To listen to the Right Size argument in Newton is to hear a lot about the heights of buildings. Right Sizers living near the Northland property think it has too many apartments, while those over near Riverside fretted (until recently) that it had too few housing units and too much commercial. In both cases, building heights became a primary issue with words like “towers” thrown around left, right and center. Those towers, we’re told, will take away from the character of nearby neighborhoods.
During the last election cycle, I asked a few candidates what they feel is the ideal height for Washington Street and the answer I got back was 3 to 4 stories. When I asked why, I was told by one city councilor “I don’t know, it’s just what I feel is right.”
In West Newton it’s almost all about height. When I went canvassing with Alicia Bowman I heard worried residents complain that Washington Street would be “lined with 11 story buildings.” That’s never been proposed and is an entirely false narrative, but somehow it’s what people are hearing. Unfortunately, when the Principle Group came up with its draft of the Washington Street Vision Plan it mentioned two possible 10 story buildings (about a mile apart), both dependent upon a developer meeting certain qualifications and givebacks. I say “unfortunately” not because it’s a bad idea, but because it’s all anyone seems to have heard. Height began to dominate a discussion that should have been about so much more. I attended many of the Hello Washington Street sessions and felt they did a great job of trying to understand what we as a community wanted. They returned a plan that aimed to give us the walkable, interesting, vibrant village we asked for within the realities of the regional real estate and development market.
What the current discussion about height misses is that height is more a function of other factors over which we may or may not have control. Sure, we can put zoning limits on height, but if we make things too short then we risk not having any development at all (which I’m sure will satisfy some) or we risk encouraging the types of over-priced developments that we may not want.
In a recent Twitter argument between Ward 2 City Councilor Emily Norton and resident Brendan Keegan, Norton noted that she wants to use height as the negotiation point, saying: “I would have voted for Washington Place if they had reduced to 4 stories. I have been clear I support up to 4 stories on Washington St. That would be a LOT more density than is there now. I was pleased to get EV charging & reduced cost MBTA passes into the Washington Place… Special Permit. My opponent wants to allow 5 stories by right on Washington St. That would have given City Council NO SAY in Austin Street or Washington Place – ie no EV charging, no cheaper MBTA passes. Conversations with developers should be negotiations not rubber stamp.”
She’s right that we need to have conversations with developers, but we need those to be consistent. The idea of setting up a limit by right and then a max with conditions makes sense, but today the process feels arbitrary and unpredictable.
Overall, the argument we should be having is: what do we want as a community?
During that last election cycle I also asked candidates around Newtonville what they thought of the current mix of stores and how we can bring in the type of retail that drives life and foot traffic. At least one City Councilor told me that what we had there was all we were getting, we weren’t getting better stores. Yet, when 28 Austin opens up it’ll have both a Caffe Nero and a Henry Bear’s Park, both of which add to the vitality of Newtonville. When Washington Place opens yes it’ll have a bank, but it will also have The Barn and affordable space for other local retailers. Sometimes it takes a new property to attract what we truly want. It’s not without cost (see: Newtonville Camera) but we also need to look at the benefit.
As for what the citizens of Newton want, I’ve heard people say that they want to move freely through the city, that they want better school buildings, affordable housing, a new senior center, a recreation or teen center, a skating rink, theater, arts center, and a series of splash parks. We want a new pool to replace the Gath and a better experience that connects Albermarle to the Charles River. We should be asking: how can we use our inherent desirability to encourage development that will give us what we want? How do we make our streets safer for everyone, or pay for bus systems so we can move freely through the city? Who can build us a theater? Or a new senior center? Or a skating rink? How do we get money for our schools or even new educational opportunities? How do we build in a way that encourages both Affordable Housing and housing that is affordable?
As a community, we can have everything we want, but not if we randomly chip away at the developments. We need to focus on what’s important to the people of Newton and be consistent in our process. The bottom line is that it’s our people who make up our character, not the height of the buildings they live in.
Personally, when I evaluate the pros and cons of a particular project in Newton, the height of a proposed building[s] is almost never among my top concerns. We have some great buildings in Newton that are much taller than our current regs would allow. The Towers at Chestnut Hill come to mind. Anyone got a complaint about the height of the Towers?
Useful thoughts, @Chuck. Perhaps people focus on heights as a surrogate for all those other things because height often does matter to the feeling of a streetscape. If you are in or near a neighborhood of 1, 2, or maybe 3 story houses and commercial space, a proposed building of 5+ stories can get you worried. At that point, many of the development’s other attributes fade away in the minds of the neighbors.
I think that creativity in overall design (with particular concern for the “feeling” of the street with the new buildings) can help alleviate height concerns and perhaps help folks stay focused on the bigger picture. And computer-aided graphics can give people a more accurate sense of how things will work (compared to the old architectural drawings.)
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know how much should be by right and how much subject to negotiation. The latter does lend itself to unpredictability, especially when dealing with a 24-member approval body. I wonder if developers understand that and have learned how to adjust to that process in Newton, or does the process inhibit otherwise qualified developers from even trying in the first place?
On the last point, during the process of writing the city’s Economic Development study, Camoin spoke with regional developers and the message came back that Newton is the “city of no,” so they avoid here as much as possible.
I’ve spoken directly with a few large regional developers who have told me that even if they’ve had success in Netwon in the past, they have not done it again would not develop moving forward because of both the unpredictability and the complexity of building here.
Needham heard this loudly and clearly, so they worked with developers on writing the zoning for Needham Crossing, which has paid off in terms of lucrative commercial development there. It happens that the person who engineered that for Needham is now Newton’s Economic Development Director.
The principle group recommended form based codes. In a long discussion I had with them at their temporary office in West Newton, they explained to me what it meant, I looked it up in the web, and thought, “ok, maybe that won’t be so bad”.
In a subsequent face to face meeting I had with Susan Albright, James Freas, and another woman from the planning department whose named I can’t recall at the moment, Mr. Freas said they were not doing form based codes, but something they called context based zoning, or something to that effect.
He also explained how they would allow the same type of building to be built e.g. more density, if 2 of the same type of building could be found in a radius of ( I think it was 100 yards) of the proposed site. I pointed out to them that this would create a “photoshop flood fill” effect, by recursively adding more and more density to that particular area. I watched the planners kind of squirm when I said that, either because he hadn’t thought of that, or because they had and it was so easy for someone else to immediately see that effect
So, what did we get from the charade that was the half million dollar no bid contract? Beats me. Seems like nothing.
For Profit developers want to maximize profit. As I’ve said ad ad nauseam, the constraints on all the parameters of a new building can be found through mathematical modeling techniques such as linear programming. Height is one of those parameters. To the developer, it’s just a parameter- 12 stories might cost too much to build, 3 stories might provide too little revenue. To the unfortunate abutters, those living within the sunlight shadow, it’s a nightmare. To those more fortunate to live only a few blocks away, the height of the building creates concerns for traffic, schools as well as aesthetics. To those who live far from it, negative reactions to the height of the buildings is NIMBYism. But let’s not forget, the for profit developers have in their categorical name their primary goal.
If you would like to learn more about the Northland Newton development, here’s the website: https://www.northlandnewtondevelopment.com/