Former Ward 2 At Large Alderman Marcia Johnson writes in a just-published TAB column….
Surprise! Within two short weeks of the Washington Place developer announcing he had lost faith in the city zoning and permitting process as a tool to create a thoughtful, mixed-use development on Washington Street, the neighbors are suddenly wringing their hands and trying to find a compromise.
Of course a compromise is possible. It should have happened already. But it takes two to tango, and the developer needs someone to negotiate with. Not someone to chat with. Not someone to hold a conversation with. But someone actually empowered to make a decision that the Warren Administration commits to support.
@Mike Striar
It’s not the mayor who needs to support a compromise. He doesn’t get to vote. There are perhaps 16 councilors who support the plan as is. Two more are needed for rezoning approval. This idea is probably a long shot, but certainly worth a try.
Andy– You don’t get to vote either, Andy. But that doesn’t mean you can’t influence the process. Same thing with the Mayor. Twist some arms. Bang some heads if you have to. This is an important project for Newton, and our leader needs to actually lead.
Mike, I grew up in Toronto which has been a fast growing city since the mid 1960s. I moved to Newtonville in 1979. This community has been a wonderful place to live for nearly 4 decades and has not seen fast paced rapid housing development and all the changes that goes with it.
I totally disagree with you that a massive dense housing development is a positive move for our village. It would destroy everything about Newtonville that makes it a special place to live.
Colleen– I understand your concern and respect your opinion. I think it’s fair to say that you generally come down on the anti development side of most large scale projects Newton. Having seen some really bad development around the city, I certainly get where you’re coming from. Personally, I try to be more discerning, because there are good projects and bad projects.
You mentioned the past 4 decades, which I know is the length of time you’ve lived in Newtonville. But I’d urge you to look back just a little bit further in time, before there was a Mass Turnpike. Much of the land taken for the Pike was occupied by homes and businesses. I see projects like Austin Street and Washington Place, as a way to regain some of the history and heritage that was lost to the Pike.
@Mike Striar
No offense to Setti Warren, but he is a lame duck with waning influence here. I can’t see him flipping two votes, even with a sweetened deal from the developer. I would love to be wrong.
Thank you Andy and Mike. However what I was really suggesting is that Mr Arnstein has presented what I perceive as a productive thought in terms of using the tools of sound zoning practice by introducing the concept of upzoning the front portion of the site and perhaps downzoning the back portion from what currently exists. He suggests a concept of zoning the site BU2 in the front and downzoning the rear portion to BU1, which infers that a strong precedent could be made for the future that respect and consideration should be made when encroaching into transition areas of residential properties along commercial arteries in the City. This appears to be a productive concept but I suggest in this instance we should allow the front to be rezoned to the requested MU4 rather than the BU2 zone so the MU2 tool can be used as it was intended to be by the BOA when it was enacted in 2012 and I was chair of the Zoning & Planning Committee. This to me appears to be fair and would allow the developer to move forward while at the same time setting the precedent for any future development proposals that may come before the Council in the future.
I would further suggest that the irony in this instance is this would then require a vote of 16 members of council in order to approve the rezoning application if it were amended along the lines Mr Arnstein has proposed. The City’s legal department has previously made a ruling on a petition by the direct abutters that 18 votes would be needed because more than 20 percent of the direct abutters to the land area being rezoned have objected. I am not an attorney but it seems to me if the land adjacent to the abutters is being “downzoned” not “upzoned” its logical the petition request may no longer apply. The irony here is that if Mr Korff had done his homework properly to begin with and simply filed along the logic of Mr Arnstein we most likely wouldn’t be facing the prospects of a 40B proposal with more density then what was proposed at the City Council.
@Marcia
You clearly have a lot of knowledge and plenty to offer the city in finding solutions.
However, the tone of your column was sarcastic and demeaning, which is not productive and makes compromise harder, not easier.
This isn’t an issue of being right and wrong. Both sides have values that are important to them, and unfortunately they conflict. Solutions require respect and ultimately compromise.
Flexible zoning is a wave of success, protecting the interests of the neighbors while providing adaptable future land use. Creative possibilities will encourage hi tech and internet based productivity. The executive office has touted the innovation of Mass Challenge & CIC without really showing much in the way of a sustainable future commercial/industrial tax base – something this development has the potential to do. Alderman Johnson has a handle on the situation and appears to be more successful independent of the Council group speak.
@Marcia Johnson
“I am not an attorney but it seems to me if the land adjacent to the abutters is being “downzoned” not “upzoned” it’s logical the petition request may no longer apply.”
Hmmmmm… Interesting!
I hope a compromise is possible.
@Paul
My intention was not to be sarcastic or hindering conversation. So I apologize for the impact. Having said this, I can say that for almost 20 years out of my 34 in Newton, I have been working to increase affordable housing in Newton. In order to move to Newton, my husband and I got assistance from a bank program, that no longer exists today. Without this, we would not be here today…most likely could not buy our house if we had to. So what you heard was my frustration as most efforts have been met with resistance. We need to stop discussing and start having more conversation. For those who are reading this and are interested in moving affordable housing forward in Newton, please consider joining the CAN-DO Yes-in-My-Back-Yard celebration on Sunday March 11th.
Marcie Sunday is the 12th; not 11th. http://www.newtoncando.org/index.html#.WMCxGm8rLDd
@Harry.
Thank you
There is no gain of affordable units on the Orr Block project. Twenty affordable units will be torn down with many families forced to relocate.
