At at tonight’s (Wednesday) Land Use Committee meeting Northland will present an offer to contribute $1.5 million towards to renovation or reconstruction of Countryside Elementary School as part of an extensive community giveback effort under the special permit process for its project at Needham Street.
The offer also includes an increase in traffic mitigation funds, including $5 million for off site mitigation under the city’s discretion, as well as a further reduction of 50 parking spaces, an issue that has been of particular concern to City Councilors Auchincloss, Downs and Noel to 1,600.
The full outline of Northland’s latest proposal and other supporting documents can be found here. Northland’s memo begins on page 7.
Well, well, well… finally got Northland to pony-up some dough toward that projects’ impact on Newton schools. The conversation is moving in the right direction. Now let’s get serious…
The massive scope of Northland’s project should not be settled for pennies on the dollar to Newton. The City should require this project include 15K square feet of stand-alone educational space [to be used at the discretion of NPS], AND a full 30% of the residential units should meet state criteria for affordable housing.
I hope the people of Newton will hold their elected representatives accountable and assure they strike the best possible deal with Nortland. There is tremendous benefit associated with this overall proposal. It’s the job of elected “leaders” to be sure they extract 100% of those benefits from the developer.
How about they also pony up some money for a new Senior Center. Or if they want to cough up the funds for NewCal Community Center, then go ahead and build it
And free college tuition and new iPads and running shoes and HBO for all too!
Seriously, at some point you have to let businesses turn a profit, $1.5 million to renovate Countryside on top of everything else is really a great deal for Newton.
How about a building in one of these new developments with a “NewCal” on the first 2 or 3 floors and 55+ apartments above it? Maybe in one of the locations where 8-10 stories are being proposed. Might make the number of stories/height required to make it financially possible more palatable to current residents. And didn’t that demographer say that empty-nesters wouldn’t give up their single-family homes to move into non-dedicated 55+ housing? Win-win, right?
@Greg: $1.5M is about the price of a single apartment out of the many hundreds they plan to build. Is this really the best we can do? I haven’t been following this very closely so I don’t know what else they’re offering.
@Newtoner: Great question. It’s a long list. Check out the memo linked above starting at page 7.
And let’s remember this project provides desperately needed housing which really is the biggest community benefit.
Don’t forget that they can decide to build under 40b at any time and give the city nothing.
I don’t think we have to worry about the developer turning a profit. But I know that is your job Greg.. to advocate for business. So you will forgive me if I take your comment with a grain of salt
Exactly what is the “everything else”? I;m happy to be educated on how Newton’s demands are an impediment to the developer’s profits
@Claire: Not sure what you do for a living but I suspect your employer has some expectation of making a living and that you don’t work for free either.
But do read this memo, starting on page 7.
I disagree with Greg. $1.5m is not enough for the schools. Not even close. This is a 25 acre site. A massive project by Newton standards. The impact on schools will be substantial, and the developer should mitigate a reasonable portion of that impact. NPS would benefit greatly from 15K square feet of educational space in that area of the city.
But I do understand that a deal has to work for all parties. It should be fair. Northland is entitled to make a substantial profit from the tremendous investment they are making in this city.
I’ve suggested Northland include a free standing [office type] educational use building that they lease to the city at $0 for 10-15 years. After that initial term, the city would have an option to keep control of the building by paying fair market rent. Newton gets some much needed flexible space for its school system. Northland gets a heck of a tax deduction, and ultimately regains full ownership use of the building. It’s called a win/win!
I also have an issue with the lack of affordable housing at Northland. But I’ll address that in a later post.
@ Greg, no need to be condescending and ignorant. As you point out, you have no idea what I do for a living. Yes I do work. I have worked in business since graduating with a BA degree in Business Administration from a very highly rated university. And I currently work for a high profile Boston area employer , who’s CEO is friends with our Mayor which is why I chose to not share my full name.
That stipulated, we all know what your job is which is to advocate for business. Not a judgment, just a fact.
So don’t throw shade at my assertion that the city is not negotiating effectively for concessions from the developer. Don’t ask me to cry a river for the developers.
And @Fignewtonville accused me of villification!
