I moved to Upper Falls nearly eleven years ago and immediately fell in love with the neighborhood. I love all the oddball buildings and houses from the 1800’s, I love my quirky neighbors, and I love being just a block away from Echo Bridge and the beautiful Hemlock Gorge.
There were only two things that I didn’t like about our new home.
* The village center is small and doesn’t have much, so I’m in my car more than I like for local errands.
* There were a couple of real eyesores in the middle of the village – the old overgrown trash filled abandoned railroad track right through the center, and just behind it, a vast expanse of derelict buildings and broken pavement.
Thankfully four years ago the old tracks were turned into the Upper Falls Greenway which is now one of the best features of the village. The wasteland behind it remains. In the intervening years one of the abandoned building’s roof caved in. It and some other buildings were knocked down.
Two years ago when I first heard about the Northland project I thought it held it held out the promise of addressing both these neighborhood problems and be a real shot in the arm for the neighborhood.
Like many of my neighbors I was definitely apprehensive about the scale of the proposed project. It is big, very big. With any project that big there will inevitably be local impacts – some good, some bad. There has rightfully been a tremendous amount of discussion about the potential downsides, the big ones being traffic and school impact. (For me personally I worry about making that Feast of the Falls table 100 feet longer, but we’ll deal with it 😉 ). There has been remarkably little discussion that I’ve heard in Upper Falls about the potential positive impacts for the neighborhood.
As my high school daughter said when she first heard about it “are they really going to make our neighborhood a destination just when I leave for college.”.
I look forward to a lot of things about this project.
- I definitely look forward to having new retail district with a mix of stores within walking distance of my house.
- I definitely like the idea of new housing there and think it will be a big boost for today’s village businesses
- I think it’s great that they’re designing the whole thing in a very pedestrian friendly way and tying it into the Upper Falls Greenway.
- I love that the view from the Greenway will no longer be the photo above
- It’s great there will be some new neighborhood amenities. Who doesn’t like a splash park, 10 acres of open space with pocket parks throughout, and a free shuttle to the T every 10 mins?
- The beautiful and historic Pette-Mill will be preserved, restored and become a featured part of the whole.
If it was up to me, would it be this big? No. I think a good chunk of new housing there is definitely a good thing. 800 units? That does seem a bit overwhelming.
Do I think traffic will be an issue. Yes. It already is and I can’t imagine this will make it any better.
All in all, do I think this will be an improvement to the neighborhood? Absolutely, without a doubt, yes.
I will vote yes and I urge all voters, particularly my neighbors in Upper Falls to vote Yes.
A Yes vote is a vote to revitalize a woeful massive piece of Upper Falls wasteland. A No vote is a vote to blow the whole thing up and go back to square one – the photo above.
If you Vote No, something will eventually be built there. It may take a few more years of looking at that wasteland before it does. I have no reason to believe that whatever would be built in its place is likely to be better for the neighborhood of Upper Falls. Having just wasted a few years and millions of dollars on a failed project, the most likely course of action for the developer is to build either 40B housing or build commercial by-right. In either case, we’ll have nearly no input and the impacts on the neighborhood is likely to be substantially worse. I’m not a gambling man. Even if I were, that’s a gamble I wouldn’t take.
>If it was up to me, would it be this big? No. I think a good chunk of new housing there is definitely a good thing. 800 units? That does seem a bit overwhelming.
That’s exactly why I’m voting no–because it is up to me and every voter in Newton. I have yet to read a simple articulate reason why Northland Investment Corp deserves to be exempted from City code to build 800 apartments instead of building something with less impact, like 400 apartments.
Obviously 800 units will maximize profits for Northland’s billion dollar private equity fund–and for our troubles we get a splash park?? Bad deal.
@David M – To be clear, the referendum is not a vote for 800 units vs 400 units.
It is vote for this project as it is or blowing the whole thing up, and taking it on faith that what is built in its place will be more palatable, despite the fact that the citizens will likely have much less input. In the meantime we’ll be looking at the photo above for a few more years.
Jerry, no means no. Sure, the developer could propose something worse–and then we’d say NO again.
I appreciate your concern that this developer has let its land become an eyesore and burden to the community and you want something nicer fast. However, bad behavior is not a justification for granting City waivers! If anything it makes me more skeptical that this developer will actually follow through with its grandiose promises.
This fear mongering that we will somehow be stuck with something worse if we don’t concede to the developer’s demands is just totally unfounded.
So again, what is the simple logical reason we should vote yes to let this corporation with a bad history of property management build 800 apartments? [crickets]
@David: do you realize that under 40B there would be no vote?
In fact the city council can oppose a 40B 24-0 and it can still be built.
This isn’t “fear mongering.” It’s the law.
