While some folks have already declared the arrival of Armageddon on some local lists serves, I must say that I’m proud of this online community for waiting a day before diving into a debate about Mayor Setti Warren’s just-released 102-page housing strategy (plus the 23-page fact book) without taking time to read it first.
But as Mayor Warren has said in his email to residents Thursday afternoon, his goal is “to begin a conversation about housing in Newton.” And, heck, that’s what Village 14 is all about: conversation.
There’s enough content in these documents for years of blog threads. But let’s begin our discussion by looking at the seven (on page 19 of the Fact Book) of the 70 locations the study identifies across the city) as priorities.
- The Northland site at and adjacent to Marshalls Plaza on Needham and Oak Streets (number of units TBD)
- The “triangle lot” between Langley and Centre streets in Newton Centre (number of units TBD)
- The parking lot on Richardson Street in Newton Corner (number of units TBD)
- The Golda Meir House (60-70 units for seniors)
- The former Parks and Recreation headquarters on Crescent Street (8 units)
- Jackson Gardens near the former Aquinas College (52 units)
- And Washington Place (also known as the Orr Building) in Newtonville (171 units)
…also on the priority list: accessory apartments, inclusionary housing and nine to 12 permanent units of housing for the homeless.
You know what to do from here.
I am not really understanding the map. They are going to build housing over all the commercial and municipal parking lots? Why would the site of Bertucci’s be identified for development? Why the parking lot on Richardson Street (which is nearly full almost every time I drive past it)? Won’t that just displace the current cars while also adding more cars and make parking in the area pretty much impossible?
@Heather: Those 70 sites that have been identified as possible locations, nothing more. And remember that projects can be designed to maintain the existing public parking, while adding more underground for residents (as is the plan at Austin Street). What’s great about Richardson is how close it is to the express buses that take people right into Boston so conceivably many residents who live there might not need cars.
If you go the the end of the full report, you’ll see notes about each of the 70 locations.
A key element missing from both the study and the prioritized sites is an understanding of impact on traffic. Presumably, among the 70 sites, some are more amenable to existing traffic patterns than others. I think this is particularly important for the Orr building, as there is already a pending development one block away, and without a great understanding in Newton of the impact of large buildings on traffic (they study notes we only have 4 buildings with greater than 100 units in the city), it doesn’t seem prudent to prioritize a second development so close to the first. Not with another 63 sites to consider.
Further, the prioritized list shows the overwhelming concentration of development in Newtonville in the short-run. Several of the prioritized seven are small in scale, smaller than both Orr and Austin St.
Finally, I didn’t really see any rationale provided behind the seven selected by the Administration.
I’d like to put in a plug for accessory apartments. It’s more than time to finally do something about making it easier for people to make them legally.
mgwa, I agree with you. The Zoning and Planning Committee, which I now chair, has been working on amending the existing ordinance to remove most of the obstacles to converting homes to accessory apartments, including lot size restrictions and overlay zones with even greater restrictions. These restrictions were put in place to discourage the creation of accessory units, but we all know they exist, albeit below radar, in many homes throughout the city.
The planning department and I are going to be going on a barnstorming tour this fall to generate support for accessory apartments in community organizations such as the area councils, neighborhood associations, etc. Opponents have consistently told us that no one wants accessory apartments, and we hope to be able to show that there is widespread support throughout the city, which I believe there is.
The Mayor has also told me that accessory apartments would be one of his priorities along with expanding the inclusionary zoning ordinance to require more units that are affordable to middle class households and individuals. I could not agree more that these should be priorities and I am ready to work to get it done.
Ted,
Now is the time to allow people to develop accessory apartments. So many families need this option as homes owners are supporting both young people and elders who can not find affordable single apartments.
Colleen, from your lips, to my colleagues’ ears.
@Greg: Actually the Austin Street development reduces the available parking from the current 159 spaces to 124 spaces, while adding demand in the form of a future restaurant and spin studio. Also the 124 spaces will be narrower than the ones there now. The parking study done by the Austin St developer said this reduction in spaces would not be a problem for the local businesses because patrons could park north of the Pike and walk over the bridge. But now the Orr Development is planning a development north of the Pike that is looking for 97 parking waivers. That is why I have proposed to the Orr developer that he not provide parking spaces for every residential unit but rather make it truly “transit-oriented development.” Otherwise it will be hard for anyone to visit Newtonville by car, which will make it very hard on any local businesses remaining.
Councilor Norton: Thank you for supporting smart growth in Newtonville.
Shared cars and parking can all be done with existing apps, so the market already has the solution to Emily’s proposed parking policy.
Emily – until the commuter rail stop is made accessible to the disabled and infirm, there are going to be many residents who won’t find it transit-oriented. And I don’t see how not providing spaces for all residents of the building will help the on-street parking situation there.
Well Said MGWA- I cant tell you the last time I parked in West Newton due to the difficulty in parking. The same for Newtonville. Most people – if parking is not available – they will go elsewhere for shopping. So I bring my business elsewhere where parking is readily available. As for not providing parking for some of the apartments in the Orr building – well that is not a good idea at all.
I have heard the argument made that the most responsible way to encourage people to use public transit in “transit-oriented housing” is to separate the rental cost of an apartment from the rental cost of a parking space in that building. I haven’t seen the figures to prove or disprove this hypothesis, but it might make sense if there were reliably scheduled handicap-accessible public transportation nearby. Does anyone have the facts to back up this argument?