While this is a step in the right direction, it only addresses the ELEMENTARY school issue. This massive project is going to impact BROWN and SOUTH, and with a growing school population, Brown will need more space (including a cafeteria and kitchen). I am not a fan of these huge buildings, but I do believe Newton needs to speak up and get more (open space, buildings, money). We are partners in this and both need to live with each other.
In the old days, in far off darkest Africa or the Middle East, when private corporate entities secretly passed monies to governmental powers that be , it was called bribery.
Now it’s out in the open, even advertised!
They are getting RID of the community building and instead building a spray park. While I love the idea of the spray park, seems to me that a spray park is cheaper than building a community building.
Spray Park ???
Blueprintbill,
A spray park is a playground that also has water units for the warmer weather. Brookline and Waltham each have spray parks, and Newton does not have one (technically there is ONE playground that has ONE water thing, but parents don’t view it as a spray park).
Northland offered to build a community building, but Upper Falls residents, or at least the Upper Falls Area Council, expressed a strong desire for a spray park instead. This is one example of the developer seeking and listening to the community.
Why does everyone think the school population is going to explode with these developments? We hear over and over the fastest growing population in Newton is seniors who are aging in place. If it weren’t for development our school populations would be declining.
@Mike, give the 15k is school space a rest, you’ve suggested it multiple times and no one has agreed with you. Why would Newton want to add another building/space that needs to be staffed and maintained? We need to invest in our existing schools before adding more square footage in a new location.
What Kyle said. With empty nest baby boomers aging place in homes that once housed school age kids, there are few places where young families can move to in Newton, even if they could afford it. Unless we add to our housing stock, our school population will decline.
when avalon built on needham st., they gave us three benches, which the PTO installed. i can’t remember exactly, but i think there were 63 new students the first year. countryside is the poor step sister of elementary schools. $1.5M is a drop in the bucket.
obviously, needham st traffic is horrible and getting worse. there is unused/under-used land behind needham st businesses on both sides. how about building some access roads?
Kyle,
I can tell you that when Avalon pitched Newton for Needham Street, we were told there would not be a burst in school population. After Avalon was built, Countryside reached capacity, and over flow was sent to Angier. Then the Avalon Brown Middle School bus stop over crowded the existing bus route, and new bus routes had to be set. Same with the high school bus from Avalon.
I feel like Newton had its head in the sand when the consultants said the school population would not grow with Avalon, and in the end it did grow.
People move to Newton for the schools, the community and the short distance to Boston. I could not afford my house if I had to buy into Newton as a first time home buyer. I probably could not afford the rent in Avalon, but if I could rent in a great community with good schools and close to Boston, Newton would be my destination.
Avalon has all sets of people – young child free couples, families, single parents and older people. It is a great community and attracts many different types of people, but yes, there are plenty of NPS families in Avalon on Needham Street. Newton has to plan that ANY large development will attract the same types of people, including NPS families. We can’t put our head in the sand again.
And I agree with Mike – another elementary school is a great idea. The bussing of elementary school kids away from their neighborhoods is sad, and having multiple schools for kids to attend from a single neighborhood makes it hard to carpool (and not need a car for every school function).
There are young families in my village (Nonantum) and I can’t imagine them paying 3 – 4K for an apartment. What little housing stock that is TRULY anything approaching affordable diminishes with every teardown. Adding luxury housing and saying it contributes to affordable housing is pretzel logic akin to Orwellian doublespeak.
@Newtonmom
You aren’t disagreeing though with my original assertion that the school populations won’t explode as a result of development. The development is offsetting the seniors aging in place. As a result of this yes some schools will become crowded and students will need to be moved to schools that are less crowded. The empty nesters are equally at fault for this because there will be less crowded schools as a result.
Another reason I disagree with adding school space at the project is it would segregate the children of renters from the rest of Newton.
@Pat
3-4K is not unusual for a two bedroom apartment in the Newton area. Is it easily affordable for a lot of people no, is there significant demand yes. I’m not sure what people expect rent to be, it’s extremely expensive to build in Newton and these are nice/new apartments.
Cut down trees, pave over the world, heat up the atmosphere, and build “Spray Parks”. ?
