Cape Cod Today recently posted a story regarding a Baker-Polito Celebration of Municipal Housing efforts across the State.
The article contains this reference: “Newton will create a data transparency toolbox that will model the fiscal impact and economic development opportunities created by new housing development. The data toolbox will support the City’s Washington Street Corridor master planning project, allowing the City to engage residents and stakeholders by modeling various development scenarios in real time. This project will support the creation of 2,500 new housing units, including 325 new affordable housing units.”
That’s seems like an awful lot of units just for Washington Street. Thoughts?
That is a large number but my only real concern is schools. We could end up with hundreds of kids all getting districted to the same schools all around the same time. Are we able to accommodate that and is there a plan in place?
Wow. I thought we were involving the citizens in this Washington St redesign. At least we now know the goal is 2,500 units!
I also thought that economic impact was part of the work RKG were going to do for Washington St.
A number of the councillors against the RKG proposal were concerned about what was about to be delivered.
I certainly do not recall this additional $85k of funding ever being discussed.
Now that this has surfaced I also can’t help but wonder if the planning department were a little economical about the RKG proposal too.. Perhaps thats why they got such as deal reducing RKG down to $500k, knowing we going to get additional money from the state.
@Simon, you mean the Principle Group, not RKG, right? RKG was a past consultant. There have been so many contracts it’s hard to keep track.
But the point is spot on. We’re supposedly paying the Principle Group $500,000 on a rushed, no bid basis, to find out what we, the people of Newton want, yet the administration has already decided what the outcome is going to be. It’s dishonest, disrespectful and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Engagement theatre, we call it. If you wanted to design a system to make people cynical and stop showing up, this is it.
But as I said in another thread, don’t give up, don’t leave Newton because you’re disgusted, don’t stop showing up at meetings, don’t stop speaking up. More and more people are paying attention.
@Julia
Oops. Thats right, RKG report titled Housing Needs Analysis and Strategic
Recommendations
City of Newton, Massachusetts
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76450.
“If the City is to grow as it is projected to through 2030, development patterns will
need to change to accommodate anyone other than the wealthiest consumers.
Given the limited amount of available vacant land, a mix of moderate density
(multi-unit) development will need to be considered to accommodate additional
households and allow for greater housing choice. That said, the City will not ‘build
its way to affordability.’ The imbalance of demand and supply is so great that the
City could not physically accommodate the development needed to affect pricing
in a substantial manner. To this point, a combination of preservation and new
construction will be necessary to ensure some level of price diversity within Newton.”
Guess we can’t hire them again !
2,500 new units to bring in 10’s of millions in tax revenue by attracting companies to startup here = worth it!
2,500 new units for “social engineering” purposes = crazy.
No objection to the 2,500 as long as it solves Newton’s tax base problem. Ie it brings in enough tax revenue to build schools and infrastructure to overcome overcrowding…
why is it starting to feel that the city government snobs living in Waban are using Washington Street as their dumping grounds? Lets see some density in “other” parts of Newton also…
Based on the NPR report from a few days ago the city of Quincy is also in a development mode. Their plan is to build up -a 14 story apt building in Quincy Center. Perhaps Newton Center should be like Quincy Center and also plan to build up. Why is Washington St on the North side of Newton baring the brunt of these development plans?
Since it’s relevant to the conversation, analysis of of the impact to school student population is very important with any large scale residential development, but I also think it’s important to recognize that changes are occuring that help on this front. The Massachusetts birth rate is down more than 10% over the last ten years, with a very steady decline almost every year. Compared to the national data, we’re a little late to the party as the trends as a country show an even larger decline in birth rates. I’m not saying that new residential growth will not bring with it, school age children, but the trends certainly seem to be in our favor, and should be factored in. Commercial development works, when there is housing stock to support it. Additionally, most developments need the cash flow from the residential component, to financially support the commercial/retail components. Unless you are a community with a significant amount of existing housing stock serving a wide variety of income ranges, the development of large scale commercial property, without including a significant residential component, is just not realistic. If residential development is not supported, you wont get the commercial development. A large scale project with commercial only, or commercial dominated ratio, is not going to happen, because it will never get financed. Some people will point to a community like Waltham, and say look at all of the commercial development at the old Polaroid site. Yes, it’s an impressive project with lots of retail and office development. Waltham has a diverse housing stock, and has permitted large scale residential developments over the years to set themselves up for large commercial development. The old Polaroid site in Waltham is over 100 acres, so the scale of the project makes more retail and office space financially feasible as well. To put that in perspective, the old Polaroid site is almost 10 times the size of the Riverside development parcel. The point I am trying to make is that Newton does not have underserved, or undeveloped land areas the size needed to really push for large scale commercial development. The only way to add to our commercial tax base is to allow for mixed use development that includes a good amount of residential. Otherwise, permit enough residential with a large amount of affordability, such that it attracts commercial only development. I for one, would not want to take the “build it and they will come” approach. Mixed use makes way more sense for Newton. We all just need to agree on where that balance should be, understand the impacts, do our best to mitigate what we can, and plan for the rest.
