This is a guest blog post submitted by Newton resident Richard Rasala, a retired Professor and Associate Dean in the Khoury College of Computer and Information Science at Northeastern.
For convenience, there is also a web site with these links and with links to the Newton official sites for Zoning Redesign and for the Washington Street Vision:
This document is the personal work of the author, Richard Rasala. During its writing, it was influenced by a number of citizens quite active in zoning and building issues in Newton.
Richard Rasala is a member of the Newton Corner Neighborhood Association. The NCNA supports this document.
There’s a lot there but the biggest takeaways are these recommendations for hard zoning limits:
The building scale principles that we would suggest for the Washington St corridor from Crafts St to West Newton center are:
1. Buildings of up to four stories are approved.
2. Buildings of five stories may be approved by special permit.
3. Buildings of six stories or higher are denied.
4. No special permits may be granted to allow buildings six stories or higher.
You will notice that we are willing to concede buildings of up to five stories even though many in the community might prefer an even lower cap of four stories. What we ask of the city in return is to concede that buildings of six stories or higher will be prohibited.
In addition to limits on the number of stories for buildings in the Washington St corridor from Crafts St to West Newton center, there are needs to be maximum height limits. We suggest:
The maximum height of any building in the Washington St corridor from Crafts St to West Newton center should be 80 feet.
This work will almost certainly take home top prize at the 2019 NIMBY Awards. It displays practically no understanding behind the economics of development, would cost Newton tens of million$ per year in lost revenue, hundreds of lost housing units, and would virtually ensure no new buildings would ever be built on the air-rights over the Mass Pike.
Concerning the comment of Mike Striar:
The document strongly recommends that there be OTHER moderately scaled development sites in Newton besides Washington St, Riverside, Needham St. Six “obvious” potential locations are the neighborhoods close to the other six Riverside line T stops in Newton. Additional potential locations in Newton might be considered. The additional locations can make up the housing “lost” from turning massive developments into developments more moderate in scale.
I do not see that those on Washington St are the ones taking a NIMBY approach if they are willing to go with buildings of 5 stories and up to 80 feet. This is much taller than what is currently on the Washington St corridor from Crafts St to West Newton.
I argue that the rest of Newton should step up and accept moderate development as well.
@Richard many people in “the rest of Newton” welcome more development but our antiquated zoning code often prohibits it. 5 stories is not “much taller” than what currently exists along the Washington St. corridor. The Masonic building in Newtonville is 5 stories. The former church building across the street is 4 stories, not counting the steeple which probably brings it closer to 6 or 7. Many other buildings along the corridor are 4 stories. I hope that you’ll support new development that accomplishes what we need to accomplish which is to build housing for people near transit and amenities and supports a more walkable Newton.
Richard Rasala represents many people who live onNewton’s north side. I applaud his suggestions to limit height and housing
density.
No matter how many millions are not realized, the people of Newton get a say in how our city transforms itself.
Our city is an old historic community. Many of us live here
because we like our special way of life. We don’t want to see more
of the ugly buildings like 28 Austin St.
We want high standards of design and workmanship. In fact the revenue from growth is less than the long term financial cost
to home owners, especially on the north side.
Thank you Richard for your leadership in opposition to the wrong
kind of development for Newton.
@Colleen what is the right kind of development for Newton?
@Brendan Keegan,
Didn’t Newton just update its zoning code (like just now)? In what way would you say Newton zoning is antiquated?
Also I’m scratching my head at your church steeple comment. There are radio towers in Newton that are taller than 5 stories, too. They have no bearing on the discussion either.
@Dulles the city is in the process of updating the zoning code and actually pushed it off because the council has so much on its plate. I think your second comment illustrates my point. It’s not so much the height that people have a problem with it’s the height of certain types of buildings. We have tall radio towers, churches, etc. but once you say it’s a building where people want to live or work suddenly it’s a problem. We can build taller than 4 stories, house people, and mitigate impacts to city services and traffic. Part of the solution is eliminating parking requirements and building within walking distance to transit plus requiring that developers provide community amenities.
It’s not just the number of units in the town, it’s the density.
I live on the North side of Newton, within 1/2 mile of the Auburndale twin center, and I favor concentrating development here.
With more people in larger buildings in direct proximity to town centers (Auburndale, West Newton, Newtonville, Newton Corner, and now Riverside) we may reach the tipping point where we get the full variety of stores, services, and amenities that are supported by local foot traffic beyond the bodegas, banks, nail/beauty salons, and dry cleaners – three things where people usually just shop wherever it’s closest.
If you put an apartment building or two in Waban or Newton Highlands I suspect you might get another nail salon there. If we started with a six+ story building over the empty lot(s) at Auburndale Square we might get a new restaurant or two (I’m thinking there might be a market for fast-casual, like a Panera or burrito place) and some other interesting shops/services – a specialty grocer, urgent care clinic, stationary/book/crafts store, flex workspace, or anyone else who thinks they can make a go of it.