@Bill: Really? The site is pretty much 22 acres of almost all paved or impervious parking lots/buildings now. This project will transform it to 10 acres of parks and other open space. That’s more than 40 percent of the project, with a lot of mitigation to manage storm water run off, plants and other environmental benefits that don’t exist now.
And @Newton Mom: It also includes 140 units of affordable housing and a building designed to be age-friendly, adding considerably to Newton’s housing diversity.
Right now the Newton Upper Falls neighborhood attends Countryside, Angier and Zervas. There are renters and owners that attend these schools. And adding a school in Upper Falls will bring the neighborhood feel back to the neighborhood. It won’t be renters only.
The bussing of these kids adds pollution due to extra busses and less neighborhood feel. I love that my kids attended the same school as my neighbors. We talked about things in the neighborhood and often carpooled to the elementary school. Moving kids around isn’t what I envisioned when I moved to Newton.
Kyle [with no last name] disagrees with my call that 15K square feet of educational space should be included as part of the Northland development. He claims that no one agrees with me. I wonder if Kyle works for the developer? Because most people with common sense [or any sense of Newton history] understand the implications of the massive Northland development on our public schools, which is probably why my comments about including educational space always seem to get plenty of support… except from Greg.
I have NOT proposed Northland build the City a new elementary school. I HAVE proposed that Northland include a 15K square foot educational building that they would lease to the city at no cost for a period of 10-15 years, after which the city could either stay there by paying rent for the space, or simply hand the building back to Northland to relet as commercial office space.
My proposal presents both an opportunity for Newton to hedge its bet in case the school population projections are wrong [as they have been in the past], and/or pick up some extraordinarily valuable flex space to programmatically expand our children’s educational offerings. NPS could for example use the space for a STEM magnet school, an alternative high school, or of course as a elementary school if needed. Perhaps the city might decide to move the Ed Center to the new building and reclaim the old center for classroom space. None of these opportunities will exist if our city “leaders” fail to include educational space as part of the requirement for a Special Permit at Northland.
The school population projections are laughably conservative. Avalon history as Newton Mom said.
The developers are offering $1.5M for Countryside, but will burden Newton with millions in student expenditures over the years.
This is a bad deal for Newton.
Sorry Mike I do not work for the developer. You talk about the 15k as if it alone will teach the students. The staffing and maintenance of a 15k sq ft satellite school would be substantial. If there’s additional funds to be had from the developer that’s great let’s get them! But instead of operating a new satellite space they should be invested in our existing schools. We would also be loosing the tax revenue associated with this 15k foot space. All in all it’s a bad idea with many, many hidden costs.
Paul do you also dispute that seniors are the fastest growing population in Newton? The development offsets this decrease in students elsewhere in Newton. And as you consider the development don’t forget to factor in the tax revenue from the commercial space which as we know Newton taxes at twice the rate of residential.
Newtonmom, while busing students is not ideal it’d be worse to build a new school only to let other schools be neglected and underutilized. The schools need to be flexible and adapt as populations shift.
How about housing a new Senior Center within the Northland Development and ask the Developer to pay for it? A community partnership.
@Steve Tacey-
Right you are kiddo. 3 benches. Thats all they got, because the neighborhood made their noise after the project was built, not before like say, now maybe?
Susan Albright, realtor Christine Samuelson, and former alderman and pay raise water boy John Stewart- all aldermen at the time -took the it’s a 40B it’s not our problem approach.
Yes, Countryside was at the top of a school priority list back in the late 90’s,
early 2000’s. That’s a story for another time, but as another poster said on an earlier thread, where you live in this city has everything to do with how well your neighbor issues will be dealt with or ignored, including the schools.
Michael Striar-
You pay attention and always follow the bouncing ball. Thank you for that,
and as you so astutely said….
It’s about
Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation –
Until the day that Greg poses with councilors like Albright and our mayor
wearing hard hats for the ceremonial first shovel full of dirt photos, everything is up for grabs, as it should be. Big dollars will be spent and earned here, and even other issues could be addressed. Will there be a daycare in the Northland Development?
Mitigation is standard operating procedure for any large development.
