Councilor Gentile is putting up a proposal to hit the pause button on development. On Tuesday at Zoning & Planning Committee and the Planning Development Board, there will be a public hearing on few proposals designed to slow development, but the one that gets the most play in the Boston Globe article is a moratorium on changes along the Washington Street corridor.
Gentile said he proposed the moratorium in response to a no-bid $500,000 contract issued earlier this year so the city could move ahead with the Washington Street rezoning project.
“It just seems like we are just rushing forward with this,” Gentile said in an interview.
The Newton Villages Alliance is already using this as a rallying cry to get out supporters. From their email “…to Support Legislation to Scrap, Amend, Shrink, or Put a Moratorium on the MU4 Zoning Category or on Zoning Change Requests to MU4. MU4 is the Misbegotten Zoning Category That Set Off One Man’s Attempt to Buy Up Washington Street and Other Parts of Our Community” (sic)
As a person whose day job revolves around economic development in the region, the idea of slowing down development, even more, is frightening. Newton is already the “City of No” and that reputation is both well known and hard-won. During a talk at MIT last week, Councilor Jake Auchincloss pointed out that developers just factor in the slow pace of development as a cost of doing business here. The constant threat of litigation from abutters and things like these moratoriums make developing in other communities far more attractive.
I hear people complain that we need more commercial development, that our commercial tax base is low. This is exactly the way to make it worse.
What’s most telling is the last quote, the one I mentioned above. Here is the full line:
“I just think there is a conscious effort to drive Newton into the direction of a Cambridge or a Brookline,” Gentile said. “That is not the community I grew up in.”
And that’s just it. This isn’t the Newton of Councilor Gentile’s youth. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, no city should stand still, we need to grow and evolve. If you want to have some fun, check out the site MapJunction, which lets you overlay historical maps on the current landscape. The only constant we have is change.
But let me also offer this: In 1960 Newton had more than 92,000 residents. As of 2010 the city had a bit more than 85,000. So maybe we do need to get back to the community he “grew up in.” We can start by building more housing, and stop saying “no.”
How many years do we go back to get to Councilor Gentile’s youth? In his youth how many vehicles were driving in Newton, % of two family earners, # of kids walking to school, # of kids going to after school activités, # of local businesses and neighborhoods where you could walk to get groceries, # of home owners that could afford to buy their house again, need to address climate change, etc I am guessing all of these stats have changed significantly since his youth, so yes this isn’t the Newton he grew up in. The real question is what do we want newton to be? What role does Newton need to play in regional issues like climate change and housing and preserving farm lands for local food production and traffic congestion?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep Newton more of a bedroom community and less the feel of a dense, noisy, overdeveloped city environment. I applaud Councilor Gentile for having the guts to stand up in the face of those in the development business who seem to constantly put cash over community character.
If you want Newton to be Brookline. Please…move to Brookline. It’s a lovely place!
The difference in population is probably due to the number of children at that time. My HS graduating class (North, South and Murray Road) exceed 1400 students. I suspect we don’t even come close to that number in this day and age. We probably could not even support that many considering several of the village elementary schools and a junior high got sold off in the 80s.
I think that people are way too black and white on the development issue. The “yes” camp doesn’t seem to want to address any concerns and the “no” camp seems to just say no to everything.
I support this idea of a speed bump. The no bid contract pitched under the premise that we had to act fast was very concerning. The bridge too far was the play to proposed a land swap so a developer could obtain the police headquarter building and to put out the RFI out with an aggressive deadline which made it quite clear it is designed so that only Korff will be able to respond fast enough. Something stinks!
Folks, the reality is that this is 2018, not 1958. The Newton of Councilor Gentile’s youth (or mine) is not going to return. Nothing we say here will change that. One of the consequences of being a “winner” in the new economy is that everyone wants to live in Boston and in its suburbs, like Newton, driving up the cost for all of us. I agree that we’re becoming San Francisco with snow, and that’s not always a good thing. I also agree that we shouldn’t accept just anything that comes along. But wishing for a past that won’t return and hoping that change will happen to someone else and somewhere else isn’t realistic.
