Just one week before the Newton City Council is scheduled to vote on the Northland project, Right Sized Newton President Randall Block is organizing a petition drive to stop the project. Here’s some excerpt from a letter Block sent to supporters.
“We expect the City Council to approve Northland’s plan at its next meeting on Monday, Dec. 2. Neighborhood leaders from Upper Falls and Newton Highlands have decided to challenge this decision by petitioning for a referendum as allowed under Article X of Newton’s City Charter — the same process that our Riverside committee was preparing for if we didn’t reach a compromise with Mark Development… We have 20 days to collect over 3,000 signatures from Newton voters. This is an ambitious goal, but I firmly believe it is doable.
Block closes his email by asking for volunteers (bold added for emphasis).
“We(‘ll) provide a clipboard if you don’t have one and a RightSize Newton t-shirt (see attached) to wear over your jacket to identify yourself. This t-shirt will be yours to keep….Please let me know if you have any time to devote to this petition drive.
This is so short-sighted..
Northland’s project will transform 23 acres (including an obsolete mall and abandoned parking lots) into a vibrant, environmentally friendly, neighborhood.
I hope that the volunteers collecting signatures while wearing Randall’s free t-shirts will be honest with voters when they solicit signatures and share with them some of this project’s many highlights, including:
• 800 units of desperately-needed homes for seniors, millennials and folks who work at Wells Ave and other areas (including 140 affordable apartments).
• 180,000 square feet of desirable brick and beam office space for small and mid-sized companies.
• 10 acres of new public gathering and open spaces, including the $1 million splash park that was requested by neighbors.
• Free-to-all electric shuttle buses that will connect Needham Street to the Green Line.
• A cutting-edge sustainability program, including ground-breaking Passive House standards in three residential buildings that will surpass anything in the state.
• Subsidized retail space dedicated to small, locally-owned businesses.
• Millions in mitigation funds to address traffic and renovations to Countryside Elementary school.
• Significant new commercial tax revenue, which can help pay for upgrades to our roads, sidewalks, schools and other public infrastructure.
I don’t see a free t-shirt anywhere in those bullet points about Northland though, do I?
Well that’s true Jim.
Instead of creating what Green Newton calls “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Newton a regional and national leader on forward- thinking, environmentally sustainable development” perhaps Northland could just give everyone a free t-shirt.
I’m not clear about the proposed referendum. Is the referendum vote to overturn the Special Permit of it’s granted by the Council? If so, is that the last word on that Special Permit application?
The estimated impact on the school population is unquestionably lowmby any non-partisan looking at the data. So with all the good the Greg highlights, Newton will be burdened with greater costs than projected by this project. Those costs will either be borne by taxpayers as higher school costs, or by our children, who will be in classrooms more overcrowded than they should be.
There has been a consistent dismissal by pro-development voices in the community, that continually ignore the impact on our schools. The new Cabot was designed with a specific capacity I mind, with little room to spare given budget considerations. We are now adding several development projects in Newtonville that will lead to overcapacity for a school that just opened two months ago. It’s incompetent and/or dishonest (not wanting to be clear about the full costs of development) planning, dismaying to see a City with so many individuals unable to plan something that frankly isn’t that complicated.
Our children are the ones who suffer, in non-tangible ways. But the developers will make millions at their expense. What’s the give back to Countryside? What’s the projected profit for the developers?
@William Berkman: Okay so let’s no go non-partisan and instead go with the data.
But before I do, let’s acknowledge that by law, city councilors are not allowed to consider the impact on schools as part of their deliberations on a special permit.
But since you’re not a city councilor, let’s focus on the independent facts.
The total number of K-12 students from the Northland project is estimated by the Newton Public Schools to be 17 by 2025-2026 school year and 91 by 2030-2031 (page 5 in NPS Demographic Study). In the NPS Enrollment Analysis from the end of 2018, they are forecasting slight increases in overall school enrollment over the next few years followed by a dip closer to today’s overall enrollment by 2023 -2024.
The reason is that enrollment for kindergartners and elementary school students is declining. According to the independent analysis that’s partly because middle-age, middle-income, young families are having a tough time finding housing in Newton because empty nesters like me (and maybe you?) are holding onto our homes because we have no other place in Newton to go. And it’s partly because young Gen X and millennial women are not having children at the same pace or as early as boomer women did.
NPS believes it can handle the increase in Newton’s housing stock because overall enrollment trends are flattening out or declining.
Now all of this should be separate from a discussion of the quality of our schools. Many of our schools are already in tough shape and need to be repaired anyway. I believe Northland is part of the solution: this project will result in $1.07 million in new net tax revenue (that’s after the school costs) for the city every year. That’s significant revenue that can be used to upgrade schools, roads, or help toward larger structural problems like unfunded pensions, etc. Plus Northland is writing us taxpayers a $1.5 million check to renovate Countryside, a school that needs renovation either way. (Far better than a free t-shirt)
Those are the non-partisan numbers, all generated by experts who do not work for Northland.
Where are your non-partisan numbers that refute this?
William:
Cabot was designed to be bigger than the previous school . It WAS actually designed with room to spare. I was part of those conversations, and I was worried about the increase in size. So was Zervais and Angier. And it is my understanding that the elementary schools now have flexibility to manage school sizes. That is also why there are buffer zones.
I admit, I’ve heard nothing about overcrowding at the new Cabot, no complaints from the PTO or the school or the teachers. Is that my ignorance, or is this just your personal concern based on your own personal view that more development equals more kids equals overcrowding.
I think there are legitimate complaints about any new development. And there is a real conversation to be had about balancing city resources, including schools in those discussions. But let’s also make sure we are all using facts.
