Charles River Foot Bridge
To housing activists, 40-R zoning is considered “Smart Growth.” Its best practices include high-density housing, nearby public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle access, and less reliance on gas automobiles, the chief contributor to global warming. 40-R projects usually contain energy-efficient buildings that rely on electricity produced on site by solar panels or purchased from green energy sources or both.
On Thursday, January 9, a roomful of Waban residents listened to a presentation given by representatives of the Wellesley Office Park Development. Their project, an exemplar of Smart Growth, involves replacing an office building with 350 residential units and a handful of complementary businesses. It lies across the Charles River, on William Street. The representatives came at the invitation of the Waban Area Council, on which I serve.They were under no obligation to participate since both Wellesley and the Commonwealth have already signed off on the project. We were, thus, duly appreciative. They did, of course, take some heat from local residents, especially concerning fears of worsening traffic on Chestnut Street, Ellis Street, Quinobequin Road, and Route 9.
To be sure, this congestion predates the Wellesley Office Park’s project. Entering Route 9 heading westbound has been hellish since time immemorial, and recent efforts to improve safety have fallen short. Cars zoom down the highway from the Elliot Street light at speeds approaching 60 miles per hour, endangering drivers trying to merge. Imagine, in addition, immediately having to cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn for Route 95 South…yikes!
Problems also exist for drivers on Route 9 trying to reach William Street to enter the Office Park. With all the crossing traffic, accidents occur frequently. In the evening, as cars exit the office park, congestion worsens even with police officers on hand.
These intersections are a traffic engineer’s nightmare, which the representatives acknowledged. They argued, however, that residential traffic from the project, intermittent by nature, will cause less congestion than the office traffic it replaces. In the near future, they added, a new left-turn signal on Route 9 might allow traffic heading eastbound to turn directly onto William Street. For now, though, the presentation failed to allay the fears of many in attendance.
The project makes perfect sense from Wellesley’s perspective, which explains why the town approved a Chapter 40-R development on the site. With the residential housing created, Wellesley will meet its goal of 10% minimal subsidized housing units and avoid less desirable 40-B projects (sound familiar, Newton residents?). This phase of the development will generate about $1.34 million per annum in tax revenues as well as one-time bonus payments of over $1 million.
In one respect, Thursday’s presentation was misleading because the representatives insisted on discussing only phase 1 of the project, the 350-unit residential building. In the near future, more residential developments may be built in the same office park, with additional tax benefits of $1 million per annum. The presentation last year to the Board of Selectmen in Wellesley included replacing four of the eight existing office buildings with up to 600 apartments, 75,000 square feet of additional office space, and a 150-room hotel! Despite the additional residences and hotel rooms, the overall office space would remain stable.
This future development may well fall short of being truly “Smart Growth.” On the plus side, electricity purchased from green sources will power the project’s heating, and solar panels may eventually be sited on the rooftops. Yet William Street’s lack of transit and remoteness from amenities mean that residents will be driving frequently. Even the shuttle bus service to and from the Green Line, part of the plan, will not prevent the increase of traffic in the development park, given the new residents and hotel guests in the latter phase of the project.
It falls short in other ways. Pedestrians and cyclists have to navigate the dangerous intersection of William Street and Route 9. The service road along Route 9 is one-way, with no opportunity for cars or bikes to go eastbound. Those walking along the side of the road up the hill to the Eliot T-stop must use a narrow sidewalk with cars speeding by. It’s scary.
To improve the project’s safety and decrease reliance on buses and cars, Dr. Srdjan Nedeljkovic, a bicycle activist, presented a proposal at the meeting for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that crosses the Charles River into Newton. It would extend from a point near the project to Quinobequin Road near Larkspur Road.From there, the T stop at Waban Square lies less than a half-mile away. Waban Square has a post office, café, grocery, hardware store, restaurant, bank, shoe repair, and other businesses. This bridge, then, would make the village accessible to cyclists and pedestrians wanting to shop or dine or travel elsewhere by public transit. It would, alas, undoubtedly cost up to $1 million.