Councilor Gentile’s moratorium would not be supported by more than a half-dozen or so members should it get to the full City Council.
Also, while I respect the opinion of those who would like Newton to remain more “suburban,” there are those who grew up here who believe more affordable housing would restore some of our economic diversity (rather than becoming another Wellesley).
@Andy Levin “Councilor Gentile’s moratorium would not be supported by more than a half-dozen or so members should it get to the full City Council.”
Probably. But the voter rejected the attempt to minimize their voice and retain Ward representation. Cote, Gentile and Markiewicz are representing the wished of their constituencies
I totally disagree that those councilors who want a moratorium are not representing the wishes of most of their constituents.
Newton residents mostly agree that we need a more diverse housing stock both economically and culturally in order to maintain the way of life we have now and not watch it become just a haven for the wealthy.
Marti Bowen, I believe Northside residents oppose the methods not the goals. That is why they and the majority of Newton residents voted No
I’d love to live in Brookline. We couldn’t afford it.
8 years ago, when we were looking, it was the same cost for a two bedroom condo with one parking spot in Brookline (more than two miles from the T!) as it was for our little Cape in Auburndale, which is has Riverside only a mole away.
If you’d like a more urban feel with great schools you’re going to pay for it. And we didn’t havd the money.
The point is not that all development is bad. The point is that the current city council, bought and paid for by Robert Korff and his secretive backers (perhaps Paul Fireman, he of the $90M house listing), wants to build one thing. Lots of big wood rental apartment houses (tenements) with rents in the $3/month/foot range. These don’t help the city fiscally and they don’t make housing more affordable. They are intended to displace the naturally-affordable housing (mostly 2- and 3-family houses) on the north side and replace them with these higher-priced rentals, with a few lottery tickets thrown in to assuage liberal guilt.
The city is doing nothing to plan for the need for more schools.
And it’s leaving the south siders alone by making the city’s densest neighborhoods even more dense. That reminds me of Amtrak and its Acela. Yes, the Acela can move very fast. But it is mostly slowed down by very slow trackage, big sections in the 15-30 MPH range. What good is a 120 MPH engine on 15 MPH track? Getting faster on the shortest, best stretches of track don’t do nearly as much good as improving the really slow areas, but it’s not as glamorous to do so. Likewise, Newton is replacing dense with denser, leaving large lot single family (SR) zoning alone for now. Why not allow VaSLSS on, say, Dartmouth St., where any two house lots are big enough to support an 80-unit apartment house?
[Andy Levin] “Also, while I respect the opinion of those who would like Newton to remain more “suburban,” there are those who grew up here who believe more affordable housing would restore some of our economic diversity (rather than becoming another Wellesley)”.
Didn’t grow up here but totally agree.
“Density is the problem”,… not the solution. See the NVA website.
@Claire
Councilors Gentile and Cote are at-large. The charter revision would have eliminated ward councilors. I don’t understand your point.
I do think the potential impact on school enrollment is a real concern. While most of the enrollment growth is due to young families moving into single-family homes, thousands of new apartments/condos would also contribute students.
There absolutely will need to be a debt exclusion override in the next few years to rebuild several more of our elementary schools, that much seems clear. That being said, I think the city does not want to get into a position where overrides are more than a once-a-decade event. That’s why it is important that the residential growth is balanced with commercial. Finding the right balance will be key.
One other thing: I do wish people would stop with the conspiracy theories about development here. Not that pro-development folks generally supported the charter revision, which is true, but that there is some deep, dark secret, a cabal or something silly like that.
Happy Memorial Day Newton! Remember all those, including many from the Garden City, who gave their lives in service to this country.
A middle-aged white man harkening back to “the community I grew up in,” ought to set alarm bells a-ringing. The Newton Councilor Gentile grew up in was not a place of opportunity unless you were white, male, Christian, straight, &c.