With that said, can you provide any back-up for your claims above:
—That Cabot was designed with a specific capacity in mind due to the budget (it was my understanding that it was designed to hold 4 classes at each grade level, and that we fought to keep those pods together, and that no one ever in the process wanted 5 classes). I don’t think there was ever a discussion about making Cabot even larger than the 4 classroom pods.
–That there is any projection or reality that Cabot is overcrowded, now or in the near future (not seeing that in my kids classrooms, not hearing about that from the PTO, and with the buffer zones, I’m guessing even if some classrooms were slightly larger than ideal for a year, there would be an effort to balance those out with other schools).
To some extent I’m asking because I intend to advocate for my school, and to some extent I’m trying to determine if you’ve gotten a bit over your skis in your anger at new development and are now just making stuff up.
If the former, I’ll be talking to the school. If the latter, please don’t do that. It harms your cause.
@Fig
Calm down a bit… It’s a bit tiresome with the constant lecturing of others being too angry and overreactive, honestly enough with personalizing people’s posts. Stick to the arguments and facts please.
As for the information:
– The specific concerns I raised about overcrowding were related to the developments being built, so there shouldn’t be any expectation of overcrowding now, the first people are just moving into Austin St now. The is a concern that will be years into the making when the current developments are fully inhabited.
– School redistricting process last year added neighborhoods to Cabot that previously were not included, including Washington Place (IIRC).
– During the Cabot school planning process, there was a specific analysis done that looked at capacity of classrooms against school projections, and all classroom were in the range of ~87-92%. I’m sure it’s still available somewhere on the project planning site (if still up) or City website.
– The analysis made a point of saying that the target was 90% for optimal size, not 100%.
-The difference between 90% and 100% is around 45 students.
– If the developments and resulting redistricting lead to more than 45 students (pretty safe bet), then Cabot will be above capacity.
PS It’s really obnoxious and uncalled for to accuse someone else of straight making stuff up, with no evidence. If you don’t understand the post, ask for clarification, if you want facts to support an argument, ask for that too. No need to act like that.
Election’s over Fig. My side won in Ward 2. 🙂
Enough with the criticism of RightSize as anti-all-development! We support adding housing and reasonable development; just not projects that include plenty of affordable units, a great deal of new green space, significant commercial tax revenue, sustainable building plans, and access to public transportation!
My major concern continues to involve the project’s transportation plan. I could write my own thoughts, but the substance of what I’d say is better summed up by Will Agullera, a nearby neighbor I got to know when our Area Council was outreaching on a proposed local historic district in Newton Highlands. In last week’s Tab, Will argued that:
“It is immediately clear to me that the transportation plan is falling short of any real solution to mitigate the traffic that will be generated by the scale of the project. —It will work to get from point A to point B, but it will be massively inconvenient for travelers. I don’t see how we won’t be swarmed with Uber drivers continually circling. You have a large commercial island in the middle of a dense residential community, something has to give. ”
Beyond this, I continue to be concerned about the capacity of existing and planned public transit to carry the burden of all the major development projects that are coming down the pike at us in the immediate future. For example, the MBTA has a very ambitious plan for improving the D Line during the next 20 years, but I’m not overly encouraged by their schedules when I think of just how many years it has taken to even begin the actual process of developing handicapped access at the Newton Highlands MBTA station, or how many years commuter trail customers in Newtonville had to wait for the steep rickety stairs leading from the street to the to be repaired. Not all of the T’s current operational difficulties are due to the current management. The system has been developed piecemeal almost from the start. That along with wide indifference and often hostility to public transportation needs since World War 2 set the stage for much of the current dysfunction here and in most other parts of the United States. It’s going to be a long road back. My point is that we stand in real danger of developing huge amounts of new housing, industry and commerce in the very near future with an assumption that we’ll have all the transit we need in place to service it all. I’d like to think this is true, but I suspect it is not.
that very transportation planning process I’ve been involved in has stressed that it’s best if public transit needs are in place before housing and commercial development move in to utilize these services.
Is there an alternative community consensus proposal (i.e., a “yes”) from the “Neighborhood leaders from Upper Falls and Newton Highlands”?
Do the “Neighborhood leaders from Upper Falls and Newton Highlands” prefer as-of-right development of the property?
(I think it would be helpful to everyone for those leaders besides Randall to formally sign on to this effort. Can someone provide a list?)
A referendum that makes it to the ballot would, I would guess, add an unstoppable delay to the process, no matter what agreement or progress could be reached. It’s a very blunt instrument.
How long is it preferable to leave the decrepit property as is?
@Jerry I believe that the special permit cannot be overturned by referendum but the rezoning decision can be. I hope that people know or learn that something will happen at this site – and it could be a 40B project. If it turns that way we could lose all the benefits described above.
Minor point, but I’d like to see a push to have the shuttle buses also go to the Needham commuter rail stop. Not only would that serve people whose work is more convenient to that than the Green Line, it would also provide car-free transit to Needham stores.
William:
I’m completely calm…and as I stated, all I want is the facts behind your blanket statements. For the record, asking someone to calm down isn’t the best way to start a response in an open discussion. But hey, I’m tiresome, so what do I know? 😉
Nothing in my response is personal to you, I just happen to know a fair amount about the Cabot school, and since you mentioned it, I responded. Really. If you don’t want to have a conversation, just say so, or don’t respond. But if you are going to discuss Cabot or Newtonville, I’m sure to respond. It’s in my name! (I’ve generally stayed away from Northland discussions you know, because I’m not FigNorthland, which would be a horrible name)
For the record, you are ignoring the buffer zones. I’m seeing no indication from my PTO or the actual school/teachers that anyone is currently concerned with overcrowding at Cabot, for this year or next. Some concern about overload of SPED. But no concern of a wider overcrowding. So from your answer, my view is that you are concerned about a future eventuality that doesn’t exist yet. You might be right, although frankly I’d be far more concerned about the conversions of the single families into 2 family town-homes than the rental apartments. But I’m not seeing this as an immediate problem, nor as a problem for Cabot in particular, since I think are still in the planned ideal zone. As for the future, I’m going to assume that at most we will be at 100% of capacity, since that is what I’ve been told, and since other schools nearby have capacity.
