The Lower Falls Improvement Association has proposed zoning changes for the Riverside MBTA parking lot that are supposed to encourage the creation of rentalousing in Newton. They won’t do that. The plan is a ruse to prevent any sort of development on the site.
The Lower Falls Zoning proposal is a variant on a 2013 plan that was never built. That plan failed to provide a level of development that would pay for highway improvements and the construction of a garage to replace the 935 spaces on the surface lot.
The Lower Falls zoning changes would allow an increase in housing over the 2013 proposal, but they severely limit the amount of office space allowed on the site. Offices are expected to generate revenue of $50 per space foot, compared with $4.25 for rental housing. The extra money would pay for the highway improvements and the garage.
Proponents of the Lower Falls changes present them as an alternative to a proposal by Mark Development. The developer wants to build a substantial amount of office space, a new facility to replace the Indigo Hotel, 57 condominiums and 618 rental apartments, 93 of them reserved for people with low and moderate incomes.
Single family homes in Newton are affordable only for affluent households. Rental apartments can be an alternative for people with modest incomes, but the number of rental units in the city has declined by 900 since 2010.
The City Council is now considering the Mark Development plan and the Lower Falls zoning changes. Mark Development has devised a plan that is financially sound and addresses the urgent need for greater housing choices in the city. The alternative is only an ugly, desolate parking lot.
Auburndale resident Thomas Gagen originally published this letter about proposed zoning changes at Riverside Station in the TAB. He is a longtime member of the Boston Globe’s Editorial Board.
“The alternative is only an ugly, desolate parking lot.”
This statement is the kind of false choice that is divisive, and frankly a lie. That is not the alternative.
Thomas Gagen hits the nail on the head. The zoning approved for Riverside in 2013 did not allow enough development to be financially feasible. There is no way it would support the redevelopment of the site Station parking lot now. And it is only going to get more expensive to redevelop Riverside as time goes on. So, if the City Council turns down 1.5 million square feet of development now, someone else will come back in a few years looking for two million square feet.
What Ted Hess-Mahan said.
As much as the alternate zoning proposal might appear to be ‘a reasonable compromise’, if adopted, it will result in nothing being developed on the site.
The same goes for the idea that this or any other private development should be 100% affordable.
Alternate plans that are unfeasible economically are disingenuous and need to be called out for what they are – a tactic to mislead, delay and stop anything from happening.
As I understand it the Riverside lots are a transportation terminal and profit hungry developers want to turn it into a new village. In the style of land speculators they paint a happy successful proposal.
I ask, why do we have to build a whole new village to get some affordable housing? Why not get a non-profit organization to build low/affordable housing and skip the 18 story buildings and the introduction of 1,000’s of additional automobiles onto our overcrowded roadways. Newton has a history of giving away land, so why not give it to be used for low income/affordable housing.
Now, before we start with the NIMBY and racist comments, let me say I have supported low/moderate income housing all my adult life. I wrote legislation to make it happen.
The issue is not the housing. The issue is that Newton officials do not have the skill to negotiate a reasonable development plan to include low income housing or they do not have the spirit for hard negotiation with the developers.
What Peter said. Notch.
@Allison Sharma – It’s also a bit disingenuous to frame the argument as either Mark Development’s current proposal or nothing at all, especially given the iterations that Northland has been going through in terms of changes to design. I think the LFIA counter-proposal is excessive in several areas but they also have valid concerns, and there seems to be a complete unwillingness to question anything about the developer’s proposal. If we’re looking at both of these critically there’s room for Mark Development to do better, and we should be taking them to task on that just as much as the LFIA.
One example – this is supposedly the premier transit oriented development in Newton but if I’m reading the SP packet correctly their parking request is for 1.25 cars per residential unit. If this is really supposed to be a ToD then how about we cut that down to .5 cars/unit (or less, since this is on the Riverside stop) like councilors Auchincloss and Downs have recommended for Northland and additionally establish a parking district for the abutting villages to restrict off street parking. That would help mitigate the traffic impact to the surrounding villages and also put some money behind the ToD label everyone is throwing around.
@Patrick Butera – you might have misinterpreted my comments, but I didn’t intend to imply that the Mark Development proposal exactly as it stands is the only alternative to doing nothing. There most certainly should be vigorous questioning and improvements to result in the best project possible. I was, as did Thomas Gagen in the original post, specifically calling out the alternative proposed zoning plan, which calls for a project that is so much smaller than the project on the table that it’s economically unfeasible to build.
