A group of Newton city councilors is proposing a temporary suspension of rules allowing officials to designate area properties as local landmarks while the city considers whether to make changes to the regulation, John Hilliard from the Globe reports.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
I appreciate John Hillard’s dedication to reporting Newton stories that no one else is, but it’s not clear from this article what the problem is that this suspension aims to solve.
@Greg you well know what “problem” it’s designed to solve! It’s in the article. Seven places in West Newton have been proposed as landmarks. That puts a crimp in the Mayor’s plan to turn West Newton into West Korffville. Don’t play naive….
I’m puzzled. Why are they suspending the rules before a fair and open review process can determine whether or not these rules should be changed and why they should be changed? This seems to defy logic and fairness. I find it particularly troublesome that the Historical Commission may be removed from the process altogether.
What Rick said. Surprised Hilliard even reported on it, considering his other profession.
@Pat Irwin: What the heck is that supposed to mean?
@Simon: You need to brush up on your civics. Employees who report to the mayor are part of the executive branch.
@Bob
Thank you Bob, for talking common sense. It should be the historic commission who makes these decisions.
Under what circumstances would Commissioner Lojek, the Planning Director Barney Health, or they mayor designate a property historic? And yes, they all work in the same legislative branch.
We are supposed to have local representation, this is far from it.
12 sites across the city since 1993 and now 7 proposed sites in the past year all in West Newton. It sounds like someone is trying to abuse the system.
I’d be very curious to know the seven sites in West Newton. I can’t think of 7 sites worth designating.
The West Newton center would seriously benefit from some new landlords. The majority of the buildings need real investment in updating that it appears the current landlords aren’t willing to do.
RuthAnne wants to rebuild West Newton with buildings as tall as
10 stories. These very old historic buildings are a nuisance.
She wants to demolish them ASAP.
The residential neighborhood sentiment and the law concern her not. She now runs the city with little interest in public opinion.
The present city council except for a few key councilors will vote for any development she endorses.
I’m with Kyle on this one. I have no direct knowledge of any of this but ….
If over the last 20 years the city only designated one new historic landmark somewhere in the city once every two years AND in just this past year SEVEN new historic landmarks have been proposed for just West Newton, then this clearly isn’t about historic preservation. It’s someone hijacking the historic preservation system to achieve other political goals – i.e. stopping a new development project they don’t like.
What’s not clear from the Globe’s article is who proposed these seven new landmarks in West Newton. I’d love to see an article about that and hear the case that was made for each of them and who proposed each one.
@Jerry. I’m concerned about a fair and open process. I, too, have no direct knowledge about where these seven structures are located, why they were selected , or even if they are, in fact, historically important. I think we also both agree on the absolute need for complete openness and transparency not only in determining who should be involved in the decision making process, but also in all deliberations over the seven sites being proposed as landmarks. I simply don’t see how this can be accomplished without the Historical Commission becoming involved.
I suspect that the rapid pace of proposed development in West Newton may have prompted some of this action, but I think we should be careful when stating emphatically that these people are “abusing the system”. In their eyes, they undoubtedly think that all they are trying to do is preserve some of the best from Newton’s past while there is still time to do so.
jerry and bob
when they reroute the mass pike thru upper falls
let me know
our beloved west newton does not deserve
whats
coming down Washington st
all of west newton should be classified historic
north of the pike
Joe: what specifically are you concerned about losing from West Newton?
I’m asking because West Newton has some really nice attributes but also things that would benefit from an upgrade.
ps
I”ll be at the” weed” meeting
1326 wash
7pm Thursday night
if you you want to discuss it
I’m curious as to what 7 buildings were listed in west newton. I can certainly think of 7, but if there is a list I’d be interested in seeing it.
I’ll note that the article lists an interesting group of folks supporting this. If correct, perhaps one of the city councilors can post here and give us some background.
I’ll reserve judgement until I get additional facts. That news article was more of a news tidbit, leaving me hungry for a bit more.
Perhaps there is some nuance here that sheds a bit of light on the situation. Let’s wait for that, shall we?
Bob Burke said: “I suspect that the rapid pace of proposed development in West Newton may have prompted some of this action.”
I think there’s a lot of discussion about development in West Newton, and there are two West Newton developments that I know of: the first at the Santander bank, and the second essentially from the funeral home to the Shoe Barn site.
The second certainly is a major development, it’s true. But the sense of “rapid pace” is really relative to “no development for decades in an underutilized corridor that includes several auto-oriented single story buildings with large parking lots and a warehouse-like structure, among other things”.
In addition, there is natural confusion between a zoning vision and proposed development. Zoning plans attempt to steer what could happen over the next 30-50 years at full build-out. Locations even hotter than Washington St (the Fenway, for example) have taken decades to develop with nothing in their way.
