In a world of diminished local news reporting, trying to keep up with the latest developments about developments can be challenging. Often the only reliable source of news are the various meeting minutes and live streams. And when it comes to minutes, hands down Srdj Nedeljkovic’s reports from the Newton Highlands Area Council are the most compete and details.
Here’s Srdj’s draft minutes from the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council meeting with Northland from March 7, which provide an overview of the changes Northland plans to present the the Land Use Committee on Tuesday March 12.
Northland Development on Needham Street Alan Schlesinger, on behalf of the developer, gave a presentation on proposed revisions to the Northland development on Needham Street. Also present representing Northland were Peter Standish (Senior Vice President of Development), Kent Gonzales (Vice President of Development), and Dan Bernard (Business Development Officer).
Mr. Schlesinger provided a preview of what the members of City Council will be presented at the Land Use Committee meeting next week. He will be discussing a proposed redesign of the site based on input from consultants, Newton officials, and public comments. Mr. Schlesinger noted that the Northland site is a 22-acre site off of Needham Street, with 1200 ft adjacent to the old railway bed. The site includes parts of the South Meadow Brook and a culvert under Tower Road, with the waterway flowing down to the Charles River.
The site will have automobile access several points. One access point will connect to Tower Road. There will be access from a new Charlemont Street 4 way intersection. There will be an entrance from Needham Street onto a new Main Street within the project. There will also be an entrance on Oak Street. The center of the development will focus on a Village Green. The old Mill building will remain as an office building. Everything else currently on the site will be demolished. Other than the Mill building, the project will consist of residential housing units on upper floors and commercial properties will be on the ground floor of some of the buildings. A mobility center will be created off of Needham Street for bus transportation.
Mr. Schlesinger pointed out that extensive feedback about the original proposal was received from community members and city staff. Initially, Building 6 of the project was a 5 story above ground parking garage with apartments on the outside. Northland received feedback that the bulk of the building was too much. The new proposal divides the original building footprint and eliminates the 5-story above ground parking garage.
The original proposal was for 822 residential units, of which 123 were planned as affordable units. The lining of buildings was retail and commercial for a total of 180,000 SF of retail space. Current zoning required 3400 parking spaces for development of this scope. Northland asked for a waiver to reduce the number of parking spaces to 1950. Mr. Schlesinger pointed out recent planning opinion that less parking is preferable to having an oversupply of parking. The current zoning ordinance requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. However, the new development is being programmed to have1 parking space per dwelling unit for a total of 800 parking spaces, with the remaining 1150 parking spaces allocated to support commercial uses.
Northland received feedback from several city councilors who wanted fewer parking spaces. There is a concern that an oversupply of parking spaces may attract more driving to the site.
Some Upper Falls residents, however, remain concerned that more parking is needed on site, and they are concerned about spill-over parking into Upper Falls. Another revision to the original plan was to move a “community building” closer to Oak Street from its original location near Tower Road so that it is closer to the Upper Falls village center. RKG, an economic development consultant, provided an assessment that this project could support 100,000 SF of local retail. In order to fill 180K SF of retail, Northland would have needed to have a more regional attraction and more regional tenants, which would induce more traffic. By reducing commercial space from about 185,000 SF to 115,000 SF, this shrinks some of the buildings, reduces traffic generation, and will lead to reduced tax revenue.
The new proposal reacts to a number of comments from city officials and constituents. Building 6 has been broken into 3 buildings with a new interior courtyard. Building 5 has been divided into 3 smaller buildings with an interior courtyard. All the parking on the site that was in above- ground structures has been placed underground. The total parking count went from 1950 to 1550 spaces. The amount of parking is being reduced because the retail portion of the site has been reduced from 185K SF to 115 K SF, which allowed the removal of 200 parking spaces, with further reduction enabled by implementation of a robust parking management plan.
In the new proposal, the Village Green is being enlarged. A roadway around the green is being eliminated. There will be laneways designed for interior courtyards for residential buildings. Retail will be focused on Main Street and an Unnamed Street. Also, the mobility hub for the site will be placed in the middle of a building fronting Needham Street. This building will also have commercial uses on Needham Street. Building 4 was reduced in size, which allowed an increased in the size of the Village Green. A park adjacent to the Mill building will be widened by 10 feet to 73 feet. The community building has been relocated to be closer to the Community Park, just at the backside of the Depot Restaurant. The South Meadow Brook Stream will be day-lighted near the Mill Building, which will have a water feature.
There will be two levels of parking underground, and all parking will be removed from the above grade buildings. Residential tenants will be required to pay for their parking. Transportation demand incentives will be developed to make every effort to reduce single car driving. There will be 2 hour parking available for retail customers. Mr. Schlesinger described the transportation plan for the site. Northland is proposing 4 shuttle routes: one to Newton Corner, a second route to Needham to the commuter rail station, a third route to Cambridge, and a fourth route that will go to the Boston seaport district. It is hoped that residents will move to the Northland site knowing that they may take shuttle buses into town. The project will support the ability to share parking between office, retail, and residential users.
