Update: In the comments, Councilor Norton lists other public officials and advocates who have lobbied for the two platforms, most notably State Representative Kay Khan, who has been fighting for the platforms for a long, long time. I was remiss in not naming them: besides Representative Khan, State Senator Cynthia Creem, Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, Council President Susan Albright, Congressman Jake Auchincloss. Transit Matters is he advocacy group driving the platforms rethink as part of their larger Regional Rail vision. (We’ve covered the platforms here and here and here and here and Councilor Norton’s concerns about the stations here and here.)
Councilor Norton also helpfully alerts us to a public meeting on the platforms at 6:00 PM on October 13.
Councilor Norton did not, however, indicate if the MBTA’s change of plans on the platforms softens or eliminates her objections to transit-oriented development around the stations. Not yet, anyway.
—
The MBTA announced that it will build two platforms at each of Newton’s three commuter rail stations, in a shift from previous plans just to improve the existing single platforms. Terrific news. Will it cause any low-growth councilors and activists to embrace more housing along the corridor?
Newton’s commuter rail stations — Newtonville, West Newton, and Auburndale — each have a single, low-level platform on the south side of the tracks. The low-level platforms mean that passengers have to use stairs to board and deboard, making the platforms non-compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Access to and from the platforms is also not ADA compliant.
As a happy consequence of addressing the access issue created by the low-platforms, eliminating the need to climb stairs to board and deboard will reduce the time trains are in the station for boarding and deboarding, improving service.
Adding a second platform will address address the service constraint of single platforms. In the morning, trains on the Worcester line travel inbound on the south track. In the afternoon, the trains run outbound on the south track. Trains on the north track, outbound in the morning and inbound in the afternoon, do not stop in Newton.
As Streetsblog Mass put it:
As a result, the Worcester Line train schedule has large gaps in service for these three Newton stations: it’s impossible to catch a train towards Worcester anytime before noon, or to catch a train towards Boston for most of the afternoon and evening.
Accessible boarding for those who have challenges, easier boarding for everyone, shorter time in the station, and more trains in both directions will make the commuter rail an even better option for folks who don’t want to drive (or drive as much).
Now, the housing angle. (There’s always a housing angle.)
City Councilors and activists for more housing around transit, along both the commuter rail line and the Green Line, including your humble scribe, note that housing near transit allows people to live car-free or car-lite, probably Newton’s greatest opportunity to have an impact on climate change.
Councilors and activists who want no more housing in the corridor (or significantly less than pro-housing advocates recommend) argue, in so many words, that the commuter rail schedule and experience sucks and doesn’t actually provide a meaningful alternative to driving.* Now that the stations will be nicer and the schedule fuller, will we hear from the skeptics that we should add housing at a greater scale?
Coincidentally, one of the more prominent of those arguing that the poor commuter-rail experience doesn’t really support transit-oriented development, Councilor Emily Norton, was a key member of the coalition of public officials that convinced the MBTA to change their plans to add the second platform. In light of her coalition’s success in getting the second platform in the MBTA’s plans, will Councilor Norton now acknowledge the increased potential capacity of the commuter rail and change her position on the amount of housing that’s appropriate along the corridor?
Note: Those who oppose or want to limit transit-oriented development along the commuter-rail corridor make another, more compelling argument. They say that the north side already has more housing density, despite the commuter rail’s less frequent service to fewer destination than the Green Line. They are absolutely right. But the answer to their legitimate equity argument is not to stop adding housing to the north side, but to add proportionally more to the south side. We need significantly more housing to both corridors for the city to do its full part to fight climate change.
Note: Somebody is inevitably going to say that COVID changes everything, that people won’t be going to go into the office as frequently, so we don’t need transit-oriented development. Traffic levels are already above pre-pandemic levels. Somebody’s going into and out of Boston. They should be able to live near the Newton commuter rail and take the train.
* The argument is belied by the fact that some people find conditions adequate and actually take the train to and from Boston, instead of driving.
This is welcome news, but I don’t think it will do much to ridership.
A major critique of the commuter rail is its low frequency. 2-3 trains during rush hour and then a train every hour or two thereafter is not convenient. In addition to greater frequency (which would probably require different rolling stock), it needs to be easier to get to the station. Currently, stations have limited parking, so either (a) you own a car and are able to park it all day in the station, and get to the station really early to get a spot; or (b) you live very close to the station. A solution is frequent busing to the stations, but of course if the train comes once an hour and the bus is late by 2 minutes, there go your finely laid plans.
I think COVID has also convinced people to more enthusiastically embrace suburban offices. I don’t think offices will be as much at risk in the short to medium term as will the concept of a “Central Business District” i.e., downtown. Commuter rail, as currently designed, is only really useful to funnel workers into downtown.
Sean, you are somewhat burying the lead here. It is great news that the MBTA got some wisdom and elected to do the dual track approach. But we need the funding! I’m not focused on what this will mean for housing policy yet. I’m focused on making sure our elected officials don’t stop until the job is done!
It seems to me this type of change at least allows for the future possibility in my lifetime of more frequent rail service into Boston, similar to a T line, from Newton stations. This is huge for Newton. I’d fully support the city putting some of the money from the federal govt into these projects to get them jumpstarted. Is that possible?
@fig, I was under the impression that this was not a coincidence, but that this was very much tied to the availability of federal funds for transit.
The question in my mind is what figure will the MBTA set for this new design? Will it be in line with their original estimates for double platforms in the low 6-figures, which were already far beyond similar projects in other cities, or will they go even further to inflate the project and its cost, making it unachievable? And once approved, will the cost skyrocket at an exponential rate the way the Newton Highlands ADA project has, from $2M to over $32M?
Now the MBTA bigwigs are learning! After two decades actively advocating to reconstruct the Auburndale Commuter Rail T Station, the dual track schematic makes sense. And not just on paper. Y
Yet the larger issue of inaccessible, unsafe Commuter Rail Stations in Newton cannot be escaped by MBTA bigwigs: daily you violate the civil rights of persons with disabilities by defying the Federal decree of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
My recent six-page Memorandum sent Certified Mail to MBTA Manager Steve Poftak and Jamey L. Tesler, CEO, at MassDOT, reminds them of their responsibilities. Start the entire project by dispersing the $20 million dollar full-funding for the original 100 percent Design Phase for the Auburndale Commuter Rail T Station. The option to continue that well-planned and hard fought plan still remains A+
Historically, massive lawsuits (e.g. the 2006, $350 MBTA./BCIL Settlement) that have forced MBTA bigwigs to start upgrading/updating its systemwide public transit has proven the best option for persons with disabilities and all passengers. Advocacy is never-ending and our work will benefit Newton far into the future.
Adam, I won’t believe in the project until I see the cranes in the sky. I think unless Newton makes a serious funding commitment (a la Harvard and New Balance), it just won’t happen.
I’d love for some of our political types who post here to take a break from the election and let us know the possibilities for funding and who we can advocate to in order to make these changes a reality. Every single politician in Newton should be fighting for this.