Look, I’d love my kids classes to be 18 kids each. If that is your concern, I think that is a broader district wide question. But I’m seeing a broad range of class sizes right now at Cabot. And I don’t think in my experience having those smaller classes has been the goal, namely when they get too small, the district has shrunk to a 3 classroom pod and bumped them back up again, and moved the extra teacher to a school that needed it. My personal view is that kids learn best in a classroom of 15 kids. But that is not the Newton system. Should it be? Sure. We won’t be funding that anytime soon though.
With the extra space at Cabot, Zervas and Angier, there is a fair amount more flex in the system. That’s why Zervas was expanded, much to the dismay of the local parents. Part of the reason Washington Place and Austin Street was added to the Cabot footprint was because of that, to move some of the new students to Cabot, since the three new schools are all south of the Pike. It isn’t as simple as new apartments equals overcrowding at Cabot. Is there a point where the flex can’t handle it? Yep. Does this make life more difficult for those families living in a buffer zone? Yep.
I just think you need to zoom out a bit. All of this was discussed at length in the meetings around Cabot’s rebuild from my recollection.
Whew. My calm zen like response has made me quite sleepy. I guess I am tiresome after all. Time for coffee and a namesake cookie!
ps. I think Bob has a good point about the transportation system. Anyone else read the Globes articles on the regional traffic and shudder?
Hey Fig-
You and I are talking past each other, I don’t know if you are being disingenuous or honestly missing the point. I’ve only talked about overcrowding in the context of development- that’s the focus of this thread. So in the context of Newtonville, with the developments not completed yet, overcrowding is obviously not a concern for the next few years. I never suggested otherwise.
What is clear, however, it that barring unexpectedly low numbers of families moving into the hundreds of units being built now in Cabot’s district, and with all other schools in the near area above capacity, is that Cabot will be above capacity in the future. There isn’t much room for additonal capacity, based on those that are the actual experts and defined what optimal capacity looks like for us. Perhaps you know better than them. You can argue that if you’d like, but my point was that City planning completely missed this in the context of planning for Cabot. And that is complete failure.
Austin St was approved before Cabot planning was complete. Washington Place was broached around the same time. The School Department and School Committee must have had some thought on redistricting, as it started 1 year later. Yet none of that factored into the planning at Cabot. So instead Cabot’s kids will likely be in classrooms that are more crowded than intended. Perhaps that bothers you less. But again, that’s not really the point. The concern is the inability to plan with multiple related issues, which should have gotten us to a better result. This stuff isn’t really that complicated.
I don’t read you saying anything differently, other than 1) accusing me up making up facts 2) diminishing my concerns as stuff in the future.
I’m sufficiently capable of being concerned about things several years into the future, if that’s too challenging for you, feel free to stop responding.
PS Since you are claiming otherwise, there was ZERO discussion about extra room at Cabot for new development (if there was, that would address my concerns). The capacity analysis I referenced had no plan for additional growth, instead buffer for unexpected variability in enrollment, as an example.
Feel free to provide ANY evidence that space for new development was part of Cabot planning. Doesn’t exist. That’s my point.
William:
Perhaps we are talking past each other. But the meetings I was at for Cabot definitely addressed some of these concerns. One of us doesn’t understand how the zones for each elementary school work in practice. My understanding is that they are adjusted as needed to account for overcrowding. The entire system has been redesigned to give additional capacity for the elementary schools. I’ve been to two meetings where they says that we have a short term bubble in the middle schools, roughly three years.
But Cabot is right now using a 3 classroom pod system. There may be one pod of 4 classrooms. But the current capacity of 386 is for a 3 pod classroom per grade. But Cabot can actually handle a 4 pod classroom. So the capacity in the new building is 484. I don’t think we are there yet for 2019-20, since my kids don’t have that many new friends… 😉
Perhaps I’m confused, but I think you are using the old Cabot numbers without realizing that the capacity grew by 100 students or so. I’m not seeing any numbers for the new capacity and the expansion to 4 classrooms year, but perhaps someone from the PTO knows.
For the record, in many of the meetings I was in, reference was made to moving portions of districts into Cabot to meet that ideal number. As long as the overall system has enough capacity, Cabot doesn’t get overburdened. See below for some helpful scenarios.
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/1099/Development%20Scenarios%20and%20Elementary%20Impact_June%2013%202019_upd.pdf
And yes, these types of things were discussed early in the Cabot process. There was a whole discussion about increasing by 25% in size from the old Cabot, and I went to the Zervas meeting where there was lots of discussions about trying to keep Zervas small.
Zervas Cabot, and Angier added north of 15 classrooms total to the system. Not modulars, new classrooms. That is a lot of increased capacity. Of course some of that was to deal with development. They have these long range plans for a reason. Now, you could certainly make an argument that Northland, Riverside, and Washington Street corridor could overwhelm the system. The plan I linked to says no, but that is SO long in the future I don’t trust it. And Northland and Riverside are SO big that they could create far bigger enrollment waves than Washington Place or Austin Street, which really aren’t that big in the scheme of things.
Also, nothing is too challenging for me, I’m a cookie avatar. So respond I shall.
@Fig
Please, please stop saying what I know, don’t know, just talk about facts. Don’t know why it’s so hard to not make it personal (and you do when you say I am confused). I say to my kids- focus on yourself and don’t worry about othersm you can do it too, Fig. Seriously. Stop with the posts that assumes you know anything about the other posters. You don’t.