Years ago(2001-2002?)when Stop and Shop wanted to build on the Avalon Bay site, among the goodies they were offering were an expansion/widening of Needham St, a traffic light at said location and at least $500,000 dollars in other mitigation funds. Thats what I know without even digging into the details..
Yes, Mike you are right $1.5 million dollars for Countryside is squat, chump like, miserly and laughable.
Avalon Bay had
a huge effect on C-Side despite promises to the contrary. The truth is the neighborhood was lied to, and all our politicians walked away from it like they will this time if they aren’t watched like hawks, and promised election opponents and if they screw it up again.
I’m not in a position to determine what the school, neighborhoods etc.. should or should not get but, those that who are trying to fold the NCAL or anything else into this project are misguided and wrong.
Any mitigation monies, projects or benefits should be extended ONLY to the neighborhoods, schools, senior centers etc that are within the geographical scope of the development. Newton Highlands on the south side of route 9, upper falls etc.
One critical lesson I learned from Avalon Bay was all the noise making
to the developers, politicians and other interests needs to be made early and often. Like NOW.
Once that first shovel of dirt is turned over on ribbon cutting day,
it’s game, set, match and you’re stuck with what you bargained for.
@Greg “Northland offered to build a community building, but Upper Falls residents, or at least the Upper Falls Area Council, expressed a strong desire for a spray park instead.”
So a spray park is more highly desired than a community center but our mayor wants to take parkland and spend $16m on NEWCal??
A new Senior Center yes but NO on NEWCal. The South side of Newton has a JCC and the North side has the YMCA. Let’s spend our tax dollars wisely.
Kyle and Greg – Regarding the growing number of emptynesters and seniors aging in place in Newton, causing our population to decline without development: don’t we expect a significant number of these older folks to move into the new apartments that we’re developing? I mean, aren’t they one of the target demographics that we keep touting as a reason we need more single-floor, maintenance-free, centrally-located housing options? If they do, history tells us that young couples/families will move into the houses they vacate. And it also tells us that young families will move into the new condos and apartments as well. So our population will continue to grow.
And if all that talk is wrong – if emptynesters/seniors actually don’t want to give up their houses for apartments, they are still going to give them up… eventually. If we truly have a “bubble” of seniors (maybe ages 60-85) aging in place in Newton right now, that means that within a short 10-20 years that bubble will begin to burst. And all of those homes will begin to turn over and again be occupied by young families, along with the young families in the new condos and apartments, and a new bubble of young families will begin. So the idea that we don’t need to be prepared for expanding school enrollments is a recipe for disaster.
The way things are now, as long as Boston doesn’t fall into the ocean and the Newton schools remain strong, Newton’s population may ebb and flow but it will never be in danger of a precipitous decline (barring, of course, a complete breakdown of the world economy or a zombie apocalypse.) It will, however, continue to become wealthier – no matter how much we build.
@Greg: “It also includes 140 units of affordable housing and a building designed to be age-friendly, adding considerably to Newton’s housing diversity.
Is there a reason why the developer is segregating the the seniors to one building?
@Tricia: unless they’re all torn down first, which is what’s happening more and more :/
Fawning over $1.5m and a spray park is like being grateful for a Ritz Cracker given the scale of this project. Newton deserves better.
Relying on the private sector to provide affordable housing is like asking the fox to watch the chicken coup. Complete conflict of interest. Better off it being an office building.
PS. Greg, what you said to Claire was mean. Not cool.
@Matt, thanks for you words. I’m used to Greg being mean. But his comment was revealing of who he is and not instructive of who I am.
@Tricia – we certainly have no plans to move out of our house into a 3000 a month 1 bedroom apartment where we still have to listen to the pike noise and have a beautiful view of the pike and a grocery store parking lot.
aka Austin Street
I am responding to Amy Sangiolo’s question as to “…why the developer is segregating the seniors to one building?”
This question can mislead people who have not been involved in discussions about “age-friendly-housing.” The developer has decided to create a building that will have additional features for convenience and safety for those seniors who may wish to have them. Anyone of any age can decide to live in these units and, of course, any senior can decide to live in any of the other buildings. The developer is not doing any “segregating,” but giving choices to people of all ages.