@Emily & Sallee:
I don’t know enough about the efficacy of separating parking space pricing from the rental unit pricing, but it sounds to me like something worthy of exploration.
If the city is serious about promoting development that reduces our reliance on cars, we should look for ways to prevent these new developments from becoming car-based.
Are there any studies or articles you’re aware of that talk about this so I can educate myself?
Sorry to ask on this thread – Who is Huggins and why is her non-appointment a big deal?
Unbundling parking will make the units more affordable and create the incentive to either live car free or perhaps to get by with one car instead of two, as some families do in my neighborhood, 1/2 mile from public transit. Car share programs can also be helpful transportation options. Policies which require bundling multiple spaces per unit are doing the exact opposite — making housing more expensive and pushing people to own cars.
It also helps when there’s a ZipCar station in the apartment building garage. I know people who got rid of their cars once they moved someplace with ZipCar onsite.
@Greg – what do you think of my idea of not providing individual parking spaces? We could provide a few zipcar spaces, lots of bikes, and a commuter rail pass. A lot of the objections residents have is to the increased traffic, congestion, and competition for parking spaces.
I’m comfortable with exploring Adam’s idea of unbundling parking from the price of the units.
Also, Councilor Norton, please remember that while businesses are appropriately concerned about losing customers if there’s not adequate parking, bringing more housing into our village centers also means more customers within walking distance of village shops and restaurants.
@MGWA: I agree that the lack of accessibility for the commuter rail needs to be addressed. But not everyone who may choose to live at Washington Place or Austin Street will necessarily work downtown. Newton employers tell me all the time that a lack of housing is a big impediment to finding talent.
I’m not sure what difference it will make to unbundle parking from the price of the units, it just means if someone doesn’t want one, someone else will rent that space. The whole idea here is to REDUCE the number of vehicles on our roads, get people out of their cars period, not just shift the use of a parking space to someone else.
@Greg – I was only addressing the issue of it being mass transit-centered. I understand this won’t affect everyone, but even people who don’t work downtown may want to go to theater or restaurants or symphony in Boston and will need a car for that if they can’t take the commuter rail.
@Emily – unbundling parking from the price of the units can reduce the number of cars if only people who live in the building are allowed to rent spaces. A couple might well decide they can live with one car instead of two if the extra car will cost them more money in rent.
If we don’t allow cars in that building at all, we are saying that the disabled and infirm aren’t welcome to live there, as well as people who cannot get to their jobs by public transit. Do we really want to force someone to move if they lose their job and the only new one they can find isn’t on mass transit? While reducing the number of vehicles on the road is a very worthy goal, and one I entirely support, I object to draconian measures.
@mgwa: yes and agree.
@Greg
Emily has supported smart growth, the issue has been scale.
I suspect we’ll run into the same problem again with the Orr building. There is a lot of smart growth already feasible within the context of the current zoning on Washington St.
@mgwa: I still don’t see how unbundling parking reduces the number of cars, even if only people who live in the building are allowed to rent spaces. If we allow 236 residential parking spaces to be built, then they will be filled by 236 cars. Why not only allow a few zipcars? I take it you are defining disabled/infirm as still being able to drive cars… then zipcar would still work for them.
I do not understand why you term this idea “draconian” – if it’s really transit-oriented development, then let’s walk the walk and make it transit-oriented development.
Big picture, 1 car per unit would be a pretty big victory. Historic zoning (not Newton specifically, just US in general) has been > 2.0 parking spaces per unit. Best practices for TOD seems to be from 1.0-1.5 spaces per unit, and I’d hope for most of the better transit locations in Newton to be on the lower end of that. I am a huge transit proponent, but 1 car per 2 adult household seems like a very reasonable target for a suburban city like Newton. Heck, go to 0.9 or 0.8 and be the standard setter. Shooting for 0 when there are few/no case studies for suburbs doing that is at least edging in the direction of “draconian”.
On the rest of the seven priority sites, very generally, Richardson has good transit access but the Exit 17 thing worries me – and I say that as someone who normally doesn’t love the “traffic!” argument against development. Unless I’m missing something (which I may be!), the two senior housing sites and Crescent St (eight whole units!) seem like easy wins. I don’t know the Marshall’s lot area that well, so I’ll defer on that.
The “triangle lot” seems like it has a ton of potential, both for a great development and for a great political showdown. Very curious to see if there’s any attempt at movement there over the next few years.
@Emily – why do you assume that if we build 256 spaces they’ll all be filled? If the cost for the spaces is high enough, then not everyone will use them. If no one outside the building is allowed to buy a space then the ones not taken by residents will stay empty or be available for visitor parking (people will want to occasionally have parties where they invite people who don’t all live on mass transit).
Yes, a lot of the disabled or infirm can still drive (such as myself). Zipcar isn’t feasible for commuting – it’s not meant for that. If I were to live in the Orr building, I’d need to drive to work because I can’t manage the stairs for the commuter rail.