A parking management plan will be developed. The site will not have park and ride, and will not allow all-day parking. The shuttle system will not be free. The plans indicate that there will be a shuttle that will stop at the Newton Highlands T station. The fare for these bus routes will be set so that enough people will find it attractive to take the bus. It is expected that some of the future Northland residents will travel to work in Cambridge and Somerville. The shuttle bus service will be operated by the 128 Business Council. Overall, there are trends to utilize more transit services. All buildings on the site except for the existing Mill building will have residential units above ground floor retail, with retail along Main Street and the Unnamed Road. Building 8 is being considered for some form of “affinity housing” for older individuals. It is important for older adults to feel welcome throughout the Northland site, and not to be segregated by age. In the “affinity housing” building, there may be additional architectural variety. There may be different color schemes in Building 8 that make this environment more attractive for older people. All of the buildings along Needham Street will have ground floor commercial.
The heights of the buildings will reflect a pyramidal structure. There will be 3 story buildings along Upper Falls. The Needham Street buildings will be 4 stories. In the middle, there will be a 7-story building, which will be 96 feet high. This will allow for varied roofing design. Although the overall umber of units has been reduced to 800 units, 123 of them are still projected to be affordable units.
Mr. Schlesinger pointed out that Northland has had conversations with TripAdvisor about merging their two shuttle services. All of the D line shuttle buses are projected to run to the Highlands. It is unlikely that shuttles will go to the Eliot T station. Some shuttles may go to Newton Centre.
A discussion ensued about elimination of surface parking around the Village Green. A question was posed if reducing on street parking near the Village Green would have an adverse effect on vitality of the Green. Northland has decided to remove parking around the Village Green in this version of the site plan.
A question was posed about if the developer could provide 25% of the units as affordable housing. Concerns were also voiced about the impacts a project of this scope might have on city services. A concern was expressed about the new version of the plan generating less commercial tax revenue. However, there will be 115K SF of retail, which is 1.5x more retail than what is on the site now. Overall, the project is expected to generate $1.2 million net dollars into the city’s finances. The school overcrowding issue in Newton is being addressed by enlarging existing
schools. The School Department is in the process of requesting funding for an enlarged Countryside school. The school is projected to expand to have space for 525 students.
Councilor Noel commented that this is a big project and that we are all trying to understand how this project benefits Newton. Many councilors support there being more density of development in certain parts of the city. The Northland project is consistent with the city’s commitment to increase housing supply, in line with environmental goals. As far as transportation planning is concerned, a number of options might be experimented with to see what works best. Councilor Noel noted a number of ways that the Northland project can serve the goals of the city, including helping address the housing crisis that is going on.
Mr. Schlesinger pointed that Northland owns 22 acres of land where 1.5 million SF of office space can be placed by right. This type of development would require 4500 parking spaces. No mitigation would be required. Currently, the site is paved and causing a heat island effect. There is a brook now on the site that is polluted. The site currently lacks control of water quality and
run-off from the site drains into the Charles River. The proposed Northland development will plant 9 acres of the site with greenery and will remove much of the heat island effect and create a sustainability plan. In Newton, this site will become a destination. It is likely that market rates for rent will be high. At Avalon, the current rents are approximately $3000 to $3500 for a 2- bedroom unit.
At the Northland site, there will be 123 families who will have subsidized housing and who will pay 30% of their income for rent. The developer cannot include more affordable housing in the project based on the expected budget. Mr. Schlesinger stated that the project will create benefits to the City such as a new private transit system, new housing, the ability for people to work and live in the same place, 1400 jobs, and economic development.
Councilor Rice commented that this is a very large project on a large footprint. However, there will be a significant input from City Council as the final plans are developed. The current plan for the site is in evolution, and there will likely be more changes to the plans before final approval. Councilor Rice pointed out that Newton’s population is rising towards the 90K
threshold that it once had at its peak.
Bob Burke expressed concerns about the transportation plan for the site. He noted that the Riverside project will create pressure on transportation, as will the Northland project. However, no improvements are being planned for the Green line, which has not changed for many years. Bob asked how this project will be coordinated with other development projects in terms of
transportation impacts. Nathaniel Lichtin asked about MBTA Green line capacity issues. Ms. Schlesinger noted that the Northland shuttle buses will provide options for transit away from the Green line. The shuttles will provide an alternative to taking the Green line to downtown Boston and to Cambridge and the Seaport.
A discussion ensued about the merits of improving the overall public transit system, the MBTA, rather than investing in a private transit system that does not provide broad access as the MBTA. Concerns were expressed about the utility of infrequent bus service to various locations that may not match current travel patterns. Srdjan Nedeljkovic pointed out how an extension of the Route 60 bus that runs along Route 9 to Chestnut Hill to the Needham Street corridor would allow forimproved access from this part of Newton to the center of Boston and be available to all people
along the route. It was noted that the new revised Northland plans will result in a reduction of commercial space that will reduce net gain of tax revenues to the city. Further discussion ensued about the roadway exit from the site to Oak Street. Many Upper Falls residents do not want an entrance from Northland to Oak Street at all. However, Mr. Schlesinger pointed out that an exit is necessary to Oak Street to reduce traffic congestion on Needham Street and at the intersection of Oak and Christina Streets. Mr. Schlesinger noted that the overall volume of traffic to Upper Falls will not be affected by the entrance at Oak Street. Regarding cut-through traffic, there will be multiple turns on the Oak Street access road with raised platforms to control speed and to reduce desirability of the Oak Street access route.
