The 23-acre Northland Newton Development (NND) represents an aspirational opportunity to create a national model of affordable housing, environmental sustainability, historic preservation, public parks and open space, transit demand management, accessibility, and ageing in community – an opportunity to develop the largest single infusion of affordable housing in decades and set the new standard for 21st century sustainable design and development.
That is why we owe a debt of gratitude to the thoughtful and passionate participation of the Councilors on the Land Use Committee, City Planning professionals, city departments, community groups, and neighbors, all of whom have given so generously of their time. For it was only through that intense process – 16 public hearings, dozens of working sessions, hundreds of community meetings, and thousands of hours – that this aspiration has been realized. Negotiations during the Land Use process produced extraordinary community benefits, including:
- Reducing the scale from 2 million square feet to 1.1 million square feet
- Creating the largest Passive House Residential Community in the United States
- Pushing all of the project parking underground
- Increasing open space to ten acres, 40% of the site
- Undergrounding 1.5 miles of utility lines
- Funding of a free, 7-day a week “last mile” shuttle to the Newton Highlands MBTA Stop
- Requiring $10 million of mitigation payments for city efforts such as Traffic Demand Management, the Countryside School, Inflow & Infiltration Infrastructure, a Splash Park, and Community Playground
- Dedicating an entire building for age-in-community living with Universal Design Standards and complete ADA accessibility
NND is a testament to the exhaustive and collaborative efforts of the many professionals, officials, stakeholders, and neighbors who vetted this visionary mixed-use master plan. Our team held more than 300 meetings and over 2,200 one on one conversations to solicit feedback. In short, we engaged with anyone and everyone who wished to meet with us regarding NND.
As Councilor Deb Crossley pointed out in front of the full City Council this past week, all ideas were carefully considered. At the end of the day, it was NND’s final package of master planning, affordable housing, sustainable design, open space, traffic demand management, historic preservation, mitigation payments, and amenities that struck the right balance of the competing needs of our community.
Our team is humbled to have won the support of a supermajority of City Councilors Monday night and the support and endorsements of Livable Newton, Engine 6, Green Newton, The League of Women Voters, The Newton Economic Development Commission, The Newton Housing Partnership, Newton Conservators, The Newton Citizen’s Commission on Energy, The Newton Urban Design Commission, and 350 Mass – Newton Node. We also acknowledge and appreciate the consensus from all parties, supporters and opponent alike, around the innovative and thoughtful master plan.
As Northland prepares to celebrate its 50th year in Newton, we cannot wait to begin this generational opportunity: to welcome area businesses to Newton by providing Class-A office space at the Saco-Pettee Mill Building, to provide desperately needed housing options that cater to all demographics, to curate retail streetscapes that enliven the corridor with shopping and dining, to build new, separated pedestrian and bike lanes that will increase the connectivity and safety of the neighborhood, and to transform the existing site into public open spaces woven into the Upper Falls Greenway. We look forward to moving our headquarters to the historic mill and are confident that the vibrant gathering places will provide recreational opportunities to Newton residents for generations to come.
Larry Gottesdiener is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Northland Investment Corporation.
Mr. Gottesdiener,
As a Newton resident, as for many residents, there is certainly hope for a successful project and your comments are appreciated.
One “benefit” which you list — “Funding of a free, 7-day a week “last mile” shuttle to the Newton Highlands MBTA Stop” — as you may be aware, has been the subject of a great deal of back-and-forth within the city and here on V14 (on whether it causes any real positive or appreciable net beneficial impact). Undoubtedly that shuttle system represents a considerable expense to be borne by Northland Investment. It may be academic, or maybe not, but if that shuttle expense were removed and then equaled to a reduction in development size (thereby generating less Needham Street traffic), with the attendant loss of Northland profit or revenue equal to that Northland shuttle expense, resulting in no net monetary gain or loss, could that at least be determined?
Thank you.
@Jim: This project is the right size now. It provides desperately needed housing, including more affordable units (140) than Newton has ever created in one project and office space that is going to be great for small and midsized companies. The shuttles (plus the free T-passed for every resident) are part of this project’s attractiveness. It’s an amenity that the businesses that choose to locate there will value for their employees. This project should not made smaller. The shuttles certainly should not be eliminated.
Greg,
From listening to the full City Council pre-vote Northland session, a number of City Councilors, both voting against AND for Northland, expressed considerable reservation precisely about the project’s size fitted into the surrounding neighborhood and very limited road infrastructure. There is no magic size as to the number of housing units — it’s a balancing act, number of units vs. traffic and roads. So if reducing the size of the project (thereby reducing traffic equal to the shuttle’s so called traffic amelioration) — and perhaps that project reduction could be taken from office or retail beyond just housing — and the project remains equally profitable for Northland, why not? It’s a win-win.