I feel the city council did a disservice to our future children by not insisting on zero parking and all buildings carbon neutral in exchange for what special permits would be needed from the developer to achieve this.
In a few years, 1% of Newton’s population would have a near zero carbon footprint and future development could have been the same.
Include Washington street, riverside and the other new developments we could have been close to 3% in ONLY years and a model for the entire country. (We refuse to keep harming our planet and could have actually done SOMETHING meaningful)
Remember this the councilor talk about plastic grocery bags and global warming. Its clearly not a urgent issue for them
@David M – “city waivers” are something that I definitely want the city to grant. Building “by right” under the current commercial zoning would not be a better project or a better outcome for Upper Falls.
If you’re afraid of 40B affordable housing then just say so! I’m not afraid of it–I welcome it. Let Northland build 40B and Newton will finally meet its affordable goal established in 1969! Then we can finally stop this “we have to let them do it or 40B” nonsense. Quit playing that sad tune of the 40B boogeyman–we support affordable housing in Newton.
I seriously doubt 20-25% affordable housing will align with Northland’s private equity maximize profits strategy. If it were so profitable someone would have built it by now–it’s been 51 years for Pete’s sake!
And Jerry, I have NO PROBLEM with anyone building what they can build “by right” under existing zoning and code. For example, you couldn’t even build a parking lot like the one in the photo today because of stormwater runoff requirements.
I’ll also be voting Yes. But city “leaders” did an awful job negotiating the terms of this Special Permit. It should have included things that were much more beneficial to Newton, like onsite educational space. The problem now is that a successful No vote will result in a far worse outcome for that neighborhood and the city.
@David M – Huh? Who said anything about being afraid of 40B?
What I’m afraid of is that a project to transform the worst part of our neighborhood, that has already been years in the making, with lots of input and lots of improvements is threatened to be blown up. If it is, we will reset the clock by years, roll the dice and hope that some unknown future project with less public input will be more to our liking. That doesn’t sound like a sensible plan to me.
David says, “Let Northland build 40B and Newton will finally meet its affordable goal established in 1969! Then we can finally stop this “we have to let them do it or 40B” nonsense.”
Is it true, as David suggests, that once 40B is met, Newton will reach safe harbor for no future 40B’s; and that substituting 40B’s at the Northland site will thereby enable Newton to reach that goal?
The fear with 40b doesn’t relate to housing. The concern is the loss of local control over what is developed in that space with a 40b.
Local History Wanted – As I mentioned above I’ve lived in Upper Falls for 11 years. The Northland property has remained essentially the same over that period other than the abandoned buildings that were knocked down. I’ve heard that prior to my arrival a different development plan was presented to the city.
From what I heard. that plan (hotel and commercial maybe?) met fierce neighborhood opposition and the property owner eventually gave up on it. The result: the property then remained untouched for the next 12+ years.
Anybody who has a first hand memory of that previous plan and how it unfolded please pitch in here.
My point is that voting No to something is just that, voting No. The No vote is not a vote in favor of what you’d rather see. After a No vote what happens next is beyond your control. For the previous plan, the No vote resulted in a dozen+ years of this.
The moral: be careful what you wish for.
I’ll be voting Yes for the same reasons as Jerry. The current plan is better than the likely outcome we’d get after a No vote, because the things the developers can build by right are worse because they don’t require any neighbor input.
Is it perfect? No, but I’ve learned over the decades not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I will be voting for Northland because we need places in Newton for people to live, most especially the growing senior population. Northland has made a huge commitment to building housing specifically for geared to seniors. While our house has been wonderful for our family, I know there are no renovations that can be done to make it work well for the later years of our lives. And I know this as I observed what happened as my in-law’s aged in their large family house in Newton Highlands, where they lived for more than 50 years. They were burdened by a large house, the cleaning and upkeep took away time, energy and money from other pursuits. Eventually, they became house bound over the long winters and beyond, isolated from friends and activities. The last four years of my mother-in-law’s life was very stressful. She died and my father-in-law was forced to move to assisted living (at twice the cost/ half the size of a luxury apartment). If only there had been a place like Northland for them to move.
Seniors need housing options that are more accessible (less stairs, updated bathrooms…), close to grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops and transportation so they can live without a car because chances are most of us will live longer than it will be safe for us to drive and needs to be close to areas where people can easily remain active throughout the year as remaining active is key to long-term health. While some people choose to move to Florida, many want to stay in Newton where they have built their lives and where they can stay connected to friends and the organizations they have worked with.
>The current plan is better than the likely outcome we’d get after a No vote, because the things the developers can build by right are worse because they don’t require any neighbor input.
What are these things the developer can build by right that are worse–is this yet another 40B dog whistle?
