A very big development project at the Northland site in Upper Falls is on the table and hinges on the City Council issuing a Special Permit in the coming months. The nearby neighbors are understandably concerned about the size and scale of the project and it’s impact on the neighborhood. Adding 800+ units of housing to Upper Falls’ existing 1200 units of housing is by any measure a massive change. Add to that the school concerns, traffic concerns and its a big deal.
Unlike the Austin St, this entire project is being built on private property. On a parcel this massive, a private property owner has the right to build whatever they want so long as it complies with local zoning code and regulations (i.e. “by right”). In this case though, Northland is applying for a Special Permit, i.e. exceptions to the standard regulations. Because of Northland’s request for a Special Permit, the city has a fair amount of bargaining power that it wouldn’t have if the project were being built “by right”.
Concerned residents have been organized by RightSize Newton and have been showing up at meetings in force, rallying behind particular candidates, writing letters, emails, etc. Over the last year, the group’s focus has not been to work on incrementally improving the current proposal but to mobilize people who are concerned about the scale of the project, and work towards getting the council to turn down the Special Permit.
My question is what is the alternative that they see and how do they anticipate that we’ll get there.
As best as I can see there are five possible alternatives.
1. The current proposal, with some horse trading on aspects of the proposal, gets passed by the City Council and built. As best as I can tell, RIghtSize Newton has had no interest in getting involved with that negotiation.
2. The Special Permit fails and Northland decides to build what they can “by right” without needing a Special Permit. That would allow up to 1.5 million square feet of commercial development. The traffic implications of that would be staggering.
3. The Special Permit fails and Northland decides to build a 40B development. Under those rules the city would have barely any leverage and they could build far more than the currently planned 800+ units, with the attendant traffic and school issues magnified.
4. Northland goes back to the drawing board, starts again and comes back with a new Special Permit proposal. After spending years and millions on this plan, I think the likelihood of that happening is vanishingly small … and probably no more likely to garner support form those who oppose the current project
5. The Special Permit fails and Northland leaves it as it is – a giant sea of broken pavement and crumbling buildings (though everybody does love that beautiful Sacco-Pettee mill building). This last alternative is the least likely of all and by no means a good outcome.
So here are my question:
- Do you support a Special Permit being granted for the current proposal?
- Would you support a Special Permit for the current proposal so long as specific changes were made. If so, what changes.
- If you’re against granting a Special Permit:
- What is your desired alternative outcome?
- Are there other alternatives that should be added to my list?
- How do you think we’ll get to your desired alternative should the Special Permit be denied?
@Jerry
I know you’re well intentioned, but you unfortunately leave off an obvious alternative- build units consistent with the current zoning. How many would that be?
Has there been any case made that the current zoning doesn’t enable some modest growth of housing? Why is it 800 units or 40B or nothing?
@Paul – As I understand it, they can’t build any housing without a Special Permit or zoning change since it is currently zoned as commercial space. As far as I know the only thing they can build “by right”is commercial – up to 1.5 million sq feet’s worth.
I’m no expert so if anyone knows differently, please jump in.
My guess is that they’d split the parcel, do a 40B on one half, and as right commercial on the rest. Lots of options on a parcel that big.
I think it is very possible to block this particular development. But I also think that what comes next after it is blocked isn’t as clear.
The problem with playing chicken with development is that sometimes the crash actually occurs.
I think the Stop and Shop on Needham street turning into Avalon would be a prime example.
An empty lot that big in a community as well-off in Newton is going to get developed. Perhaps what Right Size really wants is to delay that as long as possible.
How much was it acquired for? Maybe the city could eminent domain that site as well and make a great park by the river. (just kidding)
@Jerry: How do you think 1.5 million square ft of commercial property would affect our tax base?
That eyesore needs to be developed but I would like to see a mostly commercial development with appropriate traffic mitigation and public transportation shuttles. Otherwise, we are giving up one of the few commercial opportunities that Newton has which would add to the tax base. We can put housing elsewhere in areas that are zoned residential.
I would like to see a plan for how the city can become in compliance with 40B (I think we’re close). That way we will increase our equality AND get rid of this threat that developers use to get what they want rather than what we want. We seem to accept these suboptimal developer proposals because they threaten us with doing a 40B instead.