John Hancock Real Estate, the owner of the Wellesley Office Park, might also consider creating an expanded sidewalk for pedestrians and cyclists heading to the Eliot T stop. It could stretch from William Street to Cragmore Road, a third of a mile away, leaving an equal distance via Cragmore to Eliot. Either this route or a bridge would ease the challenge for those on foot or on bike. Now that would be smart growth!
Listening to the representatives from the Wellesley project, I couldn’t help but wonder about Newton’s looming big developments. In theory, projects at Northland and Riverside have already addressed many of the same “Smart Growth” concerns: access to transit; pedestrian and bicycle accessibility; diminished reliance on the automobile; and safe entrances and exits to nearby roads and highways. City government must be vigilant that growth engendered by 40-R developments is truly Smart.
*Thanks to Srdj Nedeljkovic for providing information, feedback, and the photograph.
Let’s not be too quick to congratulate Wellesley. This project was an easy and obvious approval. The town achieves the 40B Safe Harbor threshold and this development will have minimal impact on life in the Wellesley’s village centers and exclusive neighborhoods – which are miles away and only accessible by car. All of the traffic congestion, density, and public transit burden will fall on Newton. Given the distance to any of Wellesley services, Newton will be the closest and easiest to access – particularly if the footbridge is approved.
Between this development and Northland, Chestnut/ Eliot/ Quinobequin will be a lot more congested. A traffic mitigation plan for the Rte 9 / Williams street intersection will be imperative.
As someone who lives near the Elliot T station, the off ramp from Rt 9 W to Chestnut Street is 100 times worse now than 20 years ago. People FLY off route 9 to Chestnut Street. The pedestrian access on the ramp is terrible. The intersection of Chestnut and the off ramp is terrible. So many stop signs. So many frustrated drivers. And it will get worse with phase 1 and future phases of the Wellesley Office Park development. HUGE win for Wellesley. Great growth and very little pain for them. All the traffic hits Newton and the neighbors that live east of the park. Nothing for Wellesley residents to worry about in their day to day life.
More riders being shuttled to the Green Line?
This project underscores the necessity for regional planning. A decision that on-paper seems beneficial to one town exacerbates problems in neighboring communities. Often, the most available sites for high-density development sit at a distance from convenient public transit, with no bike trails and few amenities nearby. In such places, the automobile reigns supreme.
In a sense, this is why Newton councilors have been pushing high density towards the north side of Newton..
rather than Newton centre and Waban where there actually is T stop(and existing retail).. not in THEIR backyard
Bob and Srdj. Thanks for this post. Yeah, it’s a bummer for Newton in terms of traffic impacts and overall benefits, but it looks like pretty much a done deal do I’m looking for some positives. I see Srdj’s footpath and bike lane via Cragmore Road as complementary to a citywide network of side streets and back roads that would provide alternative ways of traveling across Newton for older and less experienced bicyclists who don’t want to contend with the inherent dangers of cycling on major roadways. I wish they would also throw in another bridge across Route 9 to provide a safer connection for pedestrians and cyclists between Hemlock Gorge and the Quinobequin Reservation. That said, I continue to share the skepticism of all other respondents on this post about all the additional passengers the several major and not so major development projects in this general area would collectively and almost arbitrarily pile onto the already stressed Riverside Line.
Two quick historical notes. When I was a kid, the land where the Wellesley Office Park is now located was a huge open grassland known as the “Kildare flats”. Several of us were avid butterfly collectors and observers. We spent considerable time at Kildare Flats because thousands and thousands of butterflies would stop there during seasonal migration and the field would be literally smothered in a vivid tapestry of different sizes and colors. Sad, but kids today will never get to see something like this at least not in this neck of the woods.
People often confuse “Eliot” with “Elliott” in this part of Newton and don’t feel bad. I’ve lived ;here on and off for more than 80 years and I only caught the distinction a few years back. Eliot Station is named for John Eliot, the guy that preached to the Indians. Nearby Elliott Street is named for a prominent 19th Century businessman who lived in Upper Falls.
@Bugek: Newton’s City Councilors don’t select where projects are proposed. They review projects that come before them.
And that’s not to say that the lack of developments in our village centers isn’t a problem, nor is it just a Newton problem, as Amy Dain discusses in an excellent article published this weekend in Commonwealth.
And, of course, Newton Councilors will be able to address this though rezoning. Sounds like we can count on Budget’s support to get it done!