With greater population density there’s more appetite for commercial/retail space. I believe adding dozens of units to a dense area is going to generate more demand for (and production of) commercial space than adding it to a sparse area. And commercial taxes are higher than residential – so if we can get more commercial development for the same residential development, that’s better for Newton.
I moved here because we couldn’t afford the city (Brookline) and we had kids so the schools are important to us. But I miss the services I could get there. (And I miss the two produce stores, fishmonger, handbag store, futon store, both karaoke parlors, cheap soba counter, and futon/bedding store I walked past on the kilometer home when I lived in the ‘suburbs’ of Tokyo – all the buildings along the main road were 2-4 stories, with the occasional 10-15 story apartment tower)
[Note, while I work for the MBTA, this is my personal opinion. It was made without consideration of the Agency’s position(s) on development and/or Transit Oriented Development (TOD).]
Anne,
It great that you enjoy increased density and large rows of stores. But what about the majority of folks who chose to live in Newton for the low density, quiet, village-like feel? They have lived here decades, Newton never pretended to be anything else.
If I wanted to live in a more “happening” pace, I would simply sacrifice or earn more money) and move to such place. I don’t expect everyone around me to change because of what I want
By the way, if the higher density was contingent with a ‘indigo’ commuter rail line, I would gladly accept the increase density because every resident will benefit with less driving. What we get now is nothing in return
Bugek,
I would argue that the decades of deferred maintenance under mayor Cohen coupled with a lack of overrides, that newton wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Arlington and Lexington – two other cities we seriously considered, both had (have?) significantly higher taxes than Newton both by rate and for the median house. My friends in Arlington support their frequent, smaller, overrides.
We had a mayoral candidate propose that if we were going to stay a bedroom community we would need to pass overrides to do so. I voted for Amy Sangilio on the basis of that internally consistent, fiscally sound, stance.
She didn’t make it out of the primary. No one wanted to hear that if you’re a bedroom community you need to tax those bedrooms. — Both Lennon and Fuller support some version of ‘smart growth’ to get (all?) the revenue Newton needs.
Newton seems to have voted with it’s wallet. Now we need to determine where to allow that growth by right, so that it’s easier/cheaper for developers to do that than to buy a property and negotiate a special permit/include affordable units.
When making that decision I want anyone reading the discussion to know that while there are many vocal opponents of development – I’ve heard repeatedly about it getting “dumped” North of the pike – I live north of the pike, and I welcome it.
I am not able to respond to your comments on Indigo line (per the MBTA social media policy for employees), but I will note that the capital plan for FY20-24 should be publically available through mbta.com in the coming weeks. There is also a website with public information on the future of our commuter rail system.
[This post is a personal statement/opinion. It is not an official communication of the MBTA]
Anne, I live 4 houses north of the pike, and I don’t welcome it. So where does that leave us? Us vs them. Pro development vs anti development.
It’s easy for people to label those who want some limits – and I think what is proposed is just that – as anti development.
So, what is the limit? Say on Washington Street. Do a thought experiment.
The Washington place building is going to be 5 stories.
Why not
6?
7?
8?
9?
10?
15?
20?
Sound ridiculous? Well think about it. Which of those is too much for you, and why? Or is nothing to much? 50 stories?
I’m serious. Everyone think about what their own “ludicrous height” would be.
Thanks for the “thought experiment”!
My document chooses the limits of 5 stories maximum and 80 feet in height.
Although some might prefer even lower limits, I think these are limits that we could live with over time.
For those who prefer larger limits, what are the limits and what is the rationale?
Also, if the main reasons are (1) large amounts of housing and (2) large tax revenues for the city, please explain why the associated burdens should fall solely on Washington St, Riverside, and Needham St rather than on the city as a whole.
Richard rasala,
The burdens falls on a select few areas because that is the only way it could pass. Name one councilor (sitting or running) who is pounding the table publically to build high density housing in waban and newton centre (T access)?
Wouldn’t the newton chamber of commerce love 10 story rental blocks walking distance to Waban T stop? They should be shouting from the roof tops for it to happen
@Bugek: I’d look forward to seeing high density projects proposed for Newton Centre, Waban and, my village, Newton Highlands. (And I’m deeply disappointed about those hideous townhouses that were built at the corner or Beacon and Chestnut instead of the larger project that was briefly discussed.)
Hopefully some new proposals will come for those villages. We can benefit from more housing diversity city wide. And I’m confident that a majority of south side city councilors would support growth there too.
On and, yes, we get it. You have a major chip on your shoulder because you perceive that all the development projects are happening on Newton’s north side. You do realize that Northland and Riverside are on the south, right? Why aren’t you shouting from the rooftops in support of Northland and Riverside?
