Northland Investment Company has released this video (no audio) illustrating its proposed 22 acre project along Needham and Oak Streets.
Thee proposed project includes thirteen buildings, ranging in height from three to eight stories with 822 residential units (15 percent affordable) in a combination of town houses and apartment buildings. Of the total 1.2 million square footage, approximately 30 percent would be retail, office and restaurants with the remaining 70% being residential. There would be 1,953 parking spaces (one per housing unit, the rest for the office and retail) for cars and 1,156 for bikes.
Same cheap ugly box like architecture seen all over Brighton and Watertown. And one parking spot per unit is absurd as are over 1000 bike spaces
In last year’s municipal election, many people dismissed Brian Yates’ prediction that a residential development this size (coupled with other residential developments in the area) would prompt the need for another elementary school in Upper Falls or EWa adjacent to the village. I don’t know if this is true, but I do wonder what the thinking is now.
Sorry for the typos.
Bob, I seriously doubt many families with children will be interested in housing with only one allocated parking spot
Is there a narrative that goes along with this video? Trying to get bearings on how these new “streets and buildings” relate to Needham and Oak Street.
Of course it will need more parking spaces than one per unit. Nicole and her bikes will not replace cars here no matter how hard she tries. But even with limited parking there will be schoolkids; single parents and some families with one car will live there. Many families will rely on a T pass for the adjoining rapid transit station, which will suffice for commuting and many other purposes.
Oh, wait. The nearest T station is about mile away and there are only occasional buses nearby!
Well, the usual suspects will declare that the MBTA will immediately show up to meet the huge demand. Maybe the newly paved former rail bed will have rail restored… or, more likely, they’ll bring in flying unicorns.
I think this is a very exciting proposal. The developers are going to make a bundle. They should, since they’re the ones taking the financial risk. But Newton would be taking a risk too, and it’s a huge one. So there’s a lotta horse trading that has to happen for a truly viable proposal to emerge…
Thus far, the proposed ratio of affordable housing units, 15%, is laughable. The city should insist on 30% and stick to their guns…
I’d also like to see a creative solution to the impact this development would have on schools. I think that the developer should lease some of that office space to Newton Public Schools for a STEM magnet school. Ideally, the first five years of that lease would be free, with NPS holding options to renew…
I do not think it would be a good idea for the City to build a new single-use school building as part of this project. Leasing is the answer. Favorable terms are the key.
I know a surprising number of younger 1-car families – it’s pretty common among the people I work with. Either they live near the T or the parents drive to work together, if one works en route to the other, or the one who needs to drive drops the other off at a T or commuter rail stop. And it’s cheaper to us Uber for the occasional urgent unplanned trip than to pay insurance and maintenance for a 2nd car. When my father was growing up, his father didn’t even know how to drive – my grandmother drove him to and from the commuter rail each day, and that was pretty normal.
Along with Mike’s suggestions, how about Newton pushing for a shuttle bus that goes to the Green Line and Needham commuter rail? Get some of the businesses along that corridor to pitch in so their employees can get to work, and have a few stops between stations.
Meredith, I live on a street with many middle school and younger children and not a one has fewer than two cars in their driveway….and I live three minutes from a D line station and 4 bus routes.
The city can run the numbers since they receive property tax on every vehicle. It would be interesting in getting the data of number of vehicles per household
Average car ownership in Newton is two per household. Averages are tricky but I’m guessing that is very representative.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/newton-ma/
Might as well include the recently adopted Needham Street area vision plan. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91211
It’s such a large proposal, it needs to be broken down into manageable parts to intelligently discuss. I agree that some type of school needs to be in the mix. The proposal, which is scheduled to be heard for the first time at the City Council Land Use Committee on September 25, is for both a zoning change and a special permit.
And where are these kids going to school? Countryside is at capacity and even with a new Angier and Zervas I don’t think there is capacity. And Brown/Oak Hill? Adding housing brings students k-12.
Newtonmon,
High density tax. Let the developer or new residents pay for the new school and increased services
@Bugek: You’ve mentoned this idea many times. I’m not aware of any tool that allows for a “high density” tax. Are you?
Municipalities can’t just introduce new types of taxes.
Also, wouldn’t that be taxing something that people in today’s housing market find desirable? Somerville has become a hot location in large part BECAUSE of its density (at the same population as Newton, it is the densest community in the state). Union Square has been growing based on the proximity to the future Green Line, something we already have.
If you’re talking about paying for services there may be a remedy for that, but we need the density so we can get the other things we want (better transit resources, increased commercial tax base, housing stock turnover, etc). Why would we want to discourage that kind of thing with a tax?