Nathaniel Lichtin noted that the proposed Northland shuttle buses will run on the same route as the Route 59 bus. He questioned how this will be coordinated with the MBTA system in terms of schedules and timing. Mr. Schlesinger pointed out that the shuttle bus service is intended to supplement existing service on the Route 59 bus.
Councilor Rice noted that when the Green line shuts down, the Highlands turns into a big bus stop due to all the buses that are put in service to replace the trains. There will be difficulty with the Northland shuttles if they are added into the bus queue on those dates that the Green line is not in service. Mr. Schlesinger noted that the frequency of Northland’s shuttle service has no been determined, but that these may run as a commuter shuttle. Mr. Schlesinger noted that some individuals may take the shuttle bus to Newtonville in order to take commuter rail into Boston.
At around 8:45 pm, after opportunity for questions and comments, the Northland proponents
From the above minutes:
“Mr. Schlesinger pointed out recent PLANNING OPINION that LESS PARKING IS PREFERABLE to having an oversupply of parking.” [emphasis added]
Really? (Moreover, I’ve never heard of a case of “ovesrsupply” of parking in Newton commercial areas.)
Many of the noted concerns can be addressed if there were less units. PERIOD. Now we’re going to have random cars parked all over Upper Falls. GREAT (sarcasm).
Clearly, Northland has no intentions on budging on the # of units. The City Council is the last hope at stopping them.
Get active!
https://rightsizenewton.org/
Northland reduced the units: 822 to 800. More impact-fully, it reduced the retail…
The city should be pushing this developer for a new school. That should be the top priority, with more affordable housing units a close second. While the shuttle buses have some value, they are being used as a diversion from the real issues. Doesn’t anyone in City government have a backbone?
Dan Bernard (Business Development Officer) listed in the introduction, works for Northwind Strategies, NOT Northland Development and his name is Dan Benard, not Bernard. The website can be found here: http://northwindstrategies.com/ and their homepage states that they are Relentlessly Focused On Winning. Mr. Benard’s linked in profile is here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-benard-6453a96b/ His recent professional job description: “As an outreach specialist, I specialize in identifying and mobilizing communities of support to benefit client interests.”
My neighborhood was flooded with fliers last week from Mr. Benard inviting us for pizza and drinks to hear Northland’s modifications to their proposal. The flier stated “we would like to hear your thoughts and questions. Your attendance and feedback would be greatly appreciated.” Unfortunately, the flier was dropped about 4 days prior to the event, and I already had a commitment. I don’t know anyone who attended the pizza party.
Village 14 is all excited about Northland. Northland is getting lots of great free PR from Village 14. There will be a lot of speakers attending the Land Use meeting tomorrow night. This meeting was postponed from February 12th due to a snow storm.
I echo Matt Lai’s comment above. Please check out this website:
https://rightsizenewton.org/
It’s an intelligent website, and it’s not anti-Northland. It considers ALL of the development being proposed across multiple villages in Newton.
Northland has to satisfy its investors, not satisfy the quaint village of Upper Falls. We want to see this 22 acre eye sore developed, and we know that something will be built there. The final outcome of number of units, number of parking spaces, exits and entrances and square footage of retail and manufacturing is not a fait accompli. Don’t let Village 14 or Northwind Strategies tell you otherwise.
And the problem with that is what exactly?
A 22 unit reduction is less than 3%. A gesture at best…an insult at worst.
The reduction in retail is likely more of a realization that they will be hard to be filled. There can be only so many successful restaurants and nail salons in Newton….and Banks (like we need another) will likely shy away as the rental market won’t be coming in to refinance their mortgage.
Not a fair trade off IMO. The number of units need to come down. That should be the main point Newtonians should challenge.
https://rightsizenewton.org/
Where do the employees park?
What Northland’s PR push can’t cover up is that their proposal is simply too big for the location. Without meaningful changes, this project (and others like it in various stages of working their way through the system all over Newton) will result in the increased need for tax overrides (to fund new schools we will need as a result), will absolutely decimate the traffic along Needham street and in surrounding neighborhoods (as you can see above, even Northland doesn’t think that the addition of buses will create a situation where folks currently driving will opt to take their buses — if they did, they would be worried about where those people would park the cars they use to get to the bus stops), and thanks to some wishful thinking on the part of some of the city councilors, might result in a year-round safety nightmare with cars parked alongside narrow neighborhood streets that are not designed for this use.
Northland wants to shoehorn the biggest thing they can get approved onto this site in order to maximize their return on investment. Their investors and shareholders should be thrilled. The rest of us? Not so much.
I can’t wait until the Oak Street ruins are redeveloped and the plan is exciting. But I think Northland is going to have to give more in order for the project to be approved. Increasing the number of affordable units from the meager 123 out of 800 would be wise. I think the shuttle bus idea is terrific, as well as the one parking space per apartment.
I do wonder how expensive the market units will be — more in line with Avalon or the even pricier complex just across the Chuck in Needham?
Andy, How many parking space per unit are offered “Across the Chuck ” in Needham?
I just went to the website rightsizenewton.org and found it helpful and informative to understand what is happening with development. I also followed on twitter. I think it’s too big and am concerned about parking.
“Across the Chuck” – that expression is totally fetch!
I was so confused by that. I thought it was a reference to Chuck Tanowitz.
Bottom line, the proposed “buses” are ephemeral. And, nobody with a handy car or an uber/lyft is gonna wait for or take a damn bus to who knows where. Please get real.
