The following originally appeared as a letter to the editor in this week’s Newton TAB. Reprinted with permission.
In a recent newsletter, Mayor Fuller informs us that the plan for Riverside has been scaled back in response to “neighbors’ concerns,” which “also means a reduction in community benefits.” She suggests attending the next City Council hearing, if we “want to be involved.” I can almost hear, “Or whatever.”
The lack of enthusiasm in the Mayor’s message is unsettling. A year ago, she signed the Metro Mayors Coalition Housing Task Force Compact with 14 other area leaders (housingtaskforce.mapc.org), affirming the dire regional housing shortage and pledging to do all she could to alleviate it.
At the time, she told the Boston Globe that housing proposals in Newton faced tough neighborhood opposition, but she had faith in the power of wise planning—e.g., siting denser housing around T stations.
By this measure, the Riverside project is a godsend and Mayor Fuller should be its loudest cheerleader—and distressed by the deletion of 151 homes from a proposal for this large, transit-rich site.
Sad as I am about cuts to the plan for Riverside, it makes perfect sense that there should be tradeoffs. Smaller projects naturally yield smaller benefits: fewer affordable homes, less open-space money, less tax revenue. Things have to pencil out.
Still, why are we short-changing ourselves and the larger region whose well-being we depend on? Given the magnitude of both our housing and our climate crisis, we should be maximizing, not diminishing, Riverside’s potential.
Mayor Fuller and a number of sitting Councilors were on the City Council in 2013, when a prior plan for Riverside was approved. That plan, by BH Normandy LLC, had suffered severe cutbacks during Council deliberations, and in the end proved infeasible. It could not attract the necessary financing and remained stalled until 2016, when Mark Development approached Normandy about partnering on a new plan.
Let’s hope the latest Riverside proposal resists further shrinkage and avoids the fate of its predecessor. I do think it would help if Mayor Fuller could get excited about it.
— Kathleen Hobson
Excellent letter. Thank you Kathleen.
I realize that I spend too much time debating change with those who oppose any change and not enough energy encouraging our leaders to be bigger and bolder to address our region’s critical workforce and housing needs in the face of a changing climate. Appreciate the reminder. I hope your message resonates with Mayor Fuller as well.
We’ll put, Kathleen.
Kathleen – Thank you for being a passionate advocate for making Newton a truly welcoming community, a community that enables a broader range of people to live here. Our teachers and firefighters, our baristas and waiters, our friends in wheelchairs, our aging parents and adult children all need places to live and Newton should be a place they can call home. We should also recognize that when housing supplies are limited it is easier to discriminate, and reported cases of housing discrimination are on the rise for families with young children, LGBTQ couples, POC, domestic abuse survivors, and others. I have a rainbow PEACE flag and a lawn sign welcoming all. I hope others that have these recognize the need to stand up for housing the same way we stood up for immigrants and refugees.
As I’ve said in another comment, what is specific relationship between the elements that have been scaled back and the objections that the community has raised about the project?
In particular, how do the changes mitigate traffic concerns, which to me is the most straightforward and understandable point of objection? Will the changes help make Riverside potentially a better transportation-oriented development?
Are these changes and the reasons for them published somewhere? Has any planner on any side of this issue vetted them?
We are pre-occupied with “out of character”, “bigger” or “smaller”, “more stories” or “too tall”.
We should be talking about “does it work” and “what does it offer us” and “how can this be better” and “how do we know?”.
Greg, that’s an excellent and useful thought. I too have been spending too much energy arguing with people who will never be convinced, I think because I’m so deeply disappointed in certain attitudes that seem to be prevalent among those opposing voices in our community. I too will turn my attention to making my voice heard as a supporter of this and similar projects. A recent study reported in the Globe noted that most people who show up to speak at community meetings are those who oppose housing, and moreover, that those individuals are generally not demographically representative of the community, nor do they represent the views of the majority. It’s time for the rest of us to make our voices heard, because I believe we are the majority.
Kathleen, thank you for such a thoughtful and passionate letter.
I couldn’t agree more, Kathleen. To AD’s point, it is important that Newton voters voice support for progress like this loudly and frequently. I recently read a study commissioned by Boston University that found that the NIMBY crowd tends to dominate decision-making at the local government level, especially in regards to real estate projects. We need to show up! I also believe that we are the majority in Newton.
