Moratoriums on Large Scale Developments?

by | Aug 1, 2019 | Newton | 16 comments

Thanks, Laura for posting this article that appeared in the Boston Globe today:  

16 Comments

  2. Rick Frank
    Rick Frank on August 2, 2019 at 7:59 am

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Guess I’ll laugh.

  3. Elmo
    Elmo on August 2, 2019 at 8:36 am

    It would appear that Newton is not alone in electing to office people unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of the elected officials to proceed in a manner which does in fact reflect the rapidity with which these projects are progressing. This is especially true given that “slow things down” has come to be effectively equivalent to “never going to happen.” One way or another these projects will be built. Whether it takes five years or 25 years, within a generation Newton, Arlington, and all these other towns are going to be reshaped. The combination of demand for this style of living at the high end and perceived obligations to provide this style of living at the low-moderate income end coupled with the fact that most property is privately held means this will happen. Elected leaders can either get out in front by effectively and efficiently managing the process or they can pander to their frightened NIMBY constituents and delay, delay, delay.

  4. Lisa
    Lisa on August 2, 2019 at 9:03 am

    Perhaps Newton could hire a consultant to evaluate the impact that these new developments are having on public services,schools, traffic like Dedham did before proceeding with anymore. Many people have called for a ‘pause’. Perhaps a better use of consultant dollars than civicmoxie, principle group, etc.

    • Greg Reibman
      Greg Reibman on August 2, 2019 at 2:58 pm

      Perhaps Newton could hire a consultant to evaluate the impact that these new developments are having on public services,schools, traffic….

      Great news Lisa! The city has done just that with school enrollment and requires traffic impact studies and remediation for all big projects.

      In case you missed it, here’s what the consultant said about school enrollment..

      Professional demographers hired by Newton Public Schools began by evaluating current trends and projects already under construction. They then added in the projected impacts from a total of 1,785 potential new apartments from Northland on Needham Street, the Riverside Station in Auburndale, Riverdale in Nonantum and Chestnut Hill Square.

      “The full enrollment report will be available in the next month or two, but the preview indicates that even if all four proposals are eventually approved by the City Council, enrollment would continue to be manageable with just a slight increase in students,” Fuller announced in a statement.

      “Without the yet-to-be-approved developments, projections show an enrollment decline,” the mayor added.

  5. Pat Irwin
    Pat Irwin on August 2, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    What Lisa said. Elmo: spoken like a true mouthpiece.

  6. Lisa
    Lisa on August 2, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    Greg – The point is not to project but to evaluate actual impacts based on development that has already been put into place. For example, look at what really occurred as a result of the Avalon development on Needham Street traffic and the schools vs what was projected to happen. Or look at real impact to schools, traffic and services from Washington Place and Austin St rather than theoretic projections based on to my mind very dubious assumptions.

    • Greg Reibman
      Greg Reibman on August 2, 2019 at 3:45 pm

      Lisa: That’s an extremely risky way to plan. For example, you can’t just look at Avalon alone. You need to study birth rates, housing turnover, and any other demographic changes that might be happening. I know this first hand because I was born at the end of the baby boom, which is the last time (before very recently) that we saw a large number of small private colleges go belly up (including the small liberal arts colleges I was attending) because there just weren’t enough college age students to fill all those schools. In Newton you also have to look at housing turnover because that same baby boom generation have become empty nesters, taking homes off the market from young families that might want to move here but there’s not nearly supply on the market.

  7. Lisa
    Lisa on August 2, 2019 at 3:37 pm

    obviously we wont know these real impacts are to Washington Place and Austin Street until the building is complete and occupied.

  8. Lisa
    Lisa on August 2, 2019 at 4:54 pm

    Not really.

    You can look at actual housing turnover rather than projected housing turnover.

    As discussed in the Globe article it is just the approach that quite a few of our surrounding cities and towns are taking with regards to development. Develop, pause, evaluate, develop (with real data rather than “projection”).

    • Greg Reibman
      Greg Reibman on August 2, 2019 at 5:00 pm

      Yep. And other municipalities recognize the obligation — and economic development benefits — to expand housing diversity and are going full in on meeting our region’s needs.