Builders do not forfeit their rights when asking for waivers. In fact, waivers grant builders MORE rights, not less. A builder might try to pay off a group of objectors with a minor perk in exchange for a waiver, e.g. a sprinkler for kids in exchange for increasing their land value by $100 million, but the builder always ends up with MORE rights, never less.
Moreover, I challenge you to find any development of this size (>20 acres) that didn’t involve the public process at some point–it doesn’t exist in this millenium, at least not in Newton.
I have been in Upper Falls for slightly less time than Jerry (9 years?), and I will be voting NO.
Would I like Upper Falls to be more of a destination? Sure. More retail and dining options are aways nice. But at what cost? Dropping in essentially another village on top of Upper Falls is not a cost I am willing to accept without a fight. It’s a very overwhelming feeling; one that very much hits home… literally. But perhaps not so much for folks that live safely away from Needham Street.
And what if there is tons of traffic, schools are over crowded and an ambulance cannot get to my house when I choke on (food du jour)? Can I count of my Ward and At Large Councilors for help? Based on all the overwhelming replies and compassion I’ve received over the past two years (#sarcasm), I’m not holding my breath.
I’m no more a gambling person than Jerry…but as he noted, Northland has been able to afford keeping that property a wasteland for years…all for a future pay day of mixed use. I am willing to bet that a “NO” vote does not automatically lead to 40b-ageddon. I am willing to bet there are other outcomes.
VOTE NO
Side note: discussing this issue with fellow Newton dad and friend this afternoon while slupring on bowls of ramen, when he said, “WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO BE YES OR NO, BLACK OR WHITE? WHY CAN’T THERE BE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE??”
Good question, Mike… good question.
Matt Lai,
There COULD have been something, if not IN the middle, TOWARD the middle — as was accomplished at Riverside. And no referendum, to boot. Unfortunately, the City more than dropped the ball in failing seriously to negotiate with RightSize and, in any event, to get a better deal.
@Bugek, we are going as fast as technology allows. Even a couple of years ago passive house design was not a possibility for most developments. This would be the largest PH project in New England to date. If you care about the environment then you should vote enthusiastically “yes”. Green Newton, Mother’s Out Front,the Newton Citizens Commission on Energy and other environmental organizations support the project due to the broad environmental benefits. The worst thing we can do is to maintain businesses as usual. Building around the car is what got us into the problem we have now; pollution, traffic congestion,reduced quality of life and frustration.
I would argue that a significantly smaller project would likely make traffic worse, whereas a larger project can support a robust traffic demand management (TDM) program. By putting policies in place that incentivize options to driving and which does not offer the usual subsidies to driving (like free parking) we will both self-select for residents who are willing to live either car free or car “light” and enable a robust TDM that offers reasonably priced and convenient options to driving alone in a car. We need to move more people not more vehicles.
Finally, it’s also importatant to consider what can be built by right. Maximum build-out under the current zoning code allows 1.5 million square feet of commercial and office space (a big traffic generator!). There is no requirement for open space or traffic mitigation or other perks.
As for the schools, I am far more worried about dropping enrollments than I am about overcrowding. We are already looking at 2 elementary schools dropping to under 200 students. Most young families with school age children cannot afford to live in Newton. Without some managed growth we will see school enrollments drop off significantly.
Bugek said:
“I feel the city council did a disservice to our future children by not insisting on zero parking and all buildings carbon neutral in exchange for what special permits would be needed from the developer to achieve this.”
You’ve repeated this stance several times on V14. Please find an example of such a “insistence” for a project of this size, or any size, anywhere in the world. Also note that one of RightSize’s objections to the current plan is “The number of parking spaces is too small for the size of the proposed development.”
Jim Epstein said:
“Unfortunately, the City more than dropped the ball in failing seriously to negotiate with RightSize and, in any event, to get a better deal.”
You’ve repeated this stance more than several times on V14. Please cite a published example of RightSize attempting to negotiate with Northland. Or find any reference to any alternative “right size” plan offered by RSN that they would deem acceptable. I have, in good faith, looked and asked for such a thing and have failed to find it. You’d think that “right size” counter-proposal, or at least an outline of one, wouldn’t be hard to find: it’s the name of the organization, after all.
As for Northland not negotiating, Northland negotiated for two years through the prescribed official process, which was approved by a super-majority of City Council.
I am really torn. I want to vote no because it is TOO BIG and will strain our schools and roads.
However a NO vote, means the developers can go back and create something bigger and not give the City anything.
Really torn.
I will be voting “yes”, which I know is a surprise to absolutely no one. I’ve spent 4 years on the Economic Development Commission, 3 years working full time on attracting business to this particular area of Newton, and countless hours speaking with developers and residents. I’ve spoken with developers who build here and those who don’t. I’ve spoken with people who live here and those who wanted to but couldn’t. I also worked on reports around attracting co-working to Newton and on two reports focused on economic development. So I make this decision with a lot of thought and background.