I don’t doubt, however, that these real and perceived changes have motivated people to action. And that’s fine; you can’t discuss saving something that’s demolished. But we should expect a robust discussion about the past, present, and future value of existing buildings and the ones that could replace them.
Are these proposed sites part of some existing public record?
Take a look at page 92 of this document to see the proposed heights for west Newton. Notice a significant portion of West Newton can be > 6 stories.
The whole area is being extended vertically by quite a bit.
There’s a meeting about this new document 6:30 July 15 room 205
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/97969
The other unintended consequence of slowing down Washington Street is that people will discover what a wonderful shortcut it is to take Austin Street from West Newton to Newtonville….oops shouldn’t have told anyone…
greg
what things
west newton is fine as it is
the pike was enough
west newton bounced back but it took awhile
I”ll say it again
when they reroute the pike thru your neighborhood
let me know
or when they put affordable housing on west newton hill
So Joe: You’re suggesting that there’s not one single thing in West Newton that could be improved? Not one building? Not one store front or office building? Not one sidewalk, curb cut or street lamp? Not one thing?
It should all be frozen in time like a snow globe? Forever?
There is a “West Newton Village Center Historic District”, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1990:
http://mhc-macris.net/Details.aspx?MhcId=NWT.AM
Several of the buildings that are proposed for demolition for the Korf project that includes The Barn property are on the National Register, most notably the Brezniak-Rodman Funeral Home building, which has been in continuous use as a funeral home since the mid to late-1800s. These buildings are now in an 18 month demo delay.
Other significant buildings include the Seth Davis Railroad Hotel building (with Sweet Tomatoes) which dates from the 1830s. My assumption is that the large number of buildings recently proposed for landmark status in WN is an attempt to protect some of the significant buildings in the historic district from demolition. I’m not opposed to development/upgrades in WN Square, but I think we should work carefully to incorporate the new development so that it complements the historic district, not replaces it.
This has nothing to do with development in West Newton. A few years ago, a local group proposed creating a Local Historic District (LHD) in West Newton Hill and the city didn’t agree to it after they took a survey of effected property owners and found that 70% were against the Local Historic District.
Subsequent to that, the citizens who were proposing the LHD have been proposing to “landmark” individual properties that they feel might become under threat of demolition (against the homeowner’s wishes) by finding friendly members of the Newton Historic Commission to approve the landmark status even if the planning department and historic preservation planners don’t agree with the landmarking. Some city councilors are proposing a review of this process so that un-elected NHC commissioners cannot change homeowner’s property rights without more review by elected officials. They want to freeze the current landmarking efforts while the process is being reviewed.
yes
also this will be my last blog
goodbye forever
Laurie, thanks for that clarification – explains the broad cross-section of councilors.
@Greg not everyone shares your definition of “improved”.
“They don’t make things like they used to…” is in the lexicon for a reason. Because in general, the new “boxes” they slung together on Austin street for example look like crap.
IMHO of course. I wouldn’t rent one of those if you paid me. Wait until they start falling apart in 10 years.
@Laurie
Is the planning department elected?
Who are the “historic preservation planners” ?
@Rick, there is a historic preservation planner on the planning department staff who gets involved in recommending whether or not a property is significant enough to be landmarked. I think the controversy started because the Newton Historic Commission has been recommending properties for landmarking, against the wishes of the property owner, when neither the ward councilors nor the historic preservation planner have agreed that it is worthy of landmarking. The city councilors want to review checks and balances on this process since it can significantly affect a homeowner’s property rights.
I don’t have the time to track down all 7, but here’s an example that was easy to find.
44 Mignon Road
West Newton
Built in 1950
Landmark request taken up by the Historic Commission on 1/24/19. The minutes of the meeting are here:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/95743
What’s his or her name? I’ve met James Freas , Rachel Nadkarmi but didn’t know there were any others besides the director.
But in any event, the planning department is not an elected body either so, to the extent that a historical commission or the planning department make recommendations, they are at least in theory on equal footing from a democratic standpoint. Although, the planning department is more likely to just do whatever the mayor wants, which is what is happening now, and in that sense is democratic.
So, I’d like to know who this person is.
And speaking about property rights, I wonder if people realize that once a house goes 2 family it will be against the proposed zoning to take it back to one family? In other words, if I were to buy a small 2 family house, I would be prohibited from converting it back to single family. There’s restrictions that I don’t like either.
That’s a pretty harsh one in my opinion. Can’t reduce density. Better for those already in an R1 district to keep their status quo.
Geesh. Talk about NIMBY.