Just sayin.
Michael, stop trying to make “fetch” happen – it’s NOT going to happen! (And Andy, neither is “the Chuck”. )
The developer says that the net tax revenue will be $1.2M to the city (less capital cost for school expansions0. How much will the net revenue be if they develop the 1.5M sf of office space that they say they can build by right?
@Laurie: Building office space only would be a bad investment for everyone because businesses will not choose to locate here if we don’t provide housing for their employees and customers.
800 new units!!!! That is a HUGE development. Have you ever tried to drive down Needham Street on a Saturday in December? This could be an April Fool’s joke. The last thing Needham Street needs is 800 new residential units (lets not mention that Countryside is maxed out). This has disaster written all over it. What retail hasn’t arrived in Newton and wants to? There are empty storefronts all over Newton. I just can’t vision this as good for Newton residents.
@Greg — Is there demand for first class office space right off the exit at 128 in Newton? Couldn’t we locate housing in a better place that has public transit, like Newton Centre or Chestnut Hill? There could also be some housing in that 1.5M SF. I’d really like to know what the tax benefits would be for the two alternatives before dismissing it.
@Laurie Palepu – this is a great, cut to the chase, question to raise. What are the property taxes ($$) associated with a straight up 1.5m square foot office space and the currently proposed space? From there “we” – city counsel on down – could evaluate what is the best use of the space AND the tax revenue associated with it.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that a vast majority of Newtonians would vote against such a massive and dense project jammed into this space more than deleterious to Newton’s existing quality of life, traffic and net fiscal position in terms of burdens/costs exceeding tax revenue. So why is this happening?
… especially when there was such massive opposition to a needed Super Stop N Shop due to traffic and congestion in and around Needham Street, resulting in a much worse and opposed massive Avalon Apts. What’s changed in terms of traffic and congestion? Seems it’s only gotten worse.
I did a rough calculation on the option of having 1.5M sf of office space at Northland instead. Assuming assessed value of $200/sf (lowball), the property taxes would be about $6M per year and there would be little or no incremental city costs associated with that since there would be no new students in schools and little police/fire costs. Since the current proposal is projecting a net tax benefit of $1.2M, the tax benefit of office would be about $4.8M/year more.
However, we have to calculate in Newton’s stated commitment to add more housing “at every price point” and see if it is worth it to forego that $4.8M in order to meet that goal. Another option would be to take part of that $4.8M and give vouchers for low income people to live closer to public transportation (or wherever else they want). In fact, you could give the 122 families vouchers worth $1500/month and still have $2.6M more in taxes than the current proposal. You wouldn’t have the additional 678 units of luxury apartments being built, however. I’m not saying this is a better or worse option, but we should evaluate all alternatives before deciding what the right path is.
Laurie,
Great points, but if Northland is a net Newton fiscal loss, is there any law or other requirement that Newton must have a “commitment to add more housing “at every price point””. Or any reason Newton must go beyond any existing law to satisfy some commitment beyond legal requirement — other than some liberal local politicians seeking to change Newton through “social engineering” to achieve “social justice” and “social change”. Especially when they cite Newton should implement measures to combat global warming and then propose a new Northand which does precisely the opposite –1000 fold. If Newtonians want to change Newton to Chelsea or Somerville, why not simply move there.
My concern is for the stress the proposed 822 residential units will have on our schools’ classroom space and resources. According to the post: “The school overcrowding issue in Newton is being addressed by enlarging existing schools. The School Department is in the process of requesting funding for an enlarged Countryside school. The school is projected to expand to have space for 525 students.” But according to the Draft FY19 Recommended Long-Range Facilities Planning Timeline on the NPS website (https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/Page/2314) from September 2018, Countryside is slated for construction in 2023-24 and will add only 4 new classrooms. For a school with currently 413 students enrolled (https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=7479&dataid=11129&FileName=REVISED -Class Size and Enrollment Planning Report_JAN2019.pdf), 4 classrooms will not be enough to handle a 100% increase in enrollment. And for those students moving on to Oak Hill, the same report already projects that they will be reaching their peak capacity in 2023. Redistricting to either Bigelow or Brown isn’t an option either as both of those schools will be reaching their peak enrollments in 2020 and 2021 respectively. With representatives from the school committee saying that there are no plans to fund and build an entirely new school, and many schools already at capacity, I am truly wondering where all the children will go. I hope the Newton School Committee plans appropriately for this influx of students well before they come in to the system.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Tower rd just lead out into Needham st. And the same for Charlemont Rd. Will Charlemont go anywhere in the new rd configuration? So basically you are going to have three entry points from Needham St and one on Oak. This really isn’t going to do much for through traffic and is just giving convenient ways to get in and out of Northland but how is it going to have any positive impact on either Needham St or Oak.
So people are going to have to pay for parking if they live there in addition to rent. If they want to take the shuttle they are going to have to pay for that on top of what they will pay for the T. They think people are going to live there and commute to Cambridge and Somerville?
@Newton Mom not just driving down Needham St in December.. try any afternoon! “The school department is the process of getting funding for increased capacity at Countryside”. That means taking money from somewhere else or override. Also it is not just building capacity it is Staff increase etc to handle that increase. Also Brown and South are also crowded. I also agree about the existing vacant storefronts. Not sure I see how this works.