Wait, you say, Councilor Gentile was just making a narrow point about the size of buildings and intensity of development, not making a statement about race or anything else. Sorry, no. Zoning and other government regulation on real estate are direct causes of the massive wealth inequity between white and non-white families in this country. Councilor Gentile has been an elected official for over 40 years and is a mortgage broker/banker by profession. He ought to know better.
Wait, you say, Councilor Gentile was making the case for economic diversity, which was indisputably greater in the Newton of the 60s and 70s. Okay, fine. With the median house price over $1 million, things are clearly headed in the wrong direction. Councilor Gentile has been on the Board of Aldermen/City Council since 1989. Whatever he (and his prior colleagues) have been doing hasn’t been working. This is not the time to preserve the status quo.
Claire, voted no on what pertaining to development? What methods? Voting no on the new charter is not the same thing.
Fred, it’s interesting that you always leave out Northland and other developments in Newton’s south side. What info do you have to back up your claim that the city council is “bought and paid for by Robert Korf?”
@ Marti Bowen The methods I am referring to are non bid contracts and an attempt to speed through a land swap deal. And the Yes/No vote was absolutely in large part related to concerns that Yes would give developers even more power and influence. That wasn’t how it was frames by the Charter Committee, but that is how it played out.
@ Andy Levin, I stand corrected on Gentile and Cote being ward councilors. My point was that they are from wards that are impacted by the development along Washington Street.
Finally there is a lot of focus on the quote that Chuck chose to lead with, when to me the real point is Gentile is looking to slow this down a bit. Why would any new decisions be made until after we get the results of the study that the city is paying $500,000 for in the no bid contract?
@Fred Goldstein – As Marti says why do you keep repeating that there are no big development plans on the south side despite the fact that you’ve been corrected more than once (Northland, Riverside). Why do you choose to ignore the fact that virtually ALL of the existing large housing developments (Avalon on Needham St, Avalon Rt 9, towers at Chestnut Hill mall) are all on the southside?
By all means oppose whatever projects or details in the Washington St plans that you are against but you don’t need to try pit neighborhoods against each other with specious claims that are just plain wrong.
Here, let me give it a try.
“Southsiders in Chestnut Hill are just fed up with all these large apartment complexes that have been jammed down our throats by those northsiders who say ‘not in my back yard’ when anyone tries to build an apartment north of the pike.”
“Upper Falls developers are forcing Waban Square to be completely destroyed with new development projects while the smug southwestsiders in Upper Falls hide behind their Historic District regulations to preserve their neighborhood”
“That small group of connected outsiders think they can dictate the terms of development to the rest of us inside 128. Just because they live outside Rt 128, those Lower Falls folks think they know what’s best for the rest of us. Is it a coincidence that Lower Falls is insisting that the proposed Riverside project be built on the inside of Rt 128 rather than in their precious ‘outside’ neighborhood? I don’t think so.
See it’s easy … and it’s wrong.
As for “by making the city’s densest neighborhoods even more dense” – It sure sounds like you’re just making that one up. As far as I can see the Washington St corridor is by not stretch of the imagination ‘the city’s densest’ neighborhood. Certainly Upper Falls is denser, Nonantum is denser, the stretch of Rt 9 in Chestnut Hill is denser, probably Lower Falls, hunks of West Newton, maybe Newton Corner are denser.
The issues surrounding development, both pro and con, are heated in every neighborhood across the city. So Fred, please debate each project on its merits rather than trying to whip neighborhoods up against each other – especially with statements that are just plain wrong.
@Sean
Just one clarification is required to an otherwise very fair point: I’m not sure of Lenny Gentile’s exact age, but by the early 1960s Newton already had a very large Jewish population. If you want to lump us in with Christians, fine, but then again Newton’s historic African-American community was very Christian. Just saying….
Andy,
Yes, there were plenty of Jews in Newton in the 60’s. Think they had equal opportunities? (For instance, membership in country clubs.) In any case, you’re right: complicated issue.
There was definitely an issue with one country club in particular that I know of. And sure there was cultural anti-Semitism, as anywhere. But economically we were ahead of the curve.