@Randy that’s a contemporary home ( Zillow says it has a wine cellar) 1 block from commonwealth Ave closer to the country club. No where near west newton village / Washington Street.
Another property owner can have one’s house designated as a landmark? Is this accurate? Or are the properties in West Newton Square? Given the current situation in West Newton Square, designating seven properties in a short period of time seems reasonable to me – some of the buildings are quite nice and worth saving at least some part of them, others definitely need an upgrade.
However, designating someone else’s home as a landmark appears to be an overreach on the part of the NHC. But it’s really unclear from the article and the comments what’s actually happening and one of the councilors could easily provide context to clear up the confusion.
@rick, the historic preservation planner at City Hall is Katie Holmes. She’s a very professional woman who supports the NHC and all the local historic district commissions, among other things.
To answer the questions above, the 7 homes that have been proposed for landmarking recently are all single family homes in West Newton Hill, including the ranch house built in the 1950’s at 44 Mignon Road discussed above.
Local citizens have requested to the NHC that these houses be landmarked against the homeowners’ wishes, and these requests are frequently granted by the NHC with no further review required by local officials. The Massachusetts Historic Commission has to approve it, and they generally do, at which point you have a permanent restriction on the property so that any exterior changes must be approved by the NHC. The only recourse after that happens is to get the Mayor to veto it, which hasn’t happened to date.
@Laurie – Thanks for the very helpful background info.
West Newton Hill is “where the rich people live”. I suppose that they’re worried about tear downs. Or worried that the pitchforks will prevail and have the area rezoned from R1 to R3 and have multi family dwellings allowed.
The place on Mignon road is a contemporary home built by apparently a well known architect. I suspect, although I don’t know, that the home could be a tear down target because some people don’t like that style and typically they are one story and very energy inefficient. I say this because my in-laws had a beautiful contemporary home in suburbs of Chicago that was potentially a tear down target until my brother in law decided to move back in rather than sell it. He’s a builder and an architect and has the expertise to make it more energy efficient. Those houses in the fifties typically had a lot of floor to ceiling windows and cost a fortune to heat.
Every neighborhood wants to preserve its character. I’m NIMBY and proud of it. Why would I have lived here for 30+ years otherwise? Many of us within a block or 2 of Washington Street are very concerned about – and opposed to – the proposed increases in density overwhelming our neighborhoods with traffic, noise, blocking the sunlight, and any number of other impacts. The folks on West Newton Hill, I imagine have their own concerns, as well they should. And if they can use the system to achieve their goals, they should That’s just what developers do, play the system.
Calling the home on mignon road a “ranch” is probably not quite appropriate.
Like I said, a contemporary home that sells for 1.7 million is not exactly what I would call a “ranch”.
https://barrettsothebysrealty.com/listing/72480254/44-mignon-road-newton-ma-02465/
Funny (vaguely) related anecdote – I saw a friend a few weeks ago on Cape Cod. His family owned a house built in the 1800’s that was moved to a different spot on the property sometime later in the 1800s. Twenty years ago, when my friend’s father was still alive, some neighbors went behind his back and had the house listed on the national registry of historic buildings. His father was furious.
This year, the son was planning on restoring the now ramshackle house and moving it back to the original spot on the property. He had to go before the town’s local Historic Commission. The commission was dead set against his moving the house, despite the fact that it was being moved back to its “historic” origin. He had a few go around’s with the local commission and they wouldn’t budge. Now the son was furious.
He went off on his own and did some research about the rules governing the local historic commission as well as the National Registry. He found that the National Registry rules trumped the local town commission rules. Under the national rules he was free to move the house back. When they learned about it, the commission was furious.
I loved the weirdly O Henry like outcome of the whole saga.
The one unpleasant common thread through it all – there was always someone who was furious.
Also, I might add that my mother in law lived in their home into her 90s because the style of these “contemporary ” homes were single floor – no stairs. Stairs are a main reason why elderly folks these days have to leave their homes involuntarily.
Hmmm. My sister’s house in Hubbardston is on the historic register; she’s a lawyer and said it really didn’t offer much protection from being torn down. I’ll have to ask her again.
FWIW from Wikipedia
“Property owners are notified of the nomination during the review by the SHPO and state’s historic review commission. If an owner objects to a nomination of private property, or in the case of a historic district, a majority of owners, then the property cannot be listed in the National Register of Historic Places.[12]
”
According to this, the property owner has the right to refuse.
Rick, I’m not sure that a hypothetical R1 to R3 was a worry. I think 174 Valentine St has a lot more to do with it (old stately brick home torn down to build two giant single family homes). The proposed West Newton Hill historic district documentation uses this site as an example.
@Mike well same kind of thing.