We don’t know what games are being played here. They only committed to paying for a ‘design’, is it a ‘real’ plan or just a way to waste $$ on kickbacks and consultants?
Until funding is committed for the build, this means nothing for transit oriented housing north of pike.
In the mean time, we have T stations which are frequent and running. I’ve yet to see any councilors pounding the table ‘IN WRITING’ to build high density AFFORDABLE several-hundred units in Waban or Newton Center.
Thanks for the shoutout Sean! There have been many people toiling for many years to get us this far, in particular State Rep Kay Khan. Kudos also goes to State Senator Cynthia Creem, Mayor Fuller, Council President Albright, Congressman Jake Auchincloss, and the advocacy group Transit Matters. But as Fig notes, the work is far from done so I hope people show up at the public meeting and show how much this matters to you. In addition it is critical to keep in mind, this is not just about helping Newton – this helps transit riders on the entire Worcester Framingham line, and it even helps drivers from across the state who drive into Boston, by reducing cars on the road, if would-be drivers are able to take the train instead because of increased frequency of trains due to these new double platforms.
Councilor Norton, did I miss the details of the public meeting? Could you supply when you get a chance?
Also, in terms of your posting, our posts passed each other like ships in the night. But thank you for basically responding instantly! 😉
I will also say, in my view if we don’t get this done, there is a risk that some of the Newton stations will one day be eliminated. They have done similar station consolidation on the green line. Let’s not miss the opportunity to make a meaningful change for the entire Worcester Framingham line, as Councilor Norton correctly points out.
Sorry to hijack your post Sean. I’m just eager to make sure this actually happens more than debate what should occur after it actually happens.
Parking is not an issue for the Newtonville station. If you venture north of the pike to Newton Corner, Nonantum, Newtonville, you may be stunned to see the density and walkability of these villages.
If you can take a 15 minute walk to a 20 minute train ride to your office, you’ve got a better, faster, cheaper commute than 90% of your coworkers in Boston.
Yuppie: I agree. I’ve just returned to commuting into Boston, and the train ride is the most pleasant it’s ever been. No crowds, no having to share a seat. I’m sure this won’t last but it’s really nice now. Just need an accessible station, the fence repaired, the trash picked up, and we’re good to go. Actually also electrified trains and EMUs so we could train directly to Cambridge too.
Fig – meeting is October 13. https://www.mbta.com/projects/newton-commuter-rail-stations-accessibility-improvements
Thanks Emily. I’ll do my best to make the meeting.
Councilor Norton,
Does the MBTA shifting to two platforms for the three stations eliminate your previously stated objection to more transit-oriented development around the three stations?
Tim,
A key benefit from two platforms is the ability to use the train to travel away from Boston in the morning and back to Newton in the evening. In other words, it has the potential to shift the commuter rail from a tool to commute in and out of Boston to true regional rail, which is the goal of Transit Matters, the group that Councilor Norton notes above.
Sean, I’m not familiar with this “previously stated objection to more transit-oriented development around the three stations” which you are attributing to me, especially since you literally heard me speak in favor of a special permit project on my own street, creating 4 units where currently there is one, 4 blocks from the Newtonville commuter rail stop, at a Land Use meeting earlier tonight. Perhaps you could offer a citation.
Councilor Norton,
Happy to take you up on the challenge. But, before I go listening through tapes to find one (or more) citations, are you denying that you’ve ever said words to the effect that it doesn’t make sense to do transit-oriented development along the commuter rail because it doesn’t provide sufficient service?
Fig,
You won’t see cranes in the sky, but if we’re lucky you’ll get months of extra traffic on Washington street because the project closed lane(s) to make excavating down to platform level much easier. I hope that the mayor, transportation department, and whoever is on the MBTA team will consider it.
As always, this is a personal statement. I am not involved with this project – not design, budgeting, review, bidding, etc. – nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of the MBTA.
It’s just the supporting conditions I’d want to have if I was working with a super & PM to schedule the job. It would also allow for more options for support of excavation (SoE) to help keep workers safe.
Washington Street will be fine on a road diet. True Newton natives will be hip to the detours.
More important that we give ourselves an alternative to the Pike in time for Big Dig II (the Alston curve). If someone in government will be willing to take ownership and make a tough decision rather than kicking the can down the road like Baker and his transpo secretaries keep doing.
Anne, Washington Street is perhaps the best suited road in Newton to accommodate a construction-related loss of capacity. We know this from traffic counts, observation, planning, and experience. Trio got built with the loss of the lane during construction, even near two major intersections. World didn’t end.
Sean,
Your time would be much better spent shaming ward councilors from wards with convenient T stops (newton center, waban).
Why haven’t they been PUBLICALLY lobbying for developers to build affordable high density several hundred units in their own neighborhoods.
CALL THEM OUT! Force them to put it in writing as a top line item on their website to build in waban & newton center
They have been very vocal about building such units in other people’s backyards (ie dump it north of the pike)
Bugek,
I’m not sure that’s totally accurate. See this, for instance.
Many of the opponents to density on the North side both object to more density and to the fact that the density is not evenly distributed across the city. I’m not at all sympathetic to the first point, but I think they have a great argument on the second point. We need to have something like 15 homes per acre within a fifteen-minute walk of Green Line stations. We need to have equitable distribution of new homes.
@Sean Roche
On your point to Emily Norton:
Words matter.
Your own reply to her shows that your initial words were inaccurate. A “previously stated objection” as you wrote, which was written an an UNCONDITIONAL statement- implying that there were no circumstances where she would support development at the stations- is very different than your second post, where opposition was linked to insufficient service (in her opinion), which obviously could change in the future.
Perhaps an honest error on your part, but it is your mistake.
A good person would apologize. We’ll see what you do.
Sean,
Your link is for a tiny 4 unit development.. north of pike is already up to hundreds of new units (with few hundred more ro come in next few years).
Show me a link to a councilors pounding the table for hundreds of affordable high density units in newton center/waban.
You wont find it on their websites because they are not stupid.
I think we should be talking about the best way to make it happen rather than trying to use this update to throw shade at Councilors. Sean I think once again you lose people in your approach. There is quite a bit of building going or recently finished near the Commuter Rail. I don’t think it is incorrect to currently state that the CR doesn’t provide sufficient service. Being able to have more frequent service and to have a viable schedule for those going west of the City is huge. I personally could not fathom why the MBTA would be proposing a $33M ramp to the Highlands T station which does have access to the trains from the more frequently used entry point while ignoring the Newtonville stops that are completely inaccessible. Investing in making the CR stations able to accommodate more West westward commuters would make it much more useable. Not everyone works in Boston …some people may have a job in the city then switch jobs to a company outside of the city… not an unusual occurrence. If you want less car travel then you need to give people viable public transportation options.
fignewtonville – I agree local $s will need to come forward for it to happen. But $s are tight and demands high in Newton.
I am amazed residents are not more alarmed by the change in the City budget spent on the schools. 20 years ago when we moved here, 50% of the City budget was spent on the schools. Now, 2 out of every 3 dollars in the City’s budget goes to our schools. This crowds out funding for everything else – roads, library, parks, etc.