Northland is going to have to give more, I think, even with a City Council I anticipate will remain friendly to denser residential development. That means increasing money for Countryside (already overdue for an expansion) and scaling back the number of units. They’re not there yet.
How does the process related to 40B work!? Does a City or town submit information that it is in compliance on a regular basis? Or does the issue arise when a developer submits a plan to use 40b to go around the local zoning and then a city or town must appeal and or provide supporting documents that they are in compliance to prevent the 40b? And in calculating whether a city has hit the 10% mark does it just take into account actually built units or does it include units permitted in the pipeline to be built?
Does 40b trump zoning?
It’s zoned commercial / industrial,.. how can zoning be kissed off like this?
Is it meaningless ?!!!
Commercial property is taxed at 2 x residential, and the city is $1,000,000,000 in debt. Don’t we want to pay off that debt?
Commercial or residential we’ll have a traffic problem either way.
Let’s encourage commercial development here and elsewhere in the city and begin to decrease our residential tax burden !
@Blueprint: Of course it does. That’s the entire basis and intent of the 40B law. It’s intended to keep communities from using zoning to keep out affordable housing.
And @Laurie is right. Once a community reaches it’s 40B threshold (as, for example, Needham as done) then developers can no longer use 40B as a tool to develop projects a community may not want (or to use a term popular among the NINBY crowd “shove it down our throats”).
Northland cannot build a single unit of housing under current zoning. But under 40B could, um, “shove hundreds of units of housing down our throats” without adding shuttles, giving $1.5 million to renovate Countryside, give $5 million to improve traffic and transpiration, build a splash park, build a village green along with other open space and all the other benefits of the project that are before the city council.
Blueprintbill said: “Commercial or residential we’ll have a traffic problem either way.”
There will be traffic either way, but the pattern and amount really depends on your commercial type and residential mix.
Office commercial is likely going to be “peaky”: traffic weighted to rush hour. If you have shops and storefronts, your traffic will depend on how long people stay there. Whether the business has local or regional demand shapes larger traffic patterns.
For residential, the residential mix affects traffic. Lots of commuters? Peaky traffic. Lots of retirees? More diffuse throughout the day.
Then we get to non-commute trips. For residential, is every errand a drive, or can people stop by a CVS or grocery at the corner? Is the gym or doctor’s office a short walk away? What about friends?
For commercial, where’s lunch? Can people do errands without driving? How about entertainment after work? If it exists, then peak outbound traffic spreads out, but there might be some inbound traffic in the evening.
All of these have varying degrees of mitigation by something like a shuttle or improved mass transit.
We talk a lot about reducing cars, but everybody wins if we reduce trips (which obviously reducing cars helps with). Everyone wins when people can do errands or get to work faster without using a car. If someone owns a car but doesn’t use it much, we’ve accomplished something. If more of those cars become electric, we accomplish incrementally more. If some of any of those become shared rides, shared vehicles, or bikes, even better, as long as we are actually reducing trips.
All of those things may not be our ultimate ideal solution to lower-impact living, but I believe every step we can take to get even incremental improvements we should take.
And finally, if someone gives up their car, or never bought one in the first place because they simply didn’t need one, we’ve not just done better for traffic and the environment, we’ve done better for the person by their own choice. Everybody wins.
Zoning and permits allow us to shape projects so that the most people inside and outside of the development benefit.
People are beginning to comment regularly on Newton’s OPEB liability of $1 billion (“other post-employment benefits” that we have granted to retirees), but this is a topic that is rarely addressed when contemplating the benefits of development. A reminder that the commercial tax base is 2x that of residential (therefore a significant driver for revenue to the city).
While it’s important to consider how Newton contributes to the region’s residential housing shortage (I am not denying that there is one), SOMEONE also needs to be IN FRONT and steering the ship on HOW we will fund our way out of this significant liability — and not denigrated for doing so. The city’s budget must be balanced annually, so any “debt” that is taken on (to fund OPEB) must be passed through an override.
There should be a balanced conversation about the development that we pursue – commercial vs. residential and the honorable goals that the city has as well as the significant financial challenges that it faces over the short to medium-term.
I think EVERY POST that discusses development, whether residential or commercial, needs to include a reminder of the extreme financial liability that Newton faces in the relatively short term and HOW we plan to fund it.
