While reading the Boston Globe email this morning, noticed a subtle change at the bottom – 1 Exchange Place in Boston? The Globe has abandoned their iconic building in Dorchester near Umass Boston (another sad footnote of the Newspaper industry), so what is outlook for their old site? Pretty good as it turns out.The size mirrors the Northland’ site at just under 17 acres, but the height is far less than the 8 stories proposed on Needham Street. The Beat is all commercial – the covered tax base/rate Newton will never get back once Northland is approved for multi-use. The traffic mitigation strategies Northland has proposed (basically a 10 min shuttle and subsidized T passes) could apply here as well – only better, as being commercial, it would be a REVERSE MBTA COMMUTE!
Restaurants, fitness center, beer gardens paired with the bike lanes that the DOT plans to add on Needham Street and there’s the Green vibrancy everyone is asking for. And without the added strain to Newton classrooms. No zoning changes would be necessary. Throw in a spray park named for John Rice and schedule the ribbon cutting ceremony!
There have been many different objections raised about the Northland project but I believe the most widespread concerns have been about traffic. Putting a 1/2 million square foot of commercial development there rather than Northland’s 100K would take traffic issues into another whole realm.
Additional taxable commercial real estate would certainly be a bonus but I’m having a hard time seeing a project like that being any better received by folks who are objecting to Northland’s current proposal.
I would argue that this is a great example as to why the deal Right Size Riverside/ LFIA worked out with Mark Development on behalf of the people of Newton is a horrible deal for the city. The South Boston property is adjacent to I-93, just as the Riverside property sits next to 128/ I-95. That visibility is what many large employers crave, which is why it makes a lot of sense for some significant commercial development. The idea mixed-use brings additional benefits.
Putting this kind of thing on Needham Street would, as Jerry points out, make traffic a lot worse there. But honestly, that’s what retailers like, they love when people are stuck in their cars and looking at their storefront.
All that said, the idea that Needham Street should have more experiential retail is supported by the recent announcement that a Skydiving company wants to open up on Highland Ave where Acapulcos used to be, just a short distance away from the Northland property. The big difference? It’s right off the 128 exit.
This is probably what northland had in mind originally until they realized that profits could be multiplied several times if a special permit was issued..
The pot of gold makes sense in terms of risk/reward to roll the dice and potentially delay several years for a lifetime of profits
Not as concerned about traffic. Here’s why (leveraging the arguments used by Northland and their fan club)…
Millennials don’t want to drive. So long as the last mile shuttle is maintained workers would be taken from Newton Highlands to the development. On a nice day, it’s walkable from either Highlands or Eliot and best of all, it would be a reverse commute (by T or car)!!!! Plus whatever traffic generated would be contained within (2) rush hour periods on weekdays – leaving a usable Needham Street on weekends and late evenings (dining and shopping).
Can anyone really complain about the commercial tax base? Curious (as am admittedly NOT a tax expert), if we used the same square (all commercial) footage of The Beat vs Northland’s current mixed use sq footage, which generates more revenue for Newton?
Want to make sure the KEY part of this post it’s not missed. RSN often (unfairly) painted as “anti-development”. Here is a project that is not “Northland or bust”!
@Matt I would love to know what RSN does have in mind in terms of a vision. I haven’t seen one from them at all. The only message, so far, has been “make it smaller,” with the “it” being anything that’s been proposed.
When I sit down and listen to the experts (planners, commercial real estate brokers, residential real estate brokers, developers, economic development consultants, etc.) I hear them talk about a complex system of investment, opportunity, transportation, and development that takes a lot of factors into account. You can’t just drop one idea from one place into a different city. It doesn’t really work that way.
As for a RSN vision, there isn’t one. In fact, during the last EDC meeting Right Size Riverside was clear to try to separate itself from Right Size Needham Street. They said that there is an umbrella group, but each part is really only concerned with the project closest to them. It would seem to me that’s less of a broad city vision and more concern about what’s happening in… um… what’s the term?
Oh… yeah…. their own backyard.
As a Newton Villages Alliance representative seated on the Needham Street “Visioning” Committee, It was my experience that the group was completely and overwhelmingly directed by the City Planning Department, and commercial development was never encouraged ( except by a minority contingent of us ), in favor of housing . This is the city’s ( and the Chamber of Commerce’s ), agenda, not its residents. Witness the enthusiastic response to Right Size Newtons petition.