No my suspicions are elevated.
Here
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/60755
it says
“Landmarks are designated at a public hearing after a 3/4 vote of the Commission and must be listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register.”
But as I pointed out above, the property cannot be put on the register unless the owner agrees. So, the property can become a landmark only if it’s already on the Register. So, the owner must have bought the house knowing it was on the register.
Unless there’s a loophole somewhere.
There’s been some very visible, ah, f ups in West Newton Hill.
Happens everywhere I guess.
@Jerry. I’d like to know more about that incident on the Cape as it relates to the National Register of Historic Places. I’m almost totally certain that the National Register places no constraints on what owners may do with their property when using private funding, except for extending a demolition delay from 1 year to 18 months. There may have been some local ordinance that governed this, but we certainly have nothing comparable here in Newton that I’m aware of.
Rick –
“Landmarks are designated at a public hearing after a 3/4 vote of the Commission and must be listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register.”
I think that’s your loophole…
The National Historic Registry may require the homeowner’s approval, but the landmark rules are a local ordinance, authorized by state law, and the homeowner’s approval is not required.
@Bob Burke – It was actually the reverse of that. As I understood it, in this case the fact that the house was on the national historic register prevented the local historic commission from restricting the homeowner from moving the house. A more lenient federal rule superseded a local rule.
@Bob Burke – If it something you want to follow up on, contact me directly and I’ll put you in touch with the guy and you can get the details.
Well it just goes to show you we’re all NIMBY when it comes down to it. People want to preserve the character of the neighborhood. After all, that’s why they moved there in the first place.
@Rick: When you moved into your home did it need any work/renovations? Has it needed any renovations since or was the character of your home exactly as you wanted it the day you moved in and it will be forever preserved as it was the day you moved and never need anything ever in the future?
And of course, I’d be curious to know if you feel the same way about your village?
Per Julie Malakie –
“… the practice to date has been to not initiate the landmarking process until a building is threatened with demolition. ”
“”… and unless it’s landmarked, it could be demolished 18 months after a developer/owner chooses to start the demolition delay clock.”
“With Robert Korff in particular, accumulating properties for development in West Newton and elsewhere in Newton, it seems at least half of our city councilors want to remove any impediments to demolitions, and to prevent more preservation-minded councilors from even nominating properties.”
So that explains why 7 properties were recently designated as landmarks, – they are being threatened with demolition.
@Greg actually no. We haven’t made any changes to the outside. The footprint is the same. We redid the kitchen, painted the outside, but the house, for all intents and purposes, from the outside hasn’t changed. As a matter of fact, to the best that I can think of, no one on our street has changed their home in any way visible from the outside. they are all the same except for paint and maybe some bushes.
I would be happy to see Washington Street buildings upgraded within the 3 story zoning that exists.
@Greg as for the future, we have at this point decided to stay in our home, unless Washington Street gets so noisy and congested with traffic it pushes us out. I’m not yet retired, but my wife is. We considered “downsizing”, but at this point my wife like the community- she sees friends when walking the dog, and has made considerable personal investments in her community of friends.
Every builder that has done work on our house has told us ” they don’t make them like this anymore” and that’s the truth.
When we do finally leave, well, there’s no shortage of bad taste in the world and perhaps someone will tear it down and build a two family. Be a shame but I can’t control the world from the afterlife. Besides, I’m “coming back” as Roger Federer in my next life, so, I won’t even know about it! ( I’ve already got the initials)
The explanation for this docket item may be that there’s been a flurry of requests to landmark houses on West Newton Hill (if that’s the seven, what are they? I’d be surprised if there aren’t dozens that someone would want to preserve). But it sure is convenient that this docket item is for a blanket moratorium on even requesting landmark designations, for all type of properties, just when Robert Korff is targeting the “Cheesecake Block” for development.
Here are the properties in West Newton that have local landmark status:
–Samuel Warren Tavern, 424-432 Cherry St (there’s a project to convert it to apartments, and NHC recently approved a request to add rear dormers, I believe, in their role of reviewing exterior changes)
— Nathaniel Allen House, 35 Webster Street
— Rev. Henry Lambert House, 128 Chestnut St
— St. Bernard’s Church and Rectory
And that’s it for West Newton. Here are some examples of what’s not landmarked in West Newton, none of them private homes, that sure feel like landmarks:
— Seth Davis Tavern/Railroad Hotel (built in 1831)
— the Robinson Block (CVS building), the last remaining large commercial building from the Victorian era
— Police HQ and the Courthouse
— Brezniak-Rodman Funeral Home, 1253 Washington Street, one of three consecutive buildings, all in a National Register Historic District, currently on 18-month demolition delay. It was built around 1850, and has been an undertakers/funeral home since at least 1861.
