A decision on whether to approve Mayor Ruthanne Fuller’s request for $500,000 to study redevelopment of the Washington Street Corridor will have to wait a couple weeks.
The City Council appeared poised to overwhelmingly approve the funding Monday night, after an amendment to put the request for consulting services out to bid was rejected 17-7. But Ward 4 Councilor at-Large Lenny Gentile chartered action on the proposal, meaning it won’t be acted upon until the council’s next meeting April 2.
Fuller had requested the funds earlier this year in order to hire the Massachusetts-based Principle Group to conduct the study, but several councilors said not putting the project out to bid was fiscally irresponsible.
The Washington Street Corridor has been the focus of the development debate here for several years. Robert Korff, of Mark Development, is poised to redevelop the so-called Orr block in Newtonville with a mixed-use project known as Washington Place. Councilors on Monday said Korff has told them he also has plans to build a total of 940 housing units, split between the property that now houses Whole Foods and towards West Newton at the location of The Barn shoe store.
Gentile, Ward 2 Councilor Emily Norton, Ward 4 Councilor Chris Markiewicz, Ward 5 Councilor John Rice, Ward 8 Councilor Cheryl Lappin, Ward 1 Councilor at-Large Jay Ciccone and Ward 3 Councilor Jim Cote also voted in favor of putting out to bid what would essentially be a rezoning/master plan study of Washington Street, from Newtonville to West Newton.
I was shocked that it was even legal for us to sign a contract for half-a-million dollars without going out to bid,” Norton said. “This isn’t about this particular work, or about a particular project. I agree with what Councilor Gentile said, in that I do not dispute that the Planning Department needs help to get this work done. You can think we should conduct this study, you can want massive development all up and down Washington Street, and still think this particular planning and charrette and zoning work should be put out to bid. This is a meta issue about transparency and governance.”
On Tuesday, Fuller said putting the project out to bid now would delay what is a critical process. Moreover, she said, the Planning Department had throughly vetted the firm and believes it is the only one that can provide the services the city requires.
“This is a really unusual capability and Planning felt it was important to have a Massachusetts firm so they could be here in Newton,” she said. “We have never gotten this work done correctly and it’s unusual to have a group that does real community-based planning.”
Fuller said the Planning Department negotiated the price down with the Principle Group, which originally wanted $750,000 for the project.
“We know pricing,” she said.
Susan Albright, a Ward 2 councilor at-large, said moving ahead with the study must not be delayed.
“We absolutely have to do this now,” she said. “Washington Street is ripe for the picking. We need to make sure what goes there is what the community wants.”
Principle describes itself as “an urban design and development company” that works “at the intersection of planning, design, architecture and real estate development.”
This spending request is very expensive for the required task. I read through the item’s budget. The group wants $123,000 to do several charrette. The Newtonville Area Council completed a
single charrette for no cost. People from the residential neighborhood spoke out clearly. They want buildings to be 4 stories or less. They want small business owners like Newtonville Camera and Joe’s barber. They want plenty of parking and safe streets, good lighting, more open space and green space. They want Washington St. to remain 4 lanes and do not want to see Wholefoods close. They want more commercial and retail space with a smaller amount of residential dense housing.
Mayor Fuller has made a reckless request to spend taxpayer money. Is this how she plans to be fiscally responsible in the future?
Welcome Andy.
Great first post and I look forward to many more.
@Colleen: I get where the seven are bothered by the no-bid contract in principle, but “reckless” seems to be a hyperbolic way of describing the request. The Planning Department is convinced Principle is the only firm that can meet its needs.
Going out to the lowest bidder is exactly what got us the new Auburndale Square design. Ward 4 councilors should know better.
@Andy
Which other parties did the planning department consider? Of those who did they meet with? What was the criteria?
Colleen: the planning process needs to go much deeper than just a single charette in which people talk about what kinds of businesses they want to see.
The ideas that you laid out are contradictory. We can’t get more business and retail without more people. We can’t encourage pedestrian access and a walkable village with a 4-lane road. We can’t keep it the way it is AND change. Those things just don’t match up.
Yes, we need to understand the underlying needs of the local community, but also those of the city as a whole. We need to know what will be saleable to both the community and to the market. We need priorities, not a list of demands.
People need to be given context in the charettes so they answer questions in context regarding what worked in other cities and what didn’t. Those sessions need to be guided by professionals who have studied these concepts and have done it multiple times.
Expertise matters, and it’s expensive. Let’s respect the expertise.
@Simon
I didn’t dig that deep, but if I have time later today I will check that out for you. In a nutshell though, Planning was convinced that Principle is the only consultant that could truly engage the community by being on the scene consistently in Newton. And that would create a near-finished product, specific zoning plan etc.
@Adam “Going out to the lowest bidder is exactly what got us the new Auburndale Square design. Ward 4 councilors should know better.”
I don’t see anyone suggesting that the City go with the lowest bidder, but rather that there be a competitive bid process. I have managed bids at work and best practice is to establish criteria and assign weights to those so that there can be a quantitative measure. For example it those involved in the selection process agree that selecting a MA firm is really important, give it a high weight. If lowest bidder is not important, give it a lower weight.