I’d love to see our resident beer billionaire, Koch, help out with funding the stations and put a beer garden on top of each!
@Sean. Wow. 15 new homes per acre within a 15 minute walk of a green line station. That’s quite an order. First we would have to establish some agreed upon standard walking speed to introduce some consistency into the process. I can walk from my home near Eliot Station to Waban in just about 15 minutes. I can reach the Newton Highlands station in even less time. Granted, I’m in my 80s and not as quick footed as I used to be, so it’s pretty clear that your formula could wipe out every single family between Waban Center and Newton Highlands and, even more telling, within the 15 minute walk segment going out from both these village T station locations. My single family home rests on 43 % of an acre of land, so that means that perhaps 6 units could be built on the ruins of the Burke manse. This only touches on all the ripple effects that could occur from this much development and this many prospective new T commuters in this part of Newton.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been riding the T since it opened in 1959, but anyone who has commuted on it even half as long will attest that nothing has really fundamentally changed during this long and tumultuous period. I know that heroic efforts are being made to improve and modernize the structure and operation of the Green D line, but I’ve heard promises before and the same endemic problems and shortcomings continue. It also doesn’t build confidence when you’re a member of the Newton Highlands Area Council and have waited patiently for almost a decade for just the planning process governing handicapped ramps at the Highlands T station to finish. This isn’t all the T’s fault. The entire green line system includes 4 separate lines that funnel into a single tunnel between Copley and Park and this is always going to pose a challenge, even with just pre Covid-19 riding levels.
Finally, let’s take Sean’s formula and apply it to every T station in Newton from Riverside. That’s Woodland, Waban, Eliot, Newton Highlands, Newton Center and Chestnut Hill. Of course, we really don’t know how many new residents would move into his designated 15 minute walk loop for the T, but it could ultimately be extremely significant if replicated in Green Line communities outside of Newton. A lot of commuters could be heading to that one tunnel in the morning.
This is really just a surface scratching list of concerns rather than definite conclusions with any data driven backup, but I think it just scratches the surface about the logistical, structural and public acceptability concerns that Sean’s proposal would engender.
Sean –
After reading your “update” that includes certain other people who have sought to bring the three Newton Commuter Rail T Stations to their rightful reconstruction, I must clarify your claims and place a brief historical overview as to the origins of active advocacy that began two decades ago. I posted a similar overview in this space earlier this Summer. And have spoken publicly about the grassroots beginnings that began in Auburndale.
First, the earnest efforts began in Auburndale as grandparents visiting from another state brought their grandchildren from their daughter’s home in Auburndale to hop the Commuter Rail to go to the Museum of Science in Cambridge. As the grandparents approached the top of one of the two 20-foot staircases to reach the platform, they realized descending the steep narrows stairs would be precarious for themselves and their grandchildren. They all then walked to use another mode of transportation to get to Boston and Cambridge.
Second, the grandparents shared their harrowing experience with their daughter and son in-law. They reached out to Representative Kay Khan about the dangerous, inaccessible Commuter Rail T Station. Kay swung into action and brought awareness to the situation to MBTA officials. That action began a long, diligent, persevering advocacy effort that included myself, Rob Caruso, certain members of the then-Mayor’s Committee for People with Disabilities. Attorney Jason Rosenberg was President of the latter Committee at that time (2001). As word circulated across Auburndale numerous neighbors and residents throughout Newton got involved.
It is instructive to note the year to bring accuracy to the entire grass roots effort to reconstruct Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station: every person you list in your update above either were not serving as elective public servants and Transit Matters did not exist as a so-called “advocacy” group. Three individuals came ‘on board’ about the three Commuter Rail T Stations in Newton a mere few years ago as the MBTA publicly announced its 100 percent completion of the Design Phase as well as the $20 million full funding for Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station. In fact, you neglected to mention then-Congressman Barney Frank’s steadfast support (since the beginning; he resided a few blocks from the Auburndale T Station) and his successful work at securing $3 million for the reconstruction.
As rumors swirled in February 2017 that the MBTA would be shuttering its long overdue reconstruction at Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station, I spoke to Rep. Kay Khan in her State House office about the issue. She asked me: “Who is Transit Matters?” I responded, “Never heard of the group.” As names began circulating to me and Rob Caruso about the members of Transit Matters, we knew that not one person attended ANY of the several public hearings held through the many years by MBTA officials in Auburndale. Meeting dates/times/places were widely publicized by MBTA officials prior to the public meetings. Moreover, members of Transit Matters are directly responsible for concocting a sham plan to shutter the reconstruction of Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station because they grew disgruntled that somehow the Newtonville and West Newton Commuter Rail T Stations were being left out of their rightful reconstruction. Well, the contractors’ reconstructing T Stations cannot simultaneously work on THREE T Stations along the same route!
The turn of events that led to the back-door deal during the “secret meeting” with former Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack in May 2017, which I learned about from a Newton Councilor, and then I made an unannounced visit to Secretary Pollack’s office in the Transportation Building in Boston to learn why residents of Newton were being shut out from participating, excluded the three City Councilors representing the Ward 4 neighborhood: Lenny Gentile, Jay Harney, and Amy Sangiolo. Each of them reside within easy walking distance to the Auburndale Commuter Rail T Station! Why were they excluded from that “secret” meeting in May 2017? Because they advocated for that rightful long overdue reconstruction. And informing them of any stoppage of the project would have rightly raised hell!
Each elective public servant serving Newton, along with the supposed “advocacy group” Transit Matters, are all complicit in violating the civil rights of persons with disabilities and defying the Federal decree of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The MBTA has failed to meet the 10-year U.S. Congressional mandate to upgrade/update public masstransit systems (2000) by 21 years! For the people involved thinking the latter and former are a joke, I advise you to ask Judge Patrick King. He presided over the enormously successful class action suit by several persons with disabilities against the MBTA. The proper name is MBTA/BCIL Settlement. And the suit encompasses $350 million dollars. Judge King holds semi-annual updates — June and December — to learn the progress by the MBTA. I attended every meeting the past five years at the Transportation Building, and since June 2020 via Zoom meetings.
That’s the accurate scoop! Stay tuned.
Ultimately this is somewhat a show of smoke and mirrors as most who moved to Newton, did so to find relief from the density levels in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville. And while there is always some room for growth, most do not share Sean’s enthusiasm to completely urbanize Newton…at least not publicly.
That said, improved T is always good. If anything it makes Boston more accessible to folks in Worcester and suburbs further West. Perhaps now they can play a larger role in easing the region’s housing crunch and contribute their share of density.
@Bob, the 15 minute concept isn’t something that Sean is pulling from thin air. There is a lot of effort behind the idea, including a new report out today: https://www.bostonindicators.org/-/media/indicators/boston-indicators-reports/report-files/15-minute-neighborhoods.pdf?la=en&hash=596ECB367A98848B325212F1E96E239F8DDE89B6.