Many people don’t take MBTA buses because they are so infrequent and unrealiable. 4 private shuttle buses (2 with the 128 business council, 2 with Trip Advisor) are currently on Needham St from the T stop in Newton Highlands. If we really want people to have only 1 car or less per household, we need to improve our bus routes.
We need all weather bus shelters and frequent reliable bus service available to the general public.
Lucia is right about the need for improved bus service in the area.
One in three runs on the Needham Junction-Watertown Square is diverted at Pettee Square from the regular route through Upper Falls and Newton Highlands to the Needham Street corridor, The MBTA proposed reversing the ratio, but that was rejected because of the need to maintain service on the regular route. Now might be the time to add an additional bus serving the corridor (at Northland’s expense of course.)
There clearly would be a need for additional school space in Upper Falls if this major development is approved. Perhaps it should be on the community gathering site on Oak Street that the developer proposes or in office space as Mike Striar proposes, In either case, it should be at the expense of the developer that is compounding the need in the area.
Traffic increases and perpetual busing expenses could reduced by making the new school serve all kids from Upper Falls, plus those from Avalon on Needham Street, other children from Newton Highlands south of Route 9, Charlemont and other neighborhoods east of Needham Street, etc.
The Upper Falls Area Council has already expressed opposition to pouring the new traffic into Upper Falls’ narrow streets directly via Oak Street.
How would the proposed starting date work with the 2019 construction date of MassDot’s reconstruction of Needham Street/Highland Street? Are they coordinated at all? How do all of the short term actions in the vision plan work with this proposal on the table?
The project takes a multi-modal approach to improving the roadway, balancing the needs of all users. The project will:
▪ Improve pedestrian accommodations through continuous sidewalks, reducing the number of driveway curb cuts, and adding new crosswalks.
▪ Add bicycle accommodations through a 5’ wide raised bike lane and shared use paths.
▪ Improve traffic operations and safety through exclusive and two-way turn lanes and protected signal phasing.
▪ Improve transit by adjusting stop locations.
No where in the Needham Street area vision plan, which includes just about every conceivable plan, does it mention educating kids. I don’t see how with every other thing considered, Education has been left out of the mix both with the vision plan and Northland’s proposal.
Lots of parts to juggle and plans that need to cooperate.
It looks like this is starting out coming in from Needham St (though maybe if they showed utility poles that would be more apparent). It looks like a mini city and reminds me of Assembly Square/Row at the start. I really don’t see how that area handles that amount of additional people and cars.
*As far as a school I agree that the needs increase by adding this amount of housing but there are other costs besides space such as teachers etc that would be incurred and there would also be additional capacity needed at Brown/OakHill and South. So giving space to me is only the tip of the iceberg. I’m not sure what is a realistic/feasible cost that the developer would absorb to make this work.
*It can be so difficult to travel through this area as is by car today so the transportation aspect really concerns me. As others mention the public transportation out that way is limited/unreliable. I like the idea of a shuttle to Needham or the T but what truly makes people take public transportation is the convenience/reliability and this location even with a shuttle is a bit removed from the convenience aspect and the T hasn’t been very good in reliability as of late. I find as kids get older it becomes harder for families to have only one car due to increased activities either with multiple kids traveling in different directions or needing to travel outside of Newton. Sometimes I find the most difficult part of carpools is driving to other points in Newton to pick kids up rather than any distance I have to drive outside of Newton (especially when I get out of the areas where rt9/128 & 128/Mass Pike intersect).
*I also think the affordable number of units needs to increase. To have density without trying to create more housing options for those who already live here and more economically diverse options is just not appealing.
A few ways for the residents or developer of a high density development to pay more:
– require parking permits for the street outside of business hours. Annual parking permit fee
– increase the sewage/garbage rates in the large development
– increased transfer tax when property changes hands in the large development
–
Trust me, if a liberal city wants to invent a tax, they will have no problems doing so.
Lets be honest, a new school and staff is going to need an override unless the business tax revenue can compensate
On my second viewing of this video I was surprised to finish with the feeling of disappointment. The buildings are big rectangular structures and ugly. Imagine families living in this environment. Many children have a long walk to school buses. There is little outdoor recreational space. The roadways discourage safe play space. This urban development is too big and poorly designed.
The transit issue is tricky. It’s less than 1.5 miles to either Needham Heights or Newton Highlands, but a fairly miserable drive, walk, or bike ride. I’d worry that that any shuttles will be stuck in frustrating traffic. I am sure my opinion is in the minority, but a series of smaller mixed-use developments in Newton Highlands, Newton Centre, etc., make more sense to me. We’d still face the challenge of poor MBTA infrastructure, but development in the villages would make it easier for the new residents to live their lives with fewer cars.