— the Police Annex/former branch library
— Unitarian Church
— Second Church
— Lincoln Park Baptist Church (overlooking the Pike exit)
— Myrtle Baptist Church
Just to add a bit to @Julia’s note, the 3 consecutive buildings she identifies as being on construction delay include the low-slung building where Hello Washington Street held its pop-up. Today it’s a store focused on selling baby items and has also been a bike shop and a photo studio.
The other is a gas station built in 1926 which was, most recently, a used car lot.
Just so everyone knows, the number seven is wrong. As a member of the Newton Historic Commission, I only know of 4 that were considered and 3 that were actually discussed. One was 128 Chestnut, which was Councilor submitted. Two properties were submitted by NHC itself after they were both threatened with complete demolition by the owner. One was withdrawn before discussion.
When I asked Councilor Kelley this morning via email about her quote and she told me she was misquoted.
There have been many other buildings people in the City have expressed a desire to landmark, but to date, none of them have come before the Commission.
If there’s one lesson we can all take away from this thread it’s about the hazards of jumping to conclusions absent actually knowing the facts, starting with this comment by Rick here followed by Pat making never explained accusations about John Hilliard having a conflict of interest, Coleen’s wacky conspiracy theories and on and on.
Folks, it turns out this is not about aiding and abetting the mayor’s plot to destroy Washington Street. And everyone who was sure it was was wrong.
And if there are two lessons to be learned here, it’s how important it is to have journalists covering Newton. This was a rare instance where John Hilliard’s reporting had major gaps. But so many things happen in this city that never get covered. And that’s a real danger to our discourse and our democracy.
Jerry and I had a long and pleasant talk last evening. It turns out that the property in question on the Cape had landmark status, so it was more than just being on the National Register of Historic Places. Why the town tried to prevent the owner from moving the house back to its original location is a mystery to both Jerry and me and a source of much frustration for the owner. The town’s position is also probably not legally defensible.
@Greg good points.
Another point about this issue is that the landmarking process is being used not to preserve truly unique properties, but instead to prevent tear-downs of certain homes permanently instead of relying on the demolition delay of 6 to 18 months. If citizens think that the demolition delay ordinance needs to be strengthened to further prevent tear-downs and are willing to accept the other issues that come with strengthening preservation laws, then they should encourage their elected leaders to do that. Using the landmarking ordinance to do that, on properties that it wasn’t intended for, is not the democratic way to do that, IMO.
I guess I fell for your clickbait Greg. Not sure why you posted it as a headline without further research on your part. Oh well.
I’m glad you agree that “the mayor’s plot to destroy Washington Street” exists however. I’ll be sure to quote you on that in the future.
By the way I attended tonight’s planning and development board meeting tonight ( until 8 pm) and was semi pleased to hear a lot of deserved skepticism about the revised vision plan, especially regarding to the fact that the height range of 4-6+ was innumerate. Either be specific 6-10 or leave it out altogether. Plus the lack of planning for commercial deliveries. As an example, ( my own, not one given tonight) every evening a tractor trailer parks below my office at 8:30pm to “refuel” the Starbucks on the corner of beacon and Centre streets. A tractor trailer! Refrigerated! Really noisy. There apparently wasn’t any consideration in the traffic plan for the increase in truck deliveries.
Greg, as a chamber of commerce person I’m surprised you’re not more concerned about how viable these plans are for the actual logistics of operating a restaurant i.e where are the dumpsters and trash pickup trucks going to happen, etc. I heard from the owner of the buildings on Walnut Street that he’s very concerned about closing Bram Way because it’s difficult for delivery trucks to back out of that area. Do you ever think about these kinds of issues on behalf of the businesses in Newton?
What exactly do you do?
@Rick: Apparently jumping to conclusions, misquoting people and taking things out of context is your jam. So there’s not a lot of benefit in having a conversation here with you.
But for everyone else, you may like or dislike what developers do, but most developers aren’t stupid. They don’t purposefully build projects to fail (and lenders don’t intentionally finance them either).
Rest assured that includes making sure their projects meet tenants’ needs (since they need tenants) and that includes making sure their projects can accommodate things like trash pickup.
Greg is not responsible for site plans for all commercial development in Newton. I would suggest that if anyone really wants to know that Greg or the Chamber does, an hour over a cup of coffee would be more productive than a back in forth in the comment section of a blog.
As I understand it, there were ongoing discussions about loading/delivery with store and building owners during both the Austin Street and Walnut Street planning efforts. Since Walnut St enhancements work hasn’t started yet, that conversation isn’t over yet. There’s no reason for anyone to worry something wasn’t addressed: please talk to planning.