Certain people hate it when I bring up the Avalon down the street, but here goes anyway:
$ 87,521,400 assessed value at $10.45 tax per thousand = $ 914,598.63 in tax revenue for the city.
Approximately 300 units, 106 children in the school system for a cost of approximately $ 1,927,343.
That’s a million dollars gone every year. And Northland is more than twice as big.
And we already can’t give the teachers an acceptable contract.
@Patrick: First, I believe you need to review the demographic trends, birthrates, the housing market, and other demographic factors to determine what Northland’s impact on school population will be. As you know, the school department and mayor contracted a demographers report that suggests Avalon alone is not a fair predictor.
But ok, let’s agree to disagree.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: Educating children is a society’s core responsibility. The money we spend educating children isn’t something that is “gone every year,” the way the beer I drank last night is gone this morning.
It represents a core investment in our future.
I don’t think anybody is arguing that we shouldn’t educate children.
My point is that in this case, AvalonBay is able to charge premium rents because they offer access to the Newton school system while they pay less than half of the cost associated with this access in taxes. It is a phenomenon that is very profitable to AvalonBay’s shareholders and has a deleterious effect on the school district’s budget.
Voters and taxpayers should be very aware of this real world example on the same street Northland will be on.
If this same phenomenon happens in scale across the new developments, we will be forced to pass a prop 2 1/2 override to raise taxes significantly.
If taxes increase significantly, maybe those older residents aging in place decide to sell after all. Then the neighborhoods turn over and we get even more kids in the schools.
Then what happens?
@Patrick: My neighbors across the street have three kids in the Newton schools. We don’t have any. We pay the same tax rate and, coincidentally, paid about the same for our houses. I guess my wife and I are being “forced” to educate these kids in this “real world example.” Should we have have objected when they tried to buy their home?
@Greg– We agree that educating children represents a “core investment” in our future. So how can you possible argue that a project which will cost hundreds of million$ to build–and net the developer many ten of million$ in profit, should get away with only contributing $1.5M to our schools?
Patrick, the Northland project also includes around 300k sq ft of commercial space which would add significantly to the tax bill. Would you consider including that in the calculation? If you do I would imagine from the tax perspective it’s a net gain for Newton.
Also I believe some value should be given to the number of affordable units because at some point once enough have been built developers would be prevented from using the 40B statue to circumvent the special permit process.
No Greg. You shouldn’t be upset because they are not a corporation that is generating profits by selling access to our schools.
The empty nesters who sold their house to my new neighbors profited very nicely. You can bet their realtor who marketed the house made “access to our schools” part of his/her sales pitch.
@Kyle– 300K square feet of commercial space, but you’re opposed to dedicating just 15K sq ft of that space to schools? Come on Kyle, tell us who you work for? Because you’re certainly not here advocating for the people of Newton or our students.
@Mike: Kyle has commented on this blog previously on matters other than Northland. There’s no reason to believe he works for them anymore than there’s reason to believe that you just showed up one day to promote big marijuana. It’s time to let that go.
Mike I’ve laid out very clearly why I think using the 15k of commercial space for schooling is a bad idea. Please rebut that argument rather than spending your time attacking me. It would make for a much more productive discussion.
Greg,
Individual houses are different than large housing developments.
I would like the consultants to be more realistic of how many students will be living there. The number is significantly different in reality.
Having empty nesters or couples with no kids in individual homes don’t topple a school. It is the sheer number of a large development.
My purpose here is as clear as my identity…
Northland is a massive proposal. I support the project because I believe it will be good for Newton. But it will only be good for Newton if our elected officials properly prioritize the associated issues and demand fair mitigation and benefits as part of the required Special Permit.
I’ve lived in Newton more than a half century. I’ve seen and learned a lot. I understand the value 15K square feet of educational space at that location would have for generations of schoolchildren.
I also know that this city has fallen short by nearly every measure when it comes to affordable housing. And the Northland proposal gives us an opportunity to make that right by dedicating 30% of the housing units there as affordable.