@Julia Malakie “We’re supposedly paying the Principle Group $500,000 on a rushed, no bid basis, to find out what we, the people of Newton want, yet the administration has already decided what the outcome is going to be. It’s dishonest, disrespectful and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Engagement theatre, we call it. If you wanted to design a system to make people cynical and stop showing up, this is it.”
Spot on!! Korff and the Mayor know where they want to end up. All of the hoops are just to give an appearance that the city wants the input from the residents. And it burns me up that we that tax payers are footing the bill for a half million dollar contract so that an expert will validate the intended outcome. And that a similar stunt is underway to maneuver the current police department building into the portfolio of Korff.
The linked article reads in part “Participating grantees have already engaged in local housing planning, but have identified obstacles that prevent the realization of their planning vision;” In the case of Newton I believe the city views any resident who doesn’t buy into the intended vision to be the obstacle.
The article also reads “Newton will create a data transparency toolbox that will model the fiscal impact and economic development opportunities created by new housing development. The data toolbox will support the City’s Washington Street Corridor master planning project, allowing the City to engage residents and stakeholders by modeling various development scenarios in real time. This project will support the creation of 2,500 new housing units, including 325 new affordable housing units.” Personally, I would like to know a lot more about this “data transparency toolbox” including its origins and any POV of the people who created it.
Here is my bottom line. I support development. What I don’t support is this very suspect (to me) process that our city leaders are utilizing that seems hell bent on giving Korff everything he wants at the expense of what the citizens may want.
Yes Julia, color me cynical!
Did any of you take the most recent survey where you were asked to say if you liked or disliked those photos? The photos included a lot of greenery, benches, and sidewalk cafes. If that’s going to happen with apartments sitting on top, that could be interesting. But truly, what I’m expecting are these: https://www.universalhub.com/comment/668225?nocache=1
Its a well known fact , if the Avalon Project is any example, that the taxable income to the city from all these housing units will not cover the cost per student ( +/- $18,000 each ), given the number of students all this housing will be introducing into the system .
We will never get out from under the $1,000,000,000 ( that’s a billion ), unfunded liabilities we are currently burdened with by building more housing. The answer lies in the commercial tax base.
Let’s not be talking about “large scale commercial development”,.. ie Apple, Amazon , or even Polaroid here,.. but your 20,000 sf legal office space ( ie the future Schlesinger Bookbinder ), or any number of high tech startups, who knows.
If you build it they will come and when they do there will be demand for smaller scale commercial outlets, ( the restaurants, pubs, staples stores etc.)
The turnpike access at Newton Corner and West Newton would support and allow for the employee/ workforce access necessary.
Any good transportation study would verify same. We’ve seen plenty of them!
@bugek, @Lisa – It’s not just northside neighborhoods that have big development plans. Upper Falls has the 900 unit Northland proposal on the table. Lower Falls has the Riverside project.
Development is indeed a big issue across the city but the repeated claiming that its only the northside that’s being affected is untrue, misleading and not too helpful.
All,
This post started with a conversation regarding the announcement that Newton won a grant from the Governor’s Housing Choice Initiative. The purpose of the grant is to create a tool to measure the impact of any housing development on Newton and to use that as a tool in the review process. The grant application DID NOT say we are going to have 2500 units RATHER it said that 2500 units are PROPOSED and we need a tool to evaluate the impact of these developments on our city.
Secondly, If you were unable to attend the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting this morning – you missed an informative lecture by Barry Bluestone entitled
“Playing Housing Jiu Jitzu in the Commonwealth:A 10-Step Program for Meeting our Housing Challenge”. It is an interpretation of the Boston Housing Report Card for 2018.
Below is a link to the slideshow on my website. I had the slides but I can’t upload a powerpoint to V14 so I put it on my website for anyone who wants to read it.
The posting about a potential 2500 units in Newton ought to be discussed in the context of this morning’s presentation. I’m sorry that I don’t have the narrative that goes along with the slides but I think you will get the point.