In general, every commercial property development plan I’ve seen has delivery and trash handling mapped out. They simply must be there: the city requires it and prospective tenants want to see it. It’s something that neighbors/abutters often comment on (and should), because it can affect them.
There are literally thousands of examples of commercial delivery and trash pickup plans in communities across the US in locations far more constrained, with far greater traffic, than Washington St. Try Kendall Square. The Fenway. Downtown Boston. The Back Bay. The activity works even with older existing buildings like core downtowns, and it can certainly be made to work with a newly constructed development. Denser, newer development usually makes deliveries easier, not harder (due to centralization, elevators). The actual truck traffic on the road (not parking) due to such deliveries is negligible.
A zoning vision plan for Washington St is not the appropriate place for a waste handling and delivery plan. A zoning vision plan isn’t a development plan. It can’t possibly anticipate where developers and their tenants will actually lay out their buildings over the next 40 years, much less where they’d put their dumpster or their loading dock (though zoning can constrain both of those).
But that stuff does get considered. It does get reviewed. Sure, there’s always room to be more innovative. There may always be issues that need to be addressed (planning, inspectional services, transportation, parking, police). But please give our professional staff some credit.
And if there’s currently a problem with a delivery vehicle at a specific site or time, please let your Councilor or the appropriate city department know.
Greg said: “And if there are two lessons to be learned here, it’s how important it is to have journalists covering Newton.”
Yes, this is a very strange issue. Without the original article, it was flying below the radar. Facts about what’s going on are hard to come by (e.g,, no minutes or public records to consult that I could find). Several different plausible explanations, and a couple more implausible ones, surfaced here. Apparently fact-filled comments have come from pseudonymous sources.
And no elected official has yet weighed in here with a “here’s the facts” comment.
Blogs and discussion sites can fill some of the gaps that a lack of local reporting creates. Without facts from trusted parties, though, conversations tend to diffuse, not resolve.
Not especially comforting from a civics point of view.
Clarification (@ Greg): I mixed up John Hilliard and John Henry. Many apologies to the former.
Ha. I sure John Hillard hopes the folks in payroll at the Globe make the same mistake some time.
@Greg
“Apparently jumping to conclusions, misquoting people and taking things out of context is your jam. So there’s not a lot of benefit in having a conversation here with you.”
No, Greg, it’s not my “jam”, it’s not my jelly or marmalade either. Although I might have taken your statement out of context I didn’t misquote you above :>P
I read the article, and I saw this quote by Ward 3 City Councilor at Large Andrea Kelley:
“In the past year, about seven new landmarks have been proposed, all in West Newton, she said.”
Ok, West Newton is I suppose fairly large, and I incorrectly presumed that “West Newton” was more about the village, and didn’t dig in (well, I did some, I looked at Zillow for one of the addresses, and made comments about it being closer to Comm Ave etc. etc.).
So, fair enough. I took the councilor’s words to mean along West Newton Village.
And, it’s not hard these days to be cynical about the political process, all the way from Washington DC to Newton.
As Steve Jobs once said “perception IS reality”.
The reason there’s so much hostility on the topic of development is PRECISELY because the a majority of people who actually live along Washington Street, according to a very reasonably done poll by the Newtonville Area Council (an elected body by the way) do NOT want the scale of development that the planning department, which I perceive (see Jobs, Steven, above) to be just doing the bidding of the mayor ( I don’t think they really are thinking up this stuff themselves, someone is driving the bus for them), who thinks that she can raise enough tax dollars ( or something) to deal with the unfunded pensions or whatever other problems that make a wealthy city like Newton “poor”.
That’s what’s causing all the division in Newton.
North vs Center / South.
People along the Riverside line vs the planning department/ mayor.
It’s not a good thing.
But as I said above , the perception ( see Jobs, Steven, ibid) is that this whole zoning /vision thing is just a done deal and unfortunately tempers and feelings are going to get hot. And of course, when I read a headline about unnamed councilors wanting to take away whatever landmark / historic rules that would get my attention. And if you think they’re going to cool down, wait until they start to put up the 10 story buildings in West Newton. You haven’t seen anything yet.
Ultimately, though, I plan to put my money where my mouth is by supporting candidates, and especially PACS, financially, that will represent our side of the city more closely aligned with what the voters who elect them want. That’s the way the system works. Money is speech, for worse. But I plan to use it to protect my interests.
@Mike Halle at the planning meeting one of the councilors ( I cant recall who) brought up the issue that there wasn’t enough consideration of where delivery trucks would park on the reduced size of Washington Street.
The owner of the buildings on Walnut Street has expressed concerns both about parking and the closing of Bram Way to cars.