Quick quiz: where in Newton can you stand and see, just by turning in place, two sixteen-floor apartment towers, a ten-story apartment block, and a 200-unit apartment complex?
Jerry, when I talk about “south side”, I am being *slightly* allegorical, referring to the more suburban stretch of large single family houses. Upper Falls is south of 9 but, like the north side villages, is more economically diverse and built to a higher density. Chestnut Hill is a different story. It reflects a Q3XX view that true luxury is a high-rise apartment, especially for empty-nesters. It is dense, but not walkable – except for the mall next door, you were presumably expected to drive your Mercedes from the garage to everywhere else. Chestnut Hill Square even builds a fortress wall to Rt. 9 and the city, focusing access on its parking lot.
The single-family houses in Chestnut Hill, in contrast, are well isolated from those Rt. 9 developments.
To be clear, the Auburndale/West Newton area of councilor Gentile’s youth – which was pre-Mass Pike extension – was much, much more economically *and* racially diverse than it is today. And yes, it is much, much less diverse today. But let’s not pretend that all the proposed higher density (and higher-priced) development will do anything to change that – other than speed up the pace. It will not make us less like Wellesley – it will make us more like a Wellesley with mixed use, high-end apartments.
Tricia,
It has long been my understanding that Newton has never had a significant non-white population (at least not since the Native Americans were internally resettled). Can you point me to something that documents that Newton was more diverse? (I searched for historical demographics and didn’t find anything.) Are there sections of Newton where people of color were gentrified out? If so, which sections?
Newton’s black and Latinx/Hispanic populations are well less than the state or national rates. If they used to be higher, than our land-use issues are more complicated and even more urgent.
Sean, the native population wasn’t mostly resettled out — those were the last. Something like 85% were killed by the plague that arrived with the English ca. 1587, which killed most of the native population of what is now the US. By 1630 this was a ghost town.
There was a largely African-American neighborhood that just happened to be ground zero for the Turnpike expansion, near Curve St. Funny about that.
Adding luxury rentals does not do a lot for diversity.
Sean, this upcoming event might be of interest to you. It’s about the history of African-Americans in West Newton. https://www.facebook.com/events/178576639514646/?ti=cl
@Tricia
Economically yes, racially most certainly not. That is not even debatable.
Please notice that my comment specifically mentioned the *Auburndale/West Newton* area of Gentile’s youth, and see MMQC’s comment above. (And to be clear, I’m not trying to imply that this is what Gentile was referring to, I imagine he was referring more to density and scale, but you’ll have to ask him.)
Tricia,
I see. Yes, there was the old “Village” African American community, that was torn apart by the Pike. So you might have a point there.
I wish I remember where I saw it, but I once saw a class picture from the old Burr School and most of the pupils in the photo were black.
Anyone who is under the illusion that Mr. Korff is pursuing his makeover of Newton as some kind of public service should read this article. Pretty clear it’s about profit opportunity. https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/state-of-market/the-burbs-may-bring-value-but-some-boston-developers-simply-dont-care-88823
And about rents:
[let’s hope the block quotes work – preview is not working]
MMQC -The photo was in the outer front entrance to Burr School for many years. I understand that it has been placed somewhere else, but I think it’s still in the school.
Maybe V14 can let Julia Malackie do a guest post titled “Robert Korff Is Looking For Any Meat Left on the Bone in Newton”
@Julia Malakie – I’m not sure who you are referring to that are under the illusion that Mr Korff’s is in the public service business. Yes Mr. Korff is a real estate developer. He develops property in hopes of turning a profit.
I’m mystified how over and over again I see people say and write that they have evidence that a developer is interested in “a profit opportunity” as if it is somehow damning evidence of wrongdoing. Why aren’t our local shop owners, restaurateurs, plumbers and landscapers guilty as well. They’re all looking to make a profit – that’s our economic system.
Yes at times one business’s profits can come in conflict with other civic goals, but by itself seeking profit is the motivation of virtually every business.
