City Councilors Krintzman, Leary and Noel have added their names to Auchinclos’ and Down’s call for Northland to reduce residential parking.
More councilors ask Northland to reduce parking
by Greg Reibman | Jun 18, 2019 | Northland | 27 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
If I’m not mistaken, by law each of the 140 affordable units in this project are required to include one parking space. That leaves 260 spaces for the 660 tenants paying market rate. I’m all for incentivizing non-drivers but that seems unrealistic.
At a time when the city should be speaking with one voice, letters to the developer from individual City Councilors do nothing but undermine the process.
I am interested why the Northland plan, as I understand it, segregates its parking into commercial and residential spaces rather than sharing. Mark Development has pitched pooling the two uses at Riverside since commercial parking is often empty in the evenings, with residential the opposite.
I have previously asked why the Councilors focus solely on the residential spaces rather than trying to reduce the impact of commercial and residential trips. Trips are more proportional to the potential problems of large developments than parking spaces are. We have more influence on commercial parking behavior.
Pursuing silly strategies like this in isolation is ineffectual. There are at least 35,000 cars per day on Needham Street. The overwhelming majority of that traffic is transit to and from Needham and points southwest.
Eliminating 400 spaces from this development (mostly at the expense of relatively unwealthy condo and apartment dwellers) will have zero impact on traffic. The immediate effect of this proposal would only free up a handful of peak-hour carlengths in the Needham Street traffic jam, and no sooner will those spaces be freed up than Waze and Google Maps will simply pull some Needham or Westwood commuters off of Route 9 and plop them right back down on Needham Street.
If the councilors want to truly make a difference, they should be considering holistic, regional transportation solutions and not this hokey nonsense.
@Michael – Yes, certainly thru-traffic from commuters from other towns is a big part of Newton’s overall traffic equation. That said, the traffic impact of a new 800 unit housing + retail development is definitel something that the City Council ought to be concerned about. No matter how you cut it, this is a major project that will have big impacts for the surrounding neighborhoods.
@michael: “mostly at the expense of unwealthy condo and apartment dwellers.”
Two falsehoods with this statement.
1. There are no ownership opportunities with the Northland project. All this talk of providing affordable housing is nonsense.
2. The unwealthy cannot afford the market rates Northland plans to charge.
Glad to see the Councilors take another whack at a reduction in the parking ratio – despite getting essentially two middle fingers back from Gottesdiener on the matter at the end of last week.
@Matt: OK, relatively unwealthy, compared to the average Newton single-family homeowner. The people living there are not going to be able to afford a million-dollar mortgage, unlike most Newton home purchasers.
Why not require that all new construction in Newton, including single-family McMansions, come with a deed restriction of one registered car per household (with enforcement against cheating)? Why discriminate against high-density housing?
@michael: we own a modest home at on Cottage Street in Upper Falls. Our mortgage payment is significantly less than the market rates for a 3 or 4 bedroom apartment at Northland, Riverside or any of the proposed developments in the area. And we’re building equity – something that can’t be said for the rental only scenario at the Northland project.
We purchased our home 8 years ago, so it’s not like families who purchased when coats were much lower, nor did we inherit property. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, simply the point that we worked hard for little piece of Newton – single family home with a yard. We’ve also earned the convenience and luxury of more than one car….but I’ll come back to this.
In the past 5 years, 6…maybe 7 new families have moved into our street. Families with children. Families with young children. Young couples who want to start a family here in Newton. This refutes the demographic about out school enrollments cupboards going bare. Most are families of color (ours included). And none of the driveways are sporting Bentleys or Lamborghinis. Like us, there are families that have worked hard for the means to enjoy all that Newton has to offer – suburban feel but with access to Boston and Cambridge. Not to have a mini-Boston dropped into the neighborhoods we worked hard to obtain.
Northland is using all the right buzzwords in their proposal, but when push comes to shove, they will not budge on the number of residential units (800 apartments), its composition (all apartments, no condos in sight), nor the number of parking spots (1,400).
It’s Gordon Gekko’s speech to Teldar Paper from the movie, “Wall Street” and its up to the City Council to determine how many yachts we will allow Northland to water ski behind.
Well, I guess we’re on completely different wavelengths here. From my perspective, I’m not sure how anybodyearns the right to rape the planet, cause a few wars to be started, destroy our cities and towns, put everyone’s safety and life at risk, etc. times two.