The site plan has a better view of the placement of buildings in relation to already existing streets than the 3D model. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91199
The “driveways” within the development will be private roadways. Will Northland continue to keep them up? What about snow removal, traffic signs, speed limits and roadway maintenance?
In one of the original plans to zoning, space for a profit educational was listed as one use. I don’t see that on any other plan.
The buildings are too boxy and unattractive in many places. The children would have a long walk to buses unless it is arranged for them to come into the complex. The parking waivers are unrealistic with families moving in.
What’s the basis for rezoning to BU4? Why not MU4? With so many special permits and waivers needed for every project why not wait for the new zoning redesign. They seem to just get rubber stamped anyway.
I can’t get excited about having another building that looks like this.
I can’t say I’m pro development at all, but if we have to build something (and we don’t!) why not build a few rows of traditional (detached) two-family houses?
There is a recent build just off of Soldier Field Road at Brighton Mills which is across from the Star Market and which is much more visably appealing
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Star+Market/@42.3613879,-71.1367894,127a,35y,264.18h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e379d6bdb93a0f:0x25bdc4428ef632ac!8m2!3d42.360928!4d-71.1375412
The area is currently serviced by two MBTA bus routes 59 & 52 both of which would
have to be re-routed to service the entire area, and run more frequently (including weekends and late nights)
Some interesting comments and concerns here. A few thoughts…
1. This video is designed to give viewers and idea of the size and locations of the proposed buildings, nothing more. The architectural details, landscaping and other things that people should be rightly concerned about at some point are part of a design review phase. That’s not this video’s objective.
2. Transportation is and should be a big concern. The MBTA does have plans to significantly upgrade the Riverside Line and they are now undergoing a major rethinking of the bus routes, which hopefully include improving bus service to this area. I know from attending many community meetings, that Northland knows that neither of these things alone will address the demand and that they are planning on funding additional services and accommodations. I’m looking forward to hearing the specifics and so should everyone else before judging if it will be sufficient.
3. The state project to improve Needham St/Highland Ave will be done before Northland breaks ground. I know from attending meetings with DOT that Northland’s plans jive with the state’s design.
4. Our school department has an excellent reputation statewide when it comes to predicting enrollment growth. We should all pay close attention to those numbers before judging impact. It does strike me as curious that some folks here are complaining that this proposal isn’t welcoming to families with kids (“one parking space per unit isn’t enough!” “It’s too far to walk to the bus!” etc.) while also panicking about how many school age children will live there. Let’s review the data.
5. Under this plan, Northland will be responsible for the upkeep of the streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. Folks who worry about the added burden on city budgets should be celebrating this. I can tell you from both personal experience (the chamber office is on Northland property and I’ve talked with many of our neighboring tenants) and from familiarity with other properties in their portfolio in other markets, that Northland is a good, responsible landlord. No need to worry that they won’t be plowing their streets.
6. Yes this is big! But it’s also a very large parcel so it should be big. Yes, 822 units is A LOT. But we have a housing crisis in Newton and our region. It will take smart planning and thoughtful accommodations to make this work. But this is something we need and can benefit from.
This is the complex Claire is pointing out. https://www.apartments.com/town-homes-at-brighton-mills-brighton-ma/f9gcf9r/
Greg, of course people are concerned about educating the students who I hope will live there. The school department’s record on judging prospective growth has varied over the years. Several years ago (2005?) they predicted Zervis would be unused because of a drop in prospective school enrollment. The teachers there were preparing for the school to be closed.
These videos often show more than where the buildings will go; they show what the developer’s ideas of housing may look like.
The data shows at this point that anticipating only one car for every household is unreasonable.
Part of the smart planning is to ask a lot of questions and get answers from the beginning because as we have seen in other development proposals, what the developer presents upfront is generally where it will end up unless we get involved right away.
I’m glad you could answer some of my questions and that Northland is a good landlord.
Reasonable or not. That’s all they are planning on providing. People with more than one car should live elsewhere.
Marti, this is not directed specifically at you but one thing that has always puzzled me is when casual observers believe they know more than the folks willing to invest their money into something. Northland feels there’s a market for apartments in this area that allow only one parking space and is apparently willing to take a huge financial risk that they’re right.
“Our school department has an excellent reputation statewide when it comes to predicting enrollment growth.”
As Marti points out this is not exactly historically correct. The addition of Avalon Needham St was significantly underestimated and led to overcrowding at Countryside which then subsequently led to overcrowding at Bowen and then Mason-Rice which was at over 500 kids the last few years. The reason Zervas was moved ahead of Cabot was the shifting of the overcrowding problem in the Highlands/Newton Centre schools. In the past communication between the planning dept and school dept was lacking. Hopefully this has changed.