Two points from my perspective, families with children in high rise apartment complexes will require school bus transportation.
This is a very costly addition to the school budget.
All these renters do not pay property taxes equal to home owners.
With a significant increase in the school population how will Newton tax payers shoulder the additional need for school classrooms and more teaching staff. The new renters and their children must pass these costs onto the present property owners. This seems to me both inequitable and a fiscal disaster.
A few comments. First, thank you for posting that excellent summary of the amendments to the Northland proposal. Second, Greg suggests that office building would not make sense because “businesses would not choose to locate here if we don’t provide housing for their employees and customers”. Huh? I would love to see demographic info (perhaps the Chamber could provide this) of say – TripAdvisor and other larger area employers of where exactly their employees live. TripAdvisor would be great since Needham has gone to great lengths to increase their housing stock. Or a study from the recent housing developments on where these new residents work? How many actually work in the community and how many commute either east or west? Third, Mr. Schlesinger suggested that “the developer cannot include more affordable housing in the project based on the expected budget.” Maybe they should consider increasing their budget a bit so that they can increase the affordable housing units since that should be the priority as we take off-line – prime commercially zoned and tax revenue generating property – to significantly increase our affordable housing supply? Fourth, Mr. Schlesinger suggests that “the project will create benefits to the City….the ability for people to work and live in the same place” – I go back to my second point about the live/work concept. What types of businesses do they think will locate in this new development and what will these new employers be paying their new workers so they can afford the rents (presuming that these new workers may not qualify or not “win” the lottery for these 123 affordable units). Finally, “the Chuck” reference made my day.
A tip of the hat to Srdj Nedeljcovic for this breathtakingly detailed summary, He’s a friend and someone I’ve served with on the Highlands Area Council for the past six years. his mind is somewhere between a sponge and a trap door. He misses nothing. He overlooks nothing. I preceded him as Secretary and I don’t think I ever had 10 or 15 percent of the stuff he manages to jot down or recall. Srdj’s passion is to extend the Green Line from the Highlands over 128 to Needham Junction. If anyone has the stamina to make that happen, it’s Srdj.
One of my primary concerns has been the impact of all the new development (Riverside, Northland and beyond) on the D Green Line’s capacity to absorb it. I’d like to say I was reassured by Northland’s presentation on Thursday last, but I take most of these things with a grain of sand.
I’m not surprised that many folks are concerned about the school crowding issue because the recent story in the TAB about enrollment issues didn’t effectively flag this.
But the enrollment projections from the school department indicated that Newton Public Schools will have no difficulty accommodating an influx of students even if Northland, Riverside and two additional pending mixed-use developments are approved by the City Council.
We wrote about this report on the chamber’s website here.
Greg, why does Newton even need this “influx” or the massive Northland Project altogether if it results in a net negative for Newton’s fiscal position in terms of Northland’s burdens/costs exceeding Northland’s generated tax revenue?
What group(s) is/are really pushing this? Why not leave the property zoned as is and allow office or commercial development in accordance with existing zoning without variance — especially when considering net tax revenue over city burden would be positive (rather than negative with Northland)?
@Jim: Who says its a net negative for Newton?
Even with the reduced retail and fewer units, the project is projected to generate $1.2 million net dollars into the city’s finances.
@Greg– It’s not just a concern I have about school overcrowding. There’s an opportunity here for the city to gain spectacular space that would contribute toward our educational offerings. I’ve suggested a new STEM magnet school that could pull students from other schools around the city. I’m sure there are other great ideas. The scope of this Northland project gives us a rare opportunity that our elected officials would be fools to miss.
@Mike: It’s fine to be advocating for community givebacks. That’s always part of this process.
I’m only suggesting that everyone to use the actual facts to frame their arguments. Those facts include a population dip that is one of the factors driving the lower enrollment projections.
As for the tax benefits to the city, I have no idea who started that rumor because it too defies reality.
@Greg: New School or Not, the School Department will obviously need funding to expand Countryside which is the likely school to absorb any increase in enrollment. They are all set to submit a Statement of Interest to the MSBA for consideration of funding for a renovation/addition of Countryside Elementary School, designated as the highest priority for a major project after Cabot Elementary School and the Lincoln-Eliot Elementary School and the Newton Early Childhood Program.
And don’t forget, the Enrollment Report that you reference states that the District needs to carefully manage enrollment at two schools – Angier (you know, that new school that was recently built that was supposed to help absorb increases in enrollment) and Pierce. For Angier, the report states: “As of this year, Angier is fully occupied with 24 classrooms and 503 students; the second grade is currently 97 students, has five classes and is projected to grow to over 102 students by fourth grade. As a result, it will be important to maintain three versus four kindergarten classes at Angier for the next three years through 2021-22. However, with three kindergarten sections, the arrays show that Angier would have more than 25 students per class in kindergarten, based on current enrollment projections. As a result, the district added a BurrWilliams buffer zone in November 2018 that should allow for more buffer zone placements next year to Williams
from the Angier-Williams buffer zone (and fewer to Angier) to help reduce the above average kindergarten class sizes as projected.”