To those who say that they bear an unfair burden because development is concentrated in their neighborhoods miss the larger point. By denying this dense development you deprive the rest of Newton of the tax revenue and access to amenities that these developments will provide. The Indigo line is not currently in the plans for Riverside, but with a residential population living steps from the station, this possibility becomes realistic because there is a demand. Keeping the site as a parking lot for 1,000 cars will ensure that the Indigo line never gets built and the improved connections to the Charles River never see the light of day.
I moved to Newton for being part of a suburban neighborhood. I didn’t want an urban neighborhood. I like neighborhood schools. I live within walking distance of the Eliot T Stop and Newton Highlands center. I don’t want large buildings, or I would have moved to Cambridge, Brookline or Boston. I hate that driving on Chestnut Street is bumper to bumper traffic during the day from September through June. Needham Street is a parking lot on weekends. And even if we put large buildings up on Needham Street and Riverside it is still going to increase traffic. Riverside doesn’t have a local grocery store or CVS currently.
And often modest single family homes are torn down and replaced with a $2M mansion or three townhomes. We are becoming a more densely populated city.
@NewtonMom Riverside doesn’t have a grocery store because it’s currently a parking lot. With a dense development on the site, including housing and commercial activity, a grocery store and drug store would be viable. Then you wouldn’t have to drive to Needham St. to go grocery shopping. You could walk to the store, or ride a bike along Grove st. on the separated bike path.
The reason why there is so much traffic in Newton is that the city developed to be car-oriented. There were once streetcars and the population was much smaller. Towns west of Newton had less population and Newton was affordable. My mother bought her house in 1978 as a single woman on the salary she earned as a college professor at Mass Art. How many young professors could afford to buy a house in Newton now? Over the past 30 years Newton has resisted development so people are forced to move farther and farther away from Boston. The MBTA has been underfunded and resisted (Red line to Arlington? Green line to Needham?) and is not practical for most people outside of commuting to work and even then is not for people who have children in school. Now we are in a situation where we have an opportunity to start to reverse the poor decision making of the past and create a more livable city by providing opportunities for more people to live and work. Imagine if you could walk to your job at an office in the Riverside complex or on Washington St.? Walk to a mom and pop grocery store or cafe? Or your children could afford a condo in a building down the street from your house? Or you could walk to a concert, play or reading? This is the future I and many people are advocating for.
@Greg,
I would certainly question Riverside being on the south side of the City….
@Whole Truth: Which measure do you use to decide if something is north or south? The Pike? Comm Ave.? High school assignment? How upset Bugek is about it?
Brenden
I guess your response only sounds offensive to people who live on the north side.
Perhaps we should also build a giant garbage facility on the north side for the whole of Newton to use. We would be selfish if we ever opposed that too…right?
“By denying this dense development you deprive the rest of Newton of the tax revenue and access to amenities that these developments will provide”
@Bugek it’s ridiculous to equate these developments with a garbage dump. The Riverside proposal alone will give the city ~$2 million per year. How much tax revenue would a garbage dump generate? How many grocery stores, community centers, transit-accessible apartments would a garbage dump create?
Also, what is the line between north and south? Is it Comm. Ave.? Washington? Beacon? We need to stop thinking in terms of north vs. south and start thinking as a community in terms of what is good for the long term health of the city and its residents.
I have never viewed Newton has purely suburban to begin with. The suburbs where I grew up had sprawling housing developments, shopping centers upon shopping centers, and little walkability. We chose Newton because we didn’t want the kind of soulless suburbs where we grew up and saw the north side of Newton as a good combination of urban and suburban. I know that some neighborhoods of Newton are more suburban than others, but my time is mostly spent in West Newton/Newtonville/Newton Corner/Nonantum which has always been fairly dense and somewhat urban to begin with.
Anyway, I welcome the development as long as the schools and infrastructure can handle it and I hope we can improve MBTA service to support it as well.
Definitely not high school assignment, since that can change – Williams School (the lower Auburndale and Lower Falls neighborhoods) were (very unhappily) redistricted to South a while back. But these are still northside neighborhoods. Personally, if there’s a line, I think it’s kind of Comm Ave to 16 to the Wellesley line.
Rick Frank, on your question, “how many stories?”, I’ll bite.
I think there is a preoccupation with the number of stories or heights of buildings. That isn’t to say those factors aren’t important at all. It’s just that those particular numbers get way too much attention (and draw attention away from truly critical issues).
Those statistics are an imperfect surrogate for the things that we all agree matter, which include “does the development interact well with its neighbors and its municipality?” and “is the development visually appealing?” and “does the development take more than it gives?”
I appreciate Richard Rasala’s thoughtful deep dive into the zoning proposals, his interest in finding a standard that is a starting point for discussion across Newton, and his willingness to try and find a middle way. It will be interesting to see how many people feel his compromise is viable.
But I am somewhat disappointed that his bullet point conclusions are all about height. We can have an undesirable one- or two-story building and an incredibly useful six story building.
