing the Austin Street parking lot in 2007/08. He used to come back from the meetings astounded by how few people cared about what was going to happen to their parking lot.
@Gail. Ironic. It is like that Joni Mitchell song about parking lots. “You don’t know what you got until it is gone.”
Jeffery – As you may recall, Joni’s point was that you didn’t want to end up with a parking lot.
Jane. I knew someone was going to say that. I don’t remember the song too well. She was singing about how beautiful high density development is, right? I can hear the song now, “they paved mixed-use-new-high-density -40B construction and built a parking lot…”
No, Jeffrey, they just ended up with a parking lot.
We’re not just ending up with a parking lot; we’re ending up with a run down ugly one – just across the street from another parking lot and a parking lot to the left and right of it.
@Gail — I think most busy Newtonville residents when seeing Austin St. article headlines in Tab thought the project was to be about making better use of the far western corner of the lot.
Do you have front page articles/pictures from TAB in that era that would have alerted residents to what was going to be proposed years later? This seems to be the first Tab Blog post that references the lot:
2007: Newton North construction affects my parking
One insightful editor noted commented:
The lot doesn’t seem to get much play on the Tab Blog until 2013 except for the 2009 post, which has many of the key participants that are commenting this week.