I fully understand buffer zones. Relative to the prior redistricting, the new plan gave more options to move students INTO Cabot, not the other way around. So if I’m concerned about Cabot overcrowding, as I am in this post, the buffer zones you mention are making it more challenging, not less.
More importantly, you mention that development was a consideration, again. It was not. Period. You will not find one meeting minute or presentation that mentioned new development as a reason for the new Cabot and size. Please feel free to provide one. It doesn’t exist. Larger school for district flexibility? Yes? Development? No. That came after.
@FigNewtonville there is no extra capacity at Angier. They were at full capacity last year with 503 kids. Interesting in 2014-15 they were projected to have 437 kids for last year.
@Greg
Apply the Avalon experience. Specifically, the proportion of school children compared to number of units. Apply that math to Northland units. Avalon math is a lot higher. Don’t have time to find them right now, but I know they’ve been posted on V14 in the past.
There isn’t any good reason for Northland to have lower estimates tham Avalon.
I don’t think the Avalon experience applies….but more importantly the independent non-partisan experts say it doesn’t apply and they’ve outline the “good reasons” reasons why in the reports linked in my prior comment. Digest those after Thanksgiving and we can have a fact based discussion after you have.
I read the report Greg. None of the demographics discussed are mentioned in context of Northland projections, IIRC. The demographics were about projecting school enrollment. Feel free to point out any specific passage of the report that suggests otherwise.
How exactly does the data on school-age children at Avalon- right now- not apply? That’s pretty suspect to rule out present day data Greg.
You mention non-partisan, which I also don’t believe is the case. The experts were paid by political leaders with a point of view, and not surprisingly, came to a conclusion consistent with that point of view. In academic settings, research isn’t viewed as independent if its sponsored by a partisan source, which is the case here.
@William
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but Avalon had a HUGE number of 3 bedroom apartments while Northland has very, very few. How many parents do you think will want to cram their 3-4 person family into a 2 or 1 bedroom?
XL, please.
Northland, not the t-shirt.
Also, let’s encourage more, not fewer, children in Newton. If we need to build more schools, let’s build more schools.
@William, Avalon was also a 40B, with a higher percentage of affordable units (although I don’t recall if it was 20% or 25%). The school-aged children multiplier for affordable units is much higher than for market rate units.
@Sean: But first, you must convince your Mayor to support building more classroom space and new schools and an override to do so. Let’s not forget that many in the Upper Falls community have been begging for an additional school even prior to this development proposal.
@Sean: Oh – and let’s be clear: We need funding for Lincoln-Eliot, Countryside ($1.5 million from Northland doesn’t get us that much), Ward, Franklin, and – Horace Mann – which relocated to the Carr School but has so many issues that need to be addressed to adequately service the students as a permanent space, and Williams – assuming that the Riverside Development (new zoning – supported by Right-sized Riverside) gets developed. And that funding can’t just be for the renovated schools – but also for the staff and administrators required.
For a new school – find me a location that won’t cost additional funds too.
Oh – and let’s not forget the NewCAL. Not only the site but also the building costs and the new staff that will be needed for all of the programming. And the fields that have been woefully, neglected. And the Gath Pool – which we all know needs renovation regardless of whether NewCAL goes there or not.
@Amy: As you likely know, Watertown has approved a number of mixed use developments of late, adding lots of apartments and commercial/office space, not unlike what Northland proposes and what was planned at Riverside before that unfortunate compromise with Right Sized.
But guess what else Watertown is building?
They’re replacing all three elementary schools and the high school with new buildings … all without an override. (and only the high school is getting state SBA funds).
William:
I never said you were confused, I said perhaps I was confused. I haven’t insulted you once in this thread and you’ve told me to keep calm, that I’m tiresome, mocked me by saying something was too challenging for me, compared me to your kids (that’s an very paternalistic way to argue, by letting me know how you would instruct me if I was one of your kids). You insult, and then tell me to stop. I don’t know you, but I don’t think I want to. My recollection is that you have consistently focused on language, but you don’t follow your own advice and you don’t treat others with respect. And I’ve done my best to do so to you. But hey, you be you. I’ll stand by my posts here and who I am any day.
Lots of other interesting folks to talk to on the forum, so I’m done with you for a while. Have a blessed day.
Amy, I agree with all of the needs. Would you support an override to accomplish them?
Also, does anyone know the details of how a referendum actually works? When would we have to vote on it? Who decides when? Special election?
Newton Highlands Mom:
I think in 2014-2015, new Angier hadn’t been finished. Didn’t they expand capacity a bit when they did the new building? It is hard to compare apples to apples over the past few years since they redistricted and changed capacities for each school area.
I think Cabot is the main flex point, since I’m guessing within a few years one new classroom will come online in each grade. 6 out of the 15 new classrooms are in Cabot.
But your point is well taken. I didn’t realize Angier was at 100%.
Kathy, is that 40B affordability children statement true for all size apartments? I would think apartment size would be a far greater indicator of kids in a unit that affordability, but I don’t have the data.
@Fig: Um…that’s what I ran on when I ran for Mayor….not a popular proposition, but it was clear at the time – that our future would depend on it.
Amy:
You are making the assumption I can remember that far back. I can barely remember what I had for lunch… 😉
But point well taken, I had forgotten that. I think you were ahead of your time. An override seems inevitable to me, especially to finish the schools. And the parks. and the streets. And the sidewalks. And for a new police station. And, lots of other stuff.
It was not meant as a gotcha question Amy, I’m honestly trying to figure out how we get from here to there.
@Greg: Wow – where are they getting all of their money? What is the state of all of their other municipal facilities? And how are their schools ranked in comparison to Newton?Do they spend comparable amounts for their students as we do? Do they have a senior center with pool and gym? What is the condition of their fields? How does their school aged population and senior population compare with ours? Oh and aren’t they more than half they size of Newton in overall population?