One more thing to note about the Boston Globe property: selling it wasn’t all that easy. It took 3 tries, with two of them falling apart for “financing reasons.”
There is an unseen hand operating behind the scenes for all of this and that’s what can get financed in a given area. The money for property in Newton flows to the residential side. It’s just easier to get that kind of thing done. I’m told that it’s more difficult to finance a commercial development here. When you throw in how difficult we are to work with, you can start to see why we get what we do.
@Matt: First, what Jerry and Chuck said.
It’s surprising to read that you’re no longer concerned about traffic. Any traffic expert will tell you that this proposal at this location will generate a lot more car trips than the super-majority approved Northland plan.
Maybe you don’t care about this all this sudden, but your neighbors who you’ve long said are being ignored by the city will.
Your neighbors would hate what this would do to Upper Falls.
@Matt Lai – To be clear though, this isn’t a project that RSN has endorsed as an acceptable alternative. This is something that a single RSN member says he could live with.
@Jim
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
@Blueprint: Please stop with the revisionist history.
The Needham Street Vision plan committee included seven resident representatives and six additional members who live in the Needham Street area, plus folks representing Newton Highlands, seniors and environmentalists. The committee accepted and adopted the final vision. There was no dissenting vote, walk outs in protest, etc. There was broad consensus.
Matt said:
> Not as concerned about traffic.
Without traffic/transportation concerns and fears, I would wager that the City Council vote would have been even stronger, and the referendum would not have gotten their petition count.
Size, school impact, and revenue may be issues, but they aren’t visceral like traffic. Greg Schwartz saying, “In any other location, this development would have been a slam dunk” isn’t about residential/commercial ratio.
Building lifestyle amenities such as fitness centers and restaurants in all-commercial settings leaves low-hanging fruit on the sustainability tree. Walkable housing in mixed use development allows short, common trips to be done on foot or bike more conveniently than driving. It allows every efficient and fast delivery. It improves the utility of shuttles. And for older, less mobile residents, it provides the opportunity for more independence and community without the need to drive.
It’s great to share alternative visions of projects because it teaches us all. However, post-facto editing and re-visioning risks undervaluing the insight, hard work, and compromises that have already taken place, potentially negating the voices of people who have worked through the system to get us to the present day.
Greg,
Committee consensus you say?
What good is it, or was it, when it lacked foresight leading to a referendum on auto pilot with a much larger consensus to overturn it.
@Jim: You can’t — or at least you shouldn’t — legislate based on a fear that a minority opposition group might try to overturn the decision through a ballot referendum. That’s just bad public policy.
Rick,
Your metro housing link does not advocate injecting added dense housing willy nilly everywhere. Rather, it specifically entails a “strategy” among the listed communities. Where would be the strategy of injecting vast dense new housing on the already overwhelmingly congested Needham Street — to house workers seeking a better commute to Boston??? — when vast new housing developments have been built and are being planned in better suited and better downtown Boston accessed sites?
Greg,
Albeit City Council is technically the legislative branch of City Government, its issuance of the Special Use Permit could be characterized as an executive act. In any case, it seems to me that its decisions should take cognizance of what will likely be the outcome. In this case, without greater involvement of what you deem the “minority opposition group” albeit its views will likely soon be shown to be the majority (in terms of referendum outcome), I would call that bad public policy.
Greg,
“Revisionist History“ !!???? NOT !!!
OK there were seven resident representatives, most of whom were skeptical of much of what was being proposed. There were a few housing advocates including an executive ( fox in the hen house) of Northland itself !
On one count you are right . “ There was no dissenting vote”. There was no vote at all ! If there had been there would have been at least one ,.. my own!
To claim there was broad consensus is complete hyperbole. There was plenty of conflicting opinion as to density, overhead utilities, commercial vs residential distribution, landscaping, urban design, monorails, and more absurdities.
Color it with a Chamber of Commerce and Planning Department broad brush as you will . It comes with the territory.
So Bill, you’re saying that Northland, which is by far the largest property owner on Needham Street shouldn’t have had a single seat on a 26 person committee (that also included 12 residents) which was discussing the future vision for Needham Street?
Really, if the dissent was as strong as you allege, why is this the first time we’re hearing about it? All I remember you advocating for at the vision committee meetings was the under-grounding of the wires (which Northland agreed to do!).
