Halina Brown, Newton senior and a Chair of Newton Citizens Commission on Energy.
The merits of the Northland project are being excellently presented by many community leaders. While I entirely agree with their arguments, I would like to add another perspective: a future vision for the Northland neighborhood as a sustainable village and my future home.
Let’s face it: despite the steady reductions in greenhouse emissions from the municipal operations, and despite the ambitious PowerChoice program, Newton has a very long way to go to be called a sustainable community. Its overall greenhouse gas emissions have not declined in the past decade, traffic is getting worse, the use of bicycles is minimal, electric vehicles represent only about 1% of all cars, and newly constructed houses are getting bigger every year (though also more efficient).
The Northland project creates an opportunity to create a village within Newton where these trends are reversed while at the same time the quality of life is improved. How? By reducing driving, creating parks, and building a community.
Between the businesses that will open in the new complex and those already existing along Needham and Chestnut Streets and Highland Avenue people living in that area will be able to satisfy most of their needs locally, without driving. Already, that area offers an amazing variety of services, eating and drinking establishments and retail stores of all kinds. For children it has schools of music, dance, gymnastics, swimming, language immersion, and cooking, just to name a few. Other amenities and cultural events will inevitably follow because 800 residential units will make them viable.
I can easily envision another minivan shuttle, in addition to the one provided by the developer for the Highland T stop, which will connect this new village with the JCC campus, Cutler Woods Park and Boat Renting on the Charles. And if one needs to go further out, the entrance to Rte.128 is right there and the T stop within minutes on the Northland van. I envision children and seniors walking and biking to their activities. I envision a community in which people will be less isolated, especially the seniors. People will meet in the eight mini-parks, form new connections, and participate in social and civic life, all without driving. Such a community is the essence of sustainable lifestyles.
I am a senior myself, living with my husband in an upstairs unit of a two-family condo building in the Highlands. I was lucky to downsize from a single family house two decades ago, when affordable options to do so were still available. But even I will one day find that taking care of the house is a burden and maybe that climbing stairs is infeasible. On that day I would like to be able to move to the Northland complex.
se come and share my vision of the 21st century progressive Newton and join me in VOTING YES on March 3.
I would absolutely agree with everything you said if there were ZERO parking available for residents at Northland.
… or if the buildings were Net Zero. Absolutely Zero carbon emissions
Until then, Northland is not the development you are describing.
@Halina – I feel the same way, as I’m very near needing a 1-level home and would like to live at Northland if it’s built. To add to your vision, I’d like to see a shuttle down Highland into Needham so people can also access the stores and restaurants there without driving.
@Bugek – let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Even if some people still have cars, many of them will use the cars much less than they would if they weren’t living elsewhere in Newton.
@Halina,
Have you ever heard the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words? Take a hard look the image you are trying to present. Its not reality.
This reminds me of a video I’ve seen recently about electric cars, and how, given the constraints of current technology, a society of Tesla electric cars would create more carbon than it would reduce.
https://youtu.be/MQLbakWESkw
Northland has everyone chasing a Unicorn, and convincing them to conveniently ignore the poop they leave behind.
1. For most Seniors, downsizing means less housing costs, not more. If someone is downsizing from a Newton home, they will have too much in assets to quality for affordable, and 83.5% of the EIGHT HUNDRED units will be “market rate” – aka luxury.
2. Green? Sustainable? See aforementioned video above on electric cars.
3. Does this utopian community where everyone gathers and form loving, cohesive communities exists anywhere else in the local, real world? I don’t see it when running past Avalon, the Kendrick, or Austin Street. Just because an artist draws it into their proposal materials and decks does not mean it’s a reality. Nor are these drawings to scale of the 8 story buildings they want to cram into a 22 acre lot.
4. How about the reality of driving? People will drive. At this point we have NO IDEA what tenants will go in. Consumers (and diners) of all ages and demographics do not want to be limited in their choices. Realistically, they will not want to be constrained within the eco-bubble some are envisioning as Northland. Northland is realistic too, or they would be supporting this vision with providing no resident parking as both @Bugek noted, and Jake Auchincloss tried to push.
Northland has done a masterful selling a unicorn to a City trying so hard to be PROGRESSIVE (author’s word) at all cost, that logic gets thrown out the window.
Our rights and influence as individual land owners 10 years from now when corporate developers like Northland, Korff and others own and control huge parcels of Newton, and the tenants within. Who will the Mayor and City Council influenced by then? The corporations or us individuals? I would argue the Special Permit process of the past two years has already demonstrated this favoritism of Northland over us “regular citizens”.
No, I’m sorry. David Copperfield and Penn and Teller may be fantastic “magicians” but ultimately they are performers and illusionists. And sorry, when it comes to the Northland Needham Street development, I see how they’re how palming the cards and hiding the rabbit in the hat.