Is his proposed project too big? too high?too much residential? too much commercial? Let’s talk about that.
Should he make a profit doing it? Absolutely yes. If developers can’t make a profit then nothing can be built or re-built in this city.
@Claire: Julia doesn’t need to write a guest post. She’s been a Village 14 blogger for many years.
@Julia: what Jerry says. It puzzles me when folks seem to imply that developers are the one category of business owner who are considered evil/immoral/etc if they seek to run their business like, um, a business.
I’m pretty sure Julia is referring to this “article” in the Globe from a couple of years ago in which Korff describes his Washington Place proposal as a way to “rebrand” himself after his wife’s death (10 years earlier): http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2016/02/12/newton-block-targeted-for-renewal/qwU3ZsCjk7EWE0XIan4MbJ/story.html
@Tricia, Interesting that this fluff piece on how Korff wants to rebrand himself was written by the Mayor’s now Director of Community Communications, Ellen Ishkanian. I’m sure it is pure coincidence.
@ Greg your nitpicked on the most irrelevant word in my post. I stand corrected
Maybe Julia Malakie can do a post titled “Robert Korff Is Looking For Any Meat Left on the Bone in Newton”
“Interesting” how Claire? Ellen Ishkanian was the Globe’s Newton beat reporter for years and a former editor of the old Newton Graphic before that.
Mayor Fuller recognized her abilities and her familiarity with Newton and offered her a job in her administration. It’s a very typical trajectory for electeds to hire journalists to be their communications directors. I know dozens of former colleagues who hold similar roles.
@Tricia: and that article proves what?
First, I agree completely with what Greg said re: the author’s past as a journalist and her current position.
Greg – it doesn’t prove anything. But the article struck me at the time because Korff was clearly trying to portray his foray into development in Newton as something above and beyond a simple real estate deal – that it was somehow tied up in a desire to rebrand both his life and “the place he calls home.” I have no idea whether he was being sincere in his interview in that article 2 years ago or not, but those comments seem incongruous to his comments in this current article.
@Sean. Actually, there were two predominantly Jewish Country Clubs in Newton during the 1960’s. Ironically, neither of them are still in existence. The first was Sydney Hill on the Southside and the second was Commonwealth Country Club off of Kenrick Street on the Brighton line. My mom worked as the receptionist and switchboard operator after I graduated from Tufts and went into the Navy. She hadn’t worked since before I was born and she lied about her age. But she really loved working there and the members all fell in love with her. I think it made her feel 10 years younger.
@Bob Burke – You always spill a few great tidbits of local history with your posts. I guess that goes with the territory if your mother was a switchboard operator – that job’s been gone a while 😉
I did a quick look and found that the city bought what used to be the Commonwealth Country Club in the 1970’s and turned it into the public Commonwealth Golf Course. I had no idea that there was a Newton public golf course today over in that end of the city.
During her campaign Mayor Fuller pointed out that we need to better understand the business models of the developers so we can make better decisions both in terms of what we ask from them and what we can expect of them. It’s also worth looking at what Needham did in Needham Crossing. A while back they tried rezoning in such a way that was more about what the city wanted. During this time Waltham and Burlington both saw great commercial growth, but not Needham.
So Needham talked with the developers and discovered a few things. First, the zoning actually conflicted with itself, so there was no way to get to the limits of what it allowed. But most importantly, it didn’t allow the developers to create anything that would sell on the open market. Once they changed zoning by WORKING WITH the developers, the developers started selling. Throw in the TIF offered to a couple of big players, and you can see why they have two new housing developments and major employers there.
If we continue to be the city of “no” and put in blocks that slow down an already laborious and expensive process, no one here will get what they want. We must exist within the realities of the market, but also must create a predictable process. If every developer needs to go before the full city council for every little thing, then nothing can get done.
The zoning work happening now is key here. The Washington Street process now underway by the Mayor is huge. We need to let these processes progress at their own speed.