Everything Greg Reibman said.
Greg, it doesn’t reassure me when you say that Northland’s and the state’s plan “jive” or that Northland is placing an enormous financial risk on the validity of their plan, I’ve seen too many public and private plans that “jive” rather than “gibe” as I assume you mean. I’ve also seen too many plans by large private institutions go awry leaving the stockholders of these companies facing the adverse consequences of the risks they took in good faith
and the taxpayers of the relevant jurisdictions facing the public consequences. Major decisions need major scrutiny.
Totally agree my friend! But that scrutiny should be driven by facts, not amateur gut feelings.
And the facts regarding Northland are that they’re a Newton-based company that’s been in this market for decades and around for nearly half a century, operating nearly 100 proprieties nationwide. Historically, they hold onto and manage their properties so they’re not some fly by night firm who build, sell and run; passing along any mistakes to the next guy. Oh and they’re privately held so Brian you can put aside your fears about leaving stockholders to absorb their mistakes too.
There are good of reasons to be cautious: traffic, schools, etc. We don’t need to make up fake things to worry about too.
And fretting that Northland is going to leave (non-existant) stock holders in a lurch, or not plow its property, or doesn’t know what a mistake they’re making by limiting their units to one parking space, are good examples of fake worries.
Greg and now I guess Ted too,
“Reasonable or not. That’s all they are planning on providing. People with more than one car should live elsewhere.
… one thing that has always puzzled me is when casual observers believe they know more than the folks willing to invest their money into something. Northland feels there’s a market for apartments in this area that allow only one parking space and is apparently willing to take a huge financial risk that they’re right.”
There are several things about your above comment that I take issue with.
You seem to be saying that whatever a developer is willing to pay for and proposes is what they should get whether its reasonable and makes sense or not.
That developers should get what they want because they feel there’s a market for it.
That developers should get what they want because we need more diversified housing stock.
That we “casual observers,” however you are defining that, should just stay out of it and let those who are in the know make the decisions for the rest of us.
I find your comment to be condescending and obnoxious up not surprising. You, and Ted it seems, believe that because we need more housing, something I agree with, developers should just be given a free hand in what they want to build.
I believe that we need more diversified housing but the city and we “casual observers” should not just let what developers propose be what we get. Every development needs to be scrutinized for its value to the city, including education, affordable housing, transportation, design and construction. Decisions should not be made just by what a developer is willing to invest in but by Newton’s needs.
If a developer wanted to build a strip mall with parking in the front that includes housing because they were willing to invest in it, would you just want to let them build it?
So Marti: are you suggesting that the city should require Northland to provide more parking for each untit of its project?
So Marti: are you suggesting that the city should require Northland to provide more parking for each unit?
Northland can invest its money as it sees fit as long as it is approved by zoning. I don’t see the city mandating more parking although I do they they should require more affordable units. That said , I think only providing one parking spot seriously limits their market and I am at a loss as to why any business would do that.o two
It limits the appeal to the average two income family including those who split up the drop off and pick up of the children at daycare
It limits the appeal to young professionals who afford Boston area typically be having at least one roommate. Not that there would be much to attract them to live on the Newton/Needham line
It limits the appeal to people who rely on the T or Commuter Rail to get to work in Boston unless we are expecting them to bike to the station.
It limits the appeal to families, or even individuals who own more than one vehicle because they can and they want to.
The fact that they are limiting the parking but providing what appears to me to be a crazy amount of bike spots suggests to me that they have over relied on input from the anti car contingent. IMHO
No. The situation is more complicated than you are presenting and requires a more nuanced answer.
I’m suggesting that the city needs to look into whether the larger units, hopefully to be filled by families with children, should allow parking for more than one vehicle. Families generally have more reasons to need 2 cars particularly since most parents work now and children often require to be driven, specifically in that area with a lack of public transportatio, to sports, theatre and other activities, maybe even to school since there are none within walking or biking distance for many children. I think that is a better solution than adding a new 800+ units of housing but telling those families who need 2 cars to look elsewhere to live.
I’m impressed with the protected bike lanes presented and the connections to the Greenway. I hope many residents use them.
I’m not trying to be unreasonable, just wanting to get the best development the city can.
Greg, I replied to your question. Is there some reason you are posting it again?
I will just add that when you said renters who have more than one car can look elsewhere, where exactly would you have them look? There’s a housing shortage in case you didn’t know.