Sean, thank you for the update to your post… if this keeps going you’re soon going to be asking for a lawn sign! However I’m still waiting for the citation for my supposed “previously stated objection to more transit-oriented development around the three stations”. If you need to pore through hours of City Council audio to find it, so be it. You made the claim, it’s on you to back it up.
Councilor Norton: Maybe I’m missing the thread here a bit, and I’m certainly not going to go on a research expedition through your past statements, but from just living in Newton over the past couple of decades, I don’t remember you supporting Austin Street. Or Trio. Or the future Dunstan 40B project. Or the future Riverdale 40B project. Or Riverside. Am I missing any transit oriented developments of significant size? Do you support the upcoming project on Walker Street? The Yoga studio project?
I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to find the sweet spot for your support of transit-oriented development and project size/proposed projects by developers. What would change your no votes to yes votes? Not trolling and zero snark. I’d really like to hear your perspective if you are willing to give it on this forum.
So while you wait for Sean to search city council audio, a couple of questions:
1) If you do support transit-oriented development around the three stations, what parameters would you like to see met for those projects. Do any of them consist of significant size/height?
2) The Armory project might be coming, and hopefully it will be affordable or workforce housing. Considering the huge impact it could have on affordable housing on the north side, would you be willing to relax any of the standards for transit oriented project to have additional affordable units (and get closer to meeting the 40B 10% cutoff). (in other words, more height/mass for a 100% affordable project?)
I’d prefer this to be a separate thread as the commuter rail news deserves a focus away from housing, but I’m interested in your thoughts and I’ll forget to ask if I don’t do so now.
Cheers, Figgy
Yes, better transit is great. It means more choices for more people.
Matt said: “ If anything it makes Boston more accessible to folks in Worcester and suburbs further West. Perhaps now they can play a larger role in easing the region’s housing crunch and contribute their share of density.” But by your logic, didn’t all the people in those communities move there with an expectation of low density and suburban sprawl as well? Where is the town line for “not my problemville”?
And how big a radius around me do I have a claim to an expectation of immutability, like some sort of amber dome? And when does the clock start? I will let my neighbors know. As kids picked they apples from the orchard down our West Newton street. They probably want those apples back, but a tract of houses got built there a few decades ago. (Yet even then, West Newton Square itself was probably higher density than it is today. And had better public transit.)
Action or no, we make history. Decisions made or deferred, we shape the future. Our best hope is to do it well.
Historical footnote and classic MBTA foolishness: a link to the operational nightmare that would have resulted from the original short-sighted plans for Auburndale. Glad it’s finally getting done and getting done right. Of course, all of this assumes that the Infrastructure bill gets through Congress.
Bob, at least one thing has changed since 1959. Wasn’t there a sign on Route 9 at Eliot that read “rapid transit 25 minutes to Park Street”?
fignewtonville
“I don’t remember you supporting Austin Street. Or Trio. Or the future Dunstan 40B project. Or the future Riverdale 40B project. Or Riverside.”…
Thats almost over 500 units in just over 1 mile radius in the span of 3-4 years
– No ownership opportunities… just paying rent to the hedge funds every month.
– developer gets to crowd the schools and count their money
– MORE cars in the 1 mile radius.. NOT LESS. So probably worse air quality
– horrible commuter rail schedule
– likely raises rents in the area for everyone else (not lucky enough to be chosen for lottery.. ie 95% of everyone else)
Adam –
I remain ever-confident that the superb Design Phase completed seven years ago for Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station WILL get “done right” largely because of REAL ADVOCATES/ACTIVISTS who’ve worked in the trenches on all things accessibility for the past 51 years. We KNOW how to win RIGHTFUL RESULTS! A lawsuit — again! — will rid the naysayers from inept reconstruction schemes and back-door scams. Oh, Transit Matters hated and tried to halt the grand and glorious reconstruction/upgrade to South Station. But that faux “advocacy group” lost! The good work at South Station daily chugs along, thanks to Mr. Fitzgerald. We advocates/activists will gladly offer Transit Matters trainings for success that ALL PEOPLE can benefit from. Stay tuned.
@Sean Roche-
Your home is a 10 minute walk to the Newton Center T station probably 8.
(Green Line). A friend of mine sold a single family home near you last year.
15 homes per acre means your neighborhood is woefully underdeveloped. Add in the racist all- single family homes in your all white neighborhood, and well…
I think you know where I’m going with
this.
Way more room for extreme density in the Roche neighborhood.
“…largely because of REAL ADVOCATES/ACTIVISTS…”
And this is how we as advocates lose in Newton. We splinter. And the status quo wins.
The long delay to make all of our public transit accessible and convenient is not a failure of transportation, it’s a failure of civil rights. Every day without universal access means opportunity and equity lost. That’s not just regrettable. Not just unfair. Not just inequitable. It’s illegal. And I get that it’s incredibly frustrating to see the promise of improvement be pulled away.
But don’t blame Transit Matters. Blame the T for not spotting the problem in the previous Auburndale station reconstruction plan earlier. The operational flaws in the original Auburndale plan weren’t spotted by the MBTA until the self-identified transit geeks at Transit Matters pointed them out. That’s not opinion, the T and its consultants confirmed it.
Crippling the line for everyone of every ability is not the way to solve this problem, even a critical or overdue one. This wasn’t a flaw that could have been fixed later as more stations were improved. It was a fundamental operational failure of planning that would have adversely impacted the other Newton stations and the entire line’s operation.
Now, after too many years of rangling we have a proposal on the table that is objectively better for everyone of every ability up and down the line (with the caveat that we haven’t seen the plan). It’s compatible with a vision that would allow closer to accessible rapid transit service for thousands of people who simply don’t have that option now. Given how glacially and tentatively the T moves, it seems looking backward to a plan that didn’t provide all those benefits is counterproductive. It seems far more prudent to pull together AND fight to fund the better plan AND push to build it quickly.
That’s hard enough. We need everyone. We wouldn’t be here without everyone’s passionate efforts.
The answer to the injustice resulting from flawed planning isn’t to double down on a flawed plan. Seems to me it’s to accelerate the better plan. Hopefully the good effort and hard fought elements that went into the planning of the previous Auburndale plan can be worked into the details of the new one and can be built expeditiously.
BTW, full funding might actually have a chance this time.
The harvard/allston highway project ($1.7Billion)is going to add a new train station along the Worcester/framingham line. As they expect that area to be a MAJOR high tech employment hub. Ie it needs frequent train service and the Newton lines prevent that.
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/s/htu48/all-aboard-allston-train-highway-mega-project-hub
@Bugek, conceptual drawings I’ve seen even include reconstruction of the connection to the Grand Junction Railroad. Imagine a single seat ride from Newtonville to Kendall in about 15 minutes, 4 stops. Glorious!