Does the city have a policy as to what $$ contract requires a competitive bid? If so what is that and when would an exception be made? My antenna goes up when the argument if made for speed. Where will this $500,000 come from? Is that trade off the right one. I’m very uncomfortable with this whole thing
I think the concern here is outlined in the deliverable. Andy’s comment is key. This is more than just community meetings. They are going to provide a planning example to be voted on. Which makes sense as to who is supporting and who is delaying.
Basically, if you want to maintain the status quo, or to delay as many new projects as possible, rezoning or a new development plan are not your chosen path. You’d want to fight each project separately, create as few incentives for developers as possible, and push for a different kind of consultant.
At some point, Mayor Fuller ran as someone who appreciates budgets and the limited resources of our city. I’m willing to let this one play out, and to judge it on the results. This type of multiple village planning requires leadership and a vision. And elections have consequences. In other words, the Mayor gets to pick her team and the focus.
If the process is a disaster or not productive, that’s on the Mayor as well. But in my view, it is clear change is going to come to the Washington Corridor. More change than I’d like, to be frank. But I’d rather a plan and a thoughtful discussion, with an end product that could guide the planning staff, vs. a block by block 40B fight.
For the record, regarding the NAC charrette, I think that it was a useful community meeting to start a conversation, but not much more than that. My understanding is that the city and the planning dept didn’t participate. At some point, experts matter. Volunteer staff and even city staff only have a limited set of experiences and time. Folks complain all the time about Route 9 planning, about how Washington Street is a hodpodge of good and bad, about how Needham street is awful. How do we do something better in a time of change? This is one of the ways.
I’ll do my best to attend the sessions and research the end product’s effectiveness. I’ll be honest if I think it isn’t worth the money. I view this as a test case of sorts.
This is an another example of analysis-paralysis of the 24-member City Council. For residents and developers alike, we need to move quickly to institute a master plan for our lovely city or it will no longer be lovely.
@Thomas,
Nothing really moves quickly in our council. Lets face it, right now this project is apparently projected to take 13 months.
Robert Korf in the mean while has at least 2 locations on the Washington St “Corridor” on his hit list.
Lets not forget, in the case of Washington place part of the special permit was to rezone what was there. When he didn’t have the votes he then threatened 40b.
For me its quite simple. Most of us in this city purchase a property knowing how it is zoned. We also take into consideration the abutting properties and how they are zoned.
Why is this developer is so special? Why is it he feels he can buy up abutting parcels of land and then go to the city and request a rezoning change? Why is it the mayor or council feels so threatened?
And then lets look at what may come of this “corridor” (and its abutters). Lets face it “context” based zoning is the in-thing. Once it is in a district, what prevents its creeping along, and along?
And then we also need to balance what makes a city function. Taxes come to mind. I was recently told that 50 years back our tax revenue was more like 50/50 (commercial/residential). Now we are more like 13/87.
I’m convinced part of this Charette B.S. and the unique B.S of this company is that they will guide people in the direction of Growth.. And it will simply be economics.. Like who is going to pay for Jeff Specks vision of Washington St. corridor, or who is going to pay for this and that and the other.
And lets not forget we have Northland project on Needham St, RiverSide..
We already have our supposed update zoning redesign project which is supposed to deliver in the fall. Now we have a “vision” for a “corridor” that is part of the city.. Perhaps somebody could remind me of the goal of zoning reform!
A simple solution would be to have a moratorium on any MU4 or similar large density projects whilst we undergo our zoning reform process. If anything it would speed up the process that everybody seems to agree would be a good thing!
Simon, thank you for a more balanced and reasonable response to this complex issue. Why, if MU4 is to be used to create more housing, why aren’t all the villages being asked to share in the growth? Why is Washington St. targeted for 5 new big developments? The north side is already the most densely populated area of the city. Our city council is happy to target this area and I noticed that RuthAnne quickly nixed the boutique hotel in Newton Centre after local residents declared their opposition.
The MU4 concept is worthwhile if it strengthens the commercial and retail and allows for much less housing.
As for the $500,000 expenditure, anyone can read the proposal. There is so much padding in it. The Principle Group will be laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone who approves that item is a complete fool.
I think for an honest and open discussion on Village 14, we should dispense with “handles”.
@Thomas Friedman – The pros and cons of that have been discussed at length in the past.
For better or worse many of our commenters have made it clear that they would not continue contributing if their real names were required. We value their contributions too much to consider making this change.
Newton Centre residents would like to have the power Colleen credits us with. But according to the mayor, what killed the boutique hotel plan was that the keystone of the funding scheme fell out. It’s also possible, if unmentioned, that (a) she didn’t like the idea herself, or (b) better-connected developers have their eye on the old library. Or both. This story isn’t over. It has just gone on hiatus while the drama has shifted elsewhere.
Is the plan to replace the Whole Foods with condos or add condos next to the Whole Foods?