fIn an opinion piece in Commonwealth Magazine, “Bringing Nature Back into our Environment”, co-authored by Emily Norton, Newton City Councilor and Executive Director of the Charles River Watershed Association, and Reverend Vernon K. Walker, Program Manager of Communities Responding to Extreme Weather (CREW), the authors assert four critical strategies to creating climate change resilience:
- Restore tree canopy
- Restore wetlands
- Daylight buried streams
- Install green infrastructure
I believe Northland, the developers proposing the Needham Street project in Newton Upper Falls, would agree. That’s why their master plan for the project fully embraces not just one or two, but all four of those strategies:
- Planting 700 new trees
- Restoring the South Meadow Brook
- Daylighting the historic South Meadow Brook waterfall
- Using green infrastructure, such as bioretention basins, bioswales, rain gardens, and permeable materials to reduce storm runoff, improve stream water quality and harvest rainwater for irrigation
Councilor Norton and Reverend Walker correctly point out that “not only do these solutions offer protection, they offer the co-benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and the psychological benefits we all get from living in and around green space.”
The Needham Street project’s master plan sets a new standard with 40% open space and ten acres of publicly accessible, architecturally designed parks including:
- One-acre Village Green
- South Meadow Brook Park and Restoration
- Mill Park and the Daylighting of the historic South Meadow Brook waterfall
- Community Playground
- Splash Park
- Dog parks for large and small dogs
- Mobility Hub with landscaped plaza
Northland further pushes the environmental standard for Newton development by employing Passive House construction techniques, adaptively reusing the historic Mill Building, and qualifying for both LEED for Neighborhood Development certification and LEED Gold Building standard.
Councilor Norton and Reverend Walker assert that “more impermeability means more flooding, more storm water pollution, and more heat island effect”. In this case, it is the new development that cures the impermeability of the existing industrial site, improves storm water management to the great benefit of the Charles River, and vastly reduces the heat island impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.
The Newton Planning Department described Northland’s project as “visionary”. Green Newton, an organization dedicated to creating an environment in better balance with the natural world, called it “transformative”.
Development sometimes gets painted with a broad brush, most famously by Joni Mitchell. The conventional wisdom is that development reduces tree canopy, reduces open space, and increases impermeability. What if it doesn’t? What if the Needham Street project increases the tree canopy, increases open space, and restores permeability and storm water management – all without disturbing a single blade of grass? It does.
Perhaps Green Newton said it best in its endorsement letter for the project: “Newton has a choice. We can establish ourselves as a leader in the movement to adapt cities and towns to the 21st century social and environmental exigencies, or we can decide to further entrench the existing problems that we face. By approving the Northland development Newton will position itself as a green building leader.”
Trees and wetlands and green, green, green. Where the heck is the affordable housing that should be associated with this project? It’s a disgrace what’s happening here. Northland is going to get an extremely valuable Special Permit while contributing less to affordable housing than they would if this project were just a 40b…
And don’t get me started on the lousy million and a half bucks Northland is offering for Countryside School, when they should be required to dedicate educational space on the Northland campus itself.
From everything I see, city “leaders” have really dropped the ball on this project. They’re selling their constituents down the river so they can paint their political resumes GREEN.
I’ve lost track: can anyone tell me how many affordable units there will be? Other than that, I’m excited about this project and the “trees and wetlands and green green green”. Without serious attention to our environment, we won’t have a planet to leave for our kids and their kids.
@Mike
My understanding is that 40B would provide 160 affordable housing units instead of 140 as currently proposed….are those 20 units worth losing 10 acres of public open space, the Mobility Hub, $1.5 million to the Countryside School, etc? Hopefully the developer would still be able to accommodate at least some of these benefits, but I imagine a 40B project would dramatically impact the financials of all of this….
Does this mean that Councilor Norton is going to support the Northland plan and for the first time not immediately take a knee-jerk negative approach toward proposed development in Newton? Or, as has happened in the past, is she going to take a backward-looking position locally that contradicts the more reasonable approach she advances to a statewide audience? You can’t have it both ways forever, Emily! I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
Winners and Losers:
Winner:
1. Northland developer who will earn a fortune.
Losers:
1. People who drive in, around and through Newton
2. Newton Upper Falls and Newton Highland residents
3. 30% of Newton population who are renters who will see the cost of renting increase
4. Newton teachers and students who will have bigger classes and inadequate space to teach (based on an independent study, projected student enrollment for Northland is twice what is currently projected).
5. City budget projections.
Actually Lisa…
Winners (if the current project is approved): Northland AND Newton
Losers (if a referendum threat forces a 40B project at this site or it stays a parking lot): Northland AND Newton
Here’s why, responding to your points:
1. There will be traffic on Needham Street if this project is built in this current form, goes 40B, ends up being a parking lot forever, or the developer builds a massive office complex, which they could do by-right tomorrow if they liked. If its 40B, can they pull off the impressively aggressive transportation demand management plan that is currently proposed, including free shuttle bus service every 10 minutes to the Newton Highlands T stop? I doubt it.
