Boston Globe columnist Jon Chesto explores an agreement between Mark Development’s Robert Korff and the Newton Lower Falls Improvement Association for Riverside Station.
… Korff finally has a formula that the neighborhood apparently can live with, if not embrace: just over 1 million square feet, with a promise that at least 60 percent will be housing. (That pencils out to about 600 apartments, including some 100 affordable units.) Korff and the Newton Lower Falls Improvement Association reached the deal in time for a City Council hearing on Monday night to discuss the project’s zoning changes.
Where is there any indication that this supposed “agreement “, with LFIA is true?
Let’s hear from LFIA and /or Right Size that they are in fact in “Accord”, with the developers.
@Blueprint: Did you read the article? The reporter talked to Randy Block.
Randy??? Are you out there ?
Let’s hear it from you .
And “Right Size “?
It was discussed at tonight’s ZAP meeting as well. A representative of LFIA was allowed to speak at the podium to confirm that the group approved of the new proposal. The deal included larger setbacks along Grove, lower building heights, and a minimum of 60% residential use. There was a large group of LFIA supporters in the audience.
@Bill: You really ought to break down and subscribe to the Globe. The local coverage this week alone has been at a level we haven’t seen in years.
An honest question: why the strong preference toward residential vs commercial from the local area council? I’m not seeing it as a traffic or infrastructure issue?
From a broader lens (tax revenue to Newton) we should be pushing for as much commercial development as possible.
@ANP, commercial development generates far more motor vehicle traffic, particularly at rush hours, than residential development. This is especially true where the residential development is located near public transportation.
Second what Ted said. Frankly, I’m not psyched about the 60-40 split since it makes more sense to make Riverside fully residential so we can have as much residential housing as possible (which in turn means more affordable units being set aside) and considering how Riverside is a major modal hub (only the Green Line and the Intercity Buses run daily), most people would drive to Riverside to do their shopping or head to their offices.
Correction: I meant to say Riverside is NOT a major modal hub
It great to see a neighborhood association reach a compromise with a developer. Congrats to the Lower Falls Improvement Association coming to an agreement with Mark Development. Is that hope I feel?
If we are in such a housing shortage, why not make it 100% residential? Is it more lucrative for the developer?