Transit-oriented doesn’t mean transit-only. I chose to live on the Green Line so that I could use it instead of driving as much as possible. That doesn’t mean I don’t need to drive some of the time. Being a couple of blocks from the T still reduces my car usage, even if it doesn’t mean I can be completely car-free. Banning me from having a car would be draconian – even in Manhattan (which is as transit-oriented as you can get), it’s possible to own a car if you’re willing to pay the price.
Should we also assume that the people that will move into the ORR building wont have any friends or family that might want to visit them?? Or will they only be allowed to visit if they take public Transportation?? And what about in the Winter when we have parking bans and street parking is not available?? Oh – I guess that will be a good for the city as they can get all the ticket money for parking on the street during the winter months.
Unbundling by itself doesn’t necessarily reduce parking demand, but it facilitates reduced parking demand by attracting residents who prefer not to own a car, or to own only one car. Its also more affordable in terms of both the housing cost and the transportation costs.
It will work well with the other tools Emily mentions – ZipCar, Spot Parking app, Turo (peer car share), Hubway, Uber, Lyft, Nuride & MBTA. And if we build protected bike lanes on Washington, some (if not everyone) can use bikes.
If there is a single concession we can get out of the developer, can it be an accessible commuter rail stop?
@Nathan – exactly. It’s shameful that so many commuter rail stops aren’t accessible and this one is particularly bad – not just inaccessible to wheelchair users or people on crutches, but to anyone with bad knees/hips, parents with strollers, etc. What could be a major asset is instead unusable for way too many people.
My guess is making the commuter rail handicap accessible would be too expensive for the developer to be willing to cover on his own. Upgrading the Auburndale stop was $17M.
Wait why do the parking spaces need to be all or nothing? Can’t we just have a reduced number of building parking spaces, decouple them, and have them priced such that it encourages people to use mass transportation and they will only purchase one if they really need it? If there’s a disability concern, I am sure we can make accommodations for that circumstance.
Also, as far as traffic for the stores, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we reduce the number of public spaces. This is about the number of private spaces available to building residents, right?
@Councilor Norton: Given your opposition to Austin Street, there might be some cynics in Newton (yes we have one or two) who wonder if your proposal to allow no residential parking at Washington Place is really an effort to derail the project, rather than a newfound passion for smart growth in Newtonville.
Changing topics here a bit: developing the Marshalls plaza will create homes for workers at all the businesses that are going to spring up across the river near Tripadvisor as those blocks get built out. Don’t know if that’s good or bad, just a thought. And making a walk/bike up to Eliot will be good too so those folks can get to Boston. Also, in Newton Centre, either build a building on the triangle or build an iconic park a la PO Square and put tons of parking underground. Either way, go deep there with a parking lot and free up more spaces for bike lanes on the surrounding streets. Will it be possible to build such a garage w/o charging PO Square parking prices, or could it be a municipal lot with pay-by-app meters? Developer could keep part of those revenues in exchange for keeping parking rates low. That would be innovative. Anyone know if the geology down there would support a deep parking lot? Could part of such a lot be dedicated for commuters?
@Bryan – yes I’m talking about the private spaces for residential use.
@Greg – considering this is touted as “transit-oriented development, and considering one of the biggest objections local residents have is the increase in traffic and congestion, and considering the area of the Orr building is described in the mayor’s Housing Strategy as among the most affordable, most dense, and most renter-heavy areas of the City already, I am not understanding your objection to what seems to me a pretty logical suggestion. Or are we just going to mouth the words that we’re trying to get people out of their cars, but never actually do anything about it?
Will: Here’s the trade-off…Commercial development on Needham St in Newton will bring in commercial taxes (twice the rate of residential taxes). Residential units in Newton will not only bring in half the taxes, but cost Newton the dollars to educate a large number of school children who will definitely (and rightfully) want to live in those apartments. Now, a possible compromise would be to develop a larger proportion there of a commercial base with a smaller residential component that appeals to an incubator/entrepreneurial/technology worker psyche within that commercial base to live exactly where they work! They wouldn’t need shuttles to take them to and from work either! And Newton could offer the Greenway as a pedestrian/bike link to the MBTA. Needham doesn’t need to expand its tax base in the area as much as Newton does. They already have a large number of commercial and residential properties between the Charles River and Rt128. It’s a balancing act, and one we would be remiss not to address.
@Sallee: Here’s the rest of the trade-off: Residential units are indeed very important to employers. But residential units also trickle down to more customers for businesses. All of these ingredients help maximize the commercial tax revenue.
I already spend enough time circling in the Newton Centre triangle lot and adjacent streets because I try to go to local dentists, doctors, restaurants and boutiques. If parking becomes even more limited, I’m better off going to The Street or the Chestnut Hill Square, or Legacy Place or the Dedham down town (where there are unique stores and a large parking lot). I don’t like underground lots unless there is going to be a lot of security, which I doubt. I usually buy when I shop so I’d rather be close once I am carrying shopping bags.
Here is my two cents on the transit issue. I do not understand how anyone can expect people to not own cars in Newton. Living in a Newtonville development without a car would seriously limit one’s available job locations due to transit-oriented issues in my opinion.