2. Newton Upper Falls and Newton Highlands residents will have 10 acres of public open space to use within walking distance, including a splash park for their children. They will have lively new shops and restaurants to visit. There is no guarantee that a developer could pull off the open space with a 40B as the financials are much more difficult under the 40B standard. They certainly couldn’t pull off the retail and commercial space.
3. This flies in the face of basic economics. More supply of housing in a market that has astronomical housing demand will….increase costs? My inner economist is scratching his head. Beyond that important point, 140 of these units will be mandated affordable housing via the city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. To my knowledge, this would represent the largest one-time introduction of new affordable housing this city has ever seen. These rents are income-restricted.
4. NPS says school enrollment for elementary students is actually declining (because their parents, many in their 30’s -40’s, cant afford to live in Newton). That means high schools will be next as these kids grow up and age into NNHS or NSHS. NPS projects something like 100 new students total as a result of all the different projects in the pipeline, not just Northland’s. Your point here is not factual and just good old fashioned fear mongering, something that is easy to do when it comes to school kids.
5. City budget projections? This project will add millions of new net revenue to the city’s coffers. How much money do you think the city will continue to make with an empty parking lot? How much revenue will the city bring in if the developer is forced to go 40B and carve off all the commercial space and the corresponding tax revenue?
@Ryan– Just curious… Are you in any way affiliated with the Northland project?
@Ryan Williams,
This is not a transit oriented project.
Under 40b, the ZBA is allowed to take into consideration generated traffic.
Therefore the ZBA would have the ability to deny a project that generates too much traffic. So should this go 40b and get approved, the petitioner would almost certainly be subject to a Traffic Demand Management plan.
Long ago, the “leader[s]” of this city should have set a high bar in initial dialogue with Northland. 30% of the housing units should be affordable. 15K square feet of onsite educational space should be included. Creating affordable housing and maintaining quality schools should be two of the highest priorities for Newton. Not some silly splash park. The lack of leadership on this hugely impactful project is simply shameful.
Of course a project that offers free electric shuttle buses every ten minutes for most of the day is transit oriented. It’s not perfect in the way that Riverside is, but do you know how many suburban communities would kill to have a private entity fund and operate free electric shuttles up and down its main commercial corridor?
But I’d like to get back to Jack Leader’s post. This project raises the bar on environmentally sustainable projects that –for the sake of our planet — we should all hope is also emulated in other communities.
Please vote yes city councilors!
Jack, I suggest this edit to your post: Move paragraph #3 (“Councilor Norton and Reverend Walker correctly point out…”) to be after paragraph #1 (and its dot points about the four critical strategies that they were actually talking about) — instead of after paragraph #2 (and its dot points about the points you list about the Northland project).
That way, when you quote Norton and Walker saying, “…not only do these solutions offer protection,” it will be clear that they were not talking specifically about the Northland project, and the quote will refer correctly to exactly what they were talking about.
Due to all the quasi-judicial stuff, I expect that Councilor Norton will not discuss opinions on the Northland project. Perhaps Rev. Walker would, but I don’t know if he has. It would be good if this post were clear about what the two of them are referring to when they say, “these solutions.”
Like Mr. Leader, I too was deeply impressed by Emily Norton and Vernon Walker’s Commonwealth Magazine article “Bringing Nature Back to the Environment”, so much so that I read it three times and took notes in the process.
But I really have no way of knowing how much these environmental proposals at Northland really align with the criteria that Councilor Norton and Mr. Walter enumerated in the article. Like Bruce, I, too, found it difficult to determine what Councilor Norton and Mr. Leader were each saying what when reading it. The problem with most posts on Village 14 is that their shelf life is short and attention may completely shift to something else as new items get posted this coming weekend before the City Council deliberates Northland on Monday evening. My point concerning Councilor Norton is that this is a land use quasi judicial process for a special permit and more than one other councilor has refused to comment on what’s in it because,as I understand it, they are all charged with acting as jurors of sort as the case for and against the Northland proposal is presented and deliberated.
@Mike
I am not associated with Northland. I am a retiree who has been fortunate enough to be able to split my time between Newton and West Palm Beach. I follow the happenings in my hometown very closely and I have too many friends who can’t seem to find a place to live there.
One would think in reading this that Northland intends to mirror Disney and create “Animal Kingdom” right here in Newton!
1. While that plot larger for Newton, let’s not confuse this with the Arnold Arboretum
2. Northland has owned this property for decades. They couldn’t have added…or better yet, maintained the green that is there today?
3. If I recall, Emily Norton also supports building height restrictions.
4. Not buying this, sorry Mr. Leader
@Ryan,
The rents for this new complex will add so many high rate rentals, it will INCREASE the average rent in the City, not lower it. Basic math.
In this case the SUPPLY is more luxury rentals. So if you’re looking to rent a high end apartment, that’s good for you, but it’s not going to reduce DEMAND for lower priced housing.
The “affordable housing” provided is granted by lottery and won’t effect the market pricing at all.