There will be a public meeting on Thursday, Feb. 11 at 7 p.m. in the cafeteria at Newton North High School respecting a proposed mixed-use development at the intersection of Washington Street and Walnut Street in Newtonville.
The meeting, which is being held under the auspices of the three Ward 2 Councilors, Susan Albright, Emily Norton, and Jake Auchincloss, and the Newtonville Area Council will include a presentation of the proposed development by Mark Investment and its development team. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions following the presentation. For questions, please feel free to contact any of the following:
I can’t attend this meeting. Anyone willing to go and provide a summary for us?
Julia Malakie has written about this project on her old campaign blog. (I’ve encouraged her to post it on Village 14 as well). Here’s one excerpt.
When I drive to Watertown I usually drive by way of Watertown Street or California Street. The other night, for the first time in years, I actually drove the circle of death and drove towards Watertown via Centre Street. I had not been in that direction for quite awhile since I use to shop at Hi-Lo foods.
That section of Newton Corner is now a battering ram of ugliness. Empty storefronts, out of place high-rises, garish lights and loud noise. Not the postcard for the “Garden City” for sure.
More of the same for Newtonville?
See you tonight.
@Mark: I know there’s some sentimentality for the Orr Building but that aside, that block is not particularly attractive either.
It is entirely appropriate to approach this project with skepticism but fighting for the status quo based on the block’s attractiveness would be a stretch.
@Mark Marderosian – All but the first two blocks on the way from Newton Corner to Watertown St (Galen St, not Centre St) are actually Watertown not Newton. That aside though, point still taken.
@Jerry, I appreciate your making that clear. I was aware of that, having shopped at an old clearance store at the bottom of the hill just before the lights years ago. Still and again, thanks for the distinction. And as you imply, the overall point and impression remains the same.
The astounding figure that I learned recently, thanks to research done for the Waban Area Council’s Visioning Activity, is that Newton ranks 18th for density in Massachusetts at 4786 people per square mile. It is half as dense as Brookline and twice as dense as Dedham! No wonder I can never find a place to park in Brookline (and why I enjoy shopping at Dedham’s Legacy Place).
Mark made some great points. If we can’t attract business’s to the Newton side of that section of town, what about increasing public transportation (bus’s) and building affordable housing in that area. What say you?
What decisions should we be making from comparative population density figures? Of the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth, should Newton be comparing itself to towns like Hawley, which is 1.7 times larger in square miles, has only a sliver of our population (maybe 350 people), and is located a good ways from the state’s largest economic center? Of course not. A better use of that data might be to determine how Newton’s population density ranks among communities within the 128. That comparison would be meaningful.
And other questions need to be asked of such data, especially about the methodology for calculating such statistics. For example, what percentage of each municipality’s square mileage is comprised of ponds, lakes, rivers, state parks, transportation infrastructure, and other areas where residential dwellings cannot be built?
I may be wasting my time writing this. The comment above was written to assert that “Newton is has enough density” and therefore “more density would be bad.” That’s one opinion. I guess I’m writing this to ask and encourage each other to have a more substantive discussion.
twas a venting of anger..
@John: The point I was making was that Newton is half as dense as Brookline and twice as dense as Dedham. The three town/cities are ALL within 128 and all offer very different choices. We need to ask which future density best describes our needs and desires and offers us housing and transportation options for diversity of age, work, race and pocketbook. It’s not an easy question and definitely needs a lot of discussion. To think we will have no change is not only unrealistic, but deadly, and will exacerbate the uncertainty and insecurity of property owners who are now challenged by the drive for density that has been encouraged by developers with dollar signs in their eyes. We will grow. How we grow and the rate at which we grow are the questions we need to answer. Zoning reform may help us. At least we may have a road map of where to expect change. We need to be very careful, in our quest for new housing options, not to forget the very important need for commercial development within our borders. The percentage of residential properties bearing the tax burden has increased heavily over the last four decades. Prudence would have us dwell on new ideas for encouraging business development wherever large parcels are available to rebalance that tax burden.
Maybe we can put a question on the ballot.
What was presented, and what were the reactions?
@Carry, the developer presented a project with the following knowns and unknowns:
Knowns:
(1) Seeking a six-story mixed-use development at the corner of Washington and Walnut, which would require zoning relief from the City Council.
(2) The ground floor would feature up to seven retail locations.
(3) The five stories above would house 151 rental units, ranging from studio to two-bedroom. Currently 15% would be deed-restricted as affordable housing.
