In an oped in today’s TAB, Mayor Ruthanne Fuller shares her concerns and, ultimately, her enthusiasm for the Northland Newton project.
We should do something better with these 22.6 acres. The site now consists of an empty parking lot, decaying industrial warehouses, a single-story retail big box store, and a charming but deteriorating historic former piano mill. Drive or walk around this aging industrial complex (put 275 Needham Street into your GPS) and see for yourself.
A significant portion of the 22.6 acres (perhaps as much as 40% of the site) will be transformed from concrete to parkland, greens and a spray park/playground with 750 new trees and a restored and daylighted South Meadow Brook.
What a disappointment for many residents of Newton.
Our mayor has taken a stance on development that further
exacerbates existing divisions within the city.
This demonstrates poor political and leadership skills.
How might she have smoothed out the differences? Perhaps she might have listened more carefully to the opponents of Northland.
She might have brought both sides together and worked out differences via her Planning Dept. Resolved the big issues of contention and encouraged a project everyone could accept.
I am stunned to hear her boast about her “YES” vote.
She has much to learn about good governance.
If the Mayor had shown more leadership early the Northland Special Permit approval would not now be the subject of a referendum. While I’ll be voting Yes because that is the better of the two options, it is clear that the city could have negotiated a much stronger deal by properly prioritizing the community’s needs. This project should have included a higher percentage of affordable housing and onsite educational space. The inclusion of substantial onsite educational space would have greatly benefited Newton, and effectively inoculated the project against a referendum.
The kiss of death….
Thank you Mayor Fuller for your leadership on this. It’s especially important to remind voters about the extensive community benefits package that the City Council and administration achieved over 18 months of tough negotiations.
This is a blighted collection of broken asphalt that will greatly enhance Upper Falls, the Highlands and all of Newton.
…. these days, the only developer the council and mayor would say “NO” to is the “Trump Development Group”
These days most developers won’t work in Newton because we have a reputation for making it so difficult here. Some folks will think that’s a good thing but it really isn’t, healthy competition can lead to creative ideas and designs that can be genuinely beneficial.
Fuller will do whatever is best for her re-election bid. Yes on this isn’t a shocker. Anyone know if the city paid for Webster land they took from BC yet? Another project that favored her.
@Mike Striar – what kind of onsite educational space are you looking for?
@Fred – if by supporting this project “Fuller will do whatever is best for her re-election bid” doesn’t that mean that she is doing what she thinks is best for the city and what she believes her constituents want? How is that a bad thing?
She lost me at hello. Talk about biased!
Related note…as everyone yearns for affordable housing, recent history suggests this is not developer to provide it.
We can start the fact those 22 acres were left to decay all these years…and this…
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20161021/newton-developer-northland-faces-allegations-of-neglect-at-section-8-site
Matt,
Is the Northland litigation resolved or still ongoing?
Being accused of gross neglect for homes of low income people of color is not exactly the type of business Newton should be welcoming with open arms.
No one expects a private company to invest tens of thousands into units of that will never recoup their investment… but if they allowed mold and dangerous conditions then thats another issue entirely
But if the case is still ongoing then these are just allegations at this point
@Andrea– I advocated for 15K square feet of flex space for Newton’s public schools, onsite at Northland.
@Mike: Here’s something I learned today that perhaps you didn’t know either:
Countryside Elementary currently utilizes 19 of their 20 classrooms. Next year it is projected to only need 18 of the 20 rooms. While Countryside absolutely needs a renovation (and Northland is kicking in $1.5 million towards those costs) there is no demonstrated need for more school land, but there is absolutely a need to invest substantially in the school buildings we have now.
@bugek, will dig a little deeper when I’m off the clock. That said, a quick Google search surfaced this:
So while the litigation is pending, that former development got raised, the previous low income relocated, and Northland plans to add 1,000 units with 33% affordable. Architect’s drawings look familiar?
https://www.newhavenbiz.com/article/at-long-last-church-street-south-demolition-will-begin
@Matt on the idea of the Mayor being biased, she has spoken about this project for a long time and been overall consistent. Also, a Yes vote is actually a vote IN SUPPORT of a City Council decision. So as the Mayor it’s nice to see her backing city council.