@Fred Goldstein – What is “VaSLSS” that your refer to? Google drew a blank
@Bob Burke – in general, if you find predominantly Jewish golf clubs, fraternities, architecture firms, etc. it means they were formed because the non-Jewish ones didn’t accept Jewish members.
That’s why my father had only 2 choices of fraternities in college (SAM or ZBT) and why his parents dissuaded him from becoming an architect (architecture firms wouldn’t hire Jews and there weren’t yet any Jewish firms). Similarly, my mother grew up in one of the first 10 Jewish families in Scarsdale and Jews were not allowed to step foot in the Scarsdale Country Club, let alone become members. And as recently as the 1980s, my father was told by a realtor that he didn’t want to buy a weekend house on a certain lake in CT because the boating club wouldn’t accept Jewish members (not something to tell an attorney – of course he bought there and got to use the lake at the boating club).
I do believe it is possible for Robert Korff to desire a healthy profit… and also want to do something beneficial for the community he calls home. Development does not necessarily have to be pure exploitation.
@Chuck: “The zoning work happening now is key here. The Washington Street process now underway by the Mayor is huge. We need to let these processes progress at their own speed.”
I totally agree – which is why I support allowing those process to proceed unimpeded by the pressures of development.
The “pressure of development” is also the gift of opportunity. The economy is hot right now. There will come a time when the market cools and we lose the opportunity to significantly add vibrancy to our villages. It could be a decade or more before we have this chance again. The result could be even more empty storefronts and less foot traffic for our existing businesses.
We should not be afraid of progress.
The “alarm” has been raised on the Newton Corner Google group already.
From the email:
“Are you concerned about high-priced, high-density, residential over-development driving up housing prices, school overcrowding and traffic; displacing residents on fixed or low incomes; reducing trees, green spaces and quality of life; and replacing Newton’s fiscally crucial commercial tax base?
If so, then please email or call the City Councilors and the Mayor today or tomorrow and tell them to support docket items #201-18, #202-18 and #203-18 to eliminate, amend or slow down the MU4 zoning category that has triggered property speculation, displacement and unhappiness in our villages, and along Washington Street. ”
Following are the emails for much of the city council and the Mayor.
I responded politely (and in the interest of fair(er) play) that those with other views might be motivated to contact their local officials as well.
I refer back to what I said about Greater Boston being a winner of the new economy. Development pressure isn’t going away in this area, regardless of the proposed moratorium. We’re not going to wish it away. That would be true even if Mr. Korff never existed.
Its funny, we are slowly experiencing a what the rustbelt states went through when manufacturing was lost.
The new tech economy is displacing in terms of salary the old economy jobs. Those who dont possess these skills are left behind in terms of wage gap.
We must attract, retain and embrace new econony jobs and the infrastructure it requires or we risk being the next rust belt
I get the need for housing and the concept that if we build housing, we can attract talent for those high paying businesses to locate in Newton. But where are they going to locate if most of our commercial space will be converted to housing?
And to Greg’s point, why spend all that money on visioning and planning if we’re not going to be able to implement it?
@Amy: I’m positive that wasn’t Greg’s point.
Also, this is not just about attracting new business to our commercial corridors with new mixed use projects, it’s about retaining existing businesses that are struggling to find good talent and customers within walking distance.
@Greg: Sorry I should have said: And to Greg’s statement: the “pressure of development” is also a gift of opportunity”….
Why spend the time and money on visioning for the Washington Street corridor or any part of the city if we’re not going to implement it.
Ah, that’s clear now!
We should improve Washington Street. I can’t imagine there is anyone in this city who doesn’t think Washington Street could’t be better in some way, right? The question — and the place were good people differ — is how should it be improved? Answering that question is worth spending time and money on.
@Greg: But if development will proceed without the planning in place – why bother?
@Amy Sangiolo –
These amendments have nothing to do with wanting to wait for the planning process to take place. They are a not-too-thinly-veiled effort to do just the opposite – i.e. short circuit that process and undo decisions that have already been made with plenty of public input and a deliberative process.