The “No” vote is a blunt instrument put in place after a lot of nuance and discussion. A “yes” vote accepts that the discussion has been ongoing with some winners and some losers. I personally believe that the constant refrain of “No” that we hear from Newton can be summed up in Matt’s comment above: “That does seem a bit overwhelming.” It’s the fear of change. And yes, change is scary, but it’s also what propels us forward as a community.
I applaud Jerry for recognizing this balance, that yes, things will change and yes, that change can be scary, but it’s still better than what we have today and comes with a lot of positives that outweigh the negatives.
This fear of change isn’t unique to Upper Falls and it’s something that resonates around the city. You hear it in Lower Falls (which is why the referendum campaign was headed up by people there) and in West Newton, where a city councilor moved to landmark properties to stop development.
We need to embrace the change.
I also know that some of the best developers in the Boston area who have some amazing ideas about how to design, develop interesting and profitable properties won’t build here. We are too difficult to work with and this referendum is a great example of why. You don’t need to take my word for this, it’s written in the Economic Development Study that you paid for.
That’s why we also need to elect leaders who will help us navigate this future, we need people who can work with the system and help us achieve what we want, not simply work to block it.
Mike Halle,
The insistence of having the smallest carbon footprint is coming from the children. Did the students not recently march on City Hall asking for real change? A plastic bag is not to going to cut it for them.
Here is a chance for ‘real’ change. To get 1000 cars OFF the road and for 1000+ residents to have the smallest carbon footprint possible in a few years… and this would be only the start. Any future growth of large developments in Newton could follow the same restrictions. In fact, if this has been insisted a few years ago then 3% (total of all new developments) of Newton population would almost be carbon neutral, quite an achievement and the children would be proud.
What did the developer ask for in return for “no parking”+”zero carbon”? Did the councilors have the “courage” to negotiate hard for this? Or was it a “could you please”.. followed by a strong “NO”. It could be done, it just requires more concessions from the developer which may be worth it to have real climate change.
Sorry Bugek: We might believe your line in the sand, no carbon/no project position if you didn’t have a trail of curmudgeony comments on this site opposing just about everything (except for building skyscrapers in Waban). You’re the Eeyore of Village 14.
The fact is Northland’s project has broad support because it does many things right: housing, affordable housing, last mile transportation, accommodations for seniors, below market rate for local retailers, office space for small and mid-sized employers, public space, sustainable building practices, subsidized T passes for residents and workers, $10 million in mitigation funds for transportation demand management and infrastructure, etc. etc.
Folks can nit-pick anyone of these items, saying it’s not enough or whatever, but no project will ever do this many good things for the benefit of so many.
I’m voting Yes.
I too will be voting yes for the many reasons I have already said on this site. I like
the community feel,
the diversity of living spaces, mixing a broad range of housing types
the 10 acres of green space,
the environmental aspects including a passive building,
the 140 deed restricted affordable units,
the elevator housing equipped for seniors and others who need it,
the offices for small and medium sized companies and retail and commercial within walking distance,
the guarantee that local businesses will get discounted rent,
the guarantee that around 70% of the units will go to those who live in Newton first,
the last mile transportation and subsidized T passes,
the $10 million in mitigations fees
And yes, the splash park. My grandkids and I spent many happy hours at the splash park on Nonantum. They are a great way for kids to keep cool while they play and pleasant for adults to be around.
In addition, I hope to be able to move there when a home becomes too much for me.
The “vote no” commenters on V14 have self-identified as not being members or representatives of Right Size or its ballot committee, The Committee for Responsible Development – or any other group. The few no voters commenting have mostly anonymous names and either comment the same exact things on every thread even though they’ve been rebutted every time or contradict themselves – flip flop – such as:
Changing from the need for more parking to wanting no parking at all.
Changing from acknowledging the truth that commercial spaces create more traffic than housing to wanting commercial over housing because less traffic generated.
So instead of relying on the mostly incorrect commenters, I checked out what Right Size is actually telling its members and others in the community.
I found that RIGHT SIZE is spreading lies that are resonating with the residents of Newton mostly because with their lies they are spreading both false hope and fear coupled with this:
This 22.6 acre site as approved will provide a mixed use environment – primarily housing, but additionally commerical and office. Traffic will be managed with one of the most stringent Traffic Demand Management programs ever conceived in the Commonwealth. The developer will be held financially accountable to manage the number of trips.
The wires that just six-eight months ago everyone was clamoring to be undergrounded WILL be undergrounded on the northland property because in fact there was no space left in the street for the conduit.
The 16 hour/day transit to the T every 10 minutes in perpetuity will make it possible for people to leave their cars behind.
