Mark Development has revised plans for its project at Riverside Station, reducing the project from 1,234,000 sq. ft. to 1,025,000 sq. ft. The new project would be 60 percent will be residential and 40 percent commercial. A letter and documents can be found here and here’s an except from the letter…
Over the past several months, Mark Development has been engaged in extended discussions with representatives of the Lower Falls Improvement Association (“LFIA”) in an effort to craft amendments which will be reasonably acceptable both to the developer and to the LFIA. The developer is submitting the revised proposed text amendments today in order to have the same considered by the Zoning and Planning Committee at its meeting this coming Monday evening. However, the LFIA has not as yet had an opportunity to consider the same fully.
The significant aspects of the revised proposed text amendments include the following:
1. A reduction in density from 1,234,000 square feet to 1,025,000 square feet of which 60% shall be residential and 40% shall be commercial.
2. The establishment of maximum heights and minimum setbacks along the Grove Street corridor.
Major kudos to the LFIA and Rightside Riverside for their tremendous work and persistence in sitting at the negotiating table with Mark Development and working towards a mutually agreeable zoning amendments.
It’s not over but much progress has been done and it is truly a model on how community groups and developers can and should work together.
Good going Right Size Newton. The precise timing … looks like they’ve been reading V14.
Huh?
Beyond the change in overall square footage, does anyone know how this compares to the original proposal in terms of commercial vs residential %, # of housing units?
Does the city have to give up on some of the beenfits that were being offered to schools, open space, road mitigation, public anemities, etc?
Is 1,000,000 sf of construction at Riverside ( 1500new units of housing at Washington Street,.. 800 units at Needham Street ), the “RIGHT SIZE”??!!!
This is the result of an old time Soviet negotiating tactic,.. the asking for the moon and the stars,.. and then accepting the real “ meat on the bone” reward.
At the same time the the “opposition “,
having been lead to the slaughterhouse, can say to their constituents , that this is a great deal,.. look how much the developer has have “ given up “!
Density is the Problem not the solution!
And where does it say that the LFIA has agreed to any of this nonsense ?
Greg, yes, your anti Right Size posts and aspersions, and pro dense development postings, such as Sean’s, always draw out the comments in opposition, where readers can garner the true pulse of Newton residents. V14 is the remaining city wide info source and forum for Newton residents, read by civic leaders (what’s left of the TAB has become worthless).
So some thanks for the developer’s downsizing here should go to you and Sean as well. (Your weekend attack on Right Size Newton is but one example.)
So you’re suggesting that my Oct. 26 blog post questioning the financing of Right Sized’s campaign fliers helped contribute to an agreement outlined in a letter dated Oct. 25?
I’m good but not that good.
Greg, “dated” Friday Oct 25, delivered Monday Oct 28.
@Jim: you scare me.
Re: the update on the site, sure, we can’t let the decent be the enemy of the not-terrible, and if it’s a compromise that moves us closer to getting something done, that’s probably a good thing.
More generally, we have had several topics on this site in the last month where the obvious argument was “well, if you made Riverside significantly larger, given its siting and transit access, you could negotiate and make real progress towards community goal X, Y, or Z”. I’d wager most city planners looking at the site would also want something significantly larger than this. In other words, if one was actually interested in figuring out the Right Size for this particular site with analysis, data, and projections, it is not going to be “throw up 40 or 50 single-families”.
(Though I guess that would mean quarter-acre lots, which would probably be too dense for Right Size anyways…)
I’m sad to see a smaller project at this site. I believe it is the most ideal site in the Greater Boston area for a dense, transit oriented development.
But all things considered, I’m happy to see a smaller project if that means it will get the votes at City Hall and earn the support of Lower Falls residents. The developer and NLF residents deserve a lot of credit for finding a sensible way forward here, assuming LFIA does endorse the new plan…
Wonder why the city doesn’t request that the new Senior Center be located at Riverside.
Will this change result in fewer affordable units than what was originally proposed?
@Christine Riverside would be a great place for a Senior Center if it were centrally located.
Albermarle is not centrally located and there is very little if any public transportation. At least Riverside is accessible by bus and by train.
Had a chuckle over those folks in this thread and others who have complained about the reduction in the size of the plan for Riverside. You know the developer actually had to listen to the folks in the neighborhood instead of getting just what he wanted!!! What a concept!!! That’s the way it should be!!!