The Land Use Committee held the first of a series of presentations/public hearings on the modified 13-acre Riverside Newton project and it was notable for several reasons:
- The Mark Development presentation was short but informative. A good chunk of the presentation was provided by city planner Jeff Speck. Speck has a knack for explaining difficult concepts in easy terms; providing not just an opportunity to learn about this project but valuable insights into parking, pedestrian patterns, public space and overall urban design.
- The presentation by the Lower Falls Improvement Association was also thoughtful, constructive and also informative.
- Same for the Riverside Greenway Working Group presentation. Both groups made helpful suggestions.
- And ditto for most of the public comments too.
- Then the council members followed with an equally interesting discussion (and well-earned compliments to the LIFA and Greenway groups).
- Did I mention how it’s always interesting to listen to Jeff Speck?
But don’t take my word for it, watch the video starting at about the 12 minute mark.
Riverside = “Kumbaya”
Northland = Referendum
Question: Why the different results?
Because in Riverside the developers negotiated with the loudest voices in the room. That doesn’t mean the result is in the best interests of the city.
You can quiet a screaming child by giving them a lollipop. It doesn’t mean, in the long-term, it’s the best course of action.
Did the Riverside negotiated result entail a modified less dense or bit smaller project, which at least could be agreed to by all the interests and parties?
If so, perhaps the city interests were well served, as well as the developer averting a referendum.
The difference is LFIA has outstanding even brilliant legal representation who are doing the extraordinarily hard work and are leading the negotiations with the developers to fill the void that is the city’s planning department.
@Jim – Yes, it’s smaller (1.025m sqft down from 1.5m), higher residential percentage (60% up from 40%) and one smaller tower instead of two. The commercial space took a hit to meet the smaller size and residential percentage but also should help mitigate traffic concerns (Grove st and Comm Ave are already a mess daily). The current proposal has support from the LFIA.
As far as I can tell the salt is because the developer actually sat down with the local community and made concessions instead of running roughshod over Lower Falls and Auburndale for the “greater good” of Newton. When other villages seem to have automatic veto power over developments as small as 10 unit conversions it’s a really hard sell to cry about Lower Falls and Auburndale having the audacity to be concerned about things like traffic impact.
There is some appeal to the trails proposed by the Riverside Greenway Working Group, but I am wondering if consideration has been given to the impact on wildlife. I am curious about this because the backyards in the areas at the end of Central Street and Oakwood Road where my family lives see a fair amount of very nice wildlife throughout the year – fox, deer, coyotes, hawks, owl etc… that we assume come up from the area depicted on the maps in the RGWG materials as the Pony Truss Trail. Would love to know from anyone affiliated with the RGWG or others if there’s any info. on expected wildlife impact from increased human presence in the area. Many thanks!
Every community along 128 uses that stretch of roadway to fund its municipal government. Each has put in massive commercial development that keeps budgets balanced and the lights on. We are the exception to that rule.
The result of the LFIA negotiations was to lose the city of Newton $2 million in annual tax revenue. That’s not speculation, that’s what the developer admits is the difference. The project moves from net positive to net neutral without that building.
So how much are you willing to pay the City annually to support the LFIA? Because you are paying for this.
$1000? $2000? Please make your checks payable to the City of Newton.