  9. Mike Striar
    Mike Striar on August 2, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    Whose guarantee is affixed to the document “Newton Public Schools Enrollment Planning & Class Size Report”? Is there any penalty for the authors if their forecast turns out to be wrong? Is there an insurance policy that comes along with it? Reports are nice, but they don’t replace common sense…

    When the developer of a large scale project needs a Special Permit from the City, it’s imperative that elected officials understand the potential impact on schools and advocate for mitigation if appropriate…

    The people of Newton are really getting screwed at Northland, because the Land Use Committee has been focused on the wrong things. That massive project should include 15K square feet of educational space for Newton schoolchildren. City councilors are more interested in counting parking spaces, than fighting for school space…

    Northland should also be required to designate 30% of their housing units as affordable. Again, Land Use and City Council distracted by secondary issues like shuttle buses, rather than the critical issue of affordable housing.

  10. Jane Frantz
    Jane Frantz on August 2, 2019 at 9:10 pm

    I don’t get this. If we think that there are enough people to rent/buy in these developments, why wouldn’t there be a good number of children in them? Ever hear of Fair Housing laws ? You can’t stop people with children from living in them.

    The demographer’s report simply wasn’t very good. The city would have to lose thousands of students to have facilities that aren’t overcrowded and provide space for the many new programs added to the schools in the last 15 to 20 years. Not to mention, Newton and Brookline will always be extremely attractive communities for families because of their location – close to the Pike, Rte 95, on the subway line and commuter rail.

    The developments are going to be built, so the city council should ensure that the quality is in keeping with Newton’s expectations. That includes keeping a careful eye on the schools and a commitment to make the tough decisions to fund the building of additional educational space to accommodate an influx of students if that’s what happens.

  11. Pat Irwin
    Pat Irwin on August 2, 2019 at 9:28 pm

    ‘Meat on the bone’, Greg. ‘Meat on the bone’. Isn’t that the right way to frame it?

  12. Anne Alvarado
    Anne Alvarado on August 3, 2019 at 10:48 pm

    Jane,

    The question is what sort of unit is attractive to a family with kids, vs the size and rent of the unit.

    Studio – 600 SF – $2,400 …. $4.00/SF
    1-Bed – 800 SF – $3,200 …. $4.00/SF
    2-Bed – 1,000 SF – $3,400 …. $3.40/SF
    3-Bed – 1,400 SF – $4,200 …. $3.00/SF

    (Rents rounded from Avalon Bay ain’t Needham St, sizes from my experience)

    Now, to an extent studios and 1-Bedrooms are more expensive to build because they still need to have a kitchen, but in a properly aligned low- or mid- rise you should be able to minimize the cost of the associated MEP… so I’ll ignore that.

    So if I’m a developer, with a fixed footprint and height limitation what would I prefer to build? Probably a bunch of small one bedroom units.

    If a 20,000 SF building went up with 20 units, all 800 SF & 1-bed, (and 4,000 SF of laundry, corridors, utilities, etc) how many kids would you expect? I’d say maybe 4-5. I rode the express bus years ago with a single mom who shared her bedroom with her daughter, but I can’t imagine that’s a popular choice.

    If the ‘same’ 20,000 SF building went up with 12 units, all 1,400 SF & 3-Bed, now how many kids do you expect? I would say 20 or more (12 bedrooms with 1 kid, 4 bedrooms with 2 kids, 8 with none – home office/guest room/adult roommates)

    Same space, but the second option is going to bring in 25% less rent, and have 4-5 times the children (or more). I don’t think you would get a 25% savings on land+construction costs to offset, but I’m too tired to do the estimate/math.

    So the building can’t discriminate against families, but it isn’t required to be attractive to them. If you don’t have outdoor space, and only have small units, if there’s a laundry room in the basement (but not in-unit), if the bathrooms have ‘luxury European showers’ but no tubs… it not going to look like a good place to to a nuclear family with small kid(s).

    The question, if we want tax revenue without increasing school roles, is how can Newton craft it’s zoning/permitting/special permitting to encourage this.

    [note: all views expressed are my own.]