And for Pierce: “The 2018 student assignment changes took advantage of additional capacity projected at Peirce to relieve crowding at Franklin. Prior to these changes, Peirce enrollment was projected to decrease to about 250 students and 12 classes. As enrollment grows in the next five years, Peirce is projected to have 15 classes (the school’s recommended capacity) and several large classes may result by 2022. Small schools typically are challenged in balancing class sizes especially with cohorts around 50 students, and class sizes sometimes exceed 25 students. The district will need to manage enrollment closely at Peirce in the upcoming years as student assignment changes are fully phased-in.”
I’m guessing most parents and educators alike would agree that class sizes anywhere near 25 or even above are not acceptable.
@Amy: Thanks for your fact based response. That’s not being snarky, I mean that. We’ve needed to address Countryside for years now, totally separate from Northland. It’s not just about class size, its about the condition and quality of the facility.
The good news about Northland is that it will take years before its built and folks are living there, giving us time to do what needs to be done at Countryside. Meanwhile, Newton will ultimately see a net positive revenue benefit from Nortland and, I believe, increased commercial tax revenue from adjacent commercial proprieties all along Needham Street and into Wells Ave that will benefit from the economic expansion that a vibrant Northland will spark.
Rather than seeing Northland or Riverside as a drag on our tax base, view them as economic engines that provide more tax revenue (and especially, over time, more commercial tax revue city wide since business want to locate near customers and workforce).
Rather than seeing Northland or Riverside as a drag on our infrastructure think about how these project will enhance our bonding ability.
Rather than seeing Northland or Riverside as a drag on our old school buildings, think about how they allow us to rebuild schools that need rebuilding either way.
Greg says: “Who says its a net negative for Newton? Even with the reduced retail and fewer units, the project is projected to generate $1.2 million net dollars into the city’s finances.”
Laurie says: “I did a rough calculation on the option of having 1.5M sf of office space at Northland instead. Assuming assessed value of $200/sf (lowball), the property taxes would be about $6M per year and there would be little or no incremental city costs associated with that since there would be no new students in schools and little police/fire costs. Since the current proposal is projecting a net tax benefit of $1.2M, the tax benefit of office would be about $4.8M/year more.”
So Jim, you’re staking your position on an anonymous blog poster’s “rough calculation”?
That’s really troubling. I realize that our national debate has devolved into everyone using their own set of facts, let’s not do the same thing here in Newton.
… Greg, per the above, there would be $4.8 million with NOT MUCH City burden/cost WITHOUT Northland; whereas there would be a piddly $1.2 million WITH LOTS of City burden/cost WITH Northland.
@Greg: I’m not against development at the Northland site. I just want to make sure that we get a good deal for the City and its residents!
@Amy: Me too!
@Jim: Before Laurie and you present your “rough calculations” as facts, I suggest you talk to real estate and site selection experts who will explain to you the trends in office leasing and vacancy rates in suburban markets, especially during periods of near full employment.
Employers are making their location decisions based on access to workforce and amenities. Without the housing, the value of our commercial property declines considerably.
Greg, assuming your $1.2 million is valid, that’s a pittance and certainly less that Newton’s extra costs and burdens. Try and deny that.
Insofar as Laurie’s comment, she shows the methodology for calculation for the much more $4.8 million if you want to take issue, even if you were to reduce the spread, plus, there’s practically no extra costs and burdens.
(What does this have to do with the national debt?)
Hey Jim, do me a favor. Look up the definition of “net benefit” and then talk to me.
Given the net revenue of only 1.2m vs the net profit to developers of probably 10s of millions… the city of Newton has extreme leverage in extracting major concessions
Does no one on the council know how to negotiate ? This is bizarre
Greg, per your last comment, are you saying that Newton adding an additional 1% of total housing in Newton is gonna make a big difference for commercial rental rates in Newton? (Even at its extreme, Northland would add less than 1% of total Newton housing.)
Greg, per your request, definition of “net benefit”:
“Net benefits are commonly used in cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a project should be funded. Calculate net benefits by subtracting the sum of direct and indirect costs from the sum of direct and indirect benefits.” (In Newton’s case it would seem to entail a calculation by subtracting the direct and indirect costs for additional services and burdens required to accommodate a massive Northland — not even counting burdens borne by Newton residents — from the additional Northland tax revenue, which in the Newton/Northland case would be a loss or a negative for the City of Newton.)
Thanks Jim. As you now realize, anyone who makes a fact-based statement would not say that the city would lose money on a project if the “net benefit” is positive.
Now some people (budjek for example), might say that they don’t think the net benefit is enough. That’s fair. But that’s an opinion. Not a fact.
Some might even say that they don’t have confidence in the analysis. But that’s why the city always hires an independent peer review firm which conducts a professional, fact-based, review of the petitioners’ projections. I recommend looking to those independent experts instead of some anonymous blogger’s “rough calculations.”
The Northland project’s net revenue is $2.0 million. This calculation is all generated tax dollars minus all costs (including schools) to the city.
Net new (same calculation, but subtracting existing taxes) is $1.07 million.*
Those are the facts. Happy to discuss the impact, but only if we use the same facts.
*Yes, I originally wrote $1.2M (the number Srgj used) but according to Northland and the independent peer reviewers $1.07 M is, in fact, correct.
Greg, to be clear (for the readers as well), is the $1.7 million total tax revenue received by Newton from Northland, or is the said $1.7 million excess than what is currently the tax revenue for the property.