Greg – I would suggest that the city discuss compromises with Northland such as providing a certain number of extra parking spaces (maybe an extra 25-50%) that people can rent for an extra fee.
Telling people who have more than one car they should look elsewhere for housing is a really bad marketing strategy.
Claiming Newton needed to retain school property for future generations rather than sell them off was another example of “fake” worrying. Saying elementary school boilers were about to die leaving kids in cold buildings was a “fake” worry. Saying NNHS was going to cost more than $141m was a “fake” worry. Questioning whether a business that wants to place 822 housing units in one small area of the city that’s not within walking distance of any school is a “fake” worry. We do a lot of fake worrying in Newton. In fact, I’d go so far as to say we’re really good at fake worrying. Sad!
Hmmm. This thread went a direction I would have never anticipated.
Limiting parking is a proven (and I thought kinda obvious) way to help mitigate traffic, which is really the concern that I would be expecting folks would be raising in regards to this proposal.
But that aside, “telling people who have more than one car they should look elsewhere” isn’t any different than saying someone who wants a three car garage probably shouldn’t buy a house with a two car garage. Or telling someone who wants size six running shoes to buy size three ski boots instead. We (consumers) all make decisions based on what fits our parameters. It’s the way free market economies work.
Northland’s apartments won’t work for everyone any more than the homes on West Newton Hill will work for everyone. We need a whole constellation of housing options.
P.S. Marti: I have no idea how my comment posted twice.
@Jane, you say refer to the Northland project as “822 housing units in one small area of the city that’s not within walking distance of any school.” But if my memory serves me well, the proposed Northland project is less than a half-mile walk along the Upper Falls Greenway from the Coletti-Yates Elementary School on Elliot Street, which was built on a minor portion of the grounds of the formerly sprawling DPW Yard there. The Coletti-Yates school lot is not huge — about the size of Zervas — but it’s right across the Greenway from the Avalon apartments and a short walk from many of the neighborhoods formerly served by the old Emerson school. If my memory serves me well…
I think Marti hit the nail on the head with this partial quote from an earlier post…
“Every development needs to be scrutinized for its value to the city…”
In my opinion, that’s what it’s all about. The city needs a strong negotiator to extract maximum value from developers. If a project does not bring enough value to Newton, it should not be built. This Northland Development is a work in progress. Now is the time for the city to make clear that 30% of the housing units should meet the affordable standard.
Every year, the winter parking ban gets raised as an issue of fairness and privilege, because as of now, it primarily negatively impacts people living in older, denser neighborhoods with less off-street parking. Should those folks also have just looked elsewhere for a home?
The one parking space per apt is red herring. Business have parking spots which in the evenings can easily be rented out to families with multiple cars. Its a very common practice in pretty much any parking lots in downtown – “Evenings and Weekends only” parking.
People will multiple cars exists.. many of them. And they will rent in this developed causing significant traffic problems.
The developers are at this game much longer than we are, and not stupid to lose significant chuck of potential renters.
If people really want to live there and they have two cars, they’ll probably just find street parking and shuffle the second car around during the winter parking ban. Lots of families in Newton Corner, West Newton, Nonantum, etc do it already and it sucks for us but being a one car family is not feasible for a lot of people in a city without solid public transit.
If Newton really cares about the environment, then lifting the parking ban may increase the number of cars. Those who are affected are collateral damage unfortunately… but its time to get serious
Newton should slowly be discouraging more cars. Perhaps provide overnight parking exceptions to electric cars?
Greg, you are not engaging in a conversation. Instead your next comment ignores what you have been asked as you move to a new subject to make a pronouncement about, use bad analogies attempting to prove your point or being snarky in your supposed reply. You ask questions that commenters answer but you ignore their questions.
As Tricia and Mary point out Newton has a multi-season parking ban. Families are already being discriminated against because thei lot doesn’t allow parking.
Sure less parking is one way to mitigate traffic. Without other reliable means of public transportation, safe bike lanes and resources, like schools, city hall, the library, etc. within walking distance, building now for the who knows when future when all of those things exist doesn’t provide for families needing to get around Newton now.
And now is when the proposal is being presented. In your attempt at analogies, you present situations that are absurd and where the other category does exist. This complex doesn’t exist now so the city of Newton needs to find ways that it can supply housing to more people not to keep new families out using the reasoning that the developer knows what they are doing. Yes, Newton needs more of a constellation of housing for a diversity of needs, not just for those who require only one car.
The city doesn’t have to mandate that some larger units have 2 parking places; it only has to not hand out all of the parking waivers the proposal requests but only give it the waivers for part of the proposal. The three bedrooms and some two bedroom units in particular.