The Land Use Committee did negotiate down the size of the project from what was originally proposed. If Riverside is the standard then don’t the 800 units on 22.6 acres compare favorably to 625 units on 13 acres at Riverside?
The peer reviewers said to reduce the commercial segment at Needham st. so it was done – this alone reduces trips.
By the way – if the project ends up being one or two 40B projects the chances are high that the developer would do what most 40B developers do and provide housing only at the 80% of AMI and we will lose all our 50% of AMI housing. There is no doubt that we will lose all the middle income housing at 80-110% AMI because it is simply not part of the 40B process.
There will be 10 acres of open space NEW Green Space – this never happens and will only happen because the Land Use Committee forced the developer to park nearly all the cars underground. We get playgrounds instead of parking lots.
These 22 acres should not lay fallow. According to the zoning, the site could be office, it could be big box retail, it could be small store retail. All of these bring more traffic then the approved alternative. The mix of uses as proposed works best for our city.
The kindergarten enrollment is dropping in Newton. The School Children population is dropping in Boston. The price of housing is forcing young people to stay away – this is an economic disaster happening before our eyes and we have to stem the tide on this. This project will help with this problem by contributing to the renovation of Countryside – one of the next schools on the list scheduled for upgrade – regardless of the Needham st project.
I’ve thought a lot about the comment that we should have zero cars allowed on the site. So – if i don’t have a car how am i going to take my kids to Drumlin Farm? How would i travel to the deCodova museum in Lincoln? How will i shop at Market Basket in Waltham? or Roache Brothers in Wellesley. No trips is not realistic. Leaving your car parked for the commute is realistic. We will never go back to the days where people didn’t go places as public transportation will never be THAT good – but reducing unnecessary trips (which are a lot) is a good goal. the City Council negotiated hard on this and reduced the number of parking spaces overall by 500 spaces (at the end – even more if you take the whole time frame into account)
BTW all the buildings will be LEED silver – good for our environment and some 4 buildings as i recall will be built to the highest environmental standard called “Passive House”. A standard developed in Europe and brought to our recognition by Green Newton. Up until this point, there was only 1 large building in Boston built to this standard.
I’m voting Yes on this project and I simply don’t understand anyone that would even think of voting otherwise. This property will become a blight on our environment. Please remember – this is 22.6 acres that must be developed for the sake of Newton. This project was well negotiated and carries excellent benefits for us. The Council has put this site under firm control. The developer could have come in for many small special permits and if forced to they may still do this. We would never have achieved this level of control if instead we had been forced to review 10 2 acre projects. But because the project is on so many acres people are freaking out. The size is what gave the Council this level of control.
Vote Yes if you believe in Newton’s future as a viable city that contributes carbon neutrality by 2050.
Councilors Leary and Albright, please understand that the request for no parking is almost certainly a form of performance art intended to troll you. This is a common approach used by this anonymous poster.
I will vote yes, with enthusiasm, for reasons that have been outlined well above.
@Susan,
I am afraid that the the 16 hour/day transit to the T every 10 minutes is a problem. That is on top of all the new ridership that will originate at Riverside (626 units) and the riders who will be shuttled in from the new development on Wellesley Office Park site (550-600 units). This will cripple the T and be a nightmare for those of us who ride it daily. I’m sure many will abandon it in favor of their cars which is of course counterproductive. I already work with at least 5 people who live in Newton and drive vs deal with the hassle of the T.
I appreciate that there was recently an announcement that the T would be making big investments on the Green line. But the benefits were reported not to be realized for 10 years and the investment is across all four lines. And we can anticipate lots of structural and track work being underway in the interim. As it is, the D line uses shuttle buses evenings and weekends which is a big disruption.
The impact to existing riders seems to have been given no thought or consideration.
@Claire – Is it the Chicken or the Egg? Let’s assume that the project can move ahead after the referendum. This project will not be put up in 6 months. It will take YEARS to fully realize this project. As changes are happening on the T so will the changes be happening at the project. This project will not be born fully formed it has to be created. the Green line is getting larger cars and the project will meet the green line enhancements in the middle. the disruptions you speak about are to upgrade the track. This is a terrible annoyance but the project will end soon. The housing shortage in the United States and our region is at crisis stage. I’ve seen how this is affecting members of my own family. We need to simultaneously create housing and upgrade public transportation. They both take so long to accomplish that we need to start on both at the same time.
Claire – The state has been unbelievably negligent in upgrading the T and making it a 21st century resource. There is local and national attention on this now and the Baker administration is making a start. I’m no pollyanna that all will be rainbows in the future but I do feel that public pressure to upgrade the T has finally arrived – if for no other reason to achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2050.
While we are at it we should all use this opportunity to show support for the bills in front of our state legislature to increase funding for public transportation.