This city has a process for deciding on zoning and land use and it’s one that involves the pain of getting approval from a supermajority of city councilors. I would expect the Mayor to write what she did… that doesn’t mean it’s biased (she didn’t have a vote on this council). It just means you disagree.
All this has me wondering (as I look into my crystal ball) who RightSize will put up as its candidate for mayor.
Greg– My suggestion for Northland was onsite educational flex space that could easily be adapted to shifting needs over time. My plan would have given NPS a real estate asset in a corner of the city where it has none. It would have provided a hedge against future school population increases, and opened up new opportunities to expand Newton’s curriculum right now with a STEM school or alternative high school. As flex space, it could also have been used as administrative offices should NPS ever want to repurpose the current Ed Center as a school.
As for Countryside specifically, you are correct. I had no idea they were currently not using one of their classrooms. But you have to put that in proper context. The last time a large apartment building was built in that district, city “leaders” were caught completely off-guard by what should have been an obvious population increase at Countryside. The city had to scramble to build the modular classrooms that are still bolted to the side of that school building today. 15 years later they were finally able to move kids out of one of those modulars. It’s a cautionary tale.
@Mike rather than continue to beat this dead horse on Village 14, maybe you should work with the city to see if there is a way to include educational space as a giveback for future housing over a given size. I don’t pretend to know what’s legal, but I’m wondering if there is something akin to affordable housing requirements that we could build in. It could be as simple as a suggestion that developers consult with the school committee or that “educational use” be considered ahead of parks.
That said, I have to imagine that this could also add to the long list of issues that make Newton such a horrible place for developers to build, but there also may be a way to work it out.
Repeating the same thing day-in-and-day-out on a blog doesn’t help accomplish any real work.
Mike Striar – Is right on about having allocated school flex space for any over capacity that could develop regarding Countryside Elementary. In addition, many people have pointed out that there isn’t sufficient traffic mitigation planned for Needham Street other than a shuttle to the Highlands T. Right now residents of Needham and Winchester Streets are dealing with constant traffic congestion caused by the add a lanes and the new exits to 95 at Kendrick Street. Neither Mass DOT or the City of Newton have offered any mitigation or assistance to resolve the problem.
@Peter there is a lot of traffic mitigation in addition to the bus, from the walkable design with on-site retail to the mobility hub to the reduced parking to the penalties the owners pay if the traffic mitigation doesn’t work. Add to that what the state is investing in Needham Street.
Traffic engineers note that we have two opportunities to change someone’s transportation habits: when they move to a new home or start a new job. This project is about both of those things AND offers alternatives to enable people to make those changes up front.
The only way to think that there isn’t enough mitigation is to willfully ignore everything that’s happening.
What is it that you hoped to see that just isn’t there? Others have suggested an entire elimination of parking (admirable, if unrealistic) but what else could you have hoped to see?
@ Chuck – What assurances do you have from the MBTA that they will increase capacity for the extra demand? Does the City of Newton have any agreement with the MBTA? Also, I live on Nahanton Street and with the added lanes and the new Kendrick ramps neither MassDOT or the City of Newton has provided any traffic mitigation to help the daily bumper to bumper congestion. Now we are going to add more traffic? David Kalis has articulated the traffic problems on previous posts. My neighborhood needs relief! Please try to drive down Nahanton Street toward Needham at 4 pm in the afternoon.
You are asking some very good questions, some have answers, others need bigger solutions and putting all the problems of Nahanton Street on the shoulders of this one vote isn’t exactly fair.
The T has committed to increasing capacity on the D line. That’s well documented. Will it? Great question, but that’s a state-level decision AND I would encourage you to get involved with any of the transit-oriented advocacy groups working on this problem. I would recommend Transit for MA, which is deeply involved in things like congestion tolling.
The city just received a grant from the state to get an RFP for a bus system to serve Wells Ave from the MBTA. As a person who has been active on this for the past several years I can tell you that gaining ridership on this will be an uphill battle, but one very much worth fighting. It will mean not only providing a bus, but also finding ways to bring amenities to Wells Ave., so that people who took the bus to work don’t feel “stranded.” We did work to bring food trucks in the past, but those require some level of subsidy to survive, if you can help raise that money from Wells Ave. owners that would be a huge help.