Especially for properties abutting Washington Street, in the sections currently occupied by auto glass dealerships and single story structures, who will notice the difference between a five story building or a six story building with the top floor set back? A pedestrian can’t even see the extra floor. Will such a building really offend the sensibilities of drivers moving past them any more than the current parking lots do now?
Similarly, Richard raises the question of maximum height, echoing several other opinions that have been raised in public discussion. But again, a “one size fits all” number has limited use. Concerns have been raised that even three story building will be extremely high because the zoning proposals limit floor height, not building height. (The reason the zoning draft does so is to reduce the monotony of adjacent structures.) But those concerns assume that developers have as an end goal to build taller buildings. *Why* would they want a sixty foot high three story building? It goes completely against development economics. We’re consuming much of the oxygen in the room worrying about an unlikely hypothetical rather than nailing down the more critical details.
My observation is that regular people in regular situations just don’t notice the absolute height or number of stories of buildings. They do notice if a building overshadows another property, or if it doesn’t interface well with a neighborhood, or if it overloads infrastructure (traffic, sewer, schools, etc), or if it looks ugly, or if it doesn’t provide much to the community.
*Those* factors have real impact, and they are only somewhat related to the hot button height numbers. And half of those factors have more to do with the use of the building than the building design itself.
So, back to Rick’s question: How many floors? My answer: that shouldn’t be your first question.
@Brenden, why advocate for dense housing in Newton Center? After all, the convenience of the T is right there. The Newton Center parking lot could be replaced with dense, affordable housing.
I attended one of Newton City Councilor Brenda Noel’s office hours, where she explained that dense housing is not appropriate for Newton Center because it’s a ‘historic district’. It’s unclear to me why she deems all of Newton Center ‘historic’. (I’d really appreciate it if someone could enlighten me on that point.)
Do you agree that putting dense housing in Newton Center would be a great way to start “thinking as a community in terms of what is good for the long term health of the city and its residents”?
I’ll bite on height:
For village centers that are actual city centers I’m ok with a limited number (up to 2 or 3) 10-12, or even 15 story residential towers.
I think then, that all other construction should in the center itself can have a limit of 5-6 stories.
I really dislike the current trend of massive boxy developments styled to look like pseudo townhouses – think the Mews in Waltham – and I’d rather have a mix of some much higher towers, and then 5-6 story mixed use in the center and 2-3 story residential on the far sides of roads facing the center or on the rear of block as it transitions to the existing residential neighborhoods.
[These are my personal opinions, made without reference to the positions of the MBTA.]
@Greg,
I’ve lived in Newton my entire life and that section of the City has always been “north”. The City did re-district the Williams School to Newton South for reasons I will never understand.
So for me, the split has always been Comm Ave and then anything east of Washington St from Comm to 128. But truthfully, I like the Bugek suggestion best!
I originally moved to Newton to get away from lower Manhattan. From the above, though, it’s starting to look like that was probably pretty stupid.
@ Mike Hall
I appreciate very much your willingness to take the issues I present in my document on Scale of Buildings seriously. I would therefore like to respond as thoughtfully as I can to your comments.
On page 8 of my document, I include a screen snapshot of Table 2.1 District Summary Table that is taken from the Zoning Code document of 4/22/19 on page 2-19 = page 29 in the PDF.
When I looked at the images corresponding to District 6 Station Area Commercial (SACOM) and District 7 Station Area Center (SACEN), my reaction (both immediate and after careful thought) was that the building complexes portrayed there are much, much too massive and tall. My determination was then to look at the details of the zoning code to find out where and how such buildings might be permitted by the code and what adjustments to the rules might be made.
In contrast, the images corresponding to districts 1-4 seemed quite reasonable.
The other district, District 5 Village Gateway (VY), portrayed a rendering that to me was just on the borderline between possibly OK and too massive.
My feeling about zoning code is similar to what I know professionally about computer code. If limits are set then someone will push things to those limits.
To find out what limits were being set, I needed to examine the details about 26 building types spread over 26 pairs of two-page summaries.
The results of this analysis are captured in 2 tables in my document.
On page 16, I show the maximum number of stories for each building type. This takes detailed study since in some cases the maximum is the same for all districts and in other cases the maximum varies by district. The MAX STORY column shows the final result.
On page 20, I show the maximum height of buildings for each building type. The computation is carried so far as the maximum number of stories that a particular building type may have as determined by the table on page 16. The zoning code specifies two parameters for each building type, name, the maximum height of floor #1 and the maximum height of any upper floor. It is then a simple spreadsheet computation to compute the maximum height at each story value for each building type.
The results are to me scary.
General Midrise: Maximum Height = 146 feet
Commercial Midrise: Maximum Height = 151 feet
Lab Building: Maximum Height = 153 feet
I think that the actual data of what is permitted undermine your dismissal of actual height as an important issue. I think that the rules need to change to prevent excessive height.
By the way the maximum height of an upper story is normally 10, 12, or 14 with one exception of a Lab Building where the maximum height is 16. Hence, the idea of 3 story building with a story height of 20 feet is something of a straw man.