@Fig
Your words below, all personal, not substantive. It’s your style generally, and it should stop. You do it a lot and it’s not necessary. No question I came back with my own comments as you highlighted, but you starting with an accusation of me making facts up was what got that started. It was uncalled for and unnecessary. Sorry that I reacted as I did, up to you whether you apologize similarly.
“I’m trying to determine if you’ve gotten a bit over your skis in your anger at new development and are now just making stuff up.”
“One of us doesn’t understand how the zones for each elementary school work in practice.”
“I just think you need to zoom out a bit.”
Most importantly, I was just trying to make one point. Cabot was designed without consideration for development, even though new development was being considered at the same time. You’ve said a lot, including statements that development was considered. That is factually wrong. I followed that process just as closely, and it never came up. As I wrote before, there are no documents you could point to, that suggests new development was part of the plan for Cabot. Didn’t happen.
Watertown’s residential tax rate is $12.88 vs Newton at $10.45. They have a residential exemption, though.
Ryan and Kathy- both good points, and should be part of any analysis on Avalon for Northland. But ignoring present day data, when there are more kids at Avalon (IIRC) than projected for Northland even though the latter has many more units, seems like an obvious miss. At minimum, any solid analysis would include it as one data point among several.
Northland’s projections are just shoddy work.
Based on what analysis?
Thanks Mike. What about the rest?
@Amy, I’ve heard Google is now free for everyone 🙂
Spending per student (2016-2017): Watertown $21,658.78, Newton: $19,081.81
Number of students: Watertown: 2,693, Newton: 12,917
Economy of scale might also be working against Watertown on the student front. School facilities don’t scale linearly with number of students.
So…they are not comparable? I figured Greg – Chamber of Commerce President for Newton/Needham would have these numbers at his fingertips – so I could go and figure out what vegan meals I’ll be making for Thanksgiving….
Amy: The appropriate comparison is between one community that has embraced growth (and is doing its part to address the region’s housing crisis) and one that fights it and forces projects to become smaller than they should be. The first community is growing its tax revenue and modernizing its schools without an override (and in three of the four new schools without state money.)
What’s that second community planning? Free t-shirts.
Newton and Watertown may not be directly comparable, but there are always points of comparison. In particular, I find the tax rates and policies to be pretty interesting.
@ Mike: Anything else comparable, Mike? Is the transportation comparable? Do we offer the equivalent transportation options for our residents to get into Boston (NOT that Boston is the only place where people work). How many elementary, middle, and high schools do they have? Did you find out what amenities are offered at their senior center? I tried Google and couldn’t find the size. I don’t recall the Watertown facility as being a comparable. I appreciate you responding for Greg.
@Greg: Are you opposed to an override to pay for all of Newton’s needs? Do you not agree that regardless of any new development, Newton has many unfunded needs?
Newton needs more revenue, likely an override. But Newton also needs to stop scaling down projects that can grow and diversify our tax base.
It was a beautiful day to day. It’s a short week. Thanksgiving’s coming up.
Any chance we can tone the tone on this thread down a little?
@Fig – The exact numbers depend on the expert, but both the number of bedrooms and whether a unit is affordable impacts the projection.
Here’s an example from Northland’s Fiscal Impact Analysis submitted August 31, 2018 (http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/Aldermen/08-31-18%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact.pdf):
2BR market rate SAC .192
2BR affordable SAC .918
3BR market rate SAC .735
3BR affordable SAC 2.563
I believe the city’s peer reviewer questioned these market rate SAC projections as being too low, and the demographer commissioned by NPS (McKibben) came up with a higher total projection, but didn’t specify in his report the specific SAC ratios for each BR and affordability type (he assumed 20% of units would be affordable). But you get the picture — you can expect different enrollment numbers in a development with a higher percentage of affordable units, which is one reason the Northland projections may be a bit different from Avalon.
Thanks Kathy. Looking at the same table, I think it reads that neither affordable nor market rate 1 bedroom or studio units had any school age children. That was the point I was trying to make (inartfully). Namely that while your point was true for 2 or 3 bedroom units, it wasn’t true for 1 bedroom units. Folks don’t seem to like to have kids sleeping in their living rooms…affordable or not.
I wonder if pushing developers to develop more 1 bedoom and 1 bedroom plus office units might lower the SAC numbers in new developments more than I thought.
Also, good to have you posting here again.
I’m going to put this out there, I’ve said it in the past and was mocked. BUT, until I hear serious reasons why this idea wont work and not just ridiculous comments from naysayers of people that wont accept any idea out of the box. Here it is:
Someone please explain to me why the city can’t build another floor on some of these school buildings. I would understand it if some people say some of the roofs can’t hold more weight…I wouldn’t buy it, but atleast it would make semi sense to me. I live near Spaulding Memorial, the school is one floor and some space underground.
If someone said they reviewed the property and the roof couldn’t handle more weight, I’d be fine with that, but I don’t hear that. Any thoughts???
Tom, no mocking here and I’m no engineer, but you’d need the right foundation, load bearing walls that could support multiple floors, and you’d have trouble meeting code on all sorts of things. Easier to tear down and begin again, and the kids would need to move out anyway.
You do see folks do it with their attached porches, but sometimes they actually build the new support system around the old porch. And sometimes you see buildings built in stages where the walls are designed to one day support additional weight for a new floor. And sometimes you see buildings like old warehouses designed to hold heavy equipment where the entire building can support such weight that building a penthouse floor is workable.
Sadly, our schools just aren’t designed for that.