Mike Halle –
Your comments are appreciated to my previous post this morning. As I — and numerous other advocates/activists have said in public and TAB Guest Columns and this publication option — continue reminding people, MBTA officials ARE INDEED to blame for blatantly failing to fulfill its obligation to the Congressional mandate, then knowingly violating the civil rights of persons with disabilities to access public transit at the three Newton Commuter Rail T Stations. It is a messy matter that we advocates/activists are accustomed to cleaning up via bringing awareness to inaccessibility, fostering working relationships, then as a last option when all our work remains stalled, to sue successfully.
Facts are the facts: disability rights organizations and the Commissions/Committees On Disabilities across most municipalities within the Commonwealth have LEAD on public access issues since 1965! We continue to do so even as people referring to their positions as “advocacy group” claim to have scored changes of heart of the bigwigs at the MBTA. If Transit Matters is who they claim to be, then WHY did they secretly persuade Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack to shutter the viable Design Phase for the Auburndale Commuter Rail T Station at that May 2017 meeting with a handful of Newton residents and elective public servants? We advocates hold PUBLIC meetings to hear from ALL all interested parties no matter their agenda.
Transit Matters is not a true advocacy group as most people throughout the Boston area know from their absurd attempt to stop the comprehensive and wondrous reconstruction of South Station. They lost, of course, as we all see from the architect’s drawings and being on the ground at South Station monitoring the daily work on a better, safer, easier accessible and new transportation hub that will truly reflect an international city’s commitment to the public. We are grateful to Mr. Fitzgerald for holding solid ground to any attempts to stop that South Station rebuild.
So, you nor anybody else needs to preach to me as I have actively participated with every issue relating to COMPELLING the bigwigs at the MBTA to initially reconstruct Auburndale’s Commuter Rail T Station then reconstruct the two other Newton Commuter Rail T Stations. We advocates/activists cultivated ongoing working relationships with MBTA officials, Judge Patrick King, certain Newton City Councilors, and many residents to ensure the Federal decree of the Americans with Disabilities Act is honored. The MBTA is 21 YEARS LATE on meeting the Congressional mandate!
How did former Newton City officials and residents allow the MBTA to bypass reconstruction at its three Commuter Rail T Stations from Framingham to Copley over 20 years ago during the upgrades to virtually every T Station West and East? We advocates/activists with disabilities jumped in the fray upon hearing from Rep. Kay Khan in 2001. And Kay has complimented our direct involvement many times as the catalyst that we are uniquely in position to conduct to win rightful results relating to the MBTA’s obligation to begin reconstruction of the three Commuter Rail T Stations.
Come join us, Transit Matters, in our impending efforts to notch another win over the MBTA to ensure safe, easy, legal accessibility beginning the Auburndale Commuter Rail T Station, then moving on to West Newton, and Newtonville!
Of course Transit Matters is a transit advocacy group. Why even get into an argument about such a thing. Lots of other people have helped in this fight, whether it be for twenty years or two months. We all have voices, needs, opinions, expertise, experience. We will have differences. Better to pull with the people who are basically pulling in our direction, and worry more about the the people pulling the other way (or not pulling at all).
I say again, this is how advocacy loses in Newton. We fight over our tiny piece of pie, reducing our voice and our effectiveness, and leaving us all tired, disillusioned and bleh. And the powers that be, well-meaning or not, can just say, “there’s no consensus” and nothing happens.
Mike, because sometimes it’s more about egos than advocacy, and that’s a shame. Ultimately, if competing advocacy doesn’t “de-rail” everything, these designs should succeed or fail on their merits, and for that the engineers are the ones responsible. It’s a shame that COD continues to actively pursue end games that satisfy the letter of the ADA law without taking into consideration the big picture. For example, I’ve got an intersection in my neighborhood designed by MassDOT several years ago with feedback from COD. There is a curb cut around a corner behind a 4′ wall where the pedestrian cannot be seen, especially when sitting in a wheelchair. Does the ramp meet ADA specifications? Absolutely. Yesterday, someone was hit in this crosswalk.
I’m late to the thread but wanted to add my excitement at the proposal (if it ever happens), as well as my data point.
I live a five minute walk from the Newtonville station. I teach in Worcester. So close, yet so far – due to the lack of bi-directional train service, I can’t easily catch a train to work. The first outbound train doesn’t stop in Newtonville until 12:11 pm!
I have been doing a combo bike/train commute a few days a week, but it requires both biking to Boston Landing or Wellesley Farms, as well as a few miles from Worcester station to my campus. It’s ~2 hrs door to door – ameliorated by the working time on the train, but still a long trip.
Improving commuter rail in Newton, both for those going with and against the flow, would be amazing. The commuter rail is what lets our family be a one-car family, and I know we aren’t the only ones in Newton in that situation. I hope our elected officials keep up the pressure.
@Chuck Tanowitz: I never thought nor did I imply that Sean was pulling the 15 minute walk formula out of his head. I was simply trying to provide some kind of rough estimate as to the possible real world effects of applying that formula at every MBTA station in Newton. In some instances, I used findings from my own walking times between three of these stations and it was a conservative estimate based on my age and walking speed.
I’m thrilled that all the commuter rail stations in Newton may be within reach of getting the platform systems they desperately need, I’m just puzzled by why is always seems to take so much wasted time and effort to move things everyone knows are in the public interest to expedite.
On a related topic, I’m a member of Our Revolution Newton and in recent weeks I’ve had a chance to work with a lot of young college and high school students in central and western Massachusetts who are frustrated by how completely unaffordable it is to come from there to the Boston area on any of the public transit options currently available. I’ve read a few side comments here by folks that think that fixing Newton’s commuter rail problems might help to connect more transit options from the west. I’d appreciate any suggestions I could pass back. You know we are well behind the eight ball on public transportation when Ireland has an evolving and far better commuter rail service than we do in Massachusetts.
Mike –
I never tire nor grow disillusioned because I know from 41 years of battles and a few wars and myriad challenges and daily adjusting to living within a society built for able-bodies how to get rightful results to problems long ignored by people in positions of power and authority. And harboring extensive knowledge of Federal laws, State regulations, and City codes and Zoning law affords me triumph after triumph. Do know the Newton Commission On Disability has been a driving force for good for 47 years! Its members are Change Agents who navigate the layers of weighty bureaucracy effectively to win rightful results for people long oppressed by a mean-spirited, indifferent system. Now that is staying power. The work the Commission continues to daily do and has done for 47 years shall continue to benefit Newton far into the future. I assure you that the three Newton Commuter Rail T Stations WILL BE RECONSTRUCTED TO ENSURE SAFE AND EASY ACCESSIBILITY! The Federal decree of the ADA assures such work must and will be genuinely built.
Adam –
I am not surprised you continue to slam the Commission On Disability. You must have obstruction in your DNA as your negativism is ever-evident the past decade relating to all the work the Commission has successfully worked on. I do not speak for the Commission On Disability in these posts. Much of the advocacy I am involved in is singular and with three nonprofits in the Greater Boston area. When one actively advocates for 41 years one fosters solid working relationships within the public sector and the private sector. That is a benefit to serving the citizens of Newton first and the City second. Moreover, the vague example you allude to in your previous post is typically Adam: toss ugly bombs without details. Should you — or any citizen — be aware of any situation that obstructs the line of vision for persons with disabilities or able-body folks in a traffic setting, you possess a moral obligation to inform numerous City officials with ADA-compliant accessibility knowledge or attend a meeting of the Commission On Disability. Informing us ALWAYS ATTAIN SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS! You know that after witnessing the good work the Commission has done for 47 years. The Commission On Disability is the go-to governing body on all things accessibility in City governance.