Here is an example of an issue I believe was ultimately transit-oriented: NNHS/Newton Community Ed was attempting to run a theatre program that we were very excited about this summer. Unfortunately, they chose to schedule it only for afternoons over 5 weeks. Because we happen to live fairly close to the 59 bus line, it was not an issue for us. But the program ended up cancelled due to under-enrollment. Yes, that is possibly because Newton kids had summer plans in place already. But the idea that a parent of a rising 9th/10th/11th grader, (who does not have a license/car and does not live within walking distance/T area that goes near NNHS), would be able to leave work to transport said student at noon every day for 5 weeks is fairly laughable.
I live fairly close to a supermarket, but I can’t imagine doing a weekly shopping trip without access to a car. There’s no way I could transport everything home. I don’t have time to go more than once a week. These are all issues that someone without a car faces. Yes, in an ideal world, we wouldn’t be quite as dependent on automobiles, but I do not believe that is actually reality — and especially when children are involved. Can you imagine trying to get a sick child to the doctor’s via the T?
Parking is a deal-breaker for me. If I can’t easily park then I go elsewhere. My time is too limited to waste dealing with transit and parking issues. Maybe other people have that luxury, but I certainly don’t.
I understand that there are people who “do not understand’ why someone would live in Newton without a car.
But some do and more would given the right opportunity and access to the right housing, Zipcars, Uber, enhanced bikelanes and other amenities.
I’m not making this up. It’s a global trend.
Would I want to do this? Nope. But I’m under no illusion that everyone who wants to live in Newton is has the same priorities as I do.
Well Said Heather and Rachel. My sentiments exactly.
If you don’t need a car for your daily responsibilities (whether that’s commute, school, or whatever else) and just need it once or twice a week, Zipcar is *substantially* cheaper than the fully loaded (depreciation, insurance, everything) cost of vehicle ownership. Newtonville center is a one-seat transit ride from most jobs in Boston, and one transfer from a substantial number of the suburban jobs in Waltham, Needham, and Metro West. The jobs you’d have trouble getting to are largely the same areas that are difficult to get to via car during ‘normal’ commute times. Groceries, schools, and daily errands all well within walking distance. It’s pretty much a model location for this use case.
As I said earlier, I think shooting for 0 cars per household is probably overdoing it, but you can very easily design a development around 1 or slightly under and expect that there will be demand.
Exactly. It’s very reasonable to aim for 1 car per unit plus a few Zipcars, especially if people have to pay extra for a space. Zero won’t work for many people, especially those with kids.
@Jonathan – there are many places that are difficult to get to by public transit but a short drive by car. For just one example, when my son was at Brandeis it took me 10 minutes to get there but would have taken him over an hour to get home by bus (have to transfer, both buses ran infrequently).
@Greg – Yes, I get that there are people out there who are interested in the no car thing, but are there enough of them that live under the circumstances and work in the right locations to fill a development in Newton with reduced parking capabilities? I guess I am just not so sure. I can see living without a car in NYC where the transit system is big. But most of those people work and live in the same city. Our system just does not compare. And I am curious about guests – someone mentioned visitor parking capability for someone who does not have a space? My own neighbors experienced that last year when they had family stay for a week, but the overnight parking ban was in effect, and there were no extra spaces. I never did hear how they managed it.
My former business partner lived in Somerville in a residential neighborhood at the top of a steep hill. He was in his early late 30s/ early 40s when he and his wife decided to go carless. At the time they had no children.
His alternative was to use public transit, which was a 5 to 10 minute walk away, his bike, walking and rent cars either through Enterprise or Zipcar as needed. He kept track of all car-related expenses for both his last year owning/ leasing a and his 2 years without one.
He found that not owning a car came in cheaper. Does that mean he lived without one entirely? No, he got one when necessary.
@Heather questions whether someone can do a weekly shopping without a car. I often do my weekly shopping for a family of 5 on a bike. This area is great for that, especially since I tend to go to different markets for different things (Russo’s, Trader Joes, etc.). Is it always possible? No.
That said, the idea of a “weekly shopping” is something that was only created in the 1950s when two things happened in American culture at the same time: 1) people bought large refrigerators and 2) people started driving cars with trunks. Prior to that (and what still happens in urban areas) is that people make more frequent trips to buy fewer items at a time, often getting fresh food (produce, fish, meat, etc.).
Finally, one of the concerns I hear about these new buildings is that they’ll attract more students to the schools. But if we restrict parking, and there’s an audience who wants to live like that (often younger and childless) then shouldn’t we encourage this kind of development, as it attracts people who won’t impact the schools immediately?
@Greg
I’ve never seen you openly question the motives of any other City Councilor with ZERO evidence, effectively questioning whether she is lying to push an alternative agenda.
This sort of attack is very much in-line with the type of sexist, anti-women attacks that occur with women politicians across the country.
You would do well to stick to the facts and the substance, and not attack our esteemed representatives without any actual evidence.
@Paul, trying to label Greg as sexist and anti-women sounds like a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook. Back at you: “You would do well to stick to the facts and the substance, and not attack…without any actual evidence.”
I worked directly for Greg for more than 5 years. I watched him run a group of about 20 publications, hire and manage both men and women, and gain the admiration, respect and loyalty of just about everyone who worked for and with him. I’ve been his friend for about 10 years now. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that he was sexist or anti-women.
Greg calls things as he sees them while using his real name, and has for years. Disagree with him all you want but attempting to characterize him as sexist because you don’t like his style is offensive to women who have actually been subjected to sexism and misogyny.
PS I’d hope others on V14 will openly support this point.