Newton has built terrific housing developments these past few decades. Cabot Village is one example. Lasell College provides a fabulous development on their campus which other colleges could use as a model for needed housing.
As a community let’s provide more apartment rentals; but consider the scale of the project in order to preserve our historic villages. No one wants to see our cherished history destroyed by massive structures which fail to enhance the surrounding community.
@Colleen Minaker
The Orr buildings are unsightly and have outlived their usefulness, in my opinion.
Yes they are in need of improvement. The massive scale of the petition does not enhance the existing historic village and surrounding community. To work it needs a setting similar to Cabot Park Village.
Colleen,
I guess it depends on ‘who’ is deciding that is best. I can see older residents prefer a more ‘quaint’ down town.
But as a younger person I want to see a vibrant downtown with shops and restaurants and large numbers of people living close to shops. As a younger person, that would be my ‘preferred’ vision of Newton
So before we add MORE retail under Housing – Maybe someone should look at the Elm Street – West Newton Project which has had EMPTY never Rented Retail for over 1 year. Could Lack of Parking be an issue. There is never parking there as the parking lot is always full – why would anyone want to put a business in those buildings. Your customers would never be able to park there.
If we cannot rent the ones that have been built – why are we building more? Do you really think Newtonville will be easy to get to with a car ? Once the Parking lot at Starbucks is gone – I will never frequent Newtonville Businesses. I don’t know how you think this Vibrant Village is going to form? Just by the people that will be living in the housing?
Joanne,
” I don’t know how you think this Vibrant Village is going to form? Just by the people that will be living in the housing?”
Yes, mainly from the people living in the units AND people living within 2-3 blocks.
Lets do the math:
– 160 units, not unreasonable to assume 320 adults and teens will live there (160 * 2)
– within 2 block radius of WP. I can visually see about 210 houses. so maybe about 462 adults and teen (210 * 2.2 people)
from this map:
http://assessing.newtonma.gov/NewtonMAWebApp/Map.aspx
so a total of 782 people within a 2 block radius. That is enough to support a vibrant feel as long as the stores are not all “banks”
Can we stop repeating the lie that “once the parking lot at Starbucks is gone”. The parking lot will be dug up, a parking garage built underground. Then paved , and the construction will be built over of the parking lot. There will still be a cherished parking lot and parking spaces all over Newtonville for people who can walk at least 300 ft.
@ Jack – Hope you don’t own a business in Newtonville! We will see how many people who just need to stop for a few minutes to pick up a coffee, need to go to the bank or go to CVS will be driving into an underground Parking lot to park and then frequent the Newtonville Businesses. Why stop at the CVS in Newtonville when the one in West Newton has parking or go to Walgreens in the Four Corners or better yet go to Rite Aid in Waltham – tons of Parking there. Time will tell about who is correct in this.
The public parking lot is not underground – resident parking is. More people living closer to village centers will more than balance out the number who will stop shopping there because the Newtonville parking lot is behind a building – but still there. Many vibrant communities have parking behind buildings instead of next to the street. Mark Develooment has had no trouble in the past leasing retail space and yes the number of people living right there will make the difference.
I’m a boomer and would choose to live nearer village centers than in a space like Cabot Park Village – in fact I do. We need different types of housing to fill different needs. Not everyone wants the same thing.
Colleen, the so-called naturally affordable rentals are either already gone or will be soon. The renters have moved on – so this reason to oppose WP doesn’t mean anything now.
What Jack said- you’ll still be able to park – there’ll just be a building on top. And the street will still be there.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it gets believed.
Though I appreciate the discussion about the merits of the project, affordable housing in Newton and vitality of our village centers. I would like to bring this back to the original intent of my LTE which is to differentiate the appropriateness of zoning on the site as a whole. Zone the front portion of the property where the density is desired MU4 and BU2 to BU1 at the rear of the property and create the type of density needed for a village center that abuts a residential district. I would be interested in hearing people’s thoughts and what this might mean.
Once again, let’s try and address the affordable housing that is “being taken away” Do you know the condition of the current apartments and the fact that they are not “affordable” in perpetuity? That is a HUGE difference from what is being proposed at Washington Place where the affordable units will be state of the art, accessible and most importantly safe in perpetuity. So removing the supposedly “naturally affordable” units is not a reason to not more forward with Washington Place. Newton needs more rental units as Colleen accurately states…however we need quality units and that is what this project will bring to Newton.
Lastly as we think about commercial development, let’s get the facts as to why the store fronts on Elm Street are not rented. I have heard different things and maybe Councilors Brousal-Glaser, Cote or Hess-Mahan could weigh in on this concern.
So-called Affordable Housing (capital letters required) is a fool’s game, like any other lottery. It doesn’t help the housing market (the free kind); it simply allows lottery winners (over a thousand in the pool for a couple of dozen units) to get a unit where their income will always be scrutinized carefully and a change in life circumstance (marriage, divorce, promotion, unemployment, baby, child grows up, etc.) can put one’s income out of the required 50-80% AMI range and cost them their house. Such a deal! It is a paternalistic approach that lets the upper-income homeowners assuage their guilt while maintaining exclusive zoning over *their* neighborhoods. Sadly, 40B is based on a subsidized housing inventory, and does little to encourage smart planning.
We’d have actual affordable housing if the zoning code permitted smaller lot sizes and unit/acre density in village districts. The preponderance of Newtonville house are non-conforming already, predating the zoning code. Instead,we get these big luxury buildings that, by paying $7M/acre, raise the value of land (as a speculative property, not home) and thus make naturally affordable housing even more rare. Not smart.