Going back to the images portrayed in the district table, there is precious little step back on the Washington St frontage of the buildings. Any step back occurs occurs on the back of a building facing the residential neighborhood. The height that the zoning permits will be the height that people will see if they walk, bike, or drive along Washington St.
I thought long and hard about the rules I propose of a 5 story maximum and an 80 feet maximum in height. These rules fit 24 of the building types immediately and with small changes in first floor height will fit the remaining 2 building types.
I had many discussions in email with community members. Many urged me to recommend a maximum of 4 stories and 64 feet. Although this fits the current character of Washington St better, I felt that it left no wiggle room for development. On the other hand, no one was willing to consider a maximum of 6 stories and 96 feet. This was absolutely off the table for the community.
I therefore have what I consider to be a reasonable proposal of a maximum of 5 stories and a maximum of 80 feet.
Those who would suggest a maximum of 6 stories or higher should seriously address the height data in the table on page 20 of my document.
@Mike Halle – I believe Richard Rasala was focusing on proposing specific hard limits in the zoning code. All the issues you mention are important for a particular development but they are hard to legislate in a zoning code – “ugly buildings are prohibited”
Agree with Mike Halle’s thought that when we’re talking about things like maximum stories/height those don’t exist in a bubble. It’s not an absolute, set in stone number but more a slider that can be adjusted up or down to a degree depending on how much supporting infrastructure we’re willing to throw at the problem.
To leverage the Brookline example – the denser part of the town has both the C line running along Beacon St and the D line to the south. It also directly borders Boston’s core. The density works because of those factors and also plummets as soon as you move out of the green line range. So could we scale up Riverside -> Auburndale -> Newtonville to mirror eastern Brookline? Sure, but we would need the supporting transit options like they have.
If we don’t want to or can’t make that happen, fine, but that also means we can’t support a spike in density without turning the northern villages into Newton’s version of I93 in terms of traffic. Transit infrastructure is an enabler that could scale density up but it has to be part of the plan, not a wait and see after everything is built up. We can’t throw up 18 stories in Riverside, a number of midrises on Washington and then knock on wood that the MBTA’s vision plan lands on the urban rail option.
As it stands with what we have today? I’d tend to err towards Richard’s recommended numbers. I think five may be a bit low on the maximum, maybe adjust up both the by-right and by-SP numbers. Throw the Indigo Line into the equation and you can crank the density up to 11, but that also leads into an argument as to whether that’s the direction we want to take for the northern villages. Personally I would gladly take the density if it comes with the Indigo Line but I don’t know how popular an opinion that is.
Jerry, I agree that’s what Richard is doing, and that height is clearly something that can be legislated easily. But that doesn’t mean height itself is anywhere near as meaningful as people seem to make out. And that also means that regulating it may not do what you want it to do.
And yes, you can’t legislate ugly away directly, but the zoning proposals (and most new zoning proposals throughout the US) have numerous elements to at least reduce monotony (e.g., encouraging as of right development by independent smaller property owners, encouraging different roof shapes, allowing floor-to-floor variations, etc). There’s a lot of good intention drawn from experience in other towns and cities throughout the US in the document. Those details deserve attention and debate; instead we get stuck on height.
Richard, you say “the idea of 3 story building with a story height of 20 feet is something of a straw man”. I agree. I bring this idea up becaause the latest Unite! West Newton flyer regarding Hello Washington St says: “By right a 3 story building could be 61 feet tall in the village centers. Because the stories themselves can be higher than is typical, such a building could be as tall as an older building of 5 or 6 stories.” While this might be a factual assessment of what is permitted, for it to be actually scary I think there needs to be some evidence that any developer would choose, or has ever chosen, to build such a building.
Height isn’t an end in itself. Height costs money. There has to be a reason for it (“a driving force”). Are there any of these beanstalk building anywhere? If we need to put a maximum height on these buildings, fine. But I’m unconvinced this is anything more than a hypothetical problem. I welcome examples, though!
You say, “I think that the actual data of what is permitted undermine your dismissal of actual height as an important issue.” I’m saying that the height of realistic buildings (not hypothetical beanstalk buildings as above) is in general not that significant to a strolling pedestrian or passing driver. Are people hankering to level the Newton Masonic Hall because it’s too tall? No. Do you notice its height while walking on Walnut St? If it were a story taller, would you notice it walking down Walnut St? (You do notice the massing on Newtonville Ave, but that’s a very different street, and it would be noticeable even if it were only three stories tall there. The height isn’t the primary problem.)
I will reiterate: there *is* a practical limit to development size. It depends on a bunch of stuff, height isn’t a great surrogate for it, and if we get stuck on height we might miss discussing other important factors.