Greg’s behavior towards Emily in this case should not be tolerated by our community.
On the car ownership issue: the unheralded secret of EV’s is that they require essentially no maintenance. I lease an EV for ~$200/month and have no maintenance costs, save for changing tires in winter and the wiper fluid. Newton could be a market leader in EV tech if we wanted, making our parking meters double as chargers. But this is a housing thread…
@sallee: good point on tax base. No reason why that area on Needham Street can’t be both. a smaller Assembly Row – retail streetscape, condos/apartments up top. And if more kids move in and we need to educate them, that’s a good problem. We’re Newton, we know how to do this better than most.
@Paul – I just re-read Greg’s comments top to bottom in this thread and don’t see a shred of sexist anything, a bit of equal-opportunity Reibman snark yes, anti-woman, no.
@mgwa – Agreed, there are some places where a car is a huge advantage from Newtonville – transit is going to get you to 50+% of Greater Boston jobs, but certainly not all. Another reason a hard 0 is not the best target is economic mobility: you wouldn’t want people moving into that location fully planning for a 0 car life, and then feel like they were unable to take an unexpected dream job (in a car-required location) three months into a lease.
A few thoughts from a cynic.
Is the Green Line or Commuter Rail capable of handling the added capacity demand of this transit oriented development concept? A thousand units could mean 1,000 additional rush hour commuters. If we get 20 trains over a 2-hour span that’s 50 extra riders per train. Maybe not a big deal for Newton residents inbound save the crowding and longer dwell times, but you’re probably watching a few full trains go by if you’re boarding beyond Park on the way out. This also exacerbates delays when things break (frequently). Unless the MBTA takes action to expand capacity (I’m not holding my breath), the proposed development lessens existing residents quality of life. Have not seen that discussed yet.
Also, enjoying Newton without a car isn’t realistic. You CAN live this way. You probably do not WANT to live this way. If you are looking to appeal to recent college graduates or young professionals, recognize that many of these people moved from out of state and can’t make it home on just a bus, plane, or train. I have played the no car game; it doubled travel time to visit out of state family from 3.5 hours to 7 hours each way. Also a big draw for me living in Newton was access to businesses in all of the villages and beyond; you can’t do that effectively on mass transit. When these developments go up, the preference will be to own and drive a car regularly, IMO, even if those residents use transit to commute. The intersection of Beacon & Centre has been horrific for as long as I can remember. It can take 15 minutes to drive from Walnut to Langley on Beacon, with most of the time sucked up at that intersection. Developing the triangle lot will slow traffic through that intersection with more cars slowing to turn in mid-block in addition to the normal grid lock. More cars will speed through narrow local side streets and endanger pedestrians and bikers.
In response to Chuck, with due respect, the work week was shorter in the 1950’s and two income households were far from the norm. I speak for myself and my peers in that frequent food shops to cook after work is unrealistic and far from the norm. Moreover, I question the car math. Taking the car-less option supplemented by Zip and rentals, $7/month + $7.75/hr at 4hrs/week comes out to $140/month. Although Zip has a weekend Surcharge so more like $189/month. That is before we take any weekend rentals to visit out of state family or access out-of-county parks and hiking. There are plenty of car leases that come in low $100’s.
I would have appreciated more rental options in Newton after graduating, but I would have overlooked every one that did not offer parking. If Newton is really targeting younger (and older) residents through this housing plan, do young people have any voice in the process?
Paul – That’s ridiculous.
@Matt – one correction. Your math on using Zipcar or rentals ignores the costs of car ownership other than leasing or car payments. If you own a car you need to pay for car insurance and repairs. That adds substantially to the monthly cost. I know people who have found that it was cheaper to use Zipcar, especially if they were using it instead of having a 2nd car.
Zipcar includes gas as well, which can be nontrivial depending where we are on the spectrum from “paying electric rates for my full EV” and “one of those $4/gallon years”.
Zipcar isn’t the only option either. Many people I know would prefer to use Uber when they absolutely need a car.
By the way, before you poopoo that idea, the math is startling. Take this blog post for example: https://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/when-does-uber-become-cheaper-than-owning-a-car/
Crunching the numbers and taking everything into account, including opportunity cost, parking tickets, everything, he determined that owning a car and driving it everywhere would cost $12,744 per year as compared to $18,115 per year to exclusively use Uber for transportation. This is assuming you drive the average amount per year (and its based on LA numbers).
The threshold that study found is that if you travel less than 9,481 miles per year, it is cheaper to use Uber.
This information isn’t part of the widespread conscience of our country right now, but when we develop land we do so looking ahead for the building’s life over 50 to 100 years minimum, not just towards the next few. In fact, I would doubt residents will be moving into Orr for at least 2-3, probably 5 years, by which time Uber and other ride services may already become more dominant.
The future of our transportation infrastructure is changing, and we should absolutely be investigating ways for our development strategy to change with it. Thanks Emily for bringing this topic to the fore.
Uber is, in many ways, the secret ingredient to the future of transportation. Yes, there are other options emerging that are interesting, but Uber (and similar apps) provide easy mobility.
I spoke with a business owner recently who was thinking of including a corporate Uber account as a cost of business. It opened him up to looking for space in Newton, even though his workers often don’t have cars. He planned to pick up their commuting costs so he could gain a little bit more flexibility. There are also studies that show how Uber increases uses of public transit, as people use it to get from one place to another.