@Chuck – you say “The only way to think that there isn’t enough mitigation is to willfully ignore everything that’s happening” – but this is exactly what you are doing – willfully ignoring everything that is happening. The opening of Kendrick St which has dumped cars onto the Southside without mitigation, the State Needham St “improvements” that will add a lane coming in from Needham and adding a turning lane from Winchester to Needham St – more traffic, a one destination shuttle that will be caught up in the same traffic we all experience, developer penalties that are a drop in the bucket for this developer. I’d love to help you change habits, but do it with a smaller project. You know as a marketer that one of the hardest things to do is change people’s habits – it’s even harder when the things you are offering as incentive to change that behavior isn’t convincing nor tested – overdeveloping a parcel, offering a shuttle to a single unreliable T stop, or penalties that don’t effect consumers and are easily absorbed.
Chuck “The T has committed to increasing capacity on the D line. That’s well documented. Will it? Great question, but that’s a state-level decision”
That is a very cavalier and unreassuring comment for those of us who are current D train commuters and experience how impossibly overcrowded and unreliable it already is during rush hour.
No one has confidencethat the MBTA will deliver as “promised” and even if they did, they are projecting the improvement to be realize in 10 years.
It is a classic “Rob Peter to Pay Paul” The shuttle might provide some traffic relief but it will most certainly create huge issues for Green Line Commuters, because we know that these Northland riders will be in addition to all the new commuters originating at Riverside
@Claire please read the rest of the sentence. I don’t mean it to come across as cavalier. I’m saying that there are things we can do to ensure that it DOES happen. There are actions we can take, let’s do that.
@Chuck, I took that point. But we are being asked to commit to this project, when there are real risks relative to MBTA service and honestly I personally am not looking to lobby the MBTA so that this project can move ahead. The horse will be out of the barn after the vote
But the MBTA has committed to improving the D line! It’s happening right now, which is why for months we’ve been inconvenienced by track closing and those horid Yankee buses.
When that work is done later this year it will speed up service and allow for larger capacity trains that have also been committed. Similar plans are in place to do the same for the C and B lines this summer.
Separate from that the MBTA just announced plans to spend more than $1 billion to double the Green Line capacity, in part by buying a new fleet of as many as 200-plus, longer, trolleys. That’s over and beyond the project happening now. Is it appropriate to be skeptical about that or how long it might take. You betcha!
But saying nothing is happening is just not true. Please stop saying it.
So your answer is to put the whole city on hold until things are perfect?
I’m sorry, I believe we need to find ways to move forward, not stand still. We have major fiscal problems that require additional tax revenue and a housing crisis that needs solutions. I would rather find ways to make everyone’s future better.
I’ve ridden the new Green line trains. I’ve also been on these trains, when passengers were asked to disembark due to mechanical failures.
The months-long track work that required weekday commuters to switch to busses after 8:30pm appears to complete, but I’m not getting to work and home any faster.
Northland is not proposing to build a single family house. They want to build a large development that irrevocably changes Upper Falls if not the entire Southside of Newton FOREVER, and sets a presence for density throughout all of Newton for decades to come.
I’m not banking on “what if”, “maybe”, and “thanks for trying” when it comes to the MBTA or anything else. As the great Yoda said, “do or do not, there is no try.” There is too much at stake. If we cannot get commitments, then the scale of the project must come down.
All this workforce housing for Boston. And yet, is this in Boston’s not far off future?
A Crisis Right Now: San Francisco and Manila Face Rising Seas
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/13/climate/manila-san-francisco-sea-level-rise.html?referringSource=articleShare
Time to stop enabling bad planning in Boston.
Huh. How does building environmentally friendly housing in Newton “enable bad planning in Boston”?
Greg, I think it is safe to say that you don’t commute on the D train daily from Newton into Boston. I do. Any incremental improvements from the track work that has been going on for what seems like the last year (but it might just feel that long) will only marginally improve the situation with current volume. The MBTA promised improvements based on your linked article (which I have previously posted) won’t be delivered for 10 years. By then, the additional volume from Riverside, Northland and the Wellesley project (and anything else that is developed in the interim such as the proposed 26 unit apartment building across from the Newton Highlands T Station), will swallow any benefit to the current situation
@Claire . The choice really is 1800 units without improvements vs 800 with improvements. This is not a 800 vs something smaller or even a non existent project.