How can anyone think these amendments are about protecting the planning process when two of thee amendments completely undermine that process by making far reaching decisions on future development today (require 50% commercial, stop MU4 zoning, impose dimensional controls) with a complete disregard for what the ongoing planning process will come up with.
As for the moratorium, it appears to be a clever and cynical ploy to use a backdoor method to undermine the approval that the council has already given for the Orr Block. The most obvious evidence that this is a ploy rather than a serious effort at thoughtful planning comes right from the proponents words.
They have been selling the idea of the moratorium by saying that the city shouldn’t allow developers to build whatever they want and remake our city without the public having a voice. That sure sounds reasonable.
What they leave out is that not a single one of those possible projects can move forward without a vote of the City Council to issue a Special Permit. This is not about giving the City the power to oversee development. It is about the exact opposite – to take that power away from the Council by tying their hands on making any development decisions in the Washington Corridor.
These amendments should be roundly voted down as the worse kind of public policy. To those against any of these developments I urge you to make your case, be heard, write to your councilors, go to public meetings but don’t support this kind of back door politics.
As projects get permitted, they set the tone, the landscape and the precedent for the context of the neighborhood, area, streetscape. I thought the whole point of “Hello Washington Street” for the community do it’s visioning and planning so we could get in front of development – be “proactive” and not “reactive” like we are when we are faced with petitions for special permits. If we don’t do that before “individual” developments are approved, then what’s the point? Why waste everyone’s time and taxpayer money. Put the money towards the schools who already need it now and will certainly need it as the city becomes more dense.
@Amy Sangiolo – If the point of these amendments is to let the planning process dictate development then why do these amendments enact far reaching planning decisions (Stop MU4, require 50% commercial, limit size) outside of that process?
@Jerry Reilly, VaSLSS is Vanilla Suburban Lifestyle Starter Set. It’s a term coined by Karla Hailer on the Newtonville list, and refers to any of those large 4-6 story wooden rental apartment buildings going up under the revised “keep the firefighters busy” building code. See, for instance, Washington Place, Repton, Currents-on-the-Charles, and pretty much anything else going up these days in Watertown and Waltham.
It needed a generic name.
@Jerry: Aren’t there three different docket items? Some, I agree, are more extreme than others. I support the time limited moratorium which would give the $500K+ planning process with “community input” a chance. But as I said in a blast email I sent out prior to the hearing: “I urge residents to come out and voice their opinions to shape the future of the Washington Street corridor and our City, If we don’t provide our input now, then development interests will determine the vision and future of our City and will impact our City services (schools) and quality of life (traffic) without the requisite planning and community input that needs to be put into place. Whether you are pro-high density development or against high-density development or like me -somewhere in between (want to see the City grow and provide much needed affordable housing but at a scale that won’t negatively impact our city’s finances or our programs and services), the proposals that will be presented tonight will give the City and it’s residents the opportunity to plan and decide its future.”
There is so much misinformation in the post in this stream about the history of African -Americans in Newton it’s insulting. Go to the JACKSON Homestead or the Myrtle Baptist Church Museum to find the accurate history. By the way my family has resided in Newton since the 1860’s.
There has been a vibrant and productive African-American community in Newton for over 150 years . If you want detailed information go to the JACKSON Homestead or the Myrtle Baptist Church Museum. By the way my family has resided in Newton since the 1860’s.
Sorry for the repeated post
@maryx2
There are actually three camps. Pro development, no development and the rest, probably the majority, who are just busy living their lives.
Believe it or not, there are many of us who live on the North side who enjoy their lives and where they live just the way it is. Many of us even support affordable housing and development but are wary – and frankly a little scared of taking on a ‘build it and they will come’ social engineering experiment that would make our lives miserable for the next 5 to 7 years.
I definitely support slowing the process down and taking our time in order to making a good decisions.
The remaking of Washington Street doesn’t just affect Washington Street it affects the entire north side. If we go for the maximum amount of development how does that affect the neighborhoods? Nonantum, West Newton, Watertown Street and such.