You can read the BU study at this link:
“Who participates in local government? Evidence from meeting minutes”.
https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/34276
Ahem: 1) Do any of the above posters live within a half mile radius of Riverside? 2) Ditto for work? Only yes or no answers please. Thank you.
I live in Newton Centre. I wasn’t aware that those who live/work within a half mile radius of Riverside were the only people entitled to an opinion on it…
Pat:
Can we do the same for the folks who opposed Austin street and Washington place?
For Austin Street, one of the folks I talked to after the meetings told me she was opposing it because it would make coming to her yoga studio more difficult because of the parking. I asked where she lived and she said…Watertown. 😉
I also remember another person upset because we were ruining Newtonville as a convenemient place to run errands. That was at the Walnut street reconfiguration meeting.
I still shrug at both comments. But hey, everyone gets a chance to comment. No matter where they live.
Pat, do you live within a half mile radius of Webster Woods? Ablemarle? The Needham St. project? If not, I expect you will follow your own rule and not comment on these topics.
Could it be that the Mayor has heard from or is listening to the majority of Newton’s citizenry who object to the densification of the city ?!
@Ryan: I am not saying anyone should or shouldn’t comment. My concern is that the biggest stakeholders (those who live near Riverside) are most affected. Referring to them as NIMBY strikes me as highly disingenuous. Would any of you want this in your backyard?! What Mike Halle said.
“Referring to them as NIMBY strikes me as highly disingenuous. Would any of you want this in your backyard?!”…….isn’t that the definition of NIMBY?
And yes, I would gladly welcome more dense housing here in Newton Centre.
I live in Newton Centre and welcome more dense mixed housing and commercial development.
Climate change is going to screw us (and especially working class and minorities) unless we start creating zoning that pushes for energy efficient housing and CO2 emissions reduction.
All this talk about traffic and “neighborhood character” is nothing compared to roasting summer temps regularly reaching into the 100s, seasonal allergies getting worse due to increased pollen and allergens, and winters regularly dump a foot of snow on us.
I live a half mile from Riverside station, and for climate & quality of life reasons, support a dense mixed use development, including low income units, that is walking, biking, & transit friendly; trades building height for outdoor space; uses passive house building standards; & incentivizes car sharing over car ownership/storage.
@Nathan I think those are excellent goals. I just don’t see Riverside delivering on those as currently proposed. There will be no low income housing and very little affordable housing. And the only walkability at that location will be within the complex. But there won’t be a full service grocery store. I doubt there will be a CVS or Walgreens or child care or a doggie day care. I drive less than 5000 miles a year which is significantly less than average. But those are the reasons I get in my car each week to residents will still need cars.
I also worry that at the current proposed mix of housing to commercial use there will be a huge increase of commuters boarding the Green Line at Riverside and as a regular commuter on that line who boards at Newton Centre that will be disasterous. There just isn’t extra capacity on the GL. Has the MBTA offered to add capacity? Will they add additional scheduled Express service from Riverside to Kenmore without reducing service to the Village Stations?
My kids after school is located near Riverside station, and I live in the Highlands. I can tell you that I am very concerned about the traffic patterns around Riverside. I have not read enough information to convince me that the traffic mitigation has been fully vetted. I have tried to pick up a child at the community center during a sports parade, and the parking/traffic is a nightmare. Those were only a few times during my ten years of using the center, but I can tell you if the neighborhood needs to absorb that type of traffic, it wasn’t designed for it. The people in the current neighborhood shouldn’t have to battle a 15 min trip from Riverside to the Community Center daily. The amount of pollution will increase just for that, unless there is a dramatic increase in public transportation.
Claire, good points! You said, “But there won’t be a full service grocery store. I doubt there will be a CVS or Walgreens or child care or a doggie day care. ”
I agree, those kinds of resources help make the development self-sufficient and serve the neighborhood.
A market, even a small one, would be really great. A pharmacy, really great. Daycare, gym, pet care, great. All reduce car trips.
So why aren’t the project compromises aimed squarely at getting those things? Why argue more abstract things like heights and hotel units and commercial/residential mix?
Maybe there have been discussions behind the scene, but they should be front and center. We should be maximizing the good, not just mitigating factors somewhat related to what we think is bad.