Jim and Colleen, residents have had their say and Northland listened to community concern during 16 public hearings, dozens of working sessions, hundreds of community meetings, and thousands of hours.
Because they paid attention to community concerns, Northland has reduced the scale from 2 million square feet to 1.1 million square feet and added all of the other items listed in their post. Obviously those councilors you speak of either voted no or changed their minds during deliberations. It’s rare to have a super-majority yes vote with a 24 member city council.
I have asked before but never received an answer – If successful in overturning a super-majority City Council vote, what outcome are you looking for? Any thing can have unintended consequences – especially when there is no plan at all.
If this Northland project is so wonderful for Needham Street
and the surrounding community, why are people like Jim
Cote, Rhanna Kidwell and Gloria Gavris so vehemently opposed
to a voter referendum? This large scale project has never been
tried before. The result could be unforeseen consequences.
No wonder people want a say in Newton’s housing future.
The referendum is a fair measure to gauge the success of the city
council vote.
Colleen,
…and perhaps my suggestion can be implemented toward averting the perceived need for the referendum — again, a win-win-win.
Colleen,
The “let the voters decide” idea doesn’t always bring the best result. First, it’s an expensive battle to wage on top of an already expensive process. I have to imagine that the developer will need to make a decision about whether to continue to spend money. Second, what if it happens and Right Size loses? Do they walk away or, more likely, find another delay tactic that continues to drive up the price? When does the developer just say “enough”? Third, there are things that make sense to a voter as an individual in the short-term but are detrimental to the whole. Consider the gas tax that was repealed by referendum statewide a few years ago. The money that we don’t have is partially why our traffic is so bad now. Imagine if we had that income to help the public transportation system? That system has seen a 300% increase in fares while our gas tax has barely budged. Everyone loves to vote down a tax or vote against a change, but that change, when examined in the rear view mirror, is probably what we needed.
I love the “age in community” building that will be part of this! Wonderful – I wasn’t aware of this before.
I remember Needham Street when it had only McMannus (sp?) Ice Cream and little else. Let’s get this done already; these prime 23 acres are doing no one any good today.
Right Size Newton is playing a very risky game. Rather than the 800 approved apartments, Northland could potentially build over 1,800 apartments under the state’s 40B law (640 units on each of three parcels). And under 40B, we’d likely also lose many, many millions of dollars in traffic mitigation, free shuttles, free T passes for residents, parks, school building funds and other community give-backs that Northland and the city have thoughtfully negotiated.
Chuck, Colleen, Native etc.,
I’m providing a path toward reaching a win-win-won settlement obviating the referendum. Let’s do it!
Every side can end up happy (probably except for Greg) and minimizing further waste of expense.
I’ll offer to mediate ( at no expense).
Mr. Gottesdiener – A very gracious acknowledgement of the support you received from the community. I personally supported the project so I hope you will take my comment in the way it is intended. The one group not on your list that stands out to me is the Newton Teachers Association. I haven’t had an opportunity to ask Mike Zilles if Northland approached NTA, but if that hasn’t happened as yet, I don’t think it’s too late.
Newton educators have fallen off a lot of people’s radar screen in the last year and a half and we’ve spent the better part of that time battling one fire or another, so you’re by no means alone. That being said, NTA is a excellent partner when it is included. IMO, school enrollment should not have been part of the city council deliberations or decision as we welcome all students and families, but that doesn’t mean NTA doesn’t have ideas, opinions, and wisdom to add to the discussion.
Very nice guest post. Congratulations to Northland. Build it and we will come.
A referendum would be a mistake. However, the ballot box is the correct place to express any displeasure with this outcome. If you think Mayor Fuller did not get the best deal for Newton, and the City Council let you down… elect better leaders in the future. But let’s stop this referendum before an injustice is committed. Northland is a private property taxpayer. They followed the rules, and should be able to move forward now.
Greg,
If you are so concerned about the referendum, and perhaps rightly so, then you should be looking for some resolution, where there’s a little more give — rather than an all or nothing where things can end up where nobody wants it.
Again, I’m offering an avenue, and I think a deal can be brokered, so everyone (including Northland Development, the City of Newton, and Right Size can win (at least to some acceptable extent).
Let’s cut the crap, and get this done! You are especially situated to be instrumental in getting this done. There’s a way to do it other than forcing the issue where everyone loses.
@Colleen, I agree with Greg.