This is project that has been negotiated by the city council for over 2 years and the best deal is on the table. I’m confused when people on V14 say that they wish there were an alternative from 800 vs 0. I think many are missing the point. The alternative is 1800 units of affordable housing under 40B vs 800.
I will chose a 800 project with transportation improvement.
Additionally I feel strongly that we should respect the work the elected city council did on the project and vote YES. 17 out of 24 voted for the project including the reps from Ward 5 and Ward 6.
Seems to be a no-brainer to me. Others may be reading the tea leaves differently and believe that the developer will cave and re-negotiate but I don’t see that happening… my two cents
Jack, is correct. “This is not a 800 vs something smaller.“ This veto referendum is a vote to rescind Northland’s special permit, zoning change, or the unknown.
One speculation is that three 600 unit apartments will be built on each of the three parcels of land that compose Northland’s special permit using chapter 40B of the Mass Laws which allows the builder to disregard the zoning of municipalities – not 1800 units of affordable housing but 1800 apartments with a higher percentage of affordable housing than the project has now. It would still be composed of mostly market rate units except for the 25% of somewhat affordable housing – up to 80% AMI.
Many of the residents saying they are voting no on the referendum are being swayed by statements from Right Size like “A referendum on March 3 will allow all voters across Newton to determine whether the current plan will prevail or whether it must be revised to make it more compatible with the needs of residents.” This statement is not true.
A yes vote will “respect the work the elected city council did on the project” over more than 2 years, including negotiating changes asked for by the Upper Falls community, which led to 17 out of 24 city councilors voting for the project including the reps from Ward 5 and Ward 6.
A no vote vetos the zoning change and everything negotiated in the final special permit. That’s it – nothing else is on the table.
Commuting on the D line has gotten worse in the 20 years that I have lived here. More and more people are late to work because of disabled trains. The track work has been happening for at least a year, and the benefit hasn’t been seen. Although I did ride my first new greenline train and it had NO issues.
Until elected state officials start relying on the public transportation system, NOTHING is going to change. They can afford to drive into town. Adding the congestion. But thousands of people who can’t work from home NEED reliable transportation EVERY DAY, and haven’t received it for years. How many times can a nurse, a waitress, an admin assistant tell the supervisor that I am late again because of the train. (Or lack of working train).
This is a real concern, especially after Northland, Riverside and Wellesley Office Parks contain HUNDREDS of people TRYING to take public transportation.
@Greg because by signing up to supply housing for the new buildings in Boston, we are enabling Boston to build on areas that will be flooded-no amount of environmentally efficient housing is going to stop the ocean rising. It’s too late for that. For example Southeast Asia predicts a need for 8000o new pilots for the increased air travel predicted in Asia as wealth encourages more air travel. We’re going to have 10 billion people on the planet and they all want to live our lifestyle of flying, taking vacations, using cars, etc.
If we must physically grow the economy we should be building out west along the commuter rail, and looking at the long view. Building in Boston is short sighted.
Rick: If the collective we can’t stop Boston from debilitating flooding, Newton has much bigger problems than anything we argue about regularly on this site. Our entire economy and way of life collapses.
That aside, I don’t understand why you assume that the housing we build here is strictly for jobs based in Boston, especially since you are one of many people whose business is located in Newton. We have hundreds of businesses here (and along i-95) tens of thousands of jobs here. More employers tell us that they’d locate here too if they could have access to an employee pool that would come from expanding our housing diversity.
Not building in Newton is short sighted.
Jack said it well. This is a no-brainer for me.
Vote YES on March 3.
Sea level rise map of Boston, 2050
http://seachange.sasaki.com/
Good luck
Anybody reading this thread, please ask yourself this.
Why didn’t Northland go the 1800 units route in the first place?
They are in the game to make money.
Its shameful the yes campaign, and some of our elected leaders are propagating this alternative.
See http://rightsize2020.org for real information!
Vote NO on March 3rd.
“If the collective we can’t stop Boston from debilitating flooding, Newton has much bigger problems than anything we argue about regularly on this site.”
