In a column this week, Newton TAB editor Andy Levin tries to make sense of opposition to the proposed Washington Place project at the site of the decaying Orr Building in Newtonville.
I pass the Orr block frequently during my travels around the city. Each time, I stare at the buildings in an attempt to understand why some folks are so against their being replaced. I do understand the anxiety about the displacement of several popular businesses and existing renters, but the buildings themselves are a century old, very worn down and of marginal historical significance, in my opinion. I can’t think of any good reason they shouldn’t be replaced and the area renewed.
and Levin reminds us of what’s at stake if the project is forced to downsize…
The developer, Robert Korff’s Mark Investment, is proposing a 171-unit, five-story apartment building with approximately 40,000 square feet of first-floor retail space, plus a public plaza and community room. Under the city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, at least 15 percent of the units would be affordable to low- and moderate-income individuals and families. Additional units would be income-restricted to “middle-income” renters — individuals earning approximately $51,000 to $82,000 and families of up to four members with a total income between $73,000 and $117,700…
… So, what is to be gained by limiting “Washington Place” to four stories instead of five? Is a slightly lower skyline worth the reduction in apartments and the opportunities those would create for renters of mixed incomes — and for local businesses? I don’t think so.
I don’t know how anyone can either support or oppose this project until a deal is negotiated and all the benefits to the city are clear. However, if the “affordable” residential component remains at the statutory 15%, I will absolutely oppose the project.
If developers want to build large scale residential buildings in this community, they should not only be required to exceed the 15% affordable threshold called for in the local inclusionary zoning ordinance, they should be expected to exceed the 25% threshold called for under 40B.
@Mike: Andy’s point is that some are opposing it seemingly because they like the current buildings. Others object to the height which would directly impact the number of affordable and moderate priced units.
The old buildings are crap. The height restriction is foolish and counter productive. I want to know how many affordable housing units the city is getting from this project. That is the primary factor that makes or breaks this project for me.
I totally agree with Mr. Levin. What’s more appropriate to build on those parcels overlooking the Mass Pike and adjacent to the train station than large-scale residential developments? Like him, I simply don’t get it.
I’ve only attended one meeting related to this project and at it, residents offered improvements to the proposed project. Andy and I hardly ever agree, but I don’t understand why people would be adamant about maintaining the current structures.
I’m concerned about displacing longstanding businesses, but that seems to be solvable problem.
calling the stairs of death a “train station” is generous. Especially given that the train goes to 1 place, during commuter hours, and not much on weekends. Lots of downsizing boomers are gonna love to live there! Not. There are zoning laws for a reason- and I certainly don’t appreciate it when a developer gets to buy his way out of the restrictions. Why not change the laws so everyone who wants to build higher can do so? Let’s have 5 stories all the way down to West Newton! And get rid of that useless post office! Where are all the mail trucks going to park at night with all the restaurant and shops doing booming nighttime business at the new development?
Here we go again. I have gotten quite accustomed to Andy Levin not understanding things but making pronouncements anyway and Greg supporting any and all developments.
Very few residents are concerned about keeping the old buildings and even if that were a major point, some of the buildings will have the same one year tear down restriction every 50+ yo building has.
I really don’t like using ONLY the moral argument about income diversity as a plea again. It’s refrain goes something like this: as long as there are some affordable housing units, winnable in a lottery, in any development residents must support it just the way the developer wants or we are not good citizens or people. That is just not true as it is not an either or decision – there are more than 2 choices.
Washington Place, like Austin Street before it, is a new development proposal like any other. At this point it has the 15% affordable housing required in all residential developments.
None of the other affordability factors listed by Andy are firmly part of the proposal. This project has to be viewed objectively by looking at the entirety of the proposal before determining if it is the right development for Newtonville at the intersection of Washington and Walnut Streets. Mr Korff paid a great deal of money to purchase a block on Washington Street so we know he will build something there. We need to concentrate on making it the best it can be not moralizing.
Residents and abutters are right to pay attention to the details. We can be good, moral citizens and still not want it to be just the way it is proposed whether it is not wanting it to be 5 stories tall or presenting the difficulties of the existing transit options.
@Marti: From the very beginning the Newton Villages Alliance has be talking about their desire to preserve the “historic” Orr buildings. From their webiste:
I fully agree and support negotiating the number of affordable units, and like the idea of middle income units as well, but that’s different from what Levin was talking about which is the argument that this “historic” structure merits preserving, which is merely a disguise for the larger efforts to not change anything, anywhere.
Marti – I agree with your comments. To qualify my comment, if there’s widespread opposition to a project in that location, I don’t understand it. At this point, I’ve only heard people offering suggestions to make it a project that is well suited to the location.
Marti: We can agree to disagree about whether I do or do not “get it.”
Frankly, I do wonder, based on your comments, whether you read the column in its entirety. If you did, thanks so much… by all means please continue reading the TAB.
The suggestion that I used morality as the foundation for my argument is just wrong. I do not view development in that way, but rather through the lens of economic opportunity. That certainly includes opportunity for renters of mixed incomes – low, moderate, middle class and well off – but also just as importantly for the area businesses they would support. Again, you simply missed the point that so many others clearly understood.
BTW: As a newspaper editor an important part of my job is to state my opinion – “making pronouncements” as you call it – regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees with me. And I think it entirely appropriate that Greg, the president of the Chamber, would generally favor economic development.
Interesting article in the Boston Globe about building affordable housing in metro Boston’s suburbs, including Newton. Tom Davis posted a quote from this article on a different thread.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/09/02/boundaries-hope/m15ni02g8atfGwg4R9z7cI/story.html
Greg, ok, I concede I really do not count the NVA or KKG to have viable positions on any development anywhere – so yes, of course, they think the buildings are beautiful and could not stand to lose them. Fortunately, as I said, even if that were a major part of the discussion, all that would only get them a 1 year demolition delay. I also think that Mr Korf has spoken to the historic commission. ICYMI, he said more than that.
Andy, yes I read your editorial. Nothing in my comment indicates otherwise. Did you? You say yourself that you don’t get it. You don’t get that some residents do not like small homes being torn down to build larger houses that are too big for their lots. You don’t get that some residents want to save the buildings on the Orr block. You want Washington Place to be built just as Mr Korf has proposed it, particularly because he was kind enough to take away the 6th floor – even though he admitted he had intended to all along. You think abutters who do not want a 5 story wall are just taking away more affordable housing.
But since it is I who “missed the point that so many others understood” I await a better explanation of what point it was that I missed.
“The suggestion that I used morality as the foundation for my argument is just wrong. I do not view development in that way … ”
First I would like to refresh your memory. During the discussions on The Tab Blog I was involved in concerning the Austin Street and Crescent Street developments, you said “The issue is about doing what is morally right.” Other’s said the same. I insisted that opposing the proposals as first presented for some of us was not a moral issue but a way to get a better project built. We succeeded.
Concerning Washington Place, first you include both the actual percentage of affordable apartments of 15%, which is required of all housing developments in Newton, then using the same tactics as development opponents, you include a lengthy description of middle-income opportunities without mentioning that they are wishful thinking at this point. You could have used words such as “in discussion” or “being considered” but chose not to. Afterward you stated that the abutters petitioning for 4 stories instead of 5 are just limiting the percentage of affordable apartments. This is an implication that submitting this petition makes them against affordable housing. Considering that the only percentage now on the table is the required 15%, that is not factual so what is it?
” … an important part of my job is to state my opinion-making pronouncements- as you called it.” I must have not only missed the point but also missed the part where I said it wasn’t.