OK, so some of these schools have enough land to carry another smaller building. Again I am comparing SM school, but they have 2 fields (upper and lower) why not build a brand new building, smaller than the current school on the lower field? You don’t have to take the entire lower field up and still have space for ball field. My point is, there’s things the city should be able to do to fit more kids in the system.
@Greg
As I wrote in the precise post you excerpted, using one data set and methodology is pretty limited. There are a variety of approaches that can be taken to estimate the likely impact on school enrollment, and a robust approach would look at several estimates to make sure that we aren’t underestimating the impact of Northland on our schools.
So in other words “Paul,” I mean, William, you have no answer except to dismiss the data that doesn’t meet your narrative.
That’s the American way in 2019! Enjoy your t-shirt.
Greg, thank you for letting us know that William Berkman was previously commenting as “Paul.” I had noticed some similarities in his comments.
I’ll take Northland’s mitigations and the changes they have made because of requests made by the community over another T shirt any day. I think this project will provide many great things for the area.
I realize school enrollment projections have been wrong in the past but based on varying criteria, previous projections, census changes, and other metrics used to analyze the size of the upcoming cohorts – children of generation x, millennials and generation z – they seem right this time.
Housekeeping note:
For those who have been following this thread and reading Village 14 for a while, the person who is posting here (and recently on other threads) as “William Berkman” had previously been posting as “Paul.”
Several weeks ago, “Paul” (not to be confused with Paul Levy) said in a since-deleted comment that he was quitting Village 14 after the moderators here warned him that he would be banned for violating Village 14 guidelines.
Ok.. and now back to our regularly scheduled conversation….
Who wants $1 million in new tax revenue, ten acres of public space, money to renovate Countryside, 140 units of affordable housing, free electric shuttles and ground breaking environmentally sustainable buildings?
And who wants a free t-shirt?
At the risk of jumping into a heated thread may I offer a slightly different (I think) view about these projects and the associated projections.
A city is a complex set of systems that have many interactions. Traffic, schools, revenue, residents, demographics. We have many tools to attempt to see into the future. Hoping that all the pieces can be analyzed with some connection to other areas but generally we can only tie a few things together. I assume we do not have a super computer model of Newton.
So I guess I wonder if we have a sense of how accurate we’ve been in prior predictions and even how we’ve known? When traffic increases over time, do we really understand all the driving factors? I think we know more residents can result in more cars. However after that it gets more complicated. Are the new residents driving their cars every day? To/from work or around town? Etc, etc.
Anyway I am excited to see some real data coming up on these topics and having spent time with financial markets (where many, many people spend millions of dollars trying to figure out what they will do in the future) I wonder if our city has dynamics that have become too complex to fully model accurately?
Disclosure: I have not had detailed experience with urban planning so maybe the level of sophistication is much higher than I assume it is.
Justin, good questions, very complex answers. We can’t model everything. That’s especially true as a city in the path of a bunch of commuters driving to businesses we don’t control. Local modeling wouldn’t help us. We are at the mercy of circumstances, and drivers, around us. Since travel influences where people live, commutes and other kinds of trips drive a bunch of other factors.
We benefit from the fact that humans are pretty adaptable, and our adaptability drives some variables to be almost constants.
The Marchetti Constant, for example, says that people accept a commute of about half an hour each way every day. Remarkably, that number has held true for much of recorded history:
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/commute-time-city-size-transportation-urban-planning-history/597055/
Dense urban areas like ours have it worse, but there seems to be a gravity drawing people to that kind of empirical balance of value and inconvenience. People start making different choices (assuming they have them) once that pain point has been crossed.
We can pick low hanging fruit by reducing the absolute dependence on driving for common trips, like visits to a market or drug store or gym or park/playground or school. Some people will drive all the time and most will drive at least some of the time, but everyone benefits from a robust set of choices. That makes longer term decisions like where to live, work, and shop more resilient to disruptions by snow storms, derailed trains, Pike construction, broken legs, and having kids.
The more realistic choices we can offer, the more people, on average, will choose the ones that take cars off the road, simply because that choice is less and less convenient.
I think the same is true, at least to some extent, of the other factors you mention. It is a human paradox that for such an adaptable species, we so fear change. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make good decisions, understand the consequences of our actions, or address critical issues that may truly overwhelm us. Our world isn’t self-driving: we still have have to hold onto the wheel and look out the window for hazards and opportunities. But things tend to work out OK when we pay attention, give ourselves options, and don’t overrun the reach of our own headlights.
Let’s find ways so that the individual optimizations people make to improve their own lives align with more global optima that reduce traffic, increase safety, build community, and mitigate the stress on our environment. People get stressed because they can’t prophesize the absolute best result. That’s an impossible standard for the reasons you state. Pretty good and getting better is often fine, and it’s much easier.
Accusations of NIMBY and “anti-development” are usually from those isolated from the impacts of density, and feel villages most impacted (Upper Falls, Lower Falls, Newtonville) should, “take one for the team” in the name of the greater good.
While doing another round of leaf clean up yesterday (not bagging, but mulching into the lawn – that should make all the Green people happy!), a thought occurred….what if Newton moved to a progressive real estate tax?
This way, ALL villages would share the burden of building new schools, provide an inter-village bus system to move people across Newton to get cars off the road, invest in dynamic traffic lights to more efficiently move traffic, reduce the need for an override, etc.
A progressive tax on larger, single family homes should make all the pro-density people happy, and it can be a tool to keep developers honest.
Build big, earn big, pay big. OR, they can divest some of their tax burden by converting some/many units to condos – giving people the opportunity to buy into Newton at a lower cost. Newton can even offer a tax break for when a developer offers more affordable housing.
Take the “my backyard” out of NIMBY and make it “our backyard”. It’s the local version of Lizzy Warren’s, “go after the 1%”.
Who’s with me on this??