So, I must ask you: which intersection in your neighborhood? Which street is the curb cut and wall you allude to? Which street is the crosswalk on where the person was struck by a vehicle yesterday? Is there a police incident report? And which particular intersection did MassDOT design and what year? The Commission On Disability members can revisit the entire project via the Minutes of meeting(s) that discussed the project, then we will gladly instruct capable City DPW staff and the ADA Coordinator to conduct a site visit to assess the problem and discuss a solution to reconstruct the error, if it exists. IT’S WHAT WE DO! Site visits to intersections and crosswalks throughout Newton are conducted weekly and include certain members such as myself.
@Gerard A Plante – Your passion, engagement and advocacy on these issues is admirable and appreciated.
That said, it doesn’t give you a pass on Village 14 posting rules – e.g. “Avoid personal attacks of others, particularly other people who are commenting on a topic.”
Feel free to question the content of the comments but please skip the personal attacks.
Thanks
So much good stuff in these comments. Thanks to everyone. I’ll respond to separate items in separate comments. Sorry if I neglect your question or issue.
Bob,
The fifteen-minute walkshed is not my idea, as you and Chuck point out. Neither is 15 units per acre. That’s straight from the new MBTA communities law passed this spring, which mandates that every MBTA community (obviously Newton is one) have at least one zoning district with 15 units per acre located within a half-mile (roughly 15 minutes for a person of average mobility) of an MBTA stop. The details have yet to be provided. But, Newton is going to have to have some significantly sized district where we have 15 units per acre near transit. We don’t have a single stop that’s even close.
Chuck wrote about our density around transit here. Worth a read, again. No stop has even 10 units per acre. Even Riverside, post-development, will be below 10. The lowest density is around Chestnut Hill: 1.9 units per acre. The highest is Newtonville at 5.0, though I think Riverside will be higher post-development. And, I don’t know if Newtonville factors in Austin St. or Trio. (But, they wouldn’t significantly bump the number.)
Yes, 15 units per acres will be transformative. And, inescapable.
There’s a question to ask your council and mayoral candidates: where do you think the MBTA Community district should go?
Matt,
Yes, a lot of us “who moved to Newton, did so to find relief from the density levels in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville.” Fact. True fact.
But, some of us have since come to realize that Newton’s density levels
* Contribute to global climate change
* Contribute to the regional housing crisis, which causes real economic dislocation
* Are the result of some deplorable policy decisions that were intended to and actually caused racial and economic segregation
And, we’ve decided that protecting what brought us to Newton in the first place is not ethically responsible.
As long as you keep making that same point, I’ll be here to respond to it.
Paul,
If you ask me, Newton Centre should be the MBTA Community district for Newton. I’m pretty sure that my home and neighborhood would fall within such a district. Which means that I welcome 15 units per acre in my neighborhood, on my block, next door, or in my back yard.
Councilor Norton,
No thanks on the lawn sign. I only support candidates who understand and acknowledge the connection between suburban sprawl and global climate change and who understand and acknowledge our city’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Sorry not to have a citation for you, yet. I think I have a good meeting to start with. But, I won’t have time to watch any video until this weekend.
sean,
If you want your neighborhood to have more density then you should be shaming your ward councilor to put it front and center on their website…. to build hundreds of affordable high density housing in YOUR ward.
Who are your ward councilors? lets check their websites for this specific bullet point to build in YOUR ward.
If not there then you should start a NEW V14 blog post to start shaming them
what do you say?
Ok Sean, your loss. I’ve got a toothbrush for you too.
As chair of an official advisory group, I firmly believe that respect for members of the public, public officials, and staff members is a fundamental element of civil discourse and good public policy. That holds true whether I am speaking for the group or in a private capacity.
I also believe that a friendly and supportive atmosphere encourages people of good intentions, but differing ideas and backgrounds, to learn from each other and come to better solutions while building personal bonds. It also just feels better.
I look forward to helping the city have a meaningful discussion about the future of transit in Newton, and addressing other transportation issues, as part of the Transportation Advisory Group. That includes all voices of good will, including Adam, who has long been diligent and constructive voice, in particular identifying transportation-related hazards and providing meaningful feedback about ways to address them.
I would expect other advisory bodies and groups to do the same.
Thanks Sean.
I was very skeptical that you
would welcome the density that you often speak of in your own
neighborhood.
@Sean, I admire your passion for this topic, I really do.
And so long as you continue to make the case to radically densify Newton, I will continue to remind why so many moved here. The delicate balance of suburb and Boston.
As Northland and Riverside comes online in the next 4-5 years, it will be interesting to see the if rest of Newton will remain as passionate to urbanization.
As Newton runs out of large lots like the aforementioned projects, let’s see how welcoming Waban and Newton Center will be to 500-800 new luxury apartments. It’s easy to support 15, 20 or 26 units, knowing it’s not a realistic option in your back yard.
By the time that can even be remotely considered, we’ll have one foot in nursing homes, but it will certainly be interesting to see which one of us is right. Maybe we can set a wager now – winner gets a week’s worth of the other’s Jello.
Fig: I supported Riverside, Golda Meir, 2Life, Armory, every Can-DO project, and more. Additional proposals are coming up that I believe have some positive aspects but it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on. As Bugek pointed out, Ward 2/Newtonville has done our part when it comes to adding density, whether I supported all the projects or not, and so it’s incumbent upon the Commonwealth to provide the “transit” part of “transit-oriented-development.”
Matt–
Some significant portion of Newton is going to get zoned to make it legal to build at two to three times the current density, by state law.
Not sure how radical I am, any more.
@Sean Roche Not sure on what basis you are making that prognostication since there has been no vote that would result in a referendum on zoning changes. Just the discussion on the issue was so toxic that they shut down the discussion until after the election.
But the November election will be the closest we will get to a referendum. The election of Tarik Lucas and John Oliver was informative. We will see if it is a blip or a harbinger.
There are MANY who subscribe to the call for more affordable housing, but don’t subscribe to your prescription. Nor do we appreciate the less than veiled inferences that if we don’t agree to the prescription that we must be racist or hate poor people (not inferences made by you, but those you support)
The voters will decide. I look forward to that
MaryLee,
It’s not my prognostication, it’s the law.
“The new section 3A of the Zoning Act states that an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute:
* Minimum gross density of 15 units per acre
* Not more than ½ miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.
* No age restrictions
* Suitable for families with children.”
@Sean, there is room for interpretation there. Newton is arguably an MBTA Community and we already have a number of zoning districts that have approved projects that meet that criteria. The law does not say that every MBTA Stop, (commuter rail, subway, bus or ferry stop) is required to meet that criteria. That would be 85% of the lots in Newton. It just says we need at least one.
