The proposed mixed use development at Washington Place in Newtonville goes before the Newton City Council for a final vote this Monday June 19.
It will take 16 votes to move the project forward. You can read the latest from the TAB here and find specific details about the project from the developer here.
And you can share your own final thoughts about the project here.
I sent this letter in my capacity as president of the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber to the Newton City Council on Wednesday.
Dear City Councilors:
Like most of you, the chamber would like to grow Newton’s commercial tax base.
And that’s exactly why I am writing to urge you to approve the proposed Washington Place mixed-use project on June 19.
Now you may be thinking: Has Reibman lost his mind? How exactly does increasing Newton’s housing stock grow our commercial tax revenue?
Let me explain:
Unemployment in Newton is among the lowest in the state. Our chamber members – from the smallest restaurants to our large non-profits, tech firms and life sciences companies — all tell me that one of the biggest challenges they face in 2017 is hiring.
Studies that examine why companies locate in given locations point to workforce as a key driver. Employers need to be confident they can hire here. And that can’t happen without addressing the well-documented housing crisis that exists in Newton and eastern Massachusetts, as well as our transportation limitations.
Both the affordable and market rate apartments that are part of the Washington Place project would go a long way to opening up housing opportunities for millennials and Newton workers of all ages.
As an added benefit, restaurants and retailers in Newtonville and across the city will also benefit from the customers who will call Washington Place home, adding to the health and vitality of our villages.
If you want to help Newton businesses thrive and attract new companies here too (and, yes, grow our commercial tax base in the process!) we need more housing that appeals to and provides for our workforce.
Washington Place is a wonderful project. Please support it.
Sincerely,
Greg Reibman, President, Newton-Needham Regional Chamber
I’m in complete agreement with Greg’s comment above. In my opinion, Washington Place would be a positive development for Newton. The $20M price tag to acquire the underlying properties clearly demonstrates the viability of Mass Pike air-rights development along that corridor. I have supported Austin Street and Washington Place developments because they address some of the community’s needs, and will make Newton a better place to live. I’ve also supported those projects because I believe they will inevitably lead to cultivation of air-rights, which would be a complete game-changer for property taxes in Newton.
The only millenials buying in this development will be trust fund babies, but I guess I don’t care as long as somebody moves in and pays taxes there.
@Yuppie Scum this will be a rental project as will be the Austin St project. The vast majority of millenials, saddled with education debt and faced with the high cost of downpayments, are in the rental market.
p.s. i feel like i need to apologize for calling you yuppie scum – but after all that’s the name you have.
Even though I would have liked to keep it at 4 stories, I think Washington Place will be a welcome addition to Newtonville. Along with three income levels of deed-restricted affordable housing, the community plaza and community non-profit space are a plus. The new residents will also bring foot traffic to our local retail businesses.
@Marti – I really am so excited for that community plaza and outdoor seating space. I’m hopeful we’ll get a good restaurant or two in there with some real outdoor seating. That’s something Newtonville is sorely missing.
Some friends wanted to go out somewhere we could sit outside recently and we went to Newton Center because there really are no options for it here.
Bryan:
Well, Austin Street is supposed to have an outdoor seating area, and if Option A for the Walnut street passes, there should be more opportunities to have small patios outside a few restaurants.
Just saying.
That’s good, isn’t it? Am I missing something?
Bryan and Fig, I’m anticipating enjoying both community spaces and restaurants with widened sidewalks encouraging outdoor seating. When the weather is nice, sitting outdoors is my favorite. I recently returned from Key West where we had every drink, watched every band and ate every meal in outside seating. It was the best. Sounds great to increase this experience in Newtonville.
The arguments made for the project are facile and don’t add up. Korff has said his rent will be $3/square foot/month, which is luxury level, not something a young millennial can afford without a trust fund. It will house more school kids than they want to admit, so the city will end up losing money. And the “Affordable Housing” canard is just that — there will be a few lottery ticket units, but with over a thousand people in the average housing lottery, a qualified family’s chance of winning one is pretty slim. We might as well just hand out Powerball tickets.