So, from that $1.7 million (or what figure you use) we would subtract the City’s costs, burdens etc. attributable to Northland. And if the net figure is positive, Newton gets a a gain (or net gain), and if the net figure is a loss, Newton sustains a loss (or net loss). So, if we use the $1.7 million and subtract the costs/burdens, there’s likely a loss to Newton (or if not a loss, a pittance in gain, certainly less than a monetary justification for the project).
Greg,
If the city and developer are so confident on their number, they should have no issue objecting to the following clause:
For every child enrolled into school ABOVE the projected numbers AND who live in Northam site, the city can bill the developer directly for the associated costs. Someone mentioned 12k per student?
.. done deal, everyone happy. Lets build it
@Jim: $1.07 M net revenue means the money left AFTER all city/school services. In business, you’d call that profit. In municipal finance it’s net tax revenue.
@Bugek: I’m pretty certain federal housing law does not allow what you are proposing.
@Claire: yes
I understand that the net tax benefit if $1.2 M (or now $1.07M) is the tax revenue the city will receive AFTER accounting for the additional incremental costs for schooling, police, fire etc that the city incurs on account of this project, so it is projected to be a net positive financially for the city. So this number needs to be compared with net tax benefits that might come from alternative developments, including the potential 1.5M sf commercial development that Northland could do by right.
Greg also makes a good point that other commercial developers and tenants in that area might see this project as an amenity that would increase their interest in building other projects in the area. It’s hard to calculate how much benefit that might entail.
@Greg, Do YOU realize that when you write “Thanks Jim. As you now realize, anyone” you sound incredible condescending??
Greg,
has there been any studies as to “City net revenue vs Developer profit” for development sites? Just curious if its standard practice for a city to have X net revenue and for the developer to also make Y profit. What is the usual X an Y?
It obviously would be insane for a city to approve a development where the city has 1Million in net revenue annually and developer makes a profit of 20Million unless the City was in dire-straits. I wonder the developer profit Is on this site? I would assume the city would know this before entering negotiations…
Bugek: This what municipal finance experts do and it’s why the city hired experts to provide independent professional analysis. These folks use standard, acceptable practices and formulas to reach their conclusions. If they didn’t — as with any profession — they probably wouldn’t get hired again.
If that’s not good enough for you probably nothing will be.
Oh and regarding this:
I suppose that’s true if you believe governments exit to make a profit off its people and businesses. That’s not what I believe.
Greg,
.. or is more like “real estate appraisal” experts who work for the banks? or perhaps “bank loan officers in 2001” who approval loans with no income, no credit and no cash down?
professionals right?
Enrollment projections aren’t facts.
Schools need to be built to accommodate the rise and fall in enrollment that occur over decades, not over the next 5-10 years.
In addition, the causes of school overcrowding are more complex than student enrollment and will not go away with a dip, or even more than a dip, over the next five years. Programmatic additions (special education programs, ELL programs, the balanced literacy program, the inclusion program, math coaches, IT specialist and technology additions, afterschool program) since the era when Newton’s elementary and middle schools were built. These programmatic additions necessitate larger schools in order to accommodate the additional staff to provide services to students in these programs.
I’m a supporter of an increase in diversified housing that the tsunami of baby boomers will need in the coming years, but the city should take the long view when building schools – the kids will come and new/revised programs will need additional space. School facilities should be built so that they are large enough and flexible enough to accommodate changes in enrollment, educational practices, and additional (often state mandated) programs.
@Jane. We agree! Newton needs to rebuild and expand its schools to meet the educational demands of the times.
Greg, since your such an ardent global warming theorist, on what basis can you support Northland? Let’s face it, any measures Newton takes to reduce its carbon footprint (such as silly solar panels in lieu of trees in the library parking lot — when solar panels should be relegated to the sunny desert southwest, not the less sunny NewEngland) would be negated 1000 fold by Northland. In the age of ‘global warming’ which you maintain is a fact, everything, including developments like Northland’s current building plans and density, needs to be re-thought. Moreover, as you know, some Democrat politicians like AOC actually advocate human population (population growth chief underlying factor causing ‘global warming’) reduction, so why would Newton go the other way with this new development?
Also, as you point out, the city government should not make a profit off its people or businesses — which supports my point, what does the city gain by giving a variance allowing such a massive development as Northland (when tax revenue must be limited and does not account for all the extra burden in terms of cost and quality of life to existing residents, especially those nearby who oppose it)? Where are the benefits to the city, where are the benefits to the existing residents?
Again, what is driving this massive project, the Chamber of Commerce (which it would appear is the only entity other than the developer which stands to gain anything)?
Life is too short to debate with climate with a change denier on Village 14.
Greg, I’m not debating climate change. For the sake of the question, I’m ACCEPTING change, and based on that, I’m asking you the question.
…and (Greg), the question is:
On what basis can you support Northland if any measures Newton takes to reduce its carbon footprint would be negated 1000 fold by adding Northland?
Under the assumption there’ll be no Northland answer from Greg, and in any case, I’ll throw the question to all takers who maintain that global warming (a/k/a global climate change) is an existential threat:
“On what basis can you support Northland if any measures Newton takes to reduce its carbon footprint would be negated 1000 fold by adding Northland?”
Jim,
These 1000 resident families will have to live somewhere, so its better they live in high density instead of 1000 separate homes..