So no, the state will not be dictating Newton Zoning. The City Council will decide in collaboration with the citizens. That is were this election comes in.
I don’t hear ANY candidates advocating for a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre across 85% of Newton. Some may agree with that, but they aren’t going to own it.
The MBTA zoning act is less of a “law” and more of a comply with this or you won’t get access to new grant programs created alongside it like MassWorks or the Local Capital Projects Fund. Newton got $400k for the Upper Falls Green Way through this – but didn’t need it. Kind of strange incentive structure… like saying build more housing or else we’ll withhold funds we’d give you to build more housing. It will be interesting to see if more state funding becomes tied to the compliance criteria in the future.
Watching the national stories on these issues makes me wonder if this will eventually be decided by state or federal government. Locally we’ll always be dealing with people feeling like, why my town/section? ” I recommend Waban….. No! put it in The Lake ” California and Oregon have reached a place where things really hit a breaking point. We could be near that soon. I have run along the Charles for many years and now almost every day people are smoking pot, It does not bother me at all but it is a reminder of how things change. Most of my life they would risk being cuffed and stuffed. Now thinking has changed. I think the national feeling about housing policy is changing.
@Mary Lee et.al. I thank all of you for clarifying or at least articulating the different interpretations of the criteria that Sean articulated in his post. I was aware that15 minute walk routines from T stations and/or half mile perimeters were on the table and that’s why I posted how far I am able to walk in a 15 minute period from and between at least 3 of the 7 green line stations in Newton. I was hoping it would elicit responses and clarifications This is the time frame and distance that Sean posted and I wanted to determine if this was anywhere near the whole story. And it’s also pretty difficult to determine if relevant studies are presenting the entire picture. BTW. I may have my differences with Sean, but I’m pretty certain he presents things he believes are accurate and surprise, surprise we found we agreed on many features of the envisioning Newton Highlands project.
@Bob, I clearly remember when the idea of designating any lot within 1/4 or 1/2 mile of transit to allow for multi-family discussed in a Summer 2020 Zoning and Planning Committee. The city’s planning department was introducing some new concepts and that meeting was attended by the majority of the City Council. One of the City Councilor correctly pointed out that would likely apply to 85% of lots and wouldn’t it be simpler and cleaner to just allow it across all of Newton. It seems that is the 1st time the elimination of single family zoning was seriously on the table and the reaction from the public was so strong that it was taken off the table until after the election. Personally, I think that did a real disservice to the public as we should have been having that debate before the election.
To his credit Sean has never backed away from that debate and I think his opinions are sincerely held. But I do object to Sean and other affordable housing advocates who are so quick to label anyone who might subscribe to a different approach to solving for the need for affordable housing as opposed to affordable housing. It just so very divisive to label anyone as anti-affordable housing when there are sincerely held differences on how to best achieve that.
I personally subscribe to Amy Sangiolo’s approach which is why I will vote for her and for City Councilor candidates who are more aligned with her than the current administration and council.
“But I do object to Sean and other affordable housing advocates who are so quick to label anyone who might subscribe to a different approach to solving for the need for affordable housing as opposed to affordable housing. It just so very divisive to label anyone as anti-affordable housing when there are sincerely held differences on how to best achieve that.”
Amen to that.
I do not think that you can build enough housing in Newton to make any other than a tiny dent in the prices, with the exception of the few designated affordable units.
Getting affordable housing, like affordable colleges, or whatever, is a complex issue that requires an eco-system solution. There’s the wage gap that’s a big driver of housing price increases: Young people in the sciences with high paying jobs in bio tech can afford to bid up prices to live close to work. And if they have a family Newton schools are good (so far) and that’s attractive. But likely they’ll rent for a while, then see if they can buy a house.
Heck, the Mount Auburn Club, in Watertown, was sold to a developer a couple years ago. A perfectly good health club, with tennis, a pool, and long term staff, was sold for just the land at 31 million dollars, and torn down to build a bio-tech lab. The people that work at the new lab will likely have high salaries, and can live in either cambridge, newton, or watertown. That will bid up housing costs.
Developers are marketing everything as “luxury apartments”. Anyways, I’m all for affordable housing. But you can’t make enough supply to make a dent in the demand. The Armory on Washington was just sold to (the city?) for affordable housing. That’s likely to be affordable, because the initial cost was negligible.
Rick Frank, there is a way to do it. I just don’t believe that will be driven from for-profit developers. The Armory will be 100% affordable. Ann Arbor Michigan is creating 100% affordable housing by building it on or above city owned parking lots. Cost of acquisition: Zero. Newton Centre has over 3.7 acres of single level city-owned parking lots.
Marylee,
Build affordable units on class A PRIME real estate and realize a loss to tax payers in perpetuity
…or create market rate rentals and use the revenue to prevent pension bankruptcy and to keep property taxes stable..
There is reality and wishlists..
Bugek we will agree to disagree and do it agreeably 🙂
“Rick Frank, there is a way to do it. I just don’t believe that will be driven from for-profit developers.”
No argument here. Just need to find some.
I always refer back to this plan:
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
And note that they hope to at least “stabilize” the market.
The whole thing is driven by a regional plan, and that plan is about satisfying employer needs, mainly. It’s not altruistic in reality , even if it purports to be.
The cities, the developers, and the companies see $$ in their eyes. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But let’s stop pretending it’s about fairness and equity and social good at its core. If housing becomes affordable for the lowest paid jobs it’s a plus but not a central goal. Providing housing that’s affordable for these new jobs is the goal.
Now, what happens post COVID is where it gets interesting. How many offices may become less valuable as workers choose to be remote? Will workers choose to live even further outside 128 if they don’t need to commute? The technician/ scientists will need to go to the lab. But there may be less need for offices for other staff. People with the money to afford an apartment at Trio might want to put that money into a house further out, so they get some equity.
In the long term, floods from climate change are going to change people’s perceptions of downtown Boston, and working there. It’s only a couple of big storms away from a major shock.
Time will tell, probably not too far off.
And have they ( city, developers, etc) already thought this all through? Well the “best minds” didn’t see the banking crisis coming, so, the best plans go out the window once the battle starts.
@Rick Frank. You have articulated many of the unknown variables that keep sloshing around in my head and I’m sure the heads of others on this blog. One of the things I’ve been focusing on is the future of small restaurants and other small businesses that primarily serve daytime customers from adjacent office buildings. The good point would be a reduction in travel by commuters which could have a huge positive effect on reducing overall VMT, traffic backups and congestion more generally. There are pluses as well as downsides to most of the serious transportation related improvements being considered.
MaryLee is on to an important idea and I hope people take it seriously.
Nathan, marylee
The numbers will reveal why building affordable housing on prime A location is financial suicide
Market rate 2br in newton center would be $4200.