Yep.
The collective we will not be able to. That’s what I’m saying. Look at the maps by The Union of Concerned Scientists. A major storm in 25 -30 years can flood all the way into Cambridge.
And Newton is in fact, by mayor fuller signing the agreement with MAPC, enabling Boston to build housing for 180000 new jobs in Boston. That was part of the agreement. It’s short sighted. It’s going to be flooded.
You think the collective we is that smart? The collective we is stupid. Look at the banking crisis, or any of a multitude of stupid stuff people do. And even so, the collective we now includes Asia which has finally surpassed the US in Carbon emissions. . .
I have a one room office in Newton Centre. Most of my clients ( medical device manufacturers ) are out near 495. I drive an average of 4 days a week out to the 495 area, or downtown Boston. I have one client right now based in Cleveland, Ohio, so I do some remote work.
Jack and Allison, I’m sure that it isn’t your intent saying that it is a ‘No Brainer” but it comes off very derogatory as if those who disagree with you have no brain. At best it demonstrates that you have limited ability to try to understand a different perspective and accept that people can agree to disagree respectfully.
The voters will decide
Correction – I meant to say enabling Boston to have 180000 new jobs by building workforce housing in Newton
For further evidence of the lapses of the collective we, whether governmental or private- no difference- look at the flooding in New Orleans. Or in engineering search for google eigenvalue bridge collapses
@Allison are you saying Northland won’t re-open discussions with residents and RightSize if the referendum fails? Rather, Northland will go right to 40B.
I hope Northland will profit from the example of Mark Development working with the Riverside community to achieve a more balanced solution with broad support.
RightSize202o puts forward a thoughtful case that the 40B path presents challenges. https://rightsize2020.org/40b-projects-the-truth/
Also, I don’t believe the Newton Zoning Board of Appeals has indicated they will approve
three 600 unit 40B developments on the Northland parcel.
If the board has, two 40B projects now before ZBA – Dunstan East (243 units) and
Riverdale on the Charles (204) – together with the 121 affordable units planned for
Riverside exceed the 461 affordable unit gap Mayor Fuller’s administration said Newton
needed to reach to attain our 10% 40B Safe Harbor threshold.
Other projects like Mark Development’s yet to be released Dunstan West development will
only add to our 10% safe harbor total. The 40B safe harbor memo from last December is
here – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100653
The Northland 40B threat being raised does not appear to be a certain outcome. And, it
could end up taking longer than working with residents to address remaining issues.
@Rich why SHOULD Northland negotiate? They did just that, through the legal process. They didn’t bypass city council, they worked within the legal framework that we created.
If the legal framework rejects them, and they have an alternative, why should they go through yet another legal gauntlet? And who would they be negotiating with? The Upper Falls Area Council was part of the discussions all along. Who does Northland need to talk with? Is it Right Size? Because from what I’ve seen by way of donors and “leaders” in the organization, they’re spread throughout the city. So does this mean that in order to get something built developers must work with a city-wide political entity that’s only stated purpose is to make everything smaller?
Hi @Chuck, if a majority of voters say they don’t agree with the approved Northland permit on March 3rd after thousands of residents exercised a democratic right enshrined in our city charter to petition for the vote, reengaging seems worthy of consideration.
As you note, Northland has every right to do precisely what you suggest.
I humbly request and hope they don’t. Thanks.
@Rich I want to be clear what we’re saying to developers and what this means. We are telling developers: sure, go through our process and work with city council. Spend money on the studies we require and do all the planning work you want to do. And after all that, when a decision has been rendered by city council, the city could still tell you NO. And we won’t provide any guidance on what will fix the problem.
So you can go back through the process again, spending more and more money, and at the end of that we reserve the right to, once again, tell you NO. Northland won’t come back to us because the message we’ll send is that such an activity is futile.
Why would a developer want to do work here? Especially when they can invest in property in Waltham, Needham, Watertown or any other Boston-area community? If that’s what this city wants, to stop all development cold and leave the physical infrastructure EXACTLY as it is, then a No vote will accomplish just that. If what you want is city in which the only people who can move here are those who have $200,000 cash in their pockets to invest in a $1 million home, then please vote NO.