Taking the chance of having Northland pursue a 40B development is a huge risk to our community and to Right Size Newton advocates. If I was representing Right Size Newton, that is the most persuasive argument I’ve heard against pursuing a referendum question. Maximizing the number of apartments (or 1000+) at that site would be a disaster for our community. I believe after almost 2 years of public hearings, discussions, data review and negotiation, both parties have compromised and brought back to their respective groups a “win”. The City Council voted 17-7. I hope Right Size Newton reconsiders their referendum drive but continues to be engaged in community discussions representing the needs of their neighborhood.
Moreover, I’m not a fan of legislating by referendum. I am a proponent of a representative form of government. I pay attention and am involved every election season and support candidates that I feel confident and comfortable with to represent me on issues that will effect me and my city. If you didn’t like the way your Councilor voted, discuss with him/her. Vote differently next election – but a referendum drive is not the way to proceed.
I was at the council hearing on Monday night and from the speeches I heard (for and against) I got the impression all councilors were well prepared for this issue and voted with passion and sincerity that they were doing right by their constituents. The proponents of Northland prevailed. It’s time to move on.
Gloria,
While you think “it’s time to move on”, some (Right Size etc.) don’t agree. That’s simply a reality. As I said above, there’s a way forward, a little more give by all sides, along the lines I have suggested above, and the worst can be averted.
@Jim: This project has been negotiated, revised and reduced many, many times over three years. The council voted 17-7 in support. It’s time to move forward. This ballot drive is risky. It’s baffling that Right Size is willing to risk it all and end up with something they will like even less.
What is the long term impact of adding school age children to an already overcrowded Countryside School? Will a new Countryside School be constructed?
Greg,
I understand everything you are saying. However, if Right Size doesn’t agree with the outcome to date or with you and still intends to go forward, and the anti-referendum side can’t stop them or convince them not to proceed with the referendum , then that’s the simple reality.
All I’m saying is to dissuade them from pursuing the referendum, it seems advisable to negotiate a bit more with them along the lines of my above suggestion:
1. Make the project a bit smaller.
2. The smaller project makes the traffic a bit less.
3. The bit less traffic can entail eliminating the bus shuttle fleet.
4. Northland’s smaller project’s lesser revenue and profit is offset by ridding Northland of the expense of the bus shuttles.
5. Everyone goes home happy!
This is not rocket science!
@Jim: If anyone could guarantee that a “little” give on the project would, in fact, dissuade the Right Size referendum campaign, I might agree with you. But I have yet to see anything quite that concrete from the Right Size folks. I hear complaints about the project impact on traffic, schools and all sort of other areas of concern, but I have not seen anywhere the solutions that they would find acceptable. Sadly, I suspect that there are no acceptable solutions as far as they are concerned short of abandoning development altogether.
Jim,
Niiice. As close as you can come to naked hostage taking. Give us what we want, on our terms, or we blow the deal up. Admire your transparency.
The time to negotiate your “Everyone goes home happy” deal was through the exhaustive special permit process. Apparently, a super-majority of city councilors don’t think your terms are better.
Also, the time to negotiate is over. Without re-opening the special-permit process, terms can’t be changed. You propose an unavailable option.
It’s the special permit or something outside of a carefully negotiated agreement, like 40B. You ready for 1200 apartments at the end of Needham St.? When that happens, are you going to stand up and say, “Yup, I’m proud to say I made that happen”?
Sean,
I think you’re misreading my intent. I’m on balance (albeit close call) siding with the project. I’m not a Right Sider. I’m looking to get a little better (perhaps little smaller – to scale) project where objections might not be so great, and to pass muster so Right Side can accede . My main problem with the project is the silly shuttle system — so why not ditch it in a way wherein it is not needed, the project is a bit smaller and at no financial loss to developers.
Why arbitrarily say “negotiations are over, the end”. Even having had the City Council vote, some revisions can be made. Don’t be so rigid. There are always ways.
It’s been a heck of a ride, but I agree with Jim.
Yes, many concessions have been made since day 1. Lots of work went into this.
But the needs most underserved in the whole process are those of the abutters (1 mile radius of NND). The current TDM plan is a start, but it’s not enough to address the physics of people, cars and traffic. I could go on….
The referendum being mounted is a DIRECT REACTION to the people feeling ignored. The abutters have been more than vocal, yet all 3 Ward 5 councilors voted “yes”. How can that be? Perception – right, wrong or indifferent – is reality. And the reality today is that people are upset by the vote and feeing ignored. That is the sole purpose of a referendum.
Enough to get the required signatures? We’ll see, but from what I hear so far, good progress is being made.
But we have 16 days left until the signatures are to be submitted, and if deal can be made before then, “to finish the last mile” (yup, stole that from TDM), then this really could be win/win!