The Wellesley Office Park Development development is an example of how Needham and Wellesley have wisely used their land that is between the Charles River and Rt 128 to separate mixed development or commercial development from primarily residential areas of their town. I am sure residents of Newton Lower Falls would weigh in heavily on this topic. However, what if Newton developed its corridor from Concord Street up to Rt 128 along Washington St/Rt 16 in the same manner? Could we pull a page from our neighbors, provide a road diet along Washington St/Rt. 16 and create more housing and commercial tax revenue?
I know this is not SimCity and I don’t get to play master planner for the city but I have always thought that more could be done in that stretch of the city while also mitigating the impact of the race track like stretch of road between Concord St and Newton-Wellesley Hospital.
@greg,
I’ve yet to see any councilor in waban or Newton centre have on their websites an agenda to create several hundred units of affordable housing and significantly increase density near the T stops. Low density and walking distance to the T stinks of ‘privilege ‘ and should urgently addressed.
If they pushed to change the zoning around Waban and newton centre T to 10 stories, developers would be lining up to propose projects.
There is no chance in hell the limousine liberals in Waban would allow this in their backyard.
Does even the new city wide zoning proposal change the zoning at the waban T to allow for several hundred new units? I dont even think it allows ‘splitting lots’ so house in waban on 15000 sqft lot can still only build a single house+accessory unit.
Smart growth for Wellesley…
600 units (including 150 / 25% affordable) sited in a place where almost all of the negative externalities will impact Newton instead of Wellesley.
More than half are studio or 1BR, meaning relatively few new students for the school system (the projection is ~100 students).
Double the amount of office space, plus redevelopment from Class B to Class A (meaning more valuable = more tax revenue.
A hotel that will create a useful amenity for the town *plus* an occupancy tax opportunity.
The only downside? Terrible traffic. In Newton.
This is what Northland *could* have been.
@Greg
“Newton’s City Councilors don’t select where projects are proposed. They review projects that come before them.”
Maybe that’s the problem. My understanding of the Wellesley Office Park project is that the Selectboard approached ManuLife with the proposal for a 40R on their newly purchased property.
My cynical view is that the powers that be in Newton find the 40B bogeyman to be a useful foil and don’t want to ‘solve’ for it in the same way that Wellesley has.
@Don: I’m not saying planning isn’t important, I said it’s not the city council’s job. What you’re describing is the mayor’s and her planning department’s role.
What Donald Ross said. And Bob Jampol, et al. Greed kills. Literally, as I predict we will see before long.
Had no idea this project was in play. Talk about Upper Falls taking it on both ends! Even more reason the Northland project needs to be scaled down! (Wellesley wins again!)
Donald Ross says,
“The only downside? Terrible traffic. In Newton. This is what Northland *could* have been.”
It is possible Northland could have proposed such a project, but it would have been shot down long ago through one mechanism or another. Because people would fear the traffic.
As I’ve said before, traffic fears made the referendum possible. Traffic fears, I believe, made the Riverside downsizing possible. My suspicion is that at least some of the people signing the referendum petition said, “Traffic on Needham Street is too much now. Anything that gets built will make it worse.”
If that’s the line of thinking, any project of any significant scale will meet the same objection, particularly one of the projected scale of the Wellesley development. It doesn’t matter what the benefits are. It would surprise me if Wellesley has gotten (or even asked for) the parking restrictions and transit offerings available in Northland. People can differ in whether they are adequate, but at least they exist, and they are beyond what we’ve asked almost any other developer to do.
It is unfortunate that the timing of the state’s Needham Street improvements precludes seeing those benefits before the Northland planning process was complete.
https://wellesleyma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14654/Transportation-Impact-Assessment—Vanasse-and-Associates—3-21-19
Some quotes…
“It is envisioned that the improvements will be phased as the redevelopment proceeds in order to address the specific impacts that are attributable to each phase.”
“Any such additional impacts beyond the Phase I residential community will be assessed separately for consideration by the Town of Wellesley in connection with the planned new overlay zoning and in local review of specific master-planned project elements.”
What happened to Northland complaining that, “we can’t do phasing because no bank would provide financing for a phased project!”