@ANP – Looks like you’re getting your wish. 4 of the 12 comments above mention the financial advantages to the city of commercial development.
@Jerry – I think that the direct link between commercial development (tax revenue) and OPEB is necessary. If we didn’t have the overhang of OPEB, at least from my perspective, priorities would change.
For better or worse, Northland as well as all the other big projects on the table (Riverside, Washington Place) have both sizable commercial as well as residential components.
Northland’s project includes 180,000 square feet of Class A office space targeted at small and mid sized companies.
That represents an increase by 10 percent of all of Class A office space on both the Needham and Newton sides of the N-Squared Innovation District.
In other words, they’re adding a lot of commercial office to this market.
That 180,000 SF is just office, it doesn’t include the restaurants and retail space that’s also a big part of this project.
Also worth noting: The commercial real estate market has changed dramatically over the past 5 years, especially with low unemployment. Businesses will not look to move or expand into a market where there is insufficient housing and amenities for their workers. So those 800 units of housing, along with the shops, restaurants and shuttles, matter to employers who are contemplating moving or staying in Newton.
In other words: In order to grow our commercial tax base, we need housing to help attract and retain our businesses.
@Greg I think it depends on what your lens is re: housing placement. If you surveyed all of the companies locating in the Seaport, my guess is that you would find a vast majority of their workers do NOT live Seaport-adjacent — they commute. Your link of housing IN Newton to commercial space IN Newton, no snark, seems specious. The greater Boston area commutes. Most of Newton commutes. We need to find a greener way for people get around, but I doubt you’re going to radically change the paradigm by directly linking new housing development in Newton with new commercial development in Newton.
Anyway, I get that the new developments have some commercial space. I think that they should have *more*. And I think that Newton should be figuring out how to draw solid, reputable, long-term companies to our community. (and our tax base) (to fund OPEB) Many of our neighbors have done this and are learning to do this. We should, too. (My opinion only, of course, but in the vein of Newton’s $1 billion OPEB liability, I think it’s valid.)
The N-Squared Innovation District, an area of about 500 acres — including all of Wells Ave and the office park where TripAdvisor is — includes 1.8 million SF of class A office space. Northland, a parcel of 23 acres is going to grow that number by 10 percent. That’s a lot.
@ANP: Boston and Cambridge have added thousands of units of housing. It’s still not keeping up with demand but it absolutely is helping support what’s happening in the Seaport, North Station, the Financial District and other parts of the city.
I’m not making this up. It’s well documented
@Greg – yup, agreed. Room to push for more.
@Greg Reibman – Potential housing for workers in all that new office space? Yes I can see that.
Housing for retail and restaurant workers? – not so much, not at Newton housing prices.
True Jerry. Housing for low wage and hourly workers is a regional crisis. Prices will not come down until supply goes up.
Case in point: yesterday I heard about someone who owns several rental units in Upper Falls. He’s opposed to Northland, not for the usual reasons we hear, but because he believes it will drive down the prices he can charge for his units.
That stinks for him but it’s potentially great for someone who can’t afford Newton now.
@Greg – no disagreement from me. Boston and Cambridge have been developing residential units; perhaps not in line with the pace of their commercial development, but they continue to build residential properties.
I lost my own line of focus, though. Newton’s commercial tax base. Looming OPEB. A need for a balanced city budget each year.
We should all be focused on this and be mildly terrified. My take: our development priorities should focus on expanding Newton’s commercial tax base in order to set our city’s finances in good stead to be able to pay for significant expenses that will hit in relatively short order. Once that priority is achieved, we have full capacity to prioritize additional initiatives.
$1 billion in OPEB is scary.
(I am planning to copy and paste my initial post above to further development posts, not to be a bore, but to continue to shine a light on OPEB and commercial development!)
If Northland wanted to build via 40b, they’d be breaking ground right now.
No, they want Special Permit because they will make more profits in the long run, despite the fact that folks won’t be about to afford these apartments (30% of income), they do nothing to help a young family build wealth (condos), and their solution to traffic demand management are shuttle buses to the already crowded and often delayed Highland MBTA stop – not to mention a Developer funded “demographic study” claiming school enrollments will drop (despite classrooms hitting over 30 students per class in high school), which contradicts everything we know about the schools today.