Many people rightly come back to the question, why develop? For me, as a West Newton resident looking out for my interests, the ability to have new stores and services near me (walkable, bikeable, reachable by driving to one location and walking safely to multiple destinations, or having local delivery) is extremely appealing. To have those stores and services staying in business by serving a healthy population of customers who live or work a short walk away from them is both appealing and hopeful to me. To have those residents and workers close to our village centers and able to patronize our existing business offers hope for beloved neighborhood institutions that seem to be hanging on by a thread.
The right density and economics make that happen, and that analysis is mostly missing in Richard’s work (though Richard, you do acknowledge the need for this flexibility!).
To have new development designed to be universally accessible, connected by civic infrastructure that emphasizes accessibility and safety for all appeals to me. To have community benefits come out of development like a revitalized Cheesecake Brook, new pedestrian-friendly routes, or improvements to transit seem like opportunities to be investigated, and perhaps pursued. Or how about 10,000 new trees on the north side? Let’s think creatively about those benefits and set high expectations.
And finally, I note that families are the core of much of Newton’s strong community. For those of us with kids, they bind us together. They give us opportunities to talk to each other. In a world where we are increasingly isolated, new housing with families (in combination with singles and couples across all ages) in sufficient density to build new community only enhances what makes (and has always made) Newton great. We need to plan for the costs and impacts and mitigate the negatives, but they can’t drive us away from being the welcoming and open community that we are.
Newton is not a bubble. We cannot operate as if we are entirely separate from the housing pressures around us.
When people ask “why develop” the answer is pretty simple: we must. We must because of the Boston region’s housing shortage and we must because of climate change. And it needs to happen now because we spent the last half-century NOT developing. Keep in mind, the last hotel to be built in Newton emerged in the early 1970s. Waltham and Needham have both proven there is a market for that. Housing goes up in Waltham, Watertown, Needham, and Brookline, but we stand still. We are behind, and this pressure is going to just continue to build.
The problem with the Rasala proposal is that it doesn’t take economic pressures into account. Needham tried putting restrictive zoning in at what they now call Needham Crossing and nothing got built. They had to change in order to attract development. We cannot put arbitrary restrictions in place just because we want them, we need to make smart decisions that not only meet the community needs but also attract the development we want.
What do we want? Read the Hello Washington Street study, they asked the right questions, we gave them our answers. We told them our values and desires, and they returned an image of what those desires look like when applied in a modern business context. Yes, the buildings are potentially tall because that gives us the life we want. Everything is a tradeoff.
But most importantly, we need rental housing. We need it because there are people out there who want it and we need those people in our community. People who will add to our vitality, bring foot traffic, lower our average age and diversify our population.
Developers continue to call us the city of “no.” That’s what Camoin found when it was doing research for the city’s economic development study. That makes us the ultimate NIMBY community.
These developers (good ones, who are doing amazing work in other cities) refuse to do business here, only the most determined are willing to go through the gauntlet we’ve created. If we want a competitive landscape where we can choose among different proposals, then we need to start saying “yes.”
Chuck distorts the problem regarding dense development.
There were several potential developers who submitted designs
for 28 Austin St. Many designs were more appropriate for the site.
Setti Warren chose the final winner, Scott Oran.
Scott built too many units. The final design is ugly and does not enhance the village at all. Scott leases the land at a fraction of the cost to the city tax payers.
How was that a good deal. We could have had a smaller, more attractive building. This should not be our standard for housing development.
@mike
“Those statistics are an imperfect surrogate for the things that we all agree matter, which include “does the development interact well with its neighbors and its municipality?” and “is the development visually appealing?” and “does the development take more than it gives?”
these items are too difficult to codify- height is something more objective. Visually appealing? I for one haven’t seen a new development anywhere that’s visually appealing- those hideous boxes on Arsenal street are some of the ugliest buildings I’ve ever seen. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for Austin Street, it’s too close to the road. Stand and look west down Austin street. The new development is closer to the street than any other building. Good architecture take the landscape of the site into account.
As far as development for walking to retail, retail is in such distress I wouldn t count on anything retail moving in with foot traffic alone.
I suggest everyone read this article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-san-francisco-broke-americas-heart/2019/05/21/ef9a0ac0-70ea-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html
and be careful what you wish for.
Upthread, Sue wrote:
Can anyone shed any light on this? It seems hard to believe she would say this given that there are a few buildings on Washington St that are part of the West Newton Village Historic District that are proposed for demolition (most notably, to me at least, the beautiful Breznisk Rodman funeral chapel.)
I am also surprised to see what Sue has said were Brenda Noel’s thoughts about housing in Newton Centre. I have met with her at office hours as well and she has presented herself as extremely pro housing and pro density. Hopefully she can weigh in.
@Sue yes, I would love to see more dense housing in Newton Centre. There are already some apartment buildings, but there is an opportunity for more. Right now, there are many neighborhoods around Newton Centre that are zoned for single family, which means dense housing cannot be built in those neighborhoods. Look at the recent developments on Beacon St. near the post office. Both are two-family townhouses within a 5 minute walk of the T. These should be at least 4 units. It’s the city zoning code that needs to change in order to get the housing that will support vibrant, walkable village centers.