As a former developer, I know those two objectives are budgetarily achievable, 15K sf of educational space and 30% affordable housing. But the people of Newton are going to have demand their elected “leaders” do the right thing. Don’t give Northland a Special Permit without getting the two things that matter most to this city… Schools and affordable housing!
Profits and social benevolence are inherently opposite principles in EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM.
But in the end, Northland owns the land. So I tend to agree with Mike Striar. Aggressively ask for these schools and affordable housing at the scale (used that word on purpose!) Mike is suggesting.
If they stand firm, then reject the special permit. 40b is not the end of the world, but with so much future profit at stake, would not be surprised if Northland is more giving in the next round.
I want to confirm and add to Marian Knapp’s comments above, about the proposed age-friendly building and the implication that Northland is somehow aiming to ‘segregate’ seniors. The majority of housing units at Northland will be age-friendly by virtue of the fact that they are low maintenance, single-level units in elevator buildings, which meet current codes for safety and accessibility. The proposed age-friendly building is offering an even greater level of age-friendly design elements, as well as close proximity to Northland’s ‘mobility center’, for those who might need or appreciate these features. It’s just another option.
Older people are as diverse as any other demographic, and they have a range of preferences and needs. I think it’s great that the proposed Northland development will provide them with several different housing options, all with easy access to green spaces, gathering places, food, shopping, recreation and public transportation.
Mike, the point I’ve made and which you’ve yet to rebut is that getting a 15k space in lieu of cash makes no sense. If the developer is willing to give up that much space for free for 15 years Newton should take the enormous cash equivalent. Why would we want to take on the costs of operating and staffing a new space and give up the associated tax revenue?
Kyle– Northland is not offering the “cash equivalent” of 15K sf of educational space. So your question presenting that option is based on a faulty assumption. The $1.5M Northland offered for Countryside is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of a new 15K sf educational building to the city.
You’re simply not applying appropriate value to the asset I’m proposing, an educational building with flexible capabilities in that corner of Newton. The property tax dollars generated from a 15K commercial building would not approach the cost to the city of having to build a new elementary school if the “experts” get enrollment projections wrong yet again.
An elementary school is only one potential use for the educational space at Northland. It could be used as a STEM magnet school, which would be a wonderful programmatic addition to our system, and could pull students from around the city resulting in smaller class sizes. It could be the home of an alternative high school, another programmatic expansion, the likes of which Newton has not offered since 1978.
Do you understand the value in those things, Kyle? It’s a mistake to look at this through a myopic lense. You have to take a historical perspective. Understanding our school system’s past, is very helpful. I was lucky enough to grow up here. Went to Newton’s public schools. Put my three kids through our school system K-12. I don”t know if you’ve had the same opportunities to gain that perspective. And in this case… the proper perspective is everything!
@Alison and Marian: Why not include these “additional age-friendly” add-ons that will be in one of the buildings in all of the buildings? They don’t have to be in every single unit – but dispersed throughout the development. That’s what I meant by segregating. Only 1 building out of how many? will have these additional age-friendly add-ons so that means a person (maybe senior) who wants these can only look to one building.
Amy, I don’t know about the specifics of the “age friendly” amenities at Northland. But the same holds true in hotels regarding accessibility (and I suspect some of the fixtures would be the same).
These rooms have grab bars in the showers and next to the toilets. They have no-step showers, possibly without tubs. I have even seen some with emergency call buttons.
These fixtures are a great help for people with reduced mobility, but they add expense for others. People who don’t need these features may actively not want them for aesthetics or space reasons.
As to why put these features in a single building, I think it would make sense from a maintenance and service perspective. The building could possibly have extra staff to provide additional services, and common space could be designed differently. There might be extra pickup space for senior vans to simplify mobility logistics. I have heard of co-housing facilities that offer short term rentals that may be appropriate for visiting families.
All these possibilities function better with some level of concentration. Residents of such a building would be steps away from many more people than the average Newton resident. I don’t see the risk of isolation or segregation.
Given how many Newton seniors stay in place in houses designed without any explicit accommodations, I would suspect many would benefit from a modern building designed to regular code with an elevator anywhere in a new development. By offering a specialized building (and not just units in a building), you offer extended opportunities for the relatively select group that needs them.