Those of you who are militant pro-development people, keep in mind that you’re asking the current residents of the north side to put up with quite a lot of inconvenience noies and disruption for an extended period of time being in a construction war zone.
I want to see some balanced analysis beyond asking if we prefer flowers or park benches on Washington Street.
I want to know the risks … What happens if the economy tanks … What businesses have expressed interest and are committed to moving in if we do this development … How will this affect our taxes … our schools … traffic.
Village 14 is incredibly polarized forum and I think it’s important for people here to know that wanting a slower process does not mean NIMBY or that we don’t support affordable housing or development. It just means that given the impact this will have on our daily lives we want to make sure that we’re making good sound decisions.
@Mike Ciolino – I agree that any substantial new project that is going to have a significant impact on a neighborhood should be weighed carefully and deliberately with lots of input from the neighborhood. In the almost 10 years I’ve been in Newton I don’t think I’ve seen any project bigger than a two-story house that hasn’t had more than a year’s worth of deliberation, discussion, and hearings before breaking ground.
As far as I can see we don’t in any way have a rushed process. If anything just the opposite.
@Jerry Reilly – With due respect, the “seeking input” is purely a lip service. IT is done to check that very box – got neighborhood input. Look at Orr for instance, the neighbors strongly opposed the height. Was their input considered?
Hearing and Listening inputs are two very different actions. Core group of people in the city have an agenda and will ram it through. Setti’s housing strategy missed the 2 pieces that keep on cropping up – school enrollment and traffic. Be transparent about it and most of he opposition will just evaporate.
After listening to the people at the public hearing on Tuesday night I believe a lot of this is a matter of perspective, and I believe that the perspective of many of the people living in Newton is off.
I heard a number of people say something along the lines of “what harm does it do to slow down?” or “haste makes waste”. But the truth is, this is already a very slow process, fraught with risk for the person doing the developing. @Mike asks about guarantees of people looking to move in. There are no guarantees. It’s all a risk. It’s a risk for us, and a risk for the developers.
But we tend to be slower than other communities around us. The harm is that we’re chasing away opportunity along with the risk. The residents see that from the inside out. Meaning, we see the risk to our current lives and what it means for the place where we live. On the other side of it are the people who don’t yet live here. Their voice goes unheard in public hearings. We hear a little of it, like @Bryan’s friends who have moved away because it’s unaffordable, but we don’t hear from the companies that never looked here because there is no reason, or the businesses that didn’t open or the residents who simply moved to Watertown and dismissed Newton as a pipe dream.
@Jerry is right when he says that there are very few big projects in this city, and in a region where huge projects are the norm that should give us pause. When you see the building happening everywhere around us and not here, we need to ask why.
We’re already slowed to a stop. Slowing more is just moving backward.
Neil P,
“Core group of people in the city have an agenda and will ram it through”
This is true from many sides
– pro business growth at all costs. Vocal minority
– pro housing growth to accommodate ‘social engineering’
– pro public transportation/cyclists who wish for more bike lanes and less cars
– NIMBY crowd who hide behind historic districts and want to freeze Newton in time
…and then the majority of residents who trust the city to do what is right and are too busy with family/work.
This is definitely a case where a 3rd party (paid study?) should drive the direction else nothing will get done. Whether its impartial is a different matter..
Based on City finances, everyone should agree that without an increase in business moving into Newton, the long term City financials looks very worrisome. Waiting for the MBTA to improve access into Newton is a lost cause (as this is be the number 1 thing employers require in the new economy), so the only option is to bring the workers to ‘live’ in Newton
@Chuck,
About 2/3 rds of the people who got up and talked on Tuesday night were in favor of the Moratorium. Not all of those were opposed to MU4, but a common theme came out. They would like to be informed. It was interesting in that they were pleaing with the Councilors to be informed too, so that they could make more informed decisions.
People stayed until 10:30 that evening to have their voice heard. It is you who is off, it is pure arrogance for you to say “I believe that the perspective of many of the people living in Newton is off.”