At the June 18th Land Use Committee Meeting on the Needham Street Northland project, Councilors Auchincloss and others, proposed a reduction of 400 parking spaces, which Northland rejected. Is this because of a lack of confidence in the shuttle bus plan proposed (now in its second iteration and dramatically scaled down) will be insufficient in meeting the needs of future Needham Street residents?
Compounding the issue, is this study by the State of Massachusetts on Rideshares (https://tnc.sites.digital.mass.gov/) which went up a whopping 25% between 2017 and 2018, with the majority of activity happening between Boston and its surrounding communities. Meanwhile, temperatures soar to 115 degrees this week in Paris and mussels are being cooked in their shells in California (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/28/california-mussels-cooked-heat).
Substantive change is required to address the Climate Crisis, and simply reducing the number of parking spaces allowed for development is not enough. If Northland is to be allowed 800 residential units, a larger commitment to Green should be required; LEED certification for ALL buildings not just some; replace parking spaces for residents with a fleet of electric vehicle that can be checked out/in (like the Zipcar model, but all electric); zero use of fossil fuel on the entire property.
Anything less, is density that benefits only the bottom line of the Developer.
I agree we should be pushing for all of the things Matt highlights – passive house buildings, less parking, more transportation demand management by decoupling parking and adding things like Zip Cars.
But we also need to know when to say yes if we do get a lot of these benefits and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Transportation in particular is really tricky at the Northland site. But if we do find a good way, a green way to make it work, we should try to get to yes on a project that works for Newton, works for Northland, and reduces our carbon footprint.
Highland / Needham St., Nahanton, Walnut, etc. are all congested every weekday from 3 p.m. – 7 p.m.
If we were genuinely interested in helping our planet we would have the enhanced public transit in place BEFORE building a single development of this size.
But who’s kidding whom? It’s about one thing only for the developer: greed.
In my opinion, the three pressing local issues the Northland project needs to adequately address are… 1.] schools; 2.] affordable housing; and 3.] traffic…
The Special Permit for this project should require the developer provide the city with 15K square feet of stand alone educational space, and a guarantee that 30% of the housing units will be affordable [as defined by law]…
Efforts to reduce the parking are misguided, will substantially increase neighborhood traffic, and threaten the long term viability of the development…
Forcing the developer to meet extraordinary environmental standards in residential structures is also a mistake that will make it impossible for Newton to gain a high percentage of affordable housing units at Northland…
Our elected “leaders” [the Mayor in particular] have thus far done a lousy job of even identifying objectives, let alone extracting the most important concessions from the developer.
You tend to run your errands, shop and go places between where you live and the needed destinations. I can’t even comprehend how much traffic there is going to be with 800 units. I agree with the people and councilors who say there is a need to greatly reduce the parking. Many people on this blog are pro-bike, pro public transit and pro the shuttle bus that the developer is providing. So – let’s rent to the people who want to bike, use public transportation and use the shuttle buses.
And yet
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20190701/aaa-nearly-49-million-getting-away-for-holiday
Think of the carbon used just for this holiday.
You’ll have to party like it’s 1899 to make a difference.
@Matt Lai – happy to see your guest post 🙂
You’re right that the climate emergency is terrifying and must be addressed. Local land use decisions like those currently under discussion in Newton play a huge role in either promoting or reducing fossil fuel usage.
I’m glad that the Northland project has been pushed to implement passive house to a large extent, that parking has already been reduced, and that the shuttle system is being tweaked based on feedback from the city. The question is always how far can we push before killing the project, and what happens on the site if the project doesn’t happen. We’re stuck with a huge heat parking lot and associated heat island and runoff degrading the Charles? We allow someone to build a huge amount of office space by-right, with ample parking, no shuttle at all and no passive house? We’re forced to accept a huge 40B – again with ample parking, no shuttle, not passive house?
You can be as cynical as you want about Northland not giving enough back in exchange for a special permit, but remember that outside of the special permit process, we can end up with nada. There’s risk in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If I was a cynical person, I’d point out that Matt has used every argument he could to oppose Northland over many dozens of comments here and elsewhere.
Instead I’ll just say that it’s great to see that he’s suddenly become so concerned with sustainability, climate change and parking minimums.
@Allison
Adverse traffic is something a 40b can fail on. If I recall they would also have to provide 20-25% affordable units. So in my humble opinion, 40b in this location is not really a threat.
@Mike Striar – I’m curious how you think Northland or any developer could guarantee that 30% of the units be affordable? While such a high percentage sounds appealing, folks with real knowledge about affordable housing and inclusionary zoning know that 30% isn’t feasible financially.
There’s a reason the city’s inclusionary zoning percentages are set where they are. It’s not to let developers off the hook, but rather to ensure that projects can actually get built and bring affordable housing to the city. If we set our affordable percentages so high that projects aren’t built, how is that helping housing affordability in the city?
I think 30% actually is possible, but I agree it is difficult. I’ll note that some projects with higher % of affordable with deeper targeting can actually get low income housing tax credits as a further subsidy.
Greg, doesn’t make his point less true…
Simon, I think you are wrong on 40B. Adverse traffic isn’t a trump card for every 40B project.
Here is my little bit of cynical: Our process doesn’t reward bold thinking. I use the phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” all the time. But it is amazing to me how much better certain projects could have been if we’d just been a bit more flexible, or if the developer had been a bit more imaginative.
I know and another great thing is that Green Newton and many other environmentalists in Newton support the Northland project because of the way it addresses climate change, sustainability, multi-modal transportation, etc.
So I figure once Matt starts attending Green Newton meetings — or at least subscribes to their newsletter — he’ll come along too.
@Allison Sharma
You’d be correct that 30% affordability was not “financially feasible” if the entire project was residential. But this developer wants to build more than residential–and much more than allowable without a Special Permit. So the developer has to take a small financial hit on the affordable units in order to build the other things they want on the site. They should also be building 15K sq. ft of educational space for Newton.
Keep in mind, under 40B developers are required to designate 25% of the housing units as affordable. So if affordable housing at Northland was prioritized by public officials, getting 30% affordable out of Northland is really not a big stretch.
Matt, I am wondering what you would like to see on the Northland site in your wildest dreams if they turned it over to you. You are a very creative thinker and should be capable of making this site valuable to neighbors and residents of Newton. I look forward to reading your answer.