Affordable rent would prob be $1800
For the city to build 200 units, they would be loosing (compared to market rates) 200 x $2400 = $480k Per MONTH = $5.7 MILLION a year in perpetuity
Does the city have over $5m a year to loose every year forever? Very expensive for just 200 units. This does not scale well
Bugek it is single level parking lots that are owned by the city. The city isnt going to sell those lots to a developer for luxury housing
@Bugek – I sense a somewhat circular and defeatist argument.
Prices are very high. City collects lots of taxes on high priced property. If lower priced property is built, city gets less taxes. You then define the difference between that and market rate as money that the city “loses”.
By that logic there is absolutely nothing that anybody can ever do towards more affordable housing. Whether its 40B, CanDo, the Armory, Newton Public Hosuing, etc, every one of those is something less than the city maximizing it’s tax base.
Making all decisions based solely on maximizing property`value makes sense for a real estate developer but not for a municipal government.
Jerry, marylee
Its called “opportunity cost” … everyone has to live by it.. even cities which have very poor pension liabilities looming..
An example, if someone offers you $3000 a month to rent your house and you choose to be kind and rent it to a poor family for $500.. you are loosing $2500 whether you want to belive it or not.
@Bugek – Yes, I understand the concept of “opportunity cost”.
Btw, the main objection was building it on prime A location.. it would be fiscally irresponsible to build it and operate at a loss in the middle of newton center..
Lost Opportunity cost would be much less elsewhere
@Marylee – the Austin St lot was leased to a private sector developer for largely luxury housing with a 99 year lease — in spite of there being a nonprofit developer interested in building there. So don’t assume the city wouldn’t partner with a private developer on a future project over a municipal lot, unless residents speak up loudly saying they don’t want that.
Well Emily all the higher the stakes in this election. Thanks for that input and for your voice
@Emily Norton and @Marylee and anyone who truly wants to understand these things—Here is the Planning Memo explaining the selection criteria for choosing a developer for Austin Street and why ASP was chosen: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qihj7q44eizca8h/AS%20Planning%20Memo%20052314.pdf?dl=0. And here is an article explaining why relying solely on nonprofits to create affordable housing won’t get us to our goals: https://observer.com/2016/09/affordable-housing-will-only-work-with-for-profit-developers-in-the-mix/. It’s about New York but the principles are universal.
From that article: “And it means working with both for-profit and nonprofit developers to get the job done.”
BOTH. How many projects in Newton have been by nonprofit developers? And how many by for-profit developers?
Kathleen,
I noticed no ward 6 councilor websites have a bullet point to build HUNDREDS of affordable high density housing “specifically in WARD 6”
would you be willing to call them out to put this as a main heading on their website? .. not token units but HUNDREDS
Or… is this typical NIMBY? Build in SOMEONE ELSEs backyard?
Would appreciate an honest answer to an honest question.
@Jerry “Making all decisions based solely on maximizing property`value makes sense for a real estate developer but not for a municipal government”
It depends on your level of cynicism.
As Frank Zappa once said ” I’m not more cynical as I get older; I just have more evidence for my cynicism”.
I’m not so naive as to think the city doesn’t count their beans.
“Or… is this typical NIMBY? Build in SOMEONE ELSEs backyard?”
Of course it is.
I believe that everyone is NIMBY about something. Few are willing to admit it.
“BOTH. How many projects in Newton have been by nonprofit developers? And how many by for-profit developers?”
That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer but certainly Korfville is for profit.
URGENT Notice On Complaints Relating To Accessibility In Newton:
When somebody complains about accessibility problems — whether exterior areas such as intersections, sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic signals, curb cuts; along with City-owned buildings such as City Hall or a school; and, public venues such as parks and parking lots, as well as colleges, CVS or Walgreens or restaurant, and so on — do know that they will not and cannot go ignored. Action on many fronts will proceed!
For example, upon learning of the unsafe curb cut and street and crosswalk in Adam’s September 30 comment, immediately I responded and asked him essential questions regarding his observations. He has yet to respond.
As a Community Access Monitor, accessibility specialist and advocate who daily works on all issues of accessibility, I report the complaints to Newton’s ADA/Section 504 Coordinator. And I bring awareness of the particular matter before members of the Newton Commission On Disability. All of my work upon receiving a complaint is a formal process that involves the Planning Department, DPW, Parks and Recreation, and occasionally the City Law unit and City Councilors.
Complaints are followed through on and followed up until a site survey of the problem is thoroughly conducted by certain City staffers that I list above, along with myself and/or certain members of the Commission. We advocates promote accessibility, we do not deny accessibility. That is part of the mission of any Commissions/Committees On Disability across the Commonwealth. Should a problem exist a number of steps within the formal process occur to ultimately resolve the access problem. Demolition and reconstruction are oftentimes conducted.
So, again, it is imperative for Adam to list the specific areas I listed in my response to his comments about a seeming botched job by City staffers or a private contractor who performed the work he alludes to that is unsafe and noncompliant. As I wrote, I am sharing the problems Adam listed to the ADA Coordinator so she can conduct the process to discern exactly the issues Adam raises.
Citizens also have the option to file a formal complaint with the Massachusetts Office On Disability (MOD) at the State level of government. I work closely with MOD, MassDOT and MBTA, along with Brookline officials, Cambridge Committee for Persons with Disabilities, and Boston’s ADA Coordinator to bring rightful results to accessibility problems. Please comply by contacting the offices above whenever you happen upon unsafe areas.
The only way a solution can correct a problem is to contact the people in positions to act. And they always act accordingly!
Girad,
What if someone complains about raised sidewalk due to excessive tree roots?
Unless the city is going to build a mini ramp above the roots, the only solution is to cut down a very mature tree.
Just curious how they decide trade offs..
Bugek –
Thank you for that very vital question!
First, the Commission On Disability and ADA/Section 504 Coordinator do receive frequent complaints about low-lying tree branches that are hazards to people with blindness and people with low vision and certain others who can be impacted. Because people have known me for nearly 20 years and being highly visible as Co-Chair for 12 years, they’d fire off an e-mail directly to me, and I’d contact the City arborist and he’d arrive at the address to prune branches.
Second, your question raises serious issues about ‘safe sidewalks.’ I am aware of City staff from DPW lifting up a section of sidewalks around Newton and cut roots and replace a fresh asphalt or pour new concrete block of sidewalk where the problem existed. A “mini ramp” will not be placed. Cutting down “a very mature tree” is NEVER an option! I’ll not defend nor speak on behalf of “trade offs” that may/may not be a matter within City governance as I do not work full-time in City Hall, but I will add that if/when/where a “trade off” compromises safety, then THAT IS ALWAYS WRONG! I do not care who the City staffer or elective public servant may be, they’d know my unambiguous position on such a hellbound act!
Contact me anytime relating to accessibility issues.
Closing out an issue peripheral to the subject of this thread, the Transportation Advisory Group is following up on Adam’s report with the Newton Police Department and other city departments. I appreciate him bringing the issue to our attention.
This thread is not an effective or appropriate mechanism to communicate this information or address any underlying hazards, nor is a personal back and forth.