But if they global warming was the REAL reason then zero parking spots would be allowed with only public transportation access… if you need a car then you have to choose another place to live.. this would be suchva peaceful and clean place to live
Bugek, I don’t mean 100o residents/families, I mean Northland’s carbon footprint would be 1000 times worse than any gains resulting from the total of Newton’s effort to reduce the carbon footprint. And, given that, how can any Newton resident simultaneously maintain that global warming is an exponential threat and support the Northland project.
Unless these 1000 families appear out of thin air – they already have a carbon footprint. Moving 1,000 families from the outer suburbs into Newton would reduce their carbon footprint. Dense development reduces carbon footprints, especially dense development in high-performance buildings with mass transit connections.
Lucia,
AGAIN& AGAIN , I DON’T mean 100o residents/families, I mean Northland’s carbon footprint would be 1000 times worse than any gains resulting from the total of Newton’s effort to reduce the carbon footprint. And, given that, how can any Newton resident simultaneously maintain that global warming is an exponential threat and support the Northland project.
Lucia,
This line of thinking only works if northland provides no parking lots and no street parking.
If the city was serious about global warming then this should be a non negotiable requirement for any developer who wants to come in and make 10s of millions in profit if they need zoning changes.
..again, the city had the leverage to demand this
Any developer who doesnt need zoning changes are welcome to build whatever they can by right.
Bugek, your point as it relates to the following is exactly correct:
NO ZONING CHANGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR A DEVELOPER IF IT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES NEWTON’S CARBON FOOTPRINT — such as is the case with Northland — especially since Newton is expending considerable taxpayer sums in the name of fighting global warming. Anything less means citing global warming an “existential threat” is complete hypocrisy.
Bugek and Jim – If Northland moves people and businesses in from places with no opportunity to walk, bike, or take mass transit and from buildings that are not energy efficient, it is greatly reducing our carbon footprint. Global warming doesn’t stop at Newton city limits.
The current Northland proposal will do all these things. Northland is currently a paved area with energy-inefficient buildings. I strongly support denser development with improved mass transit.
I don’t understand how zoning for energy efficiency costs Newton taxpayers anything.
Guys,
I went to the Planning meeting last night. The room was split 50/50 at best.
There are lots of great comments and ideas in this post that would make this project work better for Newton.
And what I’m beginning to see, is that for the City’s officials to take these ideas seriously, commenting in V14 amounts to screaming into a paper bag. Emails swept into a spam folder.
To be take seriously; to really have a chance to impact change; we need to show up in force to the few public meetings remaining and publicaly comment/appeal to Council to do right thing.
Otherwise, Northland (and by extension, Greg) wins – and we’ll really have to live with a 15th village in Newton.
Matt, going to the council meetings and commenting publicly has always been the best way to be a part of any policy change or city process. Next would be emailing the council as a whole and contacting your Ward counselor. V14 is a good place to hash out ideas and discuss with other residents what is going on in Newton. Most of the councilors read V14, some brave one’s comment, but I think it would be a small part of their decision making process.
Either I am confused or you are about the meaning of your comment.
“50/50 split” – Northland’s proposal is so large and complicated that I cannot imagine there would be a room with half for or against the entire proposal. Surely it was more nuanced than that with some residents expressing ideas to make the project better – none of the “great ideas” from this post were expressed?
“Appeal to the council to do the right thing” – which “right thing?” Surely at this point, the right thing is to listen to as many stakeholders as possible, ask relevant questions to those involved and interject your ideas to make the project better.
Newton and it’s residents need to be the winners in any development. Greg would win what? Congrats from the chamber?
Northland will make money either way since it owns the land. Newton’s electeds, with resident input, need to help shape the proposal so that the area is developed in a way that best benefits Newton.
Matt – Are you saying that unless you show up at the endless number of meetings, then your voice doesn’t count? That’s troubling, given that any of the conference rooms hold about 30-40 people, with standing room only at that. The Council Chambers holds several hundred. That’s several hundred out of 55,000 registered voters.
I’m very active in he community, but at this point, I’m frankly sick of attending counteless hearings and meetings about every initiative that the mayor proposes or the city council must approve. Maybe it sounds crazy, but I work on political campaigns in support of candidates whom I believe will study issues thoughtfully and thoroughly and make the best decision for the city based on that. I don’t think it’s asking too much to ask the people we voted into office mak the wisest decision in their estimation on a development. I’m happy to let elected officials know my thinking, but the situation has gotten out of hand when a call to arms goes out to proponents and/or opponents of some initiative or another every week.
@marty: my “50/50” comment referred to the public attendeee and comments at the meeting. If I never read the comments here on V14 or spoke to the friends and neighbors in Upper Falls and Newton, it would seem as though an equal number of folks believe the current proposal on the table is fine as is.
@jane: yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. While the room can not hold “everyone” the current number of people showing up is a far cry from the number of people concerned with scale and density of the current proposed plan. People of written their Councilors. There’s at least a few hundred names collected by Rightsize Newton and other sources. Far more than “30-40”. Northland’s drop from 822 to 800 is less than 3% after holding firm at 822 for about a year. Passively communication to elected officials does not work.
And as the marijuana debate proved….showing up at these meetings matter. Certain councilors have even said this privately (if not publicly).
And as the cannabis vote proved, a small vocal group doesn’t necessarily represent the majority.
….because we got to vote! Not the case here.
These guys showed up though.
https://twitter.com/newtonvillages/status/1106337107864371201?s=21