Come March 3rd, I plan on voting “no”. Perfection may be the enemy of good and done, but in this case, Northland and Newton is asking way more of its citizens than the “good” provides.
Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. It’s called reality.
Matt Lai decries “that logic gets thrown out the window” just a few sentences after arguing that electric vehicles aren’t environmentally sustainable.
Amazing.
If Newton’s elected “leaders” had any actual leadership skill the Northland project would not now be on the ballot. City Councilors were driven by their own agendas rather than securing the best possible deal for Newton. Northland gave Councilors much of what they asked for. Regrettably, the Councilors failed to ask for things of paramount importance like educational space and affordable housing. But hey, at least they got a sprinkler park out of the deal.
Not sure I agree Mike. Right Size Newton has never articulated what they wanted here, only that they were against it. The project evolved — and by that I mean, improved — significantly with input not just from the councilors but environmentalists like Halina. There’s no indication that Right Size would have accepted any size.
This would have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for Newton to significantly reduce carbon front print for the local area.
No parking space = several hundred cars off the road. Not reduced usage but no car ownership
Net zero = zero carbon emissions from several hundred residents FOREVER.
With the power of special permit, they could have forced the developer into these 2 significant and ground breaking restrictions.
I suppose climate change is only a clear and present that only needs a virtue signaling ‘grocery bag’ fee.
#fakeliberal
@Greg– I don’t understand what Right Size wants either. But there’s always going to be opposition to any large project. The way to avoid citizen petitions and ballot initiatives, is for elected officials to negotiate the best possible Special Permit deals with developers.
One glaring weakness of the Northland approval is that it includes very little money to mitigate the project’s impact on Newton schools. I fault the City Council for not prioritizing schools in the negotiation process. If this project had included 15k square feet of educational space for Newton’s public schools, I don’t believe the petitioners would have raised enough signatures to put the Special Permit on the ballot.
@Bugek – no one’s going to build something they can’t get tenants or buyers for. There’s no way most people would be willing to live someplace with zero parking. Getting a reduction in car use is still a win.
@Matt Lai – for many seniors, downsizing doesn’t decrease costs that directly. For one example, moving to a 1 BR condo or apartment anywhere around here won’t be cheaper in direct costs than my current place. However, I will no longer have to pay for mowing, snow clearing, and plenty of house repairs – none of which I can do for myself. If I’m renting, I won’t be paying property taxes. And no matter what, I won’t have to deal with stairs which are increasingly a problem for me.
Meridith
Regarding parking: that photo rendering sure looks like a car free utopia to me. If there were no parking, the developer could lower rental cost until it meets demand. If the rent is cheap enough, people will sacrifice cars
Eg
– micro apartments to reduce costs
– no luxury finishes to reduce cost
– shuttle to village centers
A car free development for 1000 residents can absolutely exists if the developer provide the appropriate amenities.
They had absolutely no excuse not to go carbon neutral other than $$.
Meredith
The math doesn’t seem to work on your downsize option. Assuming you are not one of the “lucky few” lottery winners for the income restricted unit:
current property tax: $1000 a month
snow removal: $100 a month
yard work: $200 a month
heat/util average: $250 a month
total: $1550 a month
I’m pretty sure the cheapest studio will be around $2000 and a 1 BR $2300 with heat/util around $100 a month
Unless you live in a giant house, how does the math work out?
Now, if they were forced to provide CAR-FREE housing, the rents would have to drift towards $1500 for a 1BR to attract tenants for the inconvenience of having to uber more often
According toToday’s Tab, Right Size Newton wants:
– 10 acres of real open space, instead of counting streets, stairs etc as open space
– passive house certification for more than 3 buildings
– higher proportion of affordable housing compared to luxury units.
Nobody is saying ‘No development’. Just that it needs to be better negotiated.
OOPs, that last sentence should have been clearly marked as mine. It was NOT in the Tab.
@isabelle . The ship has sailed on negotiation. The council voted 17-7 on this project and now we are at the referendum stage. Anyone who tells you otherwise is “RightSizing” you.
Vote Yes for the project as-is. Or vote NO and the developer will take back all the good will in the project and replace the structure with All Affordable Housing (40B).
-jack
Bugek there is a glaring omission in your rent vs own analysis. If you assume there is no mortgage on an existing home in Newton when that individual downsizes they would get those proceeds. For discussion sake say the proceeds from the sale are $700k. If those proceeds are invested in a CD at 2% the individual would receive $1,166 per month. Then in your analysis they’d come out ahead by $400 per month by renting.
You also didn’t consider repairs to a home or home owners vs renters insurance but those would only strengthen the argument for the rental so you probably omitted them on purpose.
Kyle
I also omitted the constant rent increases which will vary from 2-10% depending on demand spikes. After 10 years it could reasonably go from $2300 to $3100
Also assuming 700k is their entire nestegg then the total fixed income would be 1166 + social security = $2500
Which they will give to the landlord forever.