If you believe, as I do, that Newton needs more variety in its housing stock to attract more people who will add to the vitality and vibrancy of our community, then vote YES.
@Chuck,
Have you been paying attention to the Riverside development? You know, the one that the developer and neighbors compromised on?
Hi @Chuck, borrowing your numbers a $800,000 – 30 year mortgage at 3.71% will result in a monthly payment of $3,687. (Rate from bankrate.com)
Based on rents at Austin street, many monthly rents at the 83% of Northland apartments that are market rate will likely be higher than those mortgage payments.
I will vote NO for many reasons including a hope that Northland will do more to address Newton’s affordable housing crisis and traffic concerns raised by residents and elected officials. Thanks.
@Allison – Do you also enthusiastically support the Riverside project?
This project — the result of more than three years of discussions and tough negotiations between city leaders, neighbors, civic groups, housing advocates, environmentalists and the developer — is a game changer for our region.
It will transform 23 drab acres of old parking lots, an outdated shopping plaza and industrial buildings into desperately needed homes, amenity-rich office space and eight new parks. It will bring new vitality to Needham Street and beyond; bringing new business, new jobs and new tax revenue here. I’m looking forward to voting YES on Super Tuesday.
Simon,
It is difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate with a party that will not meet, and has never expressed a position other than – no.
Instead, we at Northland chose to negotiate through the Land Use process. Further the Land Use negotiations resulted in a much more significant reduction in scale than at Riverside and a much larger and more comprehensive mitigation package than at Riverside.
It would appear that the Land Use process was more effective than the negotiations of a single Councilor.
@Simon yes, I’m familiar with that project. The one that the MAPC said should handle 1.5 million sq. ft. of development and the one that was negotiated with a group that was not representative of the city as a whole (or maybe it was… it wasn’t a transparent process so we really have no idea) for 1 million sq. ft. The one that resulted in the developer pulling back on a 300,000 sq. ft. commercial property that the city’s own peer review process said is likely to have been rented faster than the residential on the same location, and would have produced an additional $2 million in revenue. Bottom line: we lost more money that we could have had sooner.
This negotiation also limited City Council’s ability to negotiate for additional givebacks, like a pedestrian crossing on 128 at a defunct railroad bridge. Keep in mind that there is currently no pedestrian-only crossing of 128 other than in Lexington.
So yes, the neighborhood is happy and this project is moving forward (which is great, by the way) but that doesn’t mean it’s the best project we could have had and it doesn’t mean it provides the city what it truly needs. It also means that we, as citizens of the city of Newton, don’t have a say in it.
I’ll be voting Yes even though I think city “leaders” did a horrible job negotiating the Northland Special Permit. As a former developer myself, if I were faced with the situation Northland now finds itself in, I would go 40B, and that’s exactly what I think they will do if the No vote succeeds. A 40B at that location would be a disaster for Newton. So again, I encourage people to vote Yes.
Having said all that, I am getting a kick watching some folks jump through hoops to convince themselves and others that Newton hammered out some sort of amazing deal with Northland. City “leaders” pooped their pants on the Northland deal. They accepted a smaller percentage of affordable housing than they would have gotten if this project were a 40B, even though a Special Permit is generally far more valuable to a developer than a 40B. The city also dropped the ball on school impact mitigation, accepting a token amount that does not come close to covering the true costs associated with the project.
At this juncture, I suggest voters suck it up and approve the Northland Special Permit, then vote for some real leadership in the next local elections. Your target here should not be the private property owner who has done everything to comply. It should be the damn fools at City Hall whose lack of vision and negotiating skill got us into this mess.
@chuck what is the city telling it’s citizen when it has a no bid contract given to the Principle Group, for a cool 500,000, and people attend charretes Or what have you and put sticky notes around, and the Principle Group recommends Form Based Codes, and the city says ” thanks but we’re not going to do Form Based Codes”.
I’ll tell you what it tells me. The politicians care more about developer money than their own constituents. The Principle Contract was the biggest waste of time and money about the whole Washington Street “Vision” plan. It was a complete and total farce. Makes me sick just thinking about it. And, The Whole Charter movement, to eliminate local representation, was also a move to get rid of local opposition to oversized development. At least the citizens didn’t fall for that.