Disclaimer: our house is tiny (and perfect for us, and the environment). 🙂
With all the development planned along Washington Street, I sure hope they can fix the Horace Mann school problems without an override. Once again, the kids ( and the teachers) on the wrong side of the tracks are short changed by transfer to the Carr school.
The Mayor has hired a consultant to study the problems, I hear. Hmm.
@Matt I’m with you. Why tax the 1%.?Because that’s where the money is.
The income/net worth inequality in Newton is strikingly obvious.
There is already a large diversity in net worth, if nothing else.
I think the Greenway bike path should be extended to get to a T stop (ideally Newton Highlands, but also Eliot would be better than nothing). The underpass under Route 9 should also be vastly improved to really connect the two areas to pedestrian and bike traffic.
Ideally as well, the Greenway should be extended to the side of Needham. It is so sad to walk there and see it stop abruptly over the river.
This is why building affordable housing, while a worthy goal, is treating symptoms and not getting to the route cause.
https://youtu.be/th3KE_H27bs
40 years of unexamined economic thinking.
Watertown has 5 schools (3 elementary one of which houses a preschool as well, 1 MS and 1 HS) thus it is hard to compare their schools to our with 21 schools in the Newton Public Schools just considering the buildings alone forget about staffing.
@FigNewtonville Angier was originally rebuilt to have 22 classrooms. The 24 classroom model (4classes each grade) was implemented for subsequent projects. I’m not sure where they picked up the other 2 classrooms to bring then up to 24 today and what was given up to achieve that. The school was expected to have up to 465 kids See linked article below). They were at 409 students in Nov 2015 so the capacity was to be increased by 56. In NPS forecast in 11/2015 when they knew Angier was opening that January they forecasted the school to be at 454 in 2018-19 (actual was 503) and 463 this year.
http://schoolconstructionnews.com/2016/01/13/angier-elementary-school-reopens-in-sustainable-new-facility/
@Justin Traxler NPS pits out enrollment reports in November of each yr. They are generally listed under Major Reports on the School Committee site however it is not organized consistently so sometimes you have to look under November meeting materials. I know they have tried to improve their methodology in recent years but predictions were certainly off at some schools in the past. They were off with Avalon. Avalon led to Countryside being overcrowded. The overcrowding was shifted first to Bowen and then Mason Rice by using buffer zones zones to move incoming kids around. This led to Zervas being bumped ahead of Cabot to increase capacity to alleviate that overcrowding. The NPS reports differ from the report put out by the City related that Greg references which don’t expect increased enrollment. As I’m guessing you know any forecast Is based on a set of assumptions of what will occur based on what you know now. I haven’t delved through that report yet to see what I think of their methodology.
@Emanuele I totally agree extending the bike way path to both either Highlands/Eliot and to Needham and beyond would be great. It’s a shame that their is no access to Needham as there are so many great rail trail etc that connect beyond Needham.
Also agree with the Rt 9 underpass needing to be safer for pedestrians and bikers. So much goes on there Traffic wise and it deters people from walking to Needham st or even letting kids go from the village of the Highlands to the nicely rebuilt Highlands field. Traffic is crazy on Centre St into Winchester/Needham st from about 3pm on and in the mornings. It is very tight from the Walnut/Centre St light to the underpass but the pedestrian crossing are particularly bad at the underpass because of all the competing traffic needs (on/off rt9 and the existing back ups).
Responding to Matt Lai.
I support a change to the Newton revenue model.
Here is one extreme example of how cities are struggling with the property tax model and how it is not aligned with the “wealth” of the residents.
https://observer.com/2019/06/jeff-bezos-bill-gates-seattle-medina-home-property-tax/
Matt Lai, I believe I’ve heard that a progressive property tax would require changes at the state level.
A residential tax exemption is currently allowed under state law and is used by several surrounding municipalities. That provides one step of progressiveness.
Thanks for the support on tax idea guys! Who knows more about this kind of stuff to keep the discussion in play? #levelthefield
On a separate note, I’m seing some stated numbers on Avalon that seemed off, so a little digging was a warranted.
The project, developed in 2002 through the Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit process, is a two-building, 294-unit luxury complex with underground and surface parking, and numerous amenities including a putting green, tot lot playground, fitness 1 Urban-light refers to households not interested in urban living, but who prefer walkable, mixed-use communities with amenities.
The project includes 60 three-bedroom units, 139 two-bedroom units, 89 one-bedroom units and 6 live/work units (studios). 25% of all units are affordable (74 units), of which 11 are for low-income households earning below 50% AMI (Area Median Income), and 37 for those earning below 80% AMI. The complex houses a mix of single and family households, many of which are new to Newton, or moving within the community temporarily, or over the long term. There are also 101 children living in the Avalon who are enrolled in the Newton Public School.
@Greg: “…. let’s acknowledge that BY LAW (emphasis mine), city councilors ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AS PART OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS ON A SPECIAL PERMIT.” What kind of cockamamie pretzel logic is that?! And when/who signed it into law? I’m beginning to see how we got started down this road! Greg, do please enlighten us…..(or any city councilor)
Kudos to @Pat for using “cockamamie” in her comment! Don’t think I’ve ever seen that in written form…lifetime!
@Greg, I want “$1m in tax revenue, etc.” as well, but can we please acknowledge that Upper Falls (in this case) would be taking the lion’s share of the aggravation in traffic, crowding (at Countryside, Brown and South), etc?
This is why City Hall meetings are packed; why people will be working to get a referendum on Northland on the ballot.
When you ignore the needs and pleas of a specific community, that is how dissension and revolutions are started. (Wearing Randy’s free T shirts)
@Matt: In honor of Thanksgiving, let’s talk turkey: When you talk about the needs of the community, you neglect to acknowledge the many concessions and givebacks Northland has put on the table as a direct response of community input: less housing, less parking, less retail, underground garage, undergrounding wires, the splash park neighbors said they wanted, money for Countryside, money for traffic mitigation, free shuttle service that everyone in the community can use, more open space, senior friendly housing, etc. etc.