By destroying existing low-rent housing and setting the value of land at over $8M/acre, Korff’s monstrosity raises the cost of living in Newtonville. It invites new transient yuppie renters who can afford it while waiting to buy a house. It doesn’t help anyone who already lives in Newton except the real estate speculators.
Fred I agree with you completely.
no one has shown the calculations comparing: existing commercial tax revenue versus the proposed; existing number of “naturally affordable” units vs the “lottery ticket” affordable units; or even how this development will change the affordable housing ratio used for determining 40B compliance. Make no mistake about it, the city has to decide if it wants to wave multiple code requirements so a corporation can maximize their profits–not to benefit the community.
permit mixed use but limit the building to four stories, as the developing corporation fully understood when it bought the property.
@Marti, surely the key west sidewalk we all would love to have in newton didn’t have a five story building towering over it!
also, can we address the issue of grossly misleading architectural renderings! the drawings show a village but what they’re really building is a strip mall with apartment on top. to make the plans look better the drawings usually:
reduce parked cars
reduce passing traffic
never more than one car waiting for a traffic light
eliminate all utility poles, traffic signs, or traffic lights
add a mob of pedestrian traffic
show mature trees
touch-up neighboring green space too outside the scope of the proposal
put in public space / outdoor seating, even if there are no plans to have such things (e.g. a tenant that says they’ll have outdoor seating!)
Here are some comparisons of past renderings and the resultant landscape.
http://imgur.com/a/DpB58
David M,
Yes, there were some 5+ story buildings behind us while we sat outside. I don’t know what you think Key West is like, but it has its share of development – many people want to live there. Maybe your confining yourself to old town. By the water lots of buildings are on stilts with a few stories on top.
All the calculations you call for have been made time and again. There are more deed restricted affordable units that there were low income units. The low income unit residents live in fear of their landlord raising the rent, renovating and kicking them out or selling the building thus kicking them out. They know sooner or later they will have to move – not so with the deed restricted apartments. In addition, there are so few of them it’s quite hard to find one. Hopefully that will change somewhat now that accessory apartments are legal but still they will have to meet code so might cost more. All types of multi family housing are needed.
Since the developments are rentals, all of them will go on the housing list.
It’s not unusual for renderings to be over the top. I think most agree with that.
Fred and David,
Since Korf purchased the property and has already helped the inhabitants find new places, the comparisons you request are no longer relevant. Neither is the conspiracy saying those displaced who support the project have been persuaded to do so in some nefarious way.
None of us know exactly who will rent the units, seniors downsizing, young people making enough income to rent but not enough to have a down payment to buy yet, people with kids or anyone else. What is wrong with people renting until they can buy a home – and what exactly makes them “transient yuppies?”
The deed restricted affordable housing will remain that way in perpetuity. It’s unfortunate to need a lottery but it’s more fair than first come first served. It’s ridiculous to compare the lottery for housing to the power ball. The power ball odds are crazy and people spend their hard earned money pursuing a fantasy – the housing lottery odds are much lower, are divided by income levels, size of family and size of apartment and getting on the list costs no money. The developer is asking to have 70% of these rentals go to Newton residents. Not sure why that would make sense.
As I said above, I would have preferred 4 stories, but still hope it passes tomorrow night.