(4) The developer is working with current tenants to negotiate workable arrangements for them.
(5) There would be outdoor seating and improvements to Washington Street to enhance walkability
(6) Surface and underground parking would be based on projected retail traffic (I believe those would be about 80 surface spots) and 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit underground.
Unknowns:
(1) Whether the project might expand to the west, eventually encompassing buildings down to Lowell Ave.
(2) The results of the developer’s traffic study, which will incorporate projected traffic from Austin St project.
(3) The results of the developer’s school-impact study.
(4) Whether the developer will agree to 20% affordable units, and what mix those affordable units might be.
(5) What Newtonville improvements the developer is willing and able to fund, including potentially rehabilitating the bridge between the two sections of Newtonville.
@Jake
Could you let us know if you had a conversation with the developer before he purchased these properties about the possibility of a development? If so, what did you say in that discussion?
I’ve met with the developer several times since he purchased the property, as have all the Ward 2 city councilors. I have told him the same as I tell my constituents and the TAB: walkability and affordability should be the principal criteria. This project has to make Newtonville better and it has to be provide for a range of household incomes. I thought it was a fine initial presentation; there’s more work to do.
@Jake
A significant proportion of Newtonville opposed Austin St as you know. Its grossly unfair to pursue additional development in this village when the first one hasn’t even been built. Newtonville schools have literally no capacity post-Austin St., irrespective of the findings of a school impact study. Its premature to “project” traffic of Orr AND Austin St. when we can at least wait to see how well the projections did on Austin St. after the building is completed.
Newton has 12 other villages. Let’s see some development at this scale in those other villages before pushing more onto Newtonville residents. Allowing for even more development in Newtonville is completely dismissive of the concerns of a large proportion of the village. I’m very upset that this is even a consideration.
I wasn’t able to make the presentation but I’ve been thinking a fair amount about this project. Here are some very initial thoughts:
1) I think that while it is natural to compare this project to Austin Street, it is different in many ways. Size, location, school district, and most important current use and ownership of the land. For many of us, the Austin Street project was one almost a decade in the making. There were reasons to support Austin Street that do not exist here (yet), namely a higher percentage of affordable housing, a rehabilitated parking lot (although boy did we all argue about the number of spaces and the size of those spaces), and sale proceeds for the village.
2) I’m curious as the developer’s decision to showcase an initial 15% affordability number. That seems rather tone-deaf to me. Was there another benefit to the project I’m missing?
3) Folks can argue about the historic nature and beauty of the Orr building, but street fabric matters, historic structures matter. Austin Street was immune from such discussions (as it was a parking lot). Older structures, even ones in some degree of disrepair, have value beyond the bricks and mortar. At some point if you tear down too much, Newtonville looks like everyplace else, feels like everyplace else. Does this mean no one can ever tear down the Orr building? Of course not. This isn’t a core historic structure, at best it is contributing to a historic district. But its presence raises the bar for what would justify a teardown in my eyes.
4) Paul, while I recognize that it might feel that Newtonville is being picked on, at this point a large portion of the villages have 40B projects or other large developments in the planning stages. But I certainly don’t fault the Mayor, Jake, or anyone else for having a community meeting on this topic and entertaining the proposal from the developer. I’m all for open minds. I’ll also note that the developer already owns the property and it sounds like he/she has options for other parcels nearby. Ignoring them just leads to a 40b, does it not? What happens if we so no?
5) There is way too much unknown for me to definitively weigh in on this project. I’m concerned about the village businesses who will be forced to move, but I also don’t really want the city to play favorites and demand that the businesses be included in the new commercial space. I’m concerned about the Orr building. I’m concerned about the size and scope of the project.
6) Jake, you mentioned improvement to the bridge. I’m not sure I understand what those might be. I’d love an improved commuter rail station, but I’m guessing that it far more than any developer could pay (except for someone like nw balance.
7) Regarding going west down to Lowell Ave, cna someone speak to what business are potentially at risk here?
Sorry for the long post.
The biggest improvement I’d like to see is making the commuter rail handicapped accessible. Having an escalator or elevator there would help increase its ability to be a viable alternative to commuting by car.
@Fig
You make a lot of good points. If I recall correctly, the other developments are 40Bs. Newtonville would be adding 200-250 units with city approval– its far larger than any other villages.