Rick Frank,
The link you cite to Metro Housing establishes cooperation among the listed communities regarding strategy for metro wide housing, NOT that Newton inject a vast dense housing project at Northland significantly adding congestion to an already extremely congested Needham Street, predicated on Northland housing Boston workers, when within those communities there are far more amenably located and accessible sites to downtown Boston, for example, with existing and planned vast new housing.
Peeps…. to be clear….
1. This is not an RSN POV, but my own personal POV
2. The original point of this post was that there are options beyond what Northland is proposing vs nothing.
3. @Chuck…RSN has never been asked what their opinion is, nor invited to provided one.
4. Not implying that I ” no longer care about traffic” but simply stating in this configuration, the traffic would be more limited to business hours, the commute would be the REVERSE of Northland’s proposal, and does not get worse on the weekends
And lastly, this post supports an implied point of view that those who are currently a fan of the Northland proposal does not want to even consider anything else. Thankfully enough people are open to alternative options to have added their names to the referendum petition. For once in the past (2) years, neighbors who align with and support RSN have a voice and some leverage.
I am still holding out hope that the (3) groups – Northland and their fans, the City and RSN – can sit down to hash out some sort middle ground. If not, then the fight will end up at the polls, and if it comes to that point, the it is unfair to paint RSN as the only party willing to “roll the dice”.
In this case, there are (3) players at this poker table.
@Matt: I’m going to be a little facetious here to prove a point. But if you didn’t like my child would you tell me to go get a different kid?
Well I’m a “fan” of this project. I don’t want a different one.
Plus Chuck is correct: Right Size had two years to propose something different. No invitation was required. Never happened.
I’m not sure I understand the ” nor invited to provided one” comment. Who would invite them? If they have a vision of what they want Newton to be, and are taking an active role in planning (which it appears that they are) then as a citizen I would like to understand what it is they want. They don’t need an invitation, since they haven’t had one at all and seemed pretty good at gaining a voice.
On its website RSN describes itself as “RightSize Newton is a grass-roots, non-profit 501(c)4 civic organization. We are your neighbors advocating for the thoughtful, holistic review of proposed developments so they benefit our existing neighborhoods and residents.”
I’m not entirely sure what that means. Later, it says that “A total of at least 1,900 units and potentially over 2,600 new unit (SIC) means more residents, more traffic, more pressure on our schools, services and infrastructure. Growth can be good, but only when it addresses the issues that it creates. This is too much too quickly.”
If this is too much, how much is the right amount? On a press release on RSN’s site it says the following: “RightSize Newton’s philosophy is summarized by board member Leon Schwartz: ‘We are not anti-development! We favor smart, properly-scaled development in Newton.'” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
If they’re going to stand toe to toe with developers, what should developers come to the table with in order to avoid a confrontation? Nothing here explains that vision. So you have a group of people saying they will oppose something that is too large without giving any indication as to what is acceptable to them.
@Greg, I can appreciate facetious. 🙂
@Chuck, not going to re-hash 2 years of history to the detriment of current V14 readers, but RSN is the result – at the most basic level – of Northland’s proposal to add (originally) 922 households next door to an Upper Falls Community of only 1,200. Doesn’t take a math genius to question the scale of one to other.
But to follow Greg’s “kid” analogy, consider Northland as the “kid” requesting something of the “parent” (City of Newton) – in case a zoning change. While a number of us in the community take issue with the 922/1,200 ratio and judge it as an irresponsible request, no one likes someone else to parent their kid unless specifically invited. So, either the kid needs to scale down their request or the parent needs to put more things in place so the community can be happy with the ratio.
Not the best analogy but wanted to following Greg’s lead. 🙂
As for being a fan Greg, you are entitled to your opinion, but then so too are the 3 to 5 thousand people that signed the petition who disagree.
Can there be a middle ground? I certainly hope so. But that can only happen if all sides are willing to compromise.
I posted this on another thread, but think it is also relevant here.
The short of it is that Newton (and other suburbs that have taken up the challenge of our “regional housing crisis”) are paying for the city of Boston’s commercial growth (I would argue Cambridge’s as well) without reaping the economic benefits associated with said commercial growth. We are getting the short end of the stick.
Building residential housing does not pay for itself (in tax revenues). Building commercial structures pays for itself (in tax revenues). YAY to Boston/Cambridge … too bad to Newton, etc. (There should have been an overall wealth-sharing/cost-sharing agreement negotiated into whatever the regional housing agreement that Mayor Fuller signed on to.)