There’s a better deal to be had, and if not, the Special Permit should be rejected and let them deal with “by right” or 40b.
If you agree, please share your thoughts: [email protected]
@Matt Lai – Yes, clearly Northland’s objective at the moment is to build the currently proposed project.
Should the special permit be denied, the biggest undeveloped parcel in the city is unlikely to remain undeveloped for very long. That’s where 40B or massive commercial-only “by-right” development begin to sound likely … neither of which sound like a better outcome to me.
Matt, it doesn’t make sense to me that they’d be building apartments that no on can afford. They may not be affordable for as much of the population as you and I would like, but I don’t doubt the developer has done analysis to figure out they’ll be able to rent them.
Also, you keep emphasizing condos versus renting, and I again point out that the developer has a vested interest in knowing what people want and actually providing it.
Ownership brings a lot of complications and costs that a portion of the population simply doesn’t want. Young people often have significant student debt and aren’t in the position to get more, or to lock up their liquid assets in a 20% down payment. They may want housing mobility that renting offers.
Older people simply may not recover the costs of purchasing a new property after selling a home for years, or they may want to keep their options open without investing in property (option to move to assisted care, etc).
There are advantages to either renting or buying. This isn’t a developer’s fiat.
Fair comments Mike. I am NOT a development expert, but I do know this….the Special Permit has had no meaningful changes to address the public’s concern about density for almost a year. It feels like this benefits everyone (especially the Developer) and the current citizens of Newton and Upper Falls are getting the short end of the stick. I’m not alone in this sentiment.
They thought pony rides and free food trucks would be enough to sway the public. That’s how much they think of us.
It’s clear Northland is not willing to reduce density (residential units). The only meaningful impact the public can make is to urge the Council to REJECT the Special Permit. We still live in a democracy, right?
@Jerry I live around the corner from the proposed development and am in full support of making that space useable and welcoming some additional families into the neighborhood. I would be in favor of the council granting the special permit.
“Ownership brings a lot of complications and costs that a portion of the population simply doesn’t want. Young people often have significant student debt and aren’t in the position to get more, or to lock up their liquid assets in a 20% down payment. They may want housing mobility that renting offers.”
Yes, but………. the rents for these places aren’t going to be feasible for most young people, either.
MMQC says, “Yes, but………. the rents for these places aren’t going to be feasible for most young people, either.”
Someone’s going to live there. Rents can be changed to fill units.
It’s much easier for a property owner to dynamically adjust rents to match the market than it is to cut the asking price for a condo. Rents are only for a year. Condo sales are much longer term.
There are enough young professionals (and professional couples) who have good salaries to pay rent, but either have minimal savings or don’t want to commit it to a real estate investment. We live in a world of social mobility for people coming out of college. They have their first post-college jobs and they are figuring out their options. Same may be true for older residents who cash out of a home and planning out their next steps.
You’ve mentioned that these kinds of rents aren’t providing for the working class people who need housing. I agree. Inclusionary zoning policies and affordable unit set-asides really are challenged to provide unsubsidized affordable units simply because new units have high construction costs (even just due to code) that needs to be recouped.
We need a way to build unsubsidized, smaller, more modest units of housing that are energy efficient and low maintenance somewhere. Provide as best we can for the working class in the same way West Newton served GI families after World War II. That’s in Newton’s history. It’s shaped our city.
Except the land that was orchards and farmland was cheap then. Now it isn’t. A modest single family on its own piece of land is a million dollars because it could have been a mansion for $1.4M.
If we value the kinds of neighbors we have in our neighborhoods, rather than just the kinds of houses we have, then we’ll have to think about how Newton needs to adapt to make that possible.
Someone is going to live there. In a one bedroom apartment, at 3000.00, it’s going to be workforce Housing for the high tech / bio tech businesses being encourage to lease offices in the new buildings in Boston.
That’s the market demographic – it’s the only one that makes sense, and is in line with the fact that the mayors of surrounding towns “pledged” (or something) to build the housing to support the development in Boston.
So, we get to deal with the housing for the chic waterfront office buildings in Boston.
@Rich Frank – Nothing new there. For the last 100 years or more Newton has been the housing for Boston’s office buildings and in more recent decades, for Bedford’s, Waltham’s, Westwood’s, etc. office buildings too.
Jerry,
Great post.