So, I’m just reporting what I’ve heard from others.
The other amusing thing is that there WAS a sign in the pleasant street lot in Newton Centre that was put up maybe a year ago that said “Absolutely no truck parking” . It was put right where all the trucks make their deliveries, the sign was ignored, and now is broken off and lying on the ground.
Granted the building in Newton Center are old, but I believe the concern is for there to not be large delivery trucks double parked making deliveries. Especially for restaurants which need fresh fish and vegetables delivered every day. Austin Street has very little space for a delivery truck to maneuver. I don’t know if Washington Place has much space either.
Probably neither place will have a restaurant- perhaps a cafe. No one is going to want to live above a noisy restaurant. That’s why Mr. Korff is wanting to lease to a bank now. They are desirable tenants- quiet, close early, have few employees, and likely to make the rent.
So, to follow up, the fact that the councilor brought up the issue at the meeting, and, did not get an answer from the planning department, suggests that in fact the developers and planning have not really looked into the logistics of deliveries for these two developments- or, more likely, they already assumed they would not be leading to a restaurant, except in their fantasy drawings.
@Mike Halle
I would add that developers make mistakes. See
http://cbm1.com/retailblog/2019/01/23/why-retail-is-failing-in-mixed-use-developments-and-how-to-fix-it/
Rick, it would be helpful to know which Councilor made this statement, and the specifics of the project they were referencing. Otherwise, we are talking a bunch of hypotheticals and second-hand opinions.
I stand by my comments.
Mike
Well, I’m not good with names, but I was at the meeting and I think Julia Malakie was videoing. So there’s probably a record of it.
The meeting was Monday, July 15 about the Washington Street Visioning, and the comment was about the lack of consideration in the plan for parking of delivery vehicles in front of Washington place, specifically because Washington Street is visioned to become a boulevard, presumably narrower.
Nothing hypocritical about it; I will try to find the name of the councilor (perhaps there’s meeting minutes)
As a for myself, I fail to understand why people think that developers are such rocket scientists. They aren’t. As a matter of fact, what they do is in some ways more difficult. Rocket scientists are usually dealing with things that exist in the present or near future. Developers have to deal with extrapolation into the future, such as predict demand for rents, retail, traffic, etc, 30 years or more into the future. There’s much more room for error.
Hypothetical. Ah, AI is so “smart”.
I was also at the Newtonville Area Council meeting where the owner of the buildings on Walnut Street ( I believe the buildings that include ROX and the UPS Store) was there to express his concern about the closing of Bram way and the impact of delivery trucks not being able to back out if Bram way was closed to traffic.
So it’s not second hand information. I heard it myself.
Specifically what in the article was Councilor Kelly misquoted? Was it just the number of buildings submitted for landmark status? Or did it include the rest of the quotes attributed to her, such as:
“The suspension would only apply to the City Council and Historical Commission, Kelley said. The mayor, the director of planning, and the commissioner of inspectional services would still be able to seek landmark designations, she said.”
If this statement is true then why only apply the suspension to the City Council and Historical Commission?
Why are the mayor, the director of planning and the commissioner of inspectional services – the mayor and city employees and not elected officials – still allowed to seek landmark status?
The mayor wanted to effectively give away the police station to Mark Development who planned to disfigure it and build over the park beside it. If any buildings should have landmark status, it’s the police station and the court building.
No one should be able to designate as a landmark a privately owned home or building without the owners agreement. The owner of the Barn area is Mark Development. The Barn is moving into Washington Place.
Rick:
The owner of those buildings could certainly reconfigure his private parking lots to allow for a wider turn for delivery trucks and garbage trucks. Plus if you look at Walnut street redo, there is a loading area Right Next to Rox on Highland! So basically his problem is a problem for….8 months. Just designate the highland spots as a loading zone now and his problem goes away.
Closing Bram way is an obvious improvement. I think the only downside is that it makes the parking lot slightly less useful but folks will adapt to it. At the very least test it out for a year and see what happens.
Landlord will object to any change with even marginal effect on their buildings. Those buildings are getting effective increase in sidewalks that could support some limited outdoor seating as well. Planning is a push and pull. Newtonville will be far better off with the traffic calming, additional gathering places, new seating areas and new residential areas. It might take a year to see the full benefit but I strongly believe it is coming.
“No one should be able to designate as a landmark a privately owned home or building without the owners agreement”
I would agree.
I guess a loophole is that
-3rd parties can nominate a property to be on the National Historic Registry,
-If the owner disagrees, the NHR can still designate the property as “eligible”
-for landmark status, the property has to be “eligible”
There’s the loophole for 3rd party landmark status.