I agree that its fine for the Mayor, Jake and others to have a meeting. My concern is that a developer doesn’t put up $25 million without some preliminary sense on how the project would be received. Any good businessman would have checked with the Mayor and others first, and if he did, he clearly got a good message back. The actual sale of the property to him, which is very recent, is what has caused me to get concerned quickly.
I asked Jake if he met with the developer before his purchase– he didn’t directly answer. Perhaps it was an oversight, he still has time to clarify.
PS Lowell Ave– IIRC– the post office would go.
“Any good businessman” buys property in Newton pricing in the zoning risk. This project was well underway by the time I was elected, much less appointed to Land Use, so Paul’s insinuation doesn’t make much sense. Indeed, the Orr building proposal was a subject in several of the televised candidate forums. I stressed walkability and affordability then, as I do now.
@Density. My first point is this: Where the heck does density come in when a person measures the quality of life in a municipality? It doesn’t. Ask any recent Newton homebuyer, “Did you move here because Newton has a population density of 4,761.5 people per square mile?” They would give you a funny look and then politely shut the door in your face. Newton is a desirable community because of the options it provides: schools, transportation, employment, housing, open space, etc. It is a great place.
My second point: “Density” is a boogeyman word used by the anti-development crowd, as in your “drive for density” phrase. Most people call that the real estate market, not a conspiracy of “developers with dollar signs in their eyes.” If we actually want to have a serious conversation and use density as a metric, then we would need to be much more specific about how it’s measured, what it measures, what it means, and how it’s applied. But there are no population density standards, and it would be beyond the police powers of any municipal government to regulate how many people are allowed to live in a certain part of town.
While I would argue your painting developers as fiends and homeowners as cowering victims seems downright silly, I agree with you on a few points: Newton will grow. It’s important the community engage in discussions about how and where that growth occurs, and what type of growth (e.g., commercial) the City might encourage. Zoning is a means by which the city can both enable improvements where improvement makes sense and protect what needs protecting. Let’s work on those issues and stop throwing “density” around like it means something.
@Jake
No need to get combative. I’m not insinuating you did anything bad– you said yourself that buying in Newton involves assessing the zoning risk. That specifically entails whether you and your fellow City Councillors agree to change the zoning. Speaking to you and others to understand your initial thinking before putting down $25 million is just prudent. Just looking for confirmation that he did reach out to you before the transaction.
Its a simple question from a constituent. Not sure why you’re not willing to give direct, transparent answer. Did you talk with the developer before he purchased the properties?
Hmm. A developer buys a property and then proposes building a 150 unit, 6 story development that can’t be built under the current zoning. They do this in the immediate wake of a bruising political battle over another smaller project only a stone’s throw away (Austin St).
So I guess that must mean that the developer is threatening to build it as a straight (hostile) 40B. Yes? Otherwise why would anyone expect the city to change the zoning to accommodate this development.
Many of the questions & points here were addressed at the presentation, and many here would do well to review the presentation which was essentially a ‘point & shoot’ audience gallery, which the developer team fielded, moderated by Steve Buchbinder. Well done and accolades to all involved in the op for the public to gain insight.
@Harry, I would love to review the presentation, in fact I’ve been searching for it online this morning. Do you have a link?
There was a crew videotaping, I imagine for Newtv or city website dissemination -http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/devrev/hip/default.asp – checkout in the future. Oddly enough that very point of insufficient pr of the meeting was fielded.
The presentation can be viewed here.
Dear John: Re your question: “Where does density come in when a person measures the quality of life in a municipality?” Supreme Court Justice Potter-Stewart’s observation on defining pornography would apply well here: “I know it when I see it!” There are multiple towns/cities that offer a great choice for habitation. They have an overall distinctive architecture and dimension and DENSITY. Brookline offers one such choice, along with its rows of high rises on Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue and elsewhere, it offers great schools, transportation, employment, open space, etc. Newton offers a different gestalt. That doesn’t mean it can’t grow. But I would argue that six story buildings beget six-story and higher buildings. The scale and mass (words I have borrowed from a City Councilor who also happens to be an architect) of buildings matter significantly. They can be made to transfer and translate a similar dimension within an existing context. The scale and massing of nearly all of Newton could be described as human. It is not a metropolis of Big City caverns of skyscrapers. One can generally see the sunlight on our City’s streets and there are few wind tunnels. Three-story buildings developed here can bring in various priced apartments; shuttles and bicycles can be accommodated, all without turning Newton into New York City. Density certainly does matter and I don’t think anyone would shut a door in my face if they were willing to have an adult conversation about change…the rate and kind of change that many would find appealing.