It really depends on how you view your own personal transportation. Those of us who have lived with car ownership for most of our lives are unlikely to move to a car-share model. Younger people who haven’t yet bought a car and have started with car share will have a much different point of view.
Hmmm..I’m new to this thread, but my reading of the interaction between Greg and Emily I’m not seeing what Paul is seeing.
To be honest, when I first read Emily’s proposal I thought she was basically proposing a “poison pill”. Happens all the time in legislation and permitting. Witness the recent Zika funding in Congress that included items the oppossing side was sure to…well…oppose.
A convenient poison pill is to make the poison pill something that is good in moderation be absolute. Hence, the stance becomes…”You want smartgrowth? I’ll give you smart growth. Limited parking? How about NO parking.”
Not the least of which is Emily’s initial complaint was about overuse of the public parking spaces? I’m not sure how eliminating all parking for the apartments helps that. You can’t force folks who buy a unit or rent a unit to not have a car. Maybe I’m missing something.
Folks who do smart growth talk about major hub vs. minor hub. vs. spoke. Boston is the major hub, with lots of transportation oftens. Newtonville is a minor hub. In a major hub you can get away with no car, minor hub with one car or no car, spoke is the outer ring not near public transportation. Even in Boston few deals are done with no parking. Limited parking, one space parking, sure. No parking, rarely. It does happen, look at the proposed units near Downtown Crossing near the Opera House.
So since it wouldn’t have helped the overall parking situation, would definitely hurt the developer’s ability to get financing on the project, and seemed out of place to what the rest of the minor hub marketplace would require, I’m assuming it is a poison pill provision by Emily. Just my view. Frankly it is an interesting way to fight this particular project I’m not in support of.
As for Paul’s issue with Greg calling out Emily, a number of folks have called out Ted too. I’ve certainly called out Jake (sometimes too harshly). I’m just glad they continue to post in the rough and tumble blog world.
Frankly, I’m sure Emily has a thick enough skin to take criticism of her proposals. I’ve certainly called her out on items before, but I’ve always appreciated it when she has responded. And as I said, poison pill or not, I’m not opposed to her giving a bit of the ol’ business to this particular development project. 😉
I agree with Chuck on the idea that a “carless” (not owning a car) existence in much of Newton is feasible. Our family does it to an extent, but I suppose that feeds the larger point. To extrapolate the feasibility of some carlessness to the point of not providing some form of parking for a residential development, even in a denser village center- I don’t think we’re there. I do like the idea of unbundling parking spaces so that renters have the option of declining parking- -leaving more for those who want or need it- but not leaving it out altogether (as fig says more eloquently than I).
How about setting up hubway stations at transit stops, city hall/library, village business areas, etc? This would encourage bike use.
@Gail and others
Greg’s tone towards Emily is frequently disrespectful. You can “call’em as you see’em” without being disrespectful.
There are many times Greg has disagreed with other City Councilors on this blog, and he offers a level of respect before pointing out his disagreement. His posts towards Emily are consistently something different.
That’s a fact.
Perhaps there is another reason that isn’t sexist– but his behavior is very consistent with men who become overly aggressive with women leaders as a way to discredit them.
As I wrote before– if anyone can point to another example where Greg has called out another Councilor on this blog for not being honest with their intentions, I stand corrected. I don’t believe that is the case.
@Paul: Calling your perspective a fact does not make it so. I don’t need to waste my time searching through Greg’s thousands of posts to prove you wrong.
@Paul: It’s unfortunate that instead of discussing the merits of Councilor’s Norton’s suggestion to the Washington Place developers — or even offering an explanation as to why you don’t think Councilor Norton’s positions are contradictory — you’ve decided to hijack this conversation in a direction befitting Joe McCarthy.
But for the record, the TAB was the first to point out Councilor Norton’s inconsistencies when it comes to her positions on development in Newtonville and her role as an environmentalist. So is Andy Levin a sexist too?
And this week, Fignewtonville did a better job than I did articulating my suspicions that Councilor Norton’s embrace of no residential parking at Washington Place in the name of smart growth was a “poison bill” designed to doom the project. Is Fignewtonville sexist too?
Councilor Norton and I have known each other for many years. We’ve been on the same and different sides of issues long before she was first elected. She’s proven to be resilient and very good at sticking up for herself and her constituents. Yet you’re suggesting I should treat her, what — more delicately — because she’s female? And then you say I’m sexist?
Also, “Paul” I’m guessing you’re a dude and I respect you a lot less than I respect Councilor Norton, so there’s yet another blow to your theory!
This is the second time in several weeks that a poster has expressed an opinion as a stated fact.
Barbara Huggins is an attorney who has been a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for several years. She is an expert in Chapter 40B. Several towns employ her as a Special Town Counsel on this topic. She has not been appointed to another term on the ZBA. Several male attorneys without her special expertise in this vital area have been named to positions on the ZBA. Several members of the City Council have been distressed by her non-appointment thus far and don’t want to vote to any members who lack her specific expertise in a field of law that is directly relevant to the many of the cases brought before the ZBA .
I hope my post answers Neil Pl’s question.