Of course I know that the project won’t be built in 6 months. But it also won’t take 10 years which is what is be projected on the improvements to the T . And that is IF everything goes as set forth by the story in the Globe which read:
“The MBTA expects to select a contractor by the end of this year. Then, according to the T’s request for proposals, the contractor will be expected to deliver four test cars within about three and a half years, and more about one year later. Replacement of the entire fleet would take about nine years.”
We would have been better served if there was an express bus from Northland to Kenmore where 3 lines (D, C and B) could accommodate the riders from there. But instead the D trains will be packed like sardines…. well actually it already is during rush hour. It is clear that the people making these decisions don’t commute daily on the D train
@Claire you are actually touching on one of the dangers of voting “No” on this project and that is the “what if” factor. Other routes, including those that went to Cambridge and into Downtown Boston, were also considered and ultimately rejected. All this was part of the process itself. When the plan designers looked at cost, frequency and reliability, it was determined that the route to Newton Highlands offered the biggest benefit.
This has been carefully considered and negotiated. It’s time to move forward.
@bugek – if there’s zero parking, how many people do you think will choose to live there?
And while some may argue about how much profit is reasonable for a developer, I don’t see any world where one would (or should) agree to changes that assure major losses.
Meredith,
Many young people want to live a car free life to save money and to take a stand on global warming.
If there was no parking, the rents would simply have to come to a level which would attract tenants
How many more units would northland need to make this work?
If a 1be was priced at $1000 and no parking, you can bet that there would be no issue renting them all out. Use shuttle for work, grocery deliveries and occasional uber… the retail mix would also reflect the 1000 car less tenants so that would fill any gaps (pharmacy, restaurants etc)
Every one says climate change is a real danger, if so then it will require leadership and sacrifice..
This is also a chicken/egg but with rents low enough… there will be a hell of alot of chickens without cars(1% of newton population)
@Chuck – yes, the shuttle to other destinations (including a commuter rail station) was rejected by Northland, as was phasing, reducing the size of the project, or adding more mitigation dollars for the Southside. These are all items that would have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. I am happy to support a green project, more affordable housing, more green space etc but not when currently folks on Winchester are struggling to get out of their driveways due to traffic, when service level on Needham St is F and will continue to be F, when the State “improvements” to Needham St include adding traffic – another lane coming into Newton from Needham and a turning lane from Winchester onto Needham St, when the “t” – the only shuttle destination is struggling with reliability and overcrowding, when people avoid Needham St to use other roadways in Upper Falls and the Southside causing further traffic snarls, and when a perfectly fine smaller project could have been approved. Over development is a function of the developer asking and the City saying yes. There is no need to go this big. Well, I guess there is – it’s called making sure you hit your return on investment so your underlying funds continue to do well for investors.
@Chuck “When the plan designers looked at cost, frequency and reliability, it was determined that the route to Newton Highlands offered the biggest benefit.”
Biggest benefit to whom Chuck? Not those of us who already squeeze on the D train.
I am aware that at one point multiple bus destinations were considered and rejected. Presumably the city and developer settled on the D train because most would be heading into Boston. Well they could have done that on an express bus to Kenmore, but that path wasn’t pursued.
And as far as the frequency and reliability of the D train, that is a joke. People who will get dropped of at Newton Highland every 10 minutes may wait 20 minutes or a train, or they may have the choice of three that run two minutes apart each. And those of us who wait downstream, will like have trains pass us by as they are at capacity.
I’m just keeping it real as someone who actually commutes on the D train
@David Kalis I’m confused by your response. You aren’t happy with the state improvements, the idea of increased public transportation is the wrong answer, and you don’t seem to believe that the pedestrian improvements will help at all.
A smaller development would also add cars, especially one that doesn’t have a bus. And you’ve stated that not only is Needham Street an impassable nightmare, but drivers are spilling out onto other streets. By your telling, it’s carmageddon over there!
Are you also just throwing up your hands and accepting a car-based future with no hope of change? What do you propose? You’re in a leadership position here, how do you lead?
@Chuck – I’m sorry you are confused. Correct – I’m not happy with the State improvements. I think they will be similar in result to the opening of the Kendrick St bridge which the State promised wouldn’t be detrimental to traffic in Newton, and has been. Adding capacity is not an answer and that is exactly what they are doing again. Not throwing up hands. I spent many hours discussing the project with Northland but they had their votes. We lead by working with the community and developers. You seem to view the world as zero sum. You lost some square footage at Riverside and were beside yourself. But, you got a project where the community is on board and you drive unity vs. division. I believe in compromise that works for both sides – and that’s how I prefer to lead.
@Susan
In order to vote yes for this project, you would have to have found below false.
