The Globe’s John Hilliard explores the proposal for park decks over the Mass Turnpike in West Newton and Newtonville that’s part of the Hello Washington Street visioning process.
Under proposed zoning for the area, developers would be able to build commercial buildings of up to 10 stories by special permit, but would also have to contribute to a fund to help support construction of the park decks, as well as improvements to the city’s commuter rail stations, [City Councillor Susan Albright] said.
Very skeptical of this proposal. The developers get their 10 ft building but Newtonians have a guarantee of nothing.
10 story!!
Very skeptical, since no single developer can fund the entire deck. A developer could build 10 stories, but if not enough developers chip in the pot of money will just sit there… and likely be funneled to some totally unrelated project AFTER several 10 story building have been built..
50M for just one of the 2 desks… just not going to happen.
How much would be required per each 10 story building?
How many 10 story buildings would be permitted?
Covering the Mass Pike should be a high priority for Newton, especially in Newtonville, where it slices the village center in half. It would be amazing if parts of this monstrosity turned into nice public spaces.
Love the idea of a park deck over the highway; this reduces the number of heat spots in our city (a la Climate Action Plan)
It makes good public use of that space.
It gives back to communities, and remnants of those communities, that lost their homes, etc. when the pike was rebuilt. A fitting tribute at this time for the Rev Haywood, may he rest in peace.
Love the idea of funds going into the Commuter Rail stations.
Do NOT like the idea of 10-story buildings. In my opinion, there is nothing that can be a fitting tradeoff that can allow buildings that tall. Even the Wegmans/Equinox/BethIsraelDeaconess bldg in Chestnut HIll Square is no more than 4 stories tall and it’s set in a very large area so that it doesn’t crowd out all the sun for neighboring residences.
We have a lot of good parks already.
I’d rather have improvements to our public transit infrastructure for close to 100 million. And maybe accelerate fixing the deplorable bombed out roads on the north side.
Yes about the bombed out roads. Has anyone driven on Rowe Steet recently? It’s horrifying.
We don’t need developers to pay for the park deck. We can easily get Boston to pay for it within 5-6 years.
Is it true that Boston does not fully re-imburse Newton for the Metco program? Boston has multi-billion tax revenue, spends close to 20k for school per child, is home to many billionaire and they expect other towns/cities to pick up the tab for them? Note, Metco should stay.. I’m just saying Boston has more than enough revenue to pay for it… The Mayor needs to put up a fight
Send Boston the Metco bill for 5 years and we can build one of the decks.
This article claims Boston OWES us close to 8.5M a year (2014 article) for the Metco program.
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20141218/opinion/141216463
It is a mistake to assume that anything the author of that column writes is based upon actual facts. And that’s a fact.
Bugek,
The METCO Program is funded by the State of Massachusetts through the Department of Education under the Racial Imbalance Law. It’s been around since 1966 and if I’m reading you correctly (although you won’t admit it) what you really want to do is to eliminate Newton’s participation in the program.
Norman,
Absolutely not eliminate metco as explicitly stated in my post. If Newton is currently paying out of pocket to the tune of 8-20 Million a year then it should send the bill to the city of boston (they can more can easily afford it and should pay their “fair share”)
Would you offer to buy lunch for Bill Gates? Why should we?
Sorry that should be 8 to 10 million a year. The point is, if Newton wants to deck over the pike we dont have to let developers plunder our City. We have other ways to get the money if our city grows a backbone…
We could fund it within 5 years…
@Norman
“B.5. What is the difference between School Choice funding and Metco funding?
Metco is funded via state appropriation as a grant. The grant is based upon prior year enrollment. In FY14, the amount awarded to Metco school districts will be around $5,259 per pupil. This amount is comprised of an instructional allotment of $3,447 per pupil and an average transportation allotment of $1,812 per pupil.
Under the Massachusetts School Choice Program, the residential district of the student or the regional school district pays for the tuition for the student. Tuition is based on the prior year’s costs. Regular Day, Bilingual, and Occupational Education are 75% of the actual per pupil cost and are capped at $5,000. There is no limit set for Special Education; costs depend on the services called for in the student’s IEP. Transportation may be provided for School Choice students at the option of the receiving districts; the state does not provide any assistance for this cost.”
http://www.doe.mass.edu/metco/faq.html?section=b
Cost more than $5000 to educate a child in Newton.