As to your second point: If this were a free market situation, then the free market would have developers suggesting development within the allowed zoning codes. (It would help if the City would finish the discussion about Zoning Reform and articulate the “visioning” plan that would define and implement the zoning regulation that would indicate where and what can be built.) At present a developer can buy property and ask for (and get) zoning relief. When the SHI or 1-1/2% Safe Haven of 40B is finally reached, developers will have less incentive to ask for the sky, since the City will have a greater say in what it will allow. Density is not a boogeyman as you suggest. It is a valid metric used by the U. S. Census Bureau, one of the uncorrupted arms of our Federal Government. That’s where the numbers were generated. It is not for “the anti-development crowd”. No one is suggesting that you should “regulate how many people live in a certain part of town.” That is where the free market will come into play.
By the way, my name is Sallee. Not “@Density.” Let’s have a polite discussion.
Hmm…I just read through the presentation. I have to say I’m not impressed. Where is the public space? Between two buildings where most folks are unlikely to go? With a second floor or third floor connection above? That feels more like a residential outdoor gathering space than a public space.
I regret that I was unable to attend the presentation. Perhaps I’m missing something. As folks know I was a supporter of Austin Street. This developer has a very long way to go before I would support this project. Perhaps public support isn’t wanted because the developer just wants to go the 40B route and this presentation was window dressing.
More comments to follow once I re-read the presentation and the news articles on this.
I think mgwa’s point about the accessibility of Newtonville Station is important. Much of our transit network is woefully unprepared for developments like this. Can the City press the developer more to help improve local transit? Rather than simply provide lip-service to the “Transit-Oriented” moniker, this new construction ought to actually contribute to improved walking, biking, bus and rail routes.
Also, a question for those in the know: would the Shaws parking lot across the turnpike ever be developed? If so, perhaps that construction could be used as an impetus to add elevators/improved platforms to Newtonville station. It seems unfit that this much-heralded “transit”requires a 20-foot walk down old, exposed stairs.
@fignewtonville: What makes you think there is supposed to be public space? This is a mixed use development, retail + housing.
@Jake, Paul has asked three times of you met with the developer before he purchased the properties, and you have given what I would call “Clintonian” answers. Can we get a simple yes or no?
I’m trying to figure out why it matters when Jake Auchincloss first talked to Robert Korff.
I’d be interested in any other councilors’ answers to that question as well.
@Julia – I met with the developer once last summer, then a couple more times at community meetings with Foster Street residents. I don’t know what the status of his purchase of the property was at that time but it was presented as something he was planning to do, and that he was alerting us to that.
Emily:
I don’t necessary think there HAS to be public space, but the presentation and some of the comments here imply that one of the selling points were that there would be outdoor seating and walkability improvements. I don’t need a public plaza like Austin Street (I don’t think that is likely here), but a greater setback with multiple restaurant spaces that can have patios would be nice). I once heard a planning director say “the greater the space, the greater the place”. In other words, you want to develop a large project on my doorstep, you better come with an amazing project. To me that means at least some aspect of the project is exemplary. I’d take affordable housing, great public space, improved look and feel of the block, monetary giveback to do something amazing in the village. Something. Austin Street didn’t have one item that popped to me, but it had many aspects in these areas that added up for me. For others, not so much.
But here I see none of that yet. There is a long way to go. Folks on this blog know me as a strong supporter of the Austin Street project, especially the end result with the increased affordable housing with the small public plaza area. I have no desire to open up that discussion again for the 100th time. But let’s collectively as a community look to lessons learned from that project.
I am therefore supremely not interested if Emily, Susan or Jake met with the developer early on. Don’t care. In fact, I’d hope they’d have an open door policy to anyone conducting business in the village or Newton. That is reasonable, and I like reasonable. I’d also like them to be honest, which means that they should acknowledge the difficulty in building anything in Newton, and the hypersensitive nature of the community right now regarding development. (and before folks object, I don’t criticize for that hypersensitivity, a difficult community issue where there was a vote makes it natural. Raw emotion and a recent argument). But I’d still want them to meet with the developer.
Ok, back to the major point. What do folks think is the next step here. To me, major developments like this are a decision tree. This decision tree has several questions that need answering:
1) What is the current zoning?