You also lost me with the claim that you and your hard work somehow grandfather you into Newton, and that you’ve earned the right to prevent any newcomers from arriving and forming a “mini-Boston” in your neighborhood.
Geesh, I’ve been living in Needham and Newton…let’s see…five times longer than you have, and I don’t think I’ve earned the right to keep anybody out. Are you a member of the Wampanoag tribe?
Also, I’ve been traipsing up and down Needham Street and Eliot Street on a regular basis for the last four decades and I can’t for the life of me envision how a development at the Marshall’s Mall is going to noticeably impact Cottage Street. I think it would be far more efficient for you to pick a battle with the two-car owners zipping up and down Route 9 every day, instead of going after a development that will make Needham Street a slightly less ugly place.
Michael, FTW!
The parking proposal seems to be based on the premise that if you provide less parking, people will self select, and people with fewer cars will move in. That could be, but I’d like to some evidence that’s likely to be the result. Where else have this been done and what has been the result?
I think there may be a fairly simple way to get some hard data on this from the laboratory of Newton’s existing neighborhoods. Much of Newton is full of houses with parking for multiple cars but two neighborhoods – Nonantum and to a lesser degree Upper Falls have substantial fraction of housing that doesn’t have on-site parking, or only parking for one car.
By checking the car excise tax records it would be fairly easy to see if there is substantially lower car ownership in those two neighborhoods today. I suspect that there isn’t. If not, that would say if Northland doesn’t build sufficient parking, those Northland residents will do what Upper Falls and Nonantum residents already do – juggle their cars, park on surrounding streets, etc. , playground lots, commercial lots, etc.
Anyone at City Hall want to take that research project on?
@Jerry
I can give you some experience. When I lived in Brookline as a college student in the late 70s and early 80s (in a rent controlled apartment – btw, remember THAT kind of affordable housing? my apartment is now a condominium) there were 90 apartments and 60 parking spaces. I was on the green line, which was nice, and my junior and senior year I had a car. I would keep my car in a spot as long as I could. But I had to use my car to get to gigs (I was a musician) so that meant giving up my precious spot and coming home late. And because the spaces were limited, AND unassigned it was a battle with lots of swearing, occasional “revenge” vandalism (nails in tires, etc) and occasional threats of “fisticuff’s (not by me!) to get parking spots. Not a pretty site. Can’t get a spot, you got a ticket. Sometimes we would park in a fire lane and get away with it. There were also people who did NOT live in the building who would park there. I became friends with the superintendent (amazing what a case of beer will get you) and I would report the ones who were parking there who didn’t live there and he would have them towed. It was quite a free for all. But I was in my 20s and stuff like that didn’t faze me then.
Hopefully, with the higher rents at these new developments there won’t be as many problems like that.
What’s going to stop Northland residents from having multiple cars and parking on the street? Lots of us have to do that already and we make do in the winter during the ban. It sucks, but lots of people in various villages have no choice. Some people moving into these apartments may not have a choice either due to things like commuting off the Pike West or 128 where you can’t get without an automobile.
It’s a fair quesiton MMQC and the short answer is the city will have to impose some restrictions on the streets there. But more significantly, if you look at the site plan you’ll also note that a lot of the residential buildings are quite far from residential Upper Falls streets. That would be quite an uphill hike to Matt’s house on Cottage Street for example. I’m with Micheal in that I’m having a hard time understanding what he’s worried about. On the other hand, it sounds like the kids on his street will really enjoy that new splash park on a hot summer day.
@michael, don’t twist my words. Did not say anything about keeping people out or wanting to start wars . Don’t be that guy.
More people are concerned about the size of Northland’s proposal that not. See for yourself in last night and prior meetings. Or continue to thump your chest in the shadow of anonymity.
https://vimeo.com/343329707
What Matt said. Notch.
On “OnPoint” yesterday they did a whole show on rent control. Apparently the state of Oregon passed statewide rent control recently. And, they banned single family housing zoning STATEWIDE.
Will Newton step up to the plate and do the same citywide? – answer only yes or no, Greg seems to like that format ;>)
Here’s a link
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/06/19/new-york-rent-control-laws-oregon-california
@ Matt,
“More people are concerned about the size of Northland’s proposal that not. See for yourself in last night and prior meetings.”