I live within a half mile of Riverside, and I support this project. Newton is a highly desirable place in which to live. The City Council should approve this project to allow more people to live here and to help relieve the region-wide housing shortage. And 17.5 percent of the housing will be reserved for people with low to moderate incomes.
As for traffic, of course there will be more of it. But one should not judge the problem from the traffic jams that result when the Red Sox play or the Patriots have a Super Bowl parade. These will continue to be a problem, a minor one in the scheme of things, no matter what is built on the site.
The developer has devised a traffic mitigation plan that will go far to minimize the impact of extra vehicle trips. The most prominent feature of the plan is the underpass under Grove Street that move traffic from I-95 northbound directly onto the site. As a result, vehicles moving down Grove Street will not be allowed to make a left turn into the Riverside parking lot. This will eliminate a major cause of congestion there.
And please don’t argue that we need a CVS or Trader Joe’s on the site. This development was never intended to provide commercial space on the scale these businesses would require. These would add to the traffic in a way that is not essential to the project.
@ Tom , clearly you missed my point. I didn’t mention traffic. I mentioned two points:
1) If the rationale for transit centered development in general, and Riverside in particular is that it will help us reduce our carbon foot print, and that we are making it a walkable community, then you need to address the reasons people get in their cars on a daily basis. Otherwise it is just a philosphical debate.
2) If we front load the trains at Riverside without addressing capacity, this has an adverse impact on Newton AND Boston commuters trying to board down stream.
Green Line is working on adding capacity. They had a meeting at the Newton Free Library 2 weeks ago to present their plans. It would be good to see this work happen faster. By completing the Riverside Greenway there will be easy, safe ways to walk to the Auburndale CR and bike to Brandeis CR, Waltham and Cambridge. Add in the very real possibility of major changes on the Worcester CR that will enable fast, frequent all day service in both directions and transit options become amazing.
I wouldn’t support building Riverside as currently planned on some pipe dream that the MBTA will step up. I would want to know specific timelines and commitments
@Pat Irwin — I live less than three blocks from Austin Street and Washington Place and I was, and remain, a major supporter of both developments, as well as the additional planned developments that will bring new housing and commercial buildings along Washington Street, two blocks from my front door. I’ve lived within blocks of Washington Street for all of the 28 years I have lived in Newton, both in Newtonville and West Newton Square. I am looking forward to welcoming new neighbors (and fellow train commuters) as well as the new businesses and improvements to our neighborhood streetscapes that this will bring to Newtonville.
So no, pro-housing people aren’t just supporting development that is far away from our own homes, though Riverside is also an ideal place for it!
It was great reading something positive in the paper about adding new housing – thanks Kathleen. I did not realize that Mayor Fuller was not a supporter of Riverside.
I do think we have to understand that as Riverside and other developments are fleshed out, the folks who live in and use the area of the particular new development will be the most affected by it and perhaps will work the hardest to get the concessions needed to make it a good fit for Newton.
Unless these folks are among those who just say “no” to welcoming more residents of all kinds or say “no to any change” in Newton, or are surreptitiously wanting to weed certain people out of Newton (no to renters because … ) etc. then they are right to work hard to help make the project work well in the area of Newton it is in. Of course with all of the “code words” used, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference but that doesn’t mean it is an impossible task. Lumping all residents who attempt to make changes in proposals into one category, NIMBY, is easy, disingenuous and wrong.
I live in Newtonville close to Cabot School and will admit that I work harder to achieve mitigation or advocate for changes to proposals that are relatively close to me, including Riverside. I can’t be overly involved in all of the proposed new developments so I mostly, other than keeping up with the proposals and a few emails to councilors or the mayor, leave that advocacy to the folks that live nearby.
Fig brought up Austin Street. I lived on Austin Street on the corner of Austin and Lowell during the years long process of turning the proposal into a done deal. I always supported having a new mixed-use development over the parking lot but during that interminable process, I advocated for several changes (including talking directly to the developer) that did end up being a part of the new development which I continue to believe will become just part of the fabric of Newtonville as years pass.
My point is, depending on who was speaking – the definitely no’s or the build it now’s – I was either placed in the “build anything” or “NIMBY” category when obviously my position was more nuanced as I advocated for modifications that, to me, would make the project more Newtonville friendly.
@AD: do you own a helicopter &/or bycicle everywhere? If not, dust off your copy of War and Peace, because you’ll be sitting in traffic way more than ever before.