Chapter 30, Section 7.3.3.C.2
The use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
Clearly, the neighborhood feels otherwise. They after all live there, they know how bad Needham St is now. The neighborhood came and testified how bad the traffic is. This project only exasperates the traffic issues.
Perhaps you could explain how you found this project does not adversely affect the neighborhood?
@Simon – “The neighborhood clearly feels otherwise.” The neighborhood does not clearly speak with one voice on anything, especially on the proposal at hand. Feelings are split, as you will note if you were to visit the neighborhood and look for both Yes and No signs. Be careful when you aspire to speak for an entire community.
@Chris, you can make that argument. Let me make another. On September 10th, a Preliminary Election was held.
The results for Ward 5, Precinct 1
Kathy Winters 38
Bill Humphrey 76
Rena Getz 138
Although Rena didn’t garner enough support in other areas of the city due to getting in so late, she was very clear where she stood on Northland, and the Neighborhood overwhelmingly voted for her.
Ok. Even if we grant your premise (which is indirect) that’s 5/1. How about 5/2 and 8/3 which also abut the property? Simon, no matter how you look at this, you do not conclusively know how the community feels.
I’m not persuaded that these 22 acres will lie fallow if this proposal doesn’t pass on March 3rd. The land is far to valuable for the owner to permit that to happen. What I am really curious about, and hoping someone here might be able to address, is what will be the tax revenue to the city if the land is (a) developed by right, versus (b) developed according to the plan approved by the City Council? Or, I suppose there could be a (c) – no economic difference. Anyone know the answer?
Thanks.
@Lisap – Without a specific alternative ‘by-right’ proposal on the table I think anybody’s estimate of that would be nearly meaningless.
Those those who wish to interact with the CEO of Northland directly:
He is posting as “Larry Gottesdiener” on Newton nextdoor.com and has posted and replied to many residents on their concerns
I encourage everyone to google “northland investment HUD” regarding the slum they owned in Connecticut.
“Worst complex she’d ever inspected”… quoted by regional HUD inspector in 2015
please put my wife and I down for a NO. This is a ridiculous idea. We usually don’t vote in pointless elections but won’t miss this one for sure.
@Jerry,
I’ll take your word for it as commercial real estate development is way out of my field. But, I would think that if they went back to the scale of 2 million square feet of developed commercial space, some smart person here might have an inkling of the value of new commercial property in the Newton market, no? The tax rates for commercial versus residential properties are known quantities, but as you point out, there are a lot of variables. Oh well. Thanks for responding!
@Alison Leary what two elementary schools are expected to go under 200 students? No schools fit that bill according to the most recent enrollment report.
@NHM, the schools are Underwood and Ward.
@David Kalis, you complain that the project is too big so what is the right size? I worry that a significantly smaller project could actually make traffic worse, whereas a larger project can support the robust TDM program. By putting policies in place that incentivize options to driving and which does not offer the usual subsidies to driving (like free parking) we attract residents who want to live either car free or car “light”.
I like that this project is about planning a place for people rather than around the automobile. We complain about the traffic congestion but we shouldn’t be surprised by it. We have been planning for it for the last 80 years. Time to try something new. This model is how we will finally make a dent in reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector by reducing vehicle miles traveled something we have failed miserably at so far.
@Alison Leary neither Underwood or Ward is predicted to go under 200 students. According to the Enrollment Report put out by the SC Underwood is expected to remain in the 240-248 range with the low being of 240 predicted in 2025 and Ward is predicted to 216-239 with the low being in 2025. As the report itself says predictions beyond 4 yrs are considered less accurate as at that point it is based on predicted births as the some of the kids are not even born yet. Both schools are also on the smaller side with 13 classrooms at Underwood and 14 classrooms at Ward.
I wonder. Do any of our City Councilors commute on the D train to their “day job” ?
@Alison – it’s a fair question and a good one. I don’t know the right size and nor does anyone I would argue. That’s why I believed strongly in phasing and spoke directly with Northland about phasing. In fact, I would accept a larger project if they phased and had proof of concept. Without that, we are depending on a shuttle that goes to one T stop, that will be delayed in traffic, and that has never been proven. Your points about the future are dead on – and I agree. I want a project there and want it to work – but Northland has gotten it’s desire to push most of the risk onto the community. I’m not fine trying something this permanent and this consequential on to our neighborhoods without testing and learning, as phasing would have done.
David Kalis is exactly right. In regards to the situation with the T, we don’t even know how many residents would take advantage of a shuttle. Nor do we know what impact increased ridership would have on existing commuters on the D line.
Is there actually any projection on expected usage that has been set forth?
Does anyone know how many commuters regularly board an inbound train from a Newton station between during the morning rush hour.
What would be the capacity of the shuttle buses?
Would the developer have the option to pick up additional commuters en route to the Newton Highlands T?