If the Right Sized ballot campaign prevails, the community loses all that but likely still gets a 40B with non of the benefits.
@greg, I’m in on Turkey talk.
The resident of Upper Falls do not agree. If we did, there would not be talk of a referendum. If Upper Falls agreed with the Council, there would not be an army of volunteers ready to get the requisite signatures for a referendum vote.
Perception is reality, and I’m not the only abutter that feels this way. How can we close the gap?
@Matt Lai – I think it’s very important to remind the residents of Upper Falls that there’s the threat of a 40B and how much worse it could (and likely would) be. Avalon is a good example of what could happen.
I, too, have concerns about this project. However, the concessions made so far make it much better than what we’d get with 40B.
@Greg, @CC: still waiting for the answer to my question……
@meridith, referring to Upper Falls in the third person leads me to believe you do not LIVE in Upper Falls, so the concessions of course would seen more palatable than those of us who would have do (UNFAIRLY) deal with the impacts of Northland every day.
Northland has no intentions of building via 40b, or they would have already done so. The last 24 months have been both aggravating if not expensive for them as well. You can’t negotiate the best deal on a new car if you’re not willing to walk out of the door at the dealership.
@marti, I assume you do not live in Upper Falls either. But on my street in the past few years, no less than 6 families have moved in – either with a young child, or expecting their first or second. So long as Newton maintains its reputation for good schools, families will continue to come, regardless of what a demographer says. I just do not think it’s fair these kids will end up in 30-kid classrooms.
Lastly, running errands before Thanksgiving on Tue was a BEAR. Needham Street was gridlocked. Route 9 was a stand still. Before anyone talks about all the great benefits of Northland, live a week in our shoes, because a couple of electric busses is simply not enough.
@Matt:Randall Block who is organizing this whole ballot drive schanagans doesn’t live in Upper Falls either. Just sayin.
Matt, residents of Newton’s wards and villages make decisions that affect other parts of Newton regularly. I live in Newtonville where new developments such as Austin Street have been built and Washington Place plus additional projects are either under construction or planned. Residents all over Newton have weighed in on what they want to be built (or not) there.
Plus most developers try to work with the city and its residents before they resort to using Chapter 40B. Northland reached out to the community multiple times and incorporated many suggestions. If after trying to satisfy the community they still continue to be blocked, they can then decide to hell with it and build what they want without any mitigations using Chapter 40B.
Pat Irwin, no need to wait for an answer. All ordinances are public record as well as minutes from city council votes. Why not just do the research yourself.
As an aging architect I’ve learned that most everyone wants to be a designer.
It’s like composing music,.. few can write a great score.
From this perspective it seems to me that human narcissistic tendencies get in the way of better judgment when it comes to the evaluation of things like development projects. Personal agendas rule !
My agenda says that traffic is / will be a problem. That schools will become overburdened. That city budgets will become even more unmanageable.
That environmental problems cannot be solved by allowing this metastasis to grow.
Newton has evolved via the millions of smaller personal decisions that have shaped the fabric of the city we are blessed with today. It’s the same process that has shaped the beautiful cities, towns and villages of the world that we admire and want to emulate .
Currently executive fiat rules and if we are not careful , and allow it to continue, we will be left with a very graphic record of same,.. and it won’t be pretty.
@Matt Lai – I live close by the other end of Needham St., so traffic problems will also affect me. My son is in his late 20s, so school issues wouldn’t personally affect me no matter where I lived but I care deeply about school overcrowding anywhere in the city.
You are wrong when you say that Northland won’t go the 40B route. If it takes too much longer for them to develop the property they own, there’s a very good chance they’ll give up on dealing with the city and neighbors – and they certainly aren’t going to decide not to build there at all.
IMHO, the statement that the impact on schools should not be a factor in the special permit process is actually a wise addition to state law:
1. School facilities are built to last for many generations of students. Over that period, enrollment will wax and wane and adjustments will be needed to accommodate the “waxing” periods. My point is that using short term data to plan buildings is a very bad idea and inevitably leads to problems. As an example, classroom space for NNHS was based on enrollment projections through 2014 that stated it would house 1800 students. Today NNHS has close to 2200 students.
2. I cannot say this enough times or more emphatically: the quality of demographer’s report was terrible. It actually said that Newton might have to close schools. Newton closed multiple schools in the past. How’d that work out for us? Not so well. Would we actually consider – for a minute – repeating the same costly mistake?
3. Every Newton school except the four new ones was built before the Special Ed Act of 1973 and the ADA in 1991 that mandated multiple new programs, all of which require (underscore the word require) different types and uses of space and staffing. To be clear, these two laws were absolute game changers in terms of space needs and use of school facilities. That means twelve elementary schools need to be rebuilt at some point to accommodate new programs no matter what happens on Monday night. Obviously, the most decrepit schools will be at the top of the list, but none of these 12 elementary schools provides for a 21st century education.
When you’re planning a new school, wouldn’t it be more cost effective to add extra space to accommodate unknown future enrollment increases, rather than reacting to a “wax” by adding space that most likely doesn’t provide a well integrated school facility? The NSHS maze is a good example of what happens when you add onto an existing facility.
4. Newton is a very popular place for families with kids, in large part because of the school system. It just is. We don’t have to worry about losing students.
So here’s my advice: leave the schools out of the discussion and make a decision based on the quality of the development, with an eye to relieving the negative impact on the nearby neighborhoods. Something big is going to be built on those 23 acres. Whatever it is, we want it to be the best possible endpoint for the city.