@Greg
“It’s unfortunate that instead of discussing the merits of Councilor’s Norton’s suggestion to the Washington Place developers — or even offering an explanation as to why you don’t think Councilor Norton’s positions are contradictory.”
Let’s be real clear Greg.
YOU were the one who rather than discussing the merits of Emily suggestion or discuss why her position were contradictory, INSTEAD decided to suggest that she was being disingenuous in offering the proposal.
YOU were the one that migrated away from substance, towards unsubstantiated personal attacks.
I am not asking you to treat her delicately. I am asking you to treat her the same as you do other City Councilors. You treat her differently. And worse. You consistently show more respect to other City Councilors on this blog.
The question is why.
@Paul:
You are an anonymous blogger attributing a motive to Greg with no evidence. Even if he treats her differently from every other person on this blog, even if he treats her with less respect than every other person on this blog (which is definitely not fact — I’m fairly confident I could find ruder comments from Greg than anything he has ever said to Emily!), your assumption that it’s because she’s a woman is simply that — your assumption.
I can think of several reasons you might read his responses to her differently from the way I read them. Or the way Jane reads them. Or Jerry. Or Fig. We don’t know who you are. Maybe you are a sexist woman with biases against Greg. Maybe you are Emily’s husband or her best friend and you don’t like seeing her criticized. I could go on with possibilities.
Again for those complaining that I’m calling an opinion a fact.
Please post ANY example where Greg has called into question the veracity of another City Councilor on this blog with ZERO substantiation.
He just did it with Emily in this thread. And that should not be considered acceptable behavior.
Brian:
I have no issue with Barbara Huggins on the ZBA. Frankly I’d imagine it is hard to find folks with knowledge who are willing to serve on the ZBA. But a simple web search tells me that Barbara Huggins is not exactly a fan of 40B, and her expertise is representing clients who want to block it.
Again, not an issue with me to have that voice on the ZBA. But let’s be honest here. If you are going to call her an expert, call out her experience as well.
And if she was “pro-40B” would you be fighting for her? Would this be a male/female issue?
Again, I’m fine with her on the ZBA. But I don’t think this is a sexism issue. I think she is vocal about 40B and the mayor may want a different voice on the ZBA. That’s his right, is it not?
Regarding Greg/Paul, I really don’t think Greg is sexist towards Emily Norton. He’s tough on lots of folks. Emily is a lightning rod on the blog for lots of reasons, not the least of which she posts about what she believes in, and is less of a politician than most. But she can also be controversial and Greg/Emily are often at opposite sides of the issues of the day.
And I really did read Emily’s proposal as a poison pill independent of Greg. It would certainly act that way. Going from some parking to no parking would essentially kill the financing for a lot of projects. Lenders are risk adverse. Unique projects are tough to finance. In my view the “bridge over the Pike” was also an obvious poison pill. Asking for too expensive public accomodations from a developer is a classic way to kill a project without rejecting it. Build a school. Rent commercial space only to supermarkets that are organic. Invest millions in a Pike bridge. Do away with all parking. If you want to come out against a project, just say so in my view.
I’ll also note that if Emily is serious about her proposal, wouldn’t the empty space on the lot where the parking was once going to sit now be usable for additional housing? Can the project now add 50 units? More commercial space?
I still don’t understand how having no parking on site helps the local merchants. How does one enforce the residential tenants not having cars?
Look, some of these ideas have a lot of merit, just not in absolute terms. I’d love the Orr developer to majorly contribute to the village. I’d love to have one space per unit, and the parking be separate from the unit. I’d also love to keep the Orr buildings intact, but I’m realistic. I don’t like the project as shown by the developer. I guess Emily and the NVA and I have different tactics here. When do we fight the redevelopment completely, and when do we try to work to make a bad project acceptable? I dunno. Someone tell me.
And why don’t I like this project when I was a supporter of Austin Street? Lots of reasons, but probably a topic for another day. But I do think the end result of Austin Street is better for the village, and I don’t think that about the Orr redevelopment.
Paul-If you think this is a big deal, then why don’t you comb through the threads for proof.
@Brian and @fig – thank you for insights.
So this is either sexism (doubt it) or that Setti is stuffing ZBA with pro development people. Either way he should be transparent about it.
I am glad Councillors are standing up to him, and doing whats right.
@fig – Before you call Emily disingenuous – Please re-read her posts. Specifically “Or are we just going to mouth the words that we’re trying to get people out of their cars, but never actually do anything about it?”
She is making a point – Most of those talking about transit oriented development, are doing only just that – talking. She is calling them to walk the walk.
Instead of engaging in substantive discussion – most (and sorry to say) you included, chose to attack her character. Nice!
@Gail
Read more carefully please.
As I wrote:
“Perhaps there is another reason that isn’t sexist– but his behavior is very consistent with men who become overly aggressive with women leaders as a way to discredit them.”
You’re worried about the wrong stuff.
Greg unquestionably questioned Emily’s integrity in the thread. With no evidence behind it.
You can be mad at an anonymous poster for pointing out that Greg’s comments are consistent with sexist attacks, or you could be mad at Greg for baselessly attacking Emily. You seem to value loyalty over decency.
PS I agree with you that Greg is rude to many people on this blog. But you won’t find an example where HE QUESTIONED THE INTEGRITY OF ANOTHER CITY COUNCILOR WITH NO EVIDENCE.