Based on the number of people attending the public meetings, speaking or not, versus the total population of 02464, I’d say the vast vast majority of people are thoroughly indifferent to the whole development, and two fringe minorities are either against or for the project. You have to remember that most people won’t be meaningfully affected by the project and therefore choose not to devote any time to it.
Greg R and Mike H: the letter states that we do not prescribe a res/com breakdown of spots. They can configure as they wish.
Reducing parking is more about aligning incentives than about reducing induced demand (though that is important too.) The only leverage the city truly has over their TDM is to restrain their parking.
Respectfully councilor, that feels a little disingenuous. The letter states that you want to go from 1:1 on the residential to 0.5 and your request is to reduce 400 spaces, which apparently, coincidentally, happens to be exactly half of the number of residential. Sounds like a prescription to me.
I admire and share your desire to want to reduce our car dependency. I really do. But I hope you will not hold an excellent project hostage over a residential parking formula that would be appropriate in Boston or Cambridge but not for an inner suburban location.
Matt:
I’ve been in your shoes a few times over the years. I second what Mr.Butch said. I wish everyone cared about what I cared about. But they don’t. I’ve been passionate about certain projects before, and very frustrated when things don’t change or don’t change enough. But the reality is that fewer folks care than either one of us would like. And the meetings don’t ever tell the whole story. I think it is important to go to those meetings if you care and to make your voice heard. But the real “meeting” happens in November. We get to vote, and I’m happy to say that it seems like we have some real choices this year.
Pat, can I ask you why you keeping ending your posts “Notch”? Is it to honor the founder of Minecraft (I tried to use google to figure out if I was missing some slang term and apparently one of the founders of Minecraft is nicknamed Notch.) Or do you mean Natch? As in you agree with Matt, naturally/of course. Not trying to start a war of words, just curious.
Go Greg!
Earn that paycheck!
Councilor, perhaps I misinterpreted the letter, but it says that you recommend retaining the 650 spots for commercial tenants.
I hope this is the continuation of a more detailed conversation with Northland over parking, trips, and transportation in general.
@fig, I concur. November will be quite interesting.
There are many things about the project to like (Greg consistently mentions “an excellent project”)…so then why not unanimous support by the public?
The key to a successful magic trick is misdirection, and while we quibble parking spaces and spray parks, we lose sight of the primary area of concern…the degree of density proposed into an infrastructure ill equipped to deal with it. The whole thing has an air of disingenuous intent. A loss of trust and voice – being shouted over by a big corporation – that’s what is freaking people out. Bedford Falls getting runneth over by Pottersville (ok, it’s not Christmas but a comparable analogy.)
Councilor Auchincloss’ position on parking is a litmus test on how genuine Northland really is…do they really mean what they say?
If the intent of density is so people get of cars, and millennials don’t buy cars, then why not .50 spaces? And that’s not the only contradiction…
If the original bussing plan was so great, then why scrap it for a 1.25 mile shuttle loop from NND to the T?
If they care so much about the environment, why not passive house for all buildings, not just a few? Why not more than 140 affordable units? Why not provide BOTH a community building AND a skating/splash park? And instead of confidently committing to ensuring various mitigation strategies are met, Northland (via Mr. Schlessinger) are already looking for loopholes and excuses.
For the first time (at least publicly), the City Council is questioning the sincerity of Northland’s proposal. For the first time, a meaning dialog about density and scale. There was much to like about last Tue night. Just hope it’s not too little too late.
What Matt said.
So I lived at 54 Egmont Street in Brookline in a Rent Controlled apartment in the late 70s early 80s. It was certainly affordable. There were single moms, students (moi) etc. It was funky, and parking was a free for all.
Rent Control was eliminated shortly after I moved out.
Here’s a comparable unit in the same building, now:
https://www.zillow.com/b/66-Egmont-St-Brookline-MA/42.349257,-71.116987_ll/
We had a 2 bedroom 1 bath. This is now going for 3000.00 a month.
So, one of the many things that make units un-affordable was the removal of rent control.
But wait, what about the free market? and the rights to the property owner to maximize the value of their property?
Therein lies the conflict. How do you cut that baby in half?
Is this the “luxury” apartment that we can expect at Austin Street?
Is it affordable at half the price? Perhaps. Minimum wage will get you about 24,000.00 a year.
@ Fignewtonville: “Notch” refers to my tally of the # of times the myth of the need for (luxury) housing is raised and debunked. Steadily climbing.