2) What would the project look like under 40B? (Notice I still think 40B is huge here, since the city is unlikely in my mind to win its case regarding counting the golf courses as undevelopable land. For the sake of the decision tree, let’s assume the developer has this leverage)
Then the decision tree is:
1) Can the project be stopped as is? Yes, it can. The Austin Street vote was close, and this will be closer. And the Austin Street vote gives cover for a no vote for folks on the edge. But as a lot of folks have noted, the property has been acquired. It is unlikely this developer is going to just give up and go away. It was acquired for that price based on huge potential, not current rents.
2) Do we want to completely stop the project if the alternative is a 40B? This is the tough question for me. As a community, we will likely get more from the developer if we negotiate. 40Bs cost money, and the developer is a member of the community. The city could take a strong approach and put forth what it would like to have the development move forward.
3) If the developer goes the 40B route, can the community still stop the project? I think this depends on many factors, but in general there is a lot of risk here for both sides. I’d prefer to concentrate on items 1 and 2 for right now.
I’ll post more on the news article post, since I’ve got some thoughts about that as well.
One of my neighbors also mentioned another development on Newtonville Ave. Is that the large storage unit project? Or something else? Anyone know?
@Fig: That is probably referring to the storage unit proposal.
@Greg – if the answer to a question doesn’t matter, why avoid answering three times? In answer to your question, if a city councilor didn’t meet with Korff until after the purchase, the meeting wouldn’t have had any effect on the decision to purchase. And I’m interested in how long meetings of this kind between developers and Planning, and developers and councilors, go on before anyone lets the public in on what’s coming, or gets public input.
Sorry Julia, still not following. But let’s play along. I believe the sale on the Orr building took place in January of this year. You talked to the developer, or at least his attorney in August back when you were a candidate. We know you didn’t express joy over the idea. Did that change anything? Should it have?
Honestly, I’m just confused. There seems to be some suggestion of conspiracy here, but I can’t figure out what it is.
Catching up after the weekend. You’ll have to ask the developer when he signed the papers, I don’t know; I first met with him in September, pressed home the points about walkability and affordability that I have been making ever since, and then went on TV and spoke about the project several times during the candidate forums. Neither my Ward 2 colleagues nor I would ever or have ever provided assurances of support, since that would be contrary to the quasi-judicial nature of special permitting and would undermine Newtonville’s negotiating leverage.
Your “Starr-ian” approach, @Julia, is a distraction from the critical issue: can this project improve Newtonville, and if so, how?
Hopefully Jake’s answer gets that distraction out of the way. Lots of people have spoken with the developer; can we move on please?
Obviously Mr Korff will do something with the property he has purchased. It’s presently zoned BU1 and BU2 which means by right he can build 2 stories and with a special permit, 3 stories and up and 20,000 sq ft respectively. So doing nothing is off the table I believe. That means it’s time to find out what we want on that space and approach it proactively while trying to present a united front.
This is a very different process than deciding on Austin Street. The city isn’t involved in the development at all this time. Mr Korff is a private developer with a plan in mind and we all need to work toward getting the best plan for Newton we can. Even if we all wanted no change, it would not matter because it’s private property and it comes with rights. Blaming the city for not having a plan, which I hear a lot, is counterproductive mainly because the developer does have a plan and the city has to respond to it. We must deal with the reality of that now. Hopefully we can get something that brings us benefits in many ways.
A question for you zoning nerds (I know you’re out there). If the developer is looking for a zoning change that would allow a six story building on that site, isn’t that “spot zoning”?
Is “spot zoning” something that’s allowable?
This is the answer given by the planning department when the Austin Street lot rezoning was questioned.
The MU4 zoning on this lot constitutes “spot zoning.”
o The Law Department has reviewed this claim and concluded that the rezoning of this
property to MU4 does not constitute “spot zoning.” Instances of spot zoning arise when an area is rezoned as a stand‐alone action unsupported by public purpose or objective. The issue in any spot zoning challenge is whether the re‐zoning was supported by planning rationale and public benefits. The objective in creating the MU4 district and then re‐zoning the Austin Street parking lot was supported by extensive planning studies, starting first with the Comprehensive Plan. The MU4 district was specifically designed with the type of uses and contextual dimensional controls necessary to permit mixed use development that would support the character and function of Newton’s village centers. The rezoning of the Austin Street parking lot was clearly done in the pursuit of a defined public objective to support the revitalization of Newtonville.
This answer seems a bit like rationalizing the use of spot zoning but there it is. The MU4 zone Mr Korff is requesting only allows 5 stories with a special permit so he would need an additional variance for the sixth floor.