And here is the link:
http://www.susanalbright.org/bluestone-report-card-2018.html
@MMQC – love the headline and caption on that Universal Hub link. That writer has a sense of humor.
I asked Jonathan Yeo, the city’s chief operating officer about this today. He said the Cape Cod Times report incorrectly said that this grant was specifically for Washington Street.
Instead it is a grant to provide the city access to a team of experts who can help the city think about a variety of pending projects city wide: Needham Street, Riverside, Washington Street, etc.
It’s designed to help the city determine how, or if, it can cope with added capacity. There is no commitment to adding a specific number of housing units attached to accept this grant. Also, the city isn’t actually getting funds. These are state dollars that pay the consulting team.
Yeo said the city is in the process of crafting a memo to the council explaining this grant. He will share the memo with when its complete and I will post it.
The Cape Cod Times reported what was reported from state
https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-celebrates-municipal-housing-efforts-across-commonwealth
Presumably the report will provide details about where the 2,500 number came from.
Amy’s link is NOT to the Cape Cod Times, which is a real newspaper, at least for now, with reporters and an actual staff list: http://www.capecodtimes.com/section/?template=contact.
It’s a link to a “story” in Cape Cod Today, which describes itself as a for-profit subsidiary of the Masonic Angel Foundation (whatever that is — the flash player link isn’t working for me), with an all-volunteer staff of three (two of whom look like they could be related). https://www.capecodtoday.com/content/About-Us
Cape Cod Today appears to have published what is effectively a very long press release from the Baker administration, with very little or no editing. Here are the clues:
1) No reporter byline, just “CapeCodToday Staff”
2) Lot’s of packaged quotes, and everybody’s “excited.” No dissenting views.
3) Text like this, not in quotes in the article: “The Baker-Polito Administration is deeply committed to meeting this housing challenge, through key investments, new initiatives and program reforms.” No real reporter would make an opinion statement like that in a news article. A columnist maybe…
4) The “About Mass Housing” paragraph at the end, that includes “For more information, visit the MassHousing website at http://www.masshousing.com, follow us on Twitter @MassHousing, subscribe to our blog and like us on Facebook.”
So I think it’s fair to conclude that any information in this “article” was provided by Mass Housing, and not the result of a reporter’s error, because there does not appear to have been a reporter.
Thanks for clarifying that for all of us Julia.
And on top of all that’s being proposed on Washington Street and at Riverside
Northland Development last night opened / presented their transportation planning for Needham Street, which was addressing their proposal to build 264 ,000 SF of new office and retail space ON TOP OF 1,200,000 SF (864 UNITS ) OF NEW HOUSING !!!!
WOW !!!! BREATHTAKING !!!!
I agree! It’s great to see that we’re finally identifying a path to addressing our region’s housing crisis, hiring crisis and revitalizing our commercial districts. I can’t wait to learn more!
“ON TOP OF ,…” = “IN ADDITION TO”
Let me say 10 things:
1) I don’t think the city wants 2,500 units on Washington Street. Badly written press release. Austin Street and Orr Block combined would account for less than 6% of that amount, no?
2) I don’t think I want 2,500 units on Washington Street either. At least not in the mold of Austin Street and Washington Street. I’d be happier with a mix (like multiple senior living projects, a senior living to nursing home project, Orr Block, some additional mixed use with frontage along Washington and parking in the back. A park would be nice too.)
3) Zoning allows major changes to occur. So does 40B. Absent major zoning reform therefore, major changes WILL occur.
4) The community deserves to have a serious voice in these discussions. But it is a give and take. One of the frustrations is that folks tend not to recognize point 3. And the fact that community meetings tends to devolve quickly into a scene from “Parks and Recreation” with various folks who care a lot being very vocal. But there are many ways for the community to have a voice. Elections are one such way. Talking to the mayor or the City Councilors are another. Don’t like the plans on Washington Street. I think there are many councilors you can email, ask to meet for coffee, etc. I’ve found those conversations to be illuminating.
5) Community does have an impact, it just isn’t always what those loudest voices want. The shouts of “resist” are always tempting, but again, it is the slow and steady community involvement that tends to make the most difference, especially when zoning and 40B is not on your side. It can be hard to prevent a project, but much easier to shape it. You’ll still get folks upset they didn’t get their way, and there is no way to please everyone. Some folks love change no matter what it is, some folks hate all change. Neither of those limited groups tend to be the ones that end up influencing projects in meaningful ways. Setting yourself up as the voice of dissent doesn’t mean much unless you either have the votes to back it up, or can convince folks to vote in the folks who agree with you so that you’ll have the votes to back it up. Always fun to be quoted in newspapers though, for both sides “true believers”. Thus far, NIMBY revolt at the ballot box and City Councilor chambers hasn’t happened yet.