If I had answers to these questions I may feel better …or worse about the impact
Dear Neighbors,
I agree with Jerry 100%! Regarding the Northland ballot question, the city worked for approximately two years with the developers and solicited public feedback which I participated in via a survey. The Northland folks prepared a virtual tour which was released (if memory serves correctly) about a year ago. I noted that thereafter they scaled back their original plans once this process was completed. They made concessions which I’m sure most are aware of (including and not limited to a shuttle service to the Newton Highlands T stop, at least 1 million in funding towards improvements to Countryside school, something like 40% open space, affordable and green units, a splash park for the kids along the upper falls greenway…) If the citizens of Newton vote down the plan that is on the table the developers have the right to use 40B to bypass the zoning and will then be able to more-or-less build a much more dense complex without any of the concessions they made in the negotiation process.
I have come to understand and (not so willingly) accept that development is coming to Newton whether we want it or not. We see it happening all around us in places like Watertown and other neighboring communities. If we vote down the Northland project we are sending a message that Newton does not want thoughtful development and will not cooperate with those who come to the table to take stock, listen to public feedback and work hand-in-hand with the city.
This situation also sends a message that says we do not trust the duly elected public servants we voted in to serve on the City Council. I do not believe it is healthy to govern by referendum. Though not everyone I personally voted for is sitting on the Council, I have faith in the body as whole to serve our city thoughtfully.
For these reasons I am voting yes on Northland.
Peace,
Ellen
Why I support Northland – over $1 million in additional tax revenue. I think the school enrollment fears are overblown – average family size is shrinking – and a 40B development would bring even more kids (recalling Avalon development versus the grocery store the neighbors stopped).
As for traffic – I think the developments on Newton’s borders in Wellesley and Needham have a greater impact that gives Newton no tax benefits. IMHO Newton needs to find a way to put cut-though traffic back onto the highways.
Unfortunately State law does not allow us to turn our streets into toll roads – but we could start aggressively ticketing anyone speeding on a local street and build a reputation as not a good cut though City. We could also lower the speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph – speed limits Waze and Google Maps would have to use in their fastest route calculations. Then there is also the fanciful notion of frequent and reliable mass transit….
@Claire asked: Does anyone know how many commuters regularly board an inbound train from a Newton station between during the morning rush hour.
>> Publicly available MBTA data from Fall 2018 shows an average weekday peak AM inbound ridership of 233 persons boarding at Highlands. Assuming 30 trains between 6:30 – 9:30, that’s about 8 per train. Cumulative riders (net persons alighting) after picking up the last Newtonian at Chestnut Hill is approximately 57, and the peak is 79 or so before significant numbers get off at Longwood.
Northland produced vehicle trip generation estimates, and, if memory serves they did try to estimate transportation mode usage numbers. (I did not have time to hunt those down. If a kind reader wants to link them . . . 🙂 ) They definitely did not include any estimates of uncertainty; so the short answer is that the outlook is cloudy.
It’s not likely to be good, though. As Jerry points out, the derelict site of the proposed project is one of the neighborhood’s outstanding challenges, much as the abandoned rail bed used to be. Those two are not independent, however, as trains by design served the industrial area, and the tracks intentionally isolated it from the residential neighborhood up the hill.
Now that the the train and the industry it served are obsolete, it’s not likely that incorporating the languishing parcel into the vibrant residential neighborhoods around it is as easy as incentivizing T ridership and alternative modes of transportation. The scale of the traffic challenges on Nahanton, Winchester, and Boylston Streets, in addition to Needham St. itself indicate that broad based efforts are needed to primarily bring traffic under control. Similarly, it is hard to imagine residents in UF/Highlands adopting public transport and bike ridership as transit alternatives on a large scale when and where there are not safe and robust networks.
The City Council clearly articulated some good ideas through the process of its review and negotiation. But the best is probably Councilor Kalis’ that the only reasonable approach would be to phase Northland’s project incrementally.
Rejecting the measure entails risk. The wholesale rezoning of almost 23 acres without adequate capacity to move people on and off the site seems a whole lot dicier.
Apologies to Claire and any other brave readers for the long-windedness.
@DW I appreciate you tracking down that data. But just looking at the Highlands is to myopic. This can’t be looked at in a vacuum. We also will have a spike of commuters boarding at Riverside with the 600+ units going in there.
That is the issue I have. The city doesn’t seem to be assessing or caring about the cumulative impact the combination of Riverside and Northland will have on current T commuters
@Claire, the average per train total (Riverside – CH) in Newton is 58. Today 17 get on at Riverside. But, you are correct; the real money is in forecasting the impact of the new developments, and without better analyses it’s at best guesswork.
I’m not too concerned about the City’s priorities. I think everyone cares. But I am concerned that not enough time and resource was devoted to plan a project this ambitious.