@Peter I do applaud your desire to have more affordable housing in Newton and I agree that we should be working with the non-profits to have more of it.
But the Riverside land isn’t Newton’s to give away. It belongs to the MBTA. The MBTA needs to use its assets to help fund repairs, growth, and debt service. So I’m not sure giving it away helps the transportation needs of the Greater Boston area.
What if we could balance the financial needs of the MBTA with Newton’s need for affordable housing? Isn’t that what this proposal attempts to do?
@Chuck
Interesting, is it Newton’s need for affordable housing or the Greater Boston area? If it is the later, maybe it should the State who comes up with the money to subsidize this project. Then we could get the right size for this project.
My reference to “Greater Boston” was around the MBTA, which is how the T would look at it.
As for our place in the region, to believe that we are not part of the region is selfish and short-sighted. Thanks to our zoning we use more land for fewer people than the communities around us. In other words, we are greedy when it comes to land use.
Yes, we can all keep our yards and our homes, but we need to find ways to allow more people into our city and that’s not the role of the state. The state is doing what it can, but we need to act too. The right size is the one that brings us new neighbors.
Why does Thomas Gagen get to post (and from what I can tell for the very first time) on V14, railing on LFIA’s proposal, while no one with a contrary view is allowed to do the same?
Yet another example of what Big Development dollars will buy.
Greg,
I don’t appear to be getting my share of the Big Development dollars.
Please remedy ASAP.
Thanks.
Yeah Greg, are you skimming off the top of our cuts?
@Matt Lai – Village14 does regularly accept guest posts. As far as I know Right Size Newton has never sent us anything but I think they should. Feel free to contact me via email about it.
In general, the more that guest posts are informational rather than just opinion, the more likely they’ll get posted. Once posted, feel free to add all the opinion in the comments that follow.
That said, Greg and his evil overlords will no doubt immediately delete it and then toss your house and mine and destroy any hardcopies of it 😉
Guest posts should always be welcome. But would opponents be able to post something that didn’t inevitably devolve into denial, name-calling, developer bashing, lecturing the little people who don’t see how rotten developers are, barely disguised NIMBYism, and wanting to preserve the Newton that existed in 1919?
Guest blog posts (real names only, no pseudonyms) have always been welcome here. Anyone who wants to propose one should contact any of the many moderators on this site or use the contact function. Please note that we’re a busy group and this is a volunteer effort so sometimes persistence and patience are required.
Let’s put “welcome” in quotes. My observations about how differing opinions (from the going narrative) are ‘welcomed’: 1) ignored; 2) disparaged; and 3) attacked. @ Ted: in other words, any anti-high-density stance, yes? 😉
@Pat: This blog exists to provide a forum for people to talk and debate about Newton issues. It wouldn’t be as effective (or worthwhile) as I think it’s been if everyone agreed with each other. So actually different opinions aren’t just welcome, they’re necessary.
That said, there’s no obligation for the moderators to post everything or anything and there’s no franchise on local blogs. If you don’t like Village 14 (and it’s clear you don’t), feel free to start your own. Let us know when you do and we’ll share the link.
Well, Pat, some of your past comments on these issues prove my point.
As I was saying…..(the two previous posts just supported my observations). Thanks guys. 😉
Actually, V14 does a decent job in presenting diverse viewpoints, all thing considered. Newton certainly isn’t as monolithic as it may seem. But some do seem surprised to come across views that are different (sometimes substantially so) from what they’re comfortable with.
It’s also clear is that some advocate for their point of view through vehement (sometime strident) criticism. Which is absolutely their right. Yet when presented with opposing viewpoints, some of these same folks run away, claim that they are the victims, say how terrible the forum is, etc. Anyone could submit a guest post, but it seems they would rather not deal with some of the comments that will follow, especially ones they don’t like. They can dish it out, but can’t take it. Of course, no one person or issue has a monopoly on self-selecting what they choose to follow, but it is too common these days.
Finally, Pat, thank you for proving my point once again. No Trojan horse here.
@ Ted: Yea, verily, no Odysseus here. And the malware’s weak (as in: it remains to be seen.) Ref: V14: PI 6/20/19 @ 9:35 a.m.: #2 & #3