6) Larger roads and transportation hubs (no matter how imperfect) are going to get more focused development. That means Washington Street, Newton Center, Newton Highlands, Newton Corner, West Newton, Route 9, and even Waban Village center.
7) A project that is sized for Newtonville probably won’t work well in Waban Village center, as much as that might secretly annoy me. There are multiple taller structures in Newtonville, there is way more commercial development, there is the Pike, there is much busier and wider street in Washington St. There are definitely differences and unfairness between the villages and the wealthier parts of the city. It would certainly help if the good folks in Waban would allow for “some” development that was reasonable, which I don’t think they really did with Philip Neri site, but that shouldn’t be the excuse for no change north of Beacon. But 3 story development in Waban Center? Makes sense to me.
8) I think folks are going to find a renovated Newtonville, with Austin Street and Orr Block, a better place to be. And I think it better end up that way if they want to make major changes on Washington Street over the next 10 years. Because if West Newton and Newtonville village centers end up looking ugly or are parking/traffic disasters, it is going to be hard to convince anyone to believe you on the rest of the potential changes. I’d advise the city to focus and devote sufficient resources to those projects if they want to see future change work. Make those shine, and the next major project gets far easier. Community capital takes years to build, one bad project to ruin.
9) Projects in a few years are going to be harder to build. Interest rates are going up.
10) For those of you who constantly talk about building over the Pike, I hope the recent Boston Globe articles on the new projects over the Pike near Boylston will help educate you regarding the process. Note the focus on terra firma, the high cost, and the mention of the many Boston projects that have stalled or failed. Also, note #9.
Cheers to all.
ps. I miss the old Tab.
@Fig,
On Point 3 and the threat of 40b. It would seem to suggest you are saying that if we do not do major zoning reform then 40b will kick in. I would suggest that we are probably a project or so away from getting back to the 1.5% threshold, and thus 40b threat diminishes.
Also noteworthy, Washington Place and Austin Street simply got rezoned to do what they wanted !
fignewtonville writes ‘7) A project that is sized for Newtonville probably won’t work well in Waban Village center… There are multiple taller structures in Newtonville, there is way more commercial development, there is the Pike, there is much busier and wider street in Washington St.’
But all that can be changed and Waban can be made like Newtonville if there was the political will and if the pro-development advocates would expand their vision to include all of Newton. If Waban was given more development like Newtonville then there would be ‘multiple taller structures in Waban’ and #7 argument would be inoperative. Here on Court Street, there were no 36 unit condo developments until the city and Commonwealth thought it would be a good idea to build one here. Therefore, there is no reason the city and Commonwealth could not declare that ‘multiple taller structures in Waban’ are a good idea. BTW, the entrance to Rt 128 is closer to Waban Center than the Pike entrance is to Crafts Street. Since the Pike and the commuter rail are always cited for why we should have more development here, I will cite the proximity of Rt 128 and the Green Line to Waban Center.
Bob’s right — Waban is more “transit oriented” than Newtonville, which has no rapid transit, and whose bus service and trains don’t run past rush hour. The draft new zoning map has Waban as “Village 1” and Newtonville as “Village 2”, meaning lower and higher density allowed. Gotta preserve the leafiness of the high-priced area!
The 2500 units include the 960 in Upper Falls and 600(?) at Riverside, besides the 500-ish at the Whole Foods site near Washington & Crafts and the hundreds more planned for the Barn site. The fancy neighborhoods are left alone.
I don’t think there’s anything planned to accommodate the increase in school kids. The general notion has been to pretend that only childless bicyclists will live there. Then the city expresses shock, shock (Casablanca style) as families squeeze in, and it adds modulars to the existing schools. At least the Northland site is so big the city could ask them to turn over a couple of acres for a new much-needed Emerson School replacement, with a shared public park/playground space outside. Not that they will. Countryside will need double-decker modulars instead.
And the idea that commercial development depends upon housing on site is rather silly. While I don’t object to mixed-use buidings in principle, the current fad is to take away parking and propose housing as if the new residents would keep the businesses busy, and the rest of customers who don’t live on site should just drive to Natick or Burlington or Dedham to shop. It’s a farce.
Bob,
After Setti Warren’s infamous u-turn on wabans homeless shelter, no ambitious politican is going to advocate any density into Waban.
Plenty will be given ample donations to oppose it though :)