@marti,if you agree the renderings are a farce, then what makes you think the project will be required to have outdoor seating like your key west vacation spot? Hint: there’s no such requirement! it could be all banks and then NO outdoor seating, just like Partner’s Healtcare doesn’t have outdoor seating despite the Needham St rendering–big surprise! How many times are you going to let developers trick the city with purty pictures?
also, where exactly in key west was this spot you sat in front of a 5 story building? I’d love to compare specifications, which the Washington Place Strip Mall is proposing 117 ft tall building with 9′-8″ of space for outdoor seating, see, http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/80616
and if you can provide a link or some data for answers to the statistics about affordable housing impacts, rather that just say “it’s been done” that would be great! all I’ve seen from the company proposing the plans and its supporters is that trashing the code requirements to build this strip mall “is good for the city” and never actual numbers:
1. existing commercial tax revenue versus the proposed;
2. existing number of “naturally affordable” units vs the “lottery ticket” affordable and
3. units; and before and after affordable housing ratio used for determining 40B compliance.
David, arrogant much?
“also, where exactly in key west was this spot you sat in front of a 5 story building? I’d love to compare specifications … ” really?
“Tricked by purty pictures … ” again, really?
Didn’t say the renderings are a farce but naturally they are drawn to make the project look it’s best. What you linked are plans. They are as exact as possible and the plaza is there. It depends on which plan is built to know the size as Mr Korf is negotiating with abutters now.
Of course there’s no requirement for a restaurant with outdoor seating – Bryan and I are hoping there will be since the sidewalks will be wider.
No banks but I agree that allowing a health club, offices, or medical space won’t create foot traffic but will increase parking. I have touched on that before.
As for the other demands (not even a request) on my time. These things were discussed in public hearings, in the Tab and on V14 when the process started. I do not remember the exact number of apartments that were in the old building, gone now with residents happily relocated, but I do remember the “no side” bringing up there were more new deed restricted apartments although not too many more. I also do not remember what the commercial tax revenue was. I’ve answered your no. 3 above.
Remember for next time, google is your friend – as is the Newton MA website.
I emailed City Council members this morning:
Dear City Councilors:
I would like to thank many of you for supporting the development of new housing options in Newton.
More than one-third (37%) of our city’s population is, like me, over the age of 50. We need more housing options like Washington Place: in village centers, near buses and trains, single-floor living.
Some people argue the rents in new buildings are too high. Maybe. But all older buildings were once new. Unless new housing stock gets built over many years, the inventory of older, more affordable apartments will continue to dwindle.
Not building solves nothing.
Sincerely,
John Sisson
@David your renderings argument isn’t wrong. Yes, as a general rule developers show more foot traffic than what happens later. This isn’t a new issue, clearly, but it’s something that keeps coming up and an informed public needs to look past the drawings to understand what they’re getting.
As for the reasons behind the lack of foot traffic, that isn’t just about the building itself but also about street design, neighboring businesses and the retail mix in the building itself. Retail like banks, urgent care, wireless stores, salons, etc. do not tend to drive much foot traffic. This gets into the business model of the developer.
If building management demands a 5 or 10 year lease, then only businesses willing to take on that kind of burden will rent. Those tend to be national chains as opposed to smaller restaurants, shops or even retail-facing co-working spaces. These entrepreneurial ventures don’t have the ability to sign on to longer term leases and tend to want something more flexible.
Some of this is changing as retailing changes, so we may need to rethink what we ask for in regards to “community space.” It’s possible that such a space shouldn’t just be a room for meetings and art galleries, but retail frontage that is managed and allows for pop-up restaurants. This kind of thing is happening at The Street in Chestnut Hill.
It’s late in the process to ask for this here, but we should start thinking about it moving forward.
Its a pretty high chance a CVS will open in the location (given the developer’s relationship with CVS).
I suspect there will be an outcry from bitter NIMBY’s to oppose National chains, thus leaving the retail empty or constantly turning over (small business owners who cannot absorb unprofitably for a few years)
Realistically, there needs to be a national chain “anchor” to start things off to attract foot traffic.
My predictions for businesses which will do well:
– CVS
– pre-K day care (newer Newton residents are dual income)
– animal clinic
– pizza for kids and high-schools students
Please just let one of Washington Place or Austin Street contain a restaurant with outdoor seating. This time of year I wish we had a good option for outdoor dining.