I will just make a analogy and please let me know how this is any different:
You have a billionaire neighbor who asks you to tutor their child for a few hours, they aren’t going to pay because there is a state program which will pay $10 an hour. Your rate is $20 an hour
Since you are a nice person and afterall, they’re a neighbor you don’t ask them for the other $10. Its just a few hours
The billionaire now wants you to tutor full time, are you seriously going to tell me you are not going to ask for the other $10 from a billionaire? And BTW, you are trying to save up money to fix up your house.
Can anyone make the argument that Boston cannot afford to pay us? We have no problems helping out and are happy to do so. I guess legally they don’t need to pay? But again, legally we don’t have to amend OUR zoning to HELP Boston fix their unaffordable housing supply.
A park suspended over a major highway certainly sounds cool, but I can’t imagine it being the best use of money for our city. Aside from the cost to build, what will be the cost to maintain? Why would we expect this park to be treated any different than the countless bridges we see deteriorating from a lack of attention?
Nobody seems to care about these things when they see developers potentially footing the bill. Newton will eventually hold the liability on this risky proposal.
@Bugek: It is not “Boston’s” unaffordable housing supply that we’re trying to fix. It is ours.
Bryan
Newtons home prices are and always will be relative to boston and brookline. Their unaffordability causes ours
This is a indisputable fact
It’s a mistake to assume anything the contributors of V14 write is based upon reality. And that’s a fact.
Building parks over the MassPike may be well-intentioned, but it is also a really bad idea. Many studies on noise and air pollution near highways have been done, the results of which suggest that decking is one of the less effective mitigations for noise and pollution, while noise barriers and vegetative barriers, together with multi-story buildings close to the highway are more effective. Indeed, decking over a heavily used highway not only does not significantly reduce air pollution in the immediate area, but may actually make it worse for commuters.
In addition, based on the findings of a study done by Tufts University* in collaboration with a large number of partners as part of a Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health Study (CAFEH), parks should be located at least 700 feet away from major highways. The study recommends that “[s]ince parks can play several different roles in mitigating exposure to air pollution, air pollution levels should be considered in future siting of parks to avoid encouraging active recreation or gathering of susceptible people (especially children) in highly polluted outdoor areas, while also helping reduce exposure in contiguous residential areas. This is a large-scale tactic, but can also improve the wellbeing of entire communities if correctly implemented.”
So, leaving aside the exorbitant cost for constructing a deck, it would appear that locating a park over the MassPike would be a really bad idea, particularly for children and others who would be most likely to use them for both active and passive recreation. I am really surprised that no one picked this up during the Hello Washington Street visioning process. Whereas, on the other hand, improving access to public transit resulting in an increase in ridership along with a corresponding decrease in the number of motorists on the MassPike would be a far more effective way to reduce noise and pollution. Thus, noise barriers, vegetative buffers, and fully accessible public transit would be far better investments of both public and private resources.
*Full disclosure: I am a Tufts graduate and a proud Jumbo.
The “parks” component of this is silly. But the air-rights should be developed for commercial and residential purposes. Aesthetically, development would be a major upgrade to a highway scar that divides the city. Development would quite literally create a vibrant suburban landscape out of what is now thin air. It could also add hundreds of affordable housing units, thousands of jobs, and million$ in annual property tax revenue for the city.
The reason this idea has found no traction for decades, is that it has lacked a coordinated effort between the city, state agencies, and developers. The impetus needs to come from the mayor’s office, and development of this magnitude has some serious political downside. But Mayor Fuller would be wise to appoint a panel with the power to explore development opportunities.
I agree with everything Mike Striar said. The political challenge is whether the community will support commercial/residential development over the MassPike that will be robust enough to make it financially feasible for a developer.
I think air-rights development took a giant leap forward when Korff started buying up Washington Street properties at extraordinary prices. Now the math truly lines up with the vision.