That crossed a line. That’s what you should be worried about. Not me.
No, Paul. I value loyalty to someone I know not to be worthy of the label you are throwing at him — with no evidence — over what you think should offend me. In this political environment, I’m far more offended by people casually tossing out labels than I am by anyone’s suggestion that a politician might have contradicted herself.
This is silly.
It’s always a waste of time to respond to trolls such as Paul. But for the rest of our readers, this followed by this, followed by this seem to be the comments that Paul cites a proof of my sexism and/or historically mean treatment of Councilor Norton.
Good night.
@Gail
“I’m far more offended by people casually tossing out labels than I am by anyone’s suggestion that a politician might have contradicted herself.”
Seriously?
He didn’t suggest that she contradicted herself. He suggested that she wasn’t honest in portraying that she is concerned about smart growth, and instead was using that as cover for creating roadblocks for the project. That is questioning her integrity. So you can KEEP choosing loyalty over decency.
He’s never done that on this blog with any other City Councilor. That’s my evidence. You may not like that. But it is what it is.
@ Greg
You can label me a troll if it makes you feel better, but it isn’t true. I focus on the issues. But when you attack people, I call it out. And will continue to do so.
You’re obnoxious and rude to too many people on this blog. You’re also divisive– e.g. labeling people as pro-development and anti-development, ignoring nuance– in a way that detracts from the conversation.
You may have started this blog, but that doesn’t give you moral standing to bully people and be disrespectful, as you’ve done countless times.
Councilors who post regularly on V14 about a variety of issues: Norton, Hess-Mahan.
Occasional posters on a particular issue: Cote, Sangiolo, Yates
So there you have it, Paul. Emily is one of 2 regular posters and Ted will tell you he’s taken some serious criticism here in past years from (gasp) a woman.
@Jane
Criticism is fair game.
Questioning integrity with no basis is not fair game.
@Jane: Sorry I haven’t posted more often and risen to a regular poster. Dealing with ailing parents who live far away.
@Amy – sorry to hear that. It’s hard living far from parents as they get older.
Neal P:
Umm…where am I attacking anyone’s character? The poison pill provision is a tactic used in development deals all over the city, in free agent contracts in sports (witness Jeremy Lin’s contract for an example a few years back, balloon 3rd year that prevented the Knicks from matching Houston). I was just calling it like I see it.
And again, it isn’t an attack to call out someone on their tactics. It isn’t bullying to call someone out on their bull.
I seem to recall a fair amount of discussion by Emily regarding the need for parking at Austin Street. There was no discussion then about apartments without any parking. Emily on her initial post is still discussing the much discussed debate about whether or not the high school spaces should count for overall spaces in Austin Street’s lot. If anything, I viewed Emily as a defender of the need to have all 159 of those parking spaces, that was a big part of her argument against Austin Street.
With the Orr building, she is now saying that we need to have true transit oriented development with no cars. I’m having trouble squaring the circle, especially since having no parking for an Orr development will harm the very local merchants she references in her initial post.
Her proposal is definitely mass transit oriented. It also has the obvious result of killing the Orr project as currently implemented. I’m fine with that. But it isn’t attacking her character to say so.
And if we want to get people out of their cars, isn’t reduced parking to one car a good first step?
I really do believe that over the next few decades we can make NEwtonville into a mini transportation hub. But that doesn’t work for everyone, and lots of apartment dwellers still want one car.
Anyway, Neil, I think my posts are full of substantive arguments. Just because they aren’t something you agree with, or because of your loyalty to Emily, you seem to ignore the substantive to focus on any mention of Emily. Why don’t you defend the provision of having no parking for a major development as something being pushed by one of our city leaders? Do you think local merchants will support that? Do you support that? The developer asked for a reduction in parking required. Is Emily proposing keeping the parking in the plan for hte commercial units alone? How about at night? Is this the new proposal for all multi-unit housing in Newton? Does it translate to the entire housing study? Newton Center’s parking lot? Newton Corner’s lot near the Pike? Is eliminating parking the path to approval?
I say all this as someone who OPPOSES the Orr block proposal. I like the ballet and the camera store. But I’m also realistic about what the developer paid, and what his rights actually are. And I know how important parking is to financing. In my mind it isn’t a realistic proposal. Can you tell me why I’m wrong?
And isn’t falsely accusing me of attacking someone’s character an interesting way of avoiding talking about the real issue of the project and housing stud? NICE! (to quote a certain person above…)
😉
That’s housing studY in the last sentence! whoops.
And Amy, your posts here are often terrific, regular poster or not, even if I agree with you or not. And I completely understand about family obligations!
@Fig: The same points hold true for the Austin Street project. Proponents called it transit oriented development yet the developer will build ample underground parking for residents. I am challenging us to think big about how in a City such as Newton do we really get people to drive less. (Newton is far from the only suburb facing this.)
And to answer your question I’m referring to the residential parking not the commercial parking. Our local businesses need parking to survive.
PS. Thank you for the compliment. At least that is how I interpret “less of a politician than most” 😉
PPS. Thanks for the kind words Paul. I do find it curious that Greg implies I’m trying to find some sneaky way to oppose this project… I have been called a lot of things, but indirect or disingenuous in how I communicate my opinions, not so much.