From a history point of view, I would humbly point out that the Newton Centre parking lot was the home to the Mason School, a lovely huge brick building, until the 1950’s. I’m sure longer-time residents than myself remember it.
And zoning reform *should* look at new opportunities throughout the city, with due sensitivity to neighborhoods everywhere. But land value and availability, as much as zoning, steer development, at least in the short term. There happen to be a reasonable number of large parcels of relatively inexpensive land on the north side.
Hi folks-
Sorry- late to the party- really busy week at my day job and city budget work most nights this week.
@ Sue- maybe you are thinking of someone else? Newton Centre is ripe for development and increased density and I dream of the day we can explore alternatives to the Newton Centre parking lot triangle. My website clearly states how I think about housing- http://www.brendafornewton.com and I posted a position paper and sent out a newsletter on the zoning redesign that the city is embarking on, on this very site a few months, (not to fire you all up again) ago.https://village14.com/2019/02/12/newtons-zoning-reform-addressing-race-class-and-the-future-of-our-city/#axzz5ogMdL7Bh
And finally- I have been accused of many things- but never of advocating for Historic Districts- I think there are a handful of regulars on this site that can vouch for me on that!
I’m underwater today- email me directly if you want to chat. [email protected]
best,
Brenda
Phew! For a day, I was worried that our Councilor Noel had been abducted and replaced with a city councilor from Stepford, Connecticut.
I know @Brenda Noel plenty well enough to be certain that @Sue’s post is not true. So much for first-hand accounts.
I am all for more mixed-use development in the village centers, with emphasis on affordable units, rentals, limited parking, and access to transit. I am happy to go well above five stories if the plan makes sense.
As I recall, councilor Noel spoke clearly about the need to pass
a rezoning package for the entire city.
She was not specific about Newton Centre.
Newtonville has 2 new dense housing developments which
Brenda approves. Thus she would likely advocate for at least
2 such developments in her town village. Six stories on the municipal parking lot could be possible. Next someone like Korff
could pay millions for all the Union St shops. Demolish them
and build a 6 story mixed use complex adjacent to the train line.
I wonder what people in Ward 6 would re-elect Ms. Noel?
@Colleen- so close- I am actually working with Korf on installing a Ferris wheel in Newton Centre….
all kidding aside- enough with the development scare tactics…we are better then this.
Brenda,
It would be good to add a key bullet item on the front page of your website:
Goal to build multiple developments of high density AFFORDABLE mixed used housing in Newton centre near the T.
Let the voters decide and we can all move on after the election.
Councilor Noel,
All kidding aside, what is your vision for Newton Centre?
Newtonville has 2 new housing structures. What would you
approve in your Ward? If rezoning passes, very large buildings could replace all the shops on Union Street by right.
The money is out there. Korff is not the only developer with access
to millions of cash. You say we could do better. What is your idea of better?
Ok team-I need to focus on the budget materials for tonight’s city council meeting but let me try one more time to be as specific as I can be.
The City Council is not in the business of proposing development. We make policy and support zoning that reflects the values and vision of the City we represent. (You may not agree with our representation, but that does not mean we are not representing our constituents.) Zoning codes define opportunities for developers to propose projects that meet the criteria of the approved zoning code. Without a project in front of me in Newton Centre I can’t comment on what I would or would not approve. (But I think I have put enough on the record for you to get a sense of what I look for in a project I would approve.) As I am sure you aware, nothing is simple, whatever project is before me will certainly need to be reviewed and most likely improved upon by the DRT, Land Use and then the larger City Council. That is as far as I can take this thread right now- off to prepare for tonight.
Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to share my perspective and your interest in Newton Centre.
best,
Brenda
We’ve lived in Newton for the past 8 years and like someone mentioned above, I too miss some of the diversity in stores, amenities and walk ability like a Brookline. And like many, the home prices in Brookline can be quite restrictive. But I’ll tell you what we did not do… we did not trade home ownership for a Brookline apartment.
If the recent proposals by big development have their way, the majority of Newton households would be renters…living in their properties, where they hold the majority of political clout with the Mayor and City Council.
So…I would gladly support some density if it meant providing a means for people to PURCHASE affordable homes in Newton.
Northland and other developers enjoying playing the race card against Newton residents and calling us NIMBY and excluding others. Well, a rent check is all the same no matter who signs it.
@Matt why do you prefer homeowners over renters? “Playing the race card?” Are you saying that you only want certain races to live in Newton? There are many residents, myself included, who are supportive of Northland, Riverside and the new developments on Washington St. and Newtonville. Should we stop participating in the METCO program as well? Maybe there should be some kind of fee or test to vote in city elections?
There are currently around 31,000 households in the city, according to Newton demographic data. 800 or 1000 apartments is not going to suddenly create some sort of renter political bloc that will transform the city. Newton already has many renters. They rent for a variety of reasons. I’m curious why you are set against welcoming more people to our city who cannot afford million dollar homes.