An added PS to the post on this thread: traffic patterns with commercial vs residential development will be vastly different, with commercial a plan-able hit at WEEKDAY morning and afternoon rush hours (with a planned shuttle to T / trains as well) (and please don’t @ me that we lose the shuttle with Northland dropping it’s current plan — if Northland develops commercially by-right, there will be plenty of tax revenue to the city to fund shuttles), while residential development will be in and out (1-2 cars/family?) at various and random times all throughout the week and weekend. My greater point is, however, the economic benefit of commercial development to the upcoming budget shortfalls that the city WILL see.
@Matt Lai –
What am I missing? There was room to compromise over the last year and a half before December’s vote. There was room to compromise before the signatures were submitted. At this point though it would appear to be too late for any compromises from anyone because an up/down city-wide referendum question is now in the pipeline. The fate of the project is now in the hands of the city’s voters.
ANP says:
> Building residential housing does not pay for itself (in tax revenues).
By this line of reasoning, we’re all dead weight on the economy of Newton. Housing and the people who live in it are not dollars. Cities are about people, families, community.
> traffic patterns with commercial vs residential development will be vastly different, with commercial a plan-able hit at WEEKDAY morning and afternoon rush hours
These are the times when traffic demand on the corridor is highest because of commuter cut-through traffic. How does this help?
One whole advantage of mixed use development is to contain some of the residential/commercial travel needs within the complex, while at the same time diffusing traffic and parking demand away from strong peaks seen in many commercial developments.
Housing has much less traffic impact than people imagine (especially when done thoughtfully). Here’s an example. According to a quick web search, Avalon Newton has 294 units. How much does the development’s affect traffic on Needham Street compared to other sources, both on the street and external?
I just don’t see how you can square a fear of increased traffic with advocacy for an all commercial development.
There’s a lot of talk by Right Size Needham and it’s members – although it’s hard to know which Right Size residents are members of Riverside or Needham or both – about building all or a larger percentage of commercial by Northland. It made sense at Riverside to build a larger amount of commercial, taller, wider, visible from 128 for which there will be an exit which was squashed by Right Size Riverside. But it’s not the same for Northland.
To all of the commenters who are wanting more commercial and less housing at Northland, calling the developers “greedy” and worse, bringing up other commercial developments they find comparable and complaining that Newton is building residential to support the commercial in Boston and other places: have any of you checked out the process Northlands been through?
Northland’s first proposal included more commercial but they were told that amount wasn’t viable in that location so they reduced it.
Many folks who asked for signatures, signed the referendum, are asking questions and commenting here suggesting what would work better for Northland’s property have a general lack of knowledge about Northland and the process it went through to get to where it could be granted a special permit by a super majority of our city council.
The most recent idea has been to build a commercial development. This part of the plan has been reviewed and evaluated several times by our committees, the community, including several outside site plan, programming and placemaking/retail consultants. Anyone can read about the entire process Northland went through from both the minutes, meeting reports and the lengthy documents listed on Newton’s Northland Special Permit page.
From the February 6, 2019 Petitioner’s letter to Greg Swartz, then president of the Land Use Committee, Northland addresses commercial and site plan changes made because of studies requested by land use committee members, peer reviewers and the community at its various presentations during the latter part of 2018 – September 25, November 13, December 11 and January 15.
In summary, in the latter part of 2018, Northland was told that after review the Planning Department and its consultant RKG “believes that the amount of retail/commercial proposed exceeds the spending within a reasonable drive time of the site” and that the “staff recommends the petitioner explore diversifying the proposed commercial space … “ among other things, which they did. The retail space was reduced from 185,200 net to 115,000 net.
Anyone who thinks this was pushed through too fast or is making suggestions of how this plan could be different should take a look at Newton’s Northland Special permit page and perhaps note both the time line and even read a few of the pertinent documents, letters, memos and reports available.
@Marti: Thanks for the reminder about how the issue of a commercial vs. residential mix had been thoroughly investigated by our city council.
Here’s the curious thing:
Right Size Riverside advocated for — and received — a drastic reduction in commercial space from Mark Development because they studied the data and realized that commercial generates a lot more car trips than residential.
But Right Size Needham Streeters are arguing just the opposite, without citing data to back up their unproven belief that residential traffic is somehow worse. It isn’t.