I guess. I’m not a lawyer, but I can fake it if you hum a few bars…
Kind of a mess I guess.
@Fignewtonville
Well, unfortunately I don’t remember the guys ( his wife was with him) name.
I’ve heard they’re redoing Walnut Street. Where is info on that?
BTW the big tractor trailer was parked right in front of of the Austin Street building yesterday at 8 pm ( probably there every night just like in Newton Center ) reloading the Starbucks.
Every construction project comes with headaches for abutters. Austin Street is no exception and there were issues that had to be worked out.
Everyone who lived through that debate surely recalls doomsday predictions about how the construction was going to ruin Newtonville. “Parking would be impossible.” “Stores would close en mass.” None of that happened.
But yes folks had to make adjustments. Some times it was inconvenient.
Beyond that, I’m not sure what Rick’s point is.
I’m not speaking for Rick, but certainly loading/unloading is a huge part of urban planning. But that is going to occur regardless, and let’s be honest, to date in Newtonville the loading/unloading has been very much illegal parking, either via double parking (bad) or parking in centerlane on Walnut (VERY BAD). The latter is going to get someone killed. When the fire trucks park in the middle lane it is just as bad.
The abutters certainly get a say. But so does the Village as a whole and the City.
Rick, there has been a LOT of information on the Walnut redo. The center lane is going away, the sidewalks are being increased, new lights, etc. That is why we are going through the various street repairs on Walnut, to prepare for that work next year. The City, in its wisdom, decided to this work AFTER the Austin lot reopened. Frankly, I think some of that was due to the predictions from some of our city councilors about the parking end of days, but it is what it is. It is a shame it didn’t occur concurrently, but I can understand being cautious for the sake of the local businesses.
I have high hopes that in two years Walnut and Newtonville will be far nicer to spend time in. More shops, more art, more seating, more green, more people at night, maybe a few outdoor seating locations.
If it comes together, the City planning department deserves huge kudos. Even if Austin Street isn’t the perfect development many of us may have wanted, I’ll take the whole package if it comes together any day of the week.
The 7/15 ZAP video Rick Frank referred to is on my Facebook page, but public if you are on FB.
I was briefly using YouTube Live instead of FB Live, so it would be accessible to people not of FB, but unfortunately, YouTube now requires you to have 1,000 channel subscribers to livestream from a mobile device. I think that’s because of the New Zealand shootings.
The 7/15 ZAP audio is now on the city website: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/aldermen/committees/zoning/2019.asp
I don’t believe committee minutes (Reports) ever identify councilors by name — it’s always “a councilor asked…” — so you have to know their voices.
@fignewtonville WHERE is the information?
Link on newtonma.gov somerwhere?
Thx.
This question of planning for deliveries is far afield from the original post, but to round out the discussion I did listen to the ZAP audio from 7/15. At the half-hour mark, Councilor Baker raises questions about whether two travel lanes on Washington Street would allow space for deliveries and ride share vehicles pulling over. The Planning Department responds that that issue is tied to curbside management, which is part of the process for development planning.
As I said in my previous comment, since this is a zoning and not a development plan, that’s really all the Planning Department can say at this time. This isn’t about a specific development that can be critiqued, but curbside management will be included when developments are proposed.
I would also ask Councilor Baker for clarification of this concern that reducing travel lanes will impact vehicles pulling over on Washington for deliveries or passenger pickup of drop-off. The curb space is the same: the travel lane is by definition for travel, not for those other uses that constitute double parking. Double parking is illegal, annoying, and potentially dangerous in any case, but we certainly shouldn’t be designing a vision plan that accepts, condones, or relies on it.
There is no reason why these details can’t be done right when the developers make specific proposals. There’s also no reason to think it won’t be done, every party (the Mayor’s office, city staff, the Council, and public, the developers and their tenants) has a vested interest in doing it, and there is space and time to address it.
I also would like to commend Councilor Baker for expressing interest in the bus stops in the plan, which will offer another way to relieve congestion (traffic and parking).
@ Mike well you beat me to making it easier for you. I edited and posted the video on my website
http://dominionsw.com/video.html
Well, you can re-listen.
Isn’t it officially the “planning and development” department?
Delivery trucks park “illegally” all the time. I don’t think there’s much the city or anyone will do about it. There’s no other way for them to do business. The small business – in my case, in Newton Center – the Sandwich Shop, the Starbucks (funny, for all their food, I haven’t see how Panera gets its food in), The Sherman Williams paint store, The pizza shop – all have large trucks that park in the Pelham street lots behind my office building.
Sometimes they park people in, but not usually for too long.
Rick: please remind us, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Rick, just google “Walnut Street Enhancements Newton”
The intertubes will provide the rest!