#ImWithJim
Matt,
It’s a special place of privilege that gets to claim you’ve been “ignored,” when the evidence is abundant that you’ve been heard clearly and given plenty of concessions. Hell, you acknowledge it yourself. You just aren’t quite happy with the final result. And, there’s no reason to think that you would have been happy with any special permit.
You, like Jim, seem quite happy transparently using the referendum as a threat to eke out just a little more.
The referendum is not going to pass. In fact, it will fail decisively. And, you, too, will be able to proudly proclaim at the ribbon-cutting for a 1200-apartment 40B project, “I made this all possible.”
How many signatures are needed for the referendum?
Sean,
OK, you’re right. Satisfy the referendum backers, or at least get a deal, “no referendum” and “eke out just a little more” — actually not costing the developer ANY more, ditch the shuttles and shrink the project to the extent the developer saves from not spending on the shuttle.
How bout it Mr. Gottesdeiner?
How bout it Mayor Fuller?
How bout it City Council?
How bout it Right Side?
How bout it Greg Reibman?
@fignewtonville – 5% of the voters which is approximately 3000 signatures and they need to be collected with 20 days of the vote this past Monday.
Just think, we have Northland, Riverside,Washington Place, Austin Street, Chestnut Hill Square and 2 Wells Ave.
How much new tax revenue is being created? NO need for any discussion on any Overrides.
Wow, what a disaster!!!
The title of this thread , instead of “Thank You Newton “, should really be
“Thank You Village 14”.
The Fox has been let into the Hen House, and with the permission of all of the cities social engineers has enjoyed a great meal.
He was let in initially when, in the middle of the night , they first opened the door at city hall. The citizenry was asleep and didn’t hear the commotion. Now that morning has arrived Right Size has to clean up the mess and count what’s left of the flock. Hopefully enough to build a better fence and put a lock on the door.
….better fence, find better night watchmen/ women, and put a lock on the door !
Jim,
You make a huge assumption that a smaller project will yield fewer cars without a bus. I realize this is counter-intuitive, but there’s a tipping point. The presence of the bus could, as it is, attract people who want to live car-light lifestyles. Meaning, it’s very existence could entice the people who want to drive less. And yes, there are a lot of people out there who WANT that. It’s a market.
Asking for fewer apartments under the idea that it’ll create fewer trips isn’t as direct as it appears. Also, the bus is about reducing trips, not individual cars. Again, not intuitive. Each car trip we can reduce eases the traffic burden on others. . Eliminate the bus and you eliminate one key opportunity to eliminate trips. You end up REQUIRING car trips and thereby making traffic worse as a result.
For most people we have two opportunities to change their travel habits: moving to a new location and starting a new job. If we don’t have the bus, we’ll cement a driving habit from day one. We can create new habits for the people who will live or work here IF we give them the opportunity.
As for the referendum, let’s be real. The goal here isn’t to have people vote on it, it’s to make the project more expensive for the developer in the hope that they just want the process to end, so they give Right Size whatever they want. This is the same hostage-taking process that this group did BEHIND CLOSED DOORS at Riverside. It cost the city millions of dollars in potential revenue.
I think there at least one missing piece in this puzzle.
If the city believes that development benefits Newton, it should sell the positives and attempt to mitigate the negatives.
I’ve said it before: Northland should not be held responsible for traffic on Needham Street. Working with the city, they have done a reasonable job mitigating the traffic their site will generate (and more than other developers and property owners in the past have ever been asked to do). Traffic, transportation, and parking is the responsibility of the city and state.
Now that the agreement is voted on, Newton should look at any remaining concerns raised during the process and attempt to address them pro-actively. For example:
* Describe the future of Needham Street traffic and transportation improvements: what the state is doing, what Newton is prepared to do.
* Describe the specifics of the investment in Countryside, and what Newton is prepared to do to help that school community (it’s already near the top of the list).
* Promote city services and uses at Northland. Demonstrate how the project will as part of the city.
I believe the Northland development will benefit the local community, but it is natural that today the risks of the future might seem more pressing. The City can defend this development, and development in general, by demonstrating willingness and ability to address any downsides and risks with action of its own.
Those benefits, of course, would be contingent on the project moving forward. They would also be contingent on concretely defining what the neighbors would want. I’m unclear if there is consensus on that.
@mikehalle….one of the best ideas I’ve heard in the long termed!!
It’s the closest thing to an olive branch.
The Council has earned the reputation of being elitist…knowing more than the average Newton resident…and steering this project towards the progressive buzz words and issues du jour…vs addressing the specific issues of density and adding 800 new households in a neighborhood of only 1,200.
The optics only gets worse when some of the Councilors gloat-Tweets how great the NND project is. They may as well be waving a red cape in front of a bull.
Great idea Mike. Think the City will do it?