Bugek, don’t forget property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs go up as well.
Can you at least admit this would be an excellent option for some people looking to downsize and live in a single level home with walkable amenities all around them? You’ve already made the point that it mathematically makes sense.
What Matt, Mike, and Bugek said. Once again the CC (with notable exceptions) lay back and thought of…. Northland! who said “Jump!” and they said “How high?” (“As many stories as we can get away with”)
Bill said it best” ‘Double, double, toil and trouble’
Yes, Matt, physical world is far more treacherous than the fictions keyboard jockeys throw around in digital spaces. The worrisome can always find a reason to decide an easy “NO!” to avoid perceived problems. Fear of putting a building in the wrong place is a scary thing when the required skills aren’t in one’s wheelhouse. But, society’s problem is that stasis is harmful to everyone’s health, as that leaves only decay.
The best response to your concerns with corporations is for you to amass enough money to buy large properties here in Newton and do with them what you will. Short of that, online expressions of jealousy in other people’s wealth is as unbecoming as it would be in person. You want for a project different than the one worked and passed by a large group of earnest town folk? Great: “build it”. Short of that. “carping” should require a hook, a line, bait and a boat.
Here, here Ms. Presumptuous! I couldn’t agree more and suspect the same is true of so many others.
Mary P
I believe the argument is that the councilor did whats best for the developer rather than the residents and future of newton.
They had the opportunity to ensure that ANY future growth in Newton will not harm the environment and contribute to Newton’s carbon footprint.
1% of Newton residents AND any future large developments could have had ZERO carbon footprint within the next 2 years.
Including Washington st, riverside the total could have been 2% of residents in the next 2 years. THIS is real measueable change and would not have cost newton a penny.
No parking and net zero are not some radical proposals. These practices are well established. We only took the developers word that they couldn’t do it. Did we bother to check with an independent party?
Remember this next time our woke councilors talk about climate change. 2% of newton and any future growth could have been carbon free
To the folks of rightsize,
Please consider adding request of ZERO carbon footprint to Northland as a talking point. And 1% newton could be carbon neutral within 2 years if Northland agree to no parking and net zero.
For those who think it could not be built with these restrictions…. lets start the discussions and what changes are needed… lets put it on the table for all to see so it can be scrutinized by independent outside parties
Halina, thank you for your post. I too look forward and see a time when taking care of a house, even with help, will become more than I want to do and think Northland would be the best place to move. At that point, I think I would still want a car to be able to go on trips but would love otherwise to be able to walk to all the amenities in and around Northland or take a shuttle to the T. I would also like to be able to take shuttles or some other preferably public transportation to get around Newton, Cambridge and into Boston.
Of course renderings like the one above and the others on various sites are PR done by developers but at least they show some of the projects footprints. And as Mary P. so accurately said,
Every complaint on this thread has been aired before and what RightSize and others may say they want is completely irrelevant because they got the up and down vote they said they wanted in the Veto Referendum set for March 3. So all that’s left to do is vote “yes” to support the city council’s well-informed vote to give Northland its special permit or vote “no” to venture into the unknown.
We have no idea what Northland will do with all of that land they already own. The suggestion that several 40Bs will go up is pure speculation. And Jack, when you say, “replace the structure with All Affordable Housing 40B,” you are not only speculating you are incorrect that a 40B is all affordable housing. Northland could just move on, sell off the wasteland that is there now to any number of parties or just for spite, put up the ugliest structures it can by right.
Personally, I think Northland is about as perfect as any development and better than most – sure increasing the affordable units, adding more passive housing and more would be nice but still Northland’s is better than many developments’ special permits. I’m not interested in moving to Washington Place (the George?) or Austin Street. Although Riverside sounds nice too.
@MaryP…At the risk of sounding like a record (probably too late), but neither I, nor RSN is saying flat out “no”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/01/28/hotels-are-rewarding-travelers-opting-out-housekeeping-where-does-that-leave-workers/
Corporations using “green” as an excuse to save money? Sound familiar?
While the Northland-loving majority of the City Council, desires so much to be labeled champions of green and affordable, that they are willing to alienate a good sized proportion of Newton residents for the past 2 years, ignore obvious flaws in traffic mitigation planning and downplay the added funding that will be needed to address all the added students density will bring, I do not.
If these issues were addressed I and many others would be fully onboard.
If you want to have a zero ( truly near zero ) carbon footprint join an Amish community. Party like it’s 1899. Until then, a western lifestyle even without cars is so far from zero climate change will roll on. Do nothing? Well, no, do what you can. I drive a 40 mpg hybrid car for which I paid a premium for that. Conusumer reports said I would emit ( I recall) some number of thousand of toms of CO2 over the lifetime of the car.
But, mitigation is required. And all the new construction that is near or below sea level is tragedy waiting to happen.