Matt
To be fair to the developers, they are not the ones playing cards…
Their focus is to make maximum profit by any legal means (includes lobbying). They are very fortunate to have found a city hellbent on social engineering.
The city has found a genius way to push this forward.. to focus the density in select areas so the majority can support and avoid changes in their own local back yard. Nimby but yet not nimby
.. well played, well played
Guys…I would LOVE for a more diverse base of neighbors. My primary point is this….
…ownership is the pathway to many wonderful things. Why is that that affordable is only referenced relating to apartments???
Everywhere else is offering affordable housing assistance for PURCHASE!
The path that Northland and others have chosen are rentals only – increasing their clout in the next evolution of Newton…and diluting if not marginalizing those who already live and own here.
If we’re going to say we’re “welcoming of others”, let’s put our money where our mouths are.
@Brendan….if you were offered the opportunity to purchase in Newton, at an affordable rate, would you do it?
All are welcome, brother.
If anyone on the Council is reading…challenge Northland to make 1/2 or more of the 125 affordable units for purchase. Will they put their money where their (rhetoric) is?
Here’s a thought – if the city is serious about density they could remove R1 completely from zoning redesign. Convert everything zoned R1 to R2, that maintains single-family districts but also allows for density growth via the smaller lot and dimensional requirements. Additionally the city could rezone -all- of the transit stops to R3/R4 to increase multi-family housing. That potentially diversifies -all- types of housing stock and also spreads the impact across the city instead of just the northern tip and Upper Falls. There’s more than one way to solve this problem besides three giant developments, but that also means spreading the consequences around and I’m guessing that’s a much more difficult discussion to have.
Patrick,
We know from experience that waban and newton centre will never allow increased affordable density… just look at what happened to mayor setti warren. His political career literally died because he went against Waban $$
Matt, home ownership has advantages for some people, but also severe disadvantages. Down payments places ownership well out of the hands of many people (particularly younger people with school debt). Maintenance and upkeep is a responsibility many don’t want of have time for. Fees for condominiums take an additional financial hit. Purchasing costs and effort (inspection, etc) raise the bar for purchase even higher.
There is also a real question whether buyers with uncertain long-term plans for family and employment are best served by tying a large amount of their net worth up in a relatively illiquid investment such as a home. It’s a big gamble that many people aren’t willing to make.
On top of that, the mortgage interest deduction has now taken a big hit, taking some of the tax advantages out of owning (especially in expensive markets).
Renting provides flexibility without those hassles, without the commitment (but also without some of the investment advantages). And for people without a down payment handy (a pretty big group of ordinary people), renting is the only option.
Every person should study the advantages and disadvantages carefully based on their own circumstance. But the choice isn’t clear-cut; it’s a tradeoff of risks and long vs. short term rewards.
@mike, no doubt apartments have it’s place in the diversity of a community’s housing stock. My issue with Northland and their like is they while they speak of diversity, they offer only ONE options. 800 apartments in a village of only 1,200. Change is good, but not all at once.
@brenda, love what you said, “We make policy and support zoning that reflects the values and vision of the City we represent”. The backlash that yourself and other elected officials are hearing is that many feel they are not being heard, if not ignored.
I would love to this issue (approval of special permits) on the ballot this Fall. It was done with weed, and the upcoming decisions on Northland, Riverside and Washington will determine the demographic shift of Newton for decades to come.
It’s ok that people have differing opinions. That’s what democracy and voting is all about.
We have an economic development study commissioned by the city and approved by City Council. In it, the authors noted that most of Newton’s housing stock is of a single type and this, they said, causes problems. The suggestion is to diversify housing by using the limited stock of development opportunities in the city.
“Although not always seen as a typical economic development concern, having a diversity of housing options in Newton is vital to having a range of both employees and commercial sectors. Allowing increased variety of housing in targeted locations, different types of
housing options, and different price points ensures that Newton can be home to a range of people and that the businesses are able to get the workers they need, all of which impacts economic development.”
So to increase our commercial tax base, we need to diversify our housing stock. And that is what is currently being proposed.
This is the study that is designed to be guiding the City Council as it makes decisoins.
Has anyone else seen the “Fiscal impact” of Washington street vision… starts around Page 15
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/97290/05-28-19%20Zoning%20&%20Planning%20Agenda%20w%20memos.pdf
To summarize:
If I’m reading the summary table correctly (please correct if I’m wrong)
I think the ‘existing’ is just the number of people living along Washington street?
over 20 years…
– existing population: 1031, NEW population: 5000 to 6000
-existing public school population: 184, NEW students: 900 to 1000
– commuter rail will still NOT run frequently
– 7% increase in Newton population (88k) CONCENTRATED ONLY along just Washington street??? WTF. Am I reading this report correctly??? I must be reading it wrong
Mmmmm