in Newton, the discussion about parking in new developments is going in circles*. There’s a way out: stop worrying about on-street parking capacity.
Here’s how it goes. A developer files for a special permit to build more housing near transit. City councilors and their allies for whom fighting climate change and adding housing are priorities say there’s too much on-site parking in the plan. Cheap and convenient car storage leads to more driving. Other councilors and near neighbors say there’s not enough on-site parking. Without enough parking on-site, both residents of the new building and their guests will use already limited on-street parking in the area, at the expense of the existing neighbors. Still other councilors note that if there’s too much on-site parking, it’s not really transit-oriented development, and, therefore, there’s no need for as much housing.
Neighborhood concern about on-street parking results in too much off-street parking, which results in this precious commodity — homes near transit — being taken by folks who aren’t inclined to use transit, diminishing the positive impact of transit-accessible housing on climate change.
This conversation plays out again and again, most recently at 967 Washington St., a proposed 28-unit condo apartment building that is before the City Council as a special permit petition. (Six of the units will be permanently affordable.) All three arguments were made in the course of Land Use committee meetings on the petition.
Building excess parking capacity is not good. Access to convenient parking is correlated with higher car use. The cost to build parking, especially if it is underground or partially underground, drives up the cost of the housing the parking supports. Basic spatial limitations means that parking requirements act as a practical limit on the number of homes that can be built on a given property.
In Newton, there seems to be consensus that we need to build housing near transit to allow those who have transit-accessible jobs to avoid a car commute. And, since our transit is also near village centers, what would otherwise be car-trip generators, like groceries and schools, are accessible by foot. But, if we build too much parking, those who can and want to live car-free or car-lite compete for homes against those who need or choose to drive, wasting the opportunity to reduce motor vehicle travel. A common refrain from councilors objecting to the scale of projects like 287 Washington St.: this isn’t transit-oriented development, because there’s too much parking. Fair point.
Of course, the issues compound. If the city required less parking at a development like 967 Washington, there could be more homes overall and a greater percentage would be taken by those who need to drive less.
There is a downside to providing less on-site/off-street parking at a new development: if on-site parking is insufficient, residents of the development and their guests may/will park on the street. There’s a fixed amount of on-street parking. And, neighbors typically don’t want to give up that on-street parking. They either use it themselves or they don’t want the street parked up. Or, both.
The desire to protect the available on-street parking is understandable. If you’re used to being able to park on your street and used to there being an available spot pretty much all the time, having to compete with new residents and their guests for those spots is going to be a pain in the ass. Who wants that?
But, if we’re going to get the climate benefit of housing near transit, we’re going to have to make hard choices and sacrifices. In this case, we’re just going to have to stop worrying about on-street parking. It’s a fixed resource. And, we’re going to run out of it. So, we might as well accept that and move on. Because, until we have no more available on-street parking, limits on off-street/on-site parking won’t generate the kind of transit-oriented development we need: households who choose to live near transit and near village centers and drive a whole lot less.
My wife and I used to live in the South End. The two-building complex had probably a space for every two or three apartments. The spots were leased and wicked expensive. For about half the time we lived there, we had no car. We just walked, biked, and used the T. At some point we decided to buy a car. And, parking it was a huge hassle. We’d sometimes drive around for 30 minutes to get an on-street spot. Though we didn’t sell the car, we regretted owning it.
If either my wife or I had had a job that wasn’t walk-,bike-, or T-accessible, we would not have moved to the South End. If developments like 967 Washington St. aren’t forced to include too much parking and the neighborhood on-street parking gets used up, then prospective residents will do a similar calculus and self-select in or out.
The perceived need to protect an inventory of readily accessible on-street parking spaces acts as a block to meeting our climate objectives. The solution is to enact parking maximums for developments within a reasonable walk of transit. Until then, councilors need to decide which is the higher priority: protecting the globe or protecting neighbors’ access to convenient parking, which enables convenient driving.
Seems like a no-brainer.
A note about the need for commercial parking. As we build more housing around village centers, village-center businesses will need to rely less and less on people who come to village centers by car. But, during this transition, we’ll continue to need need parking for business patrons. Parking regulations can ensure that at least some of the fixed inventory of on-street parking is available for shoppers, diners, and other customers. Which might mean less is available for residents and their guests. Which would be a good thing. See above.
* The allusion is intentional. If you know, you know.
Or… you could prohibit folks who live in the new building from getting Newton parking stickers. Neighborhood is protected to some degree. Just a thought.
This seems like one particular NIMBY problem we can solve by parking signs and stickers. And yes, other communities do it this way, and yes it works. Not perfectly but it does.
You lost me when you compared the transit availability in the Washington street corridor to the south end. It is incredibly naive to think families can live here without cars, given the current paucity of off peak transit (forget that, there’s even a paucity of on peak transit). Transit frequency must be improved on the commuter rail and express busses before this conversation makes any sense.
If people who live in transit oriented developments, do not take public transit, is it really transit oriented?
If you’re going to support TOD, then support it. One space per unit max. No on-street parking. Ticket the heck out of illegally parked cars (especially overnight). Anything less is not TOD. Problem solved.
Saw what you mean, and do what you say.
Once you have kids, a car becomes a necessity. School activities, and later on soccer games, birthday parties, you name it. South end? Ok. Newton? Not a chance. The commuter rail is not the equivalent of the south end. Which makes me wonder why you moved to Newton, Sean? Sound like being careless would have been more to your liking.
We have a lot of problems with trash overflowing the dumpsters at the public housing at the end of walker street- the same street that that development is largely on. Where, I wonder, are they going to put the dumpster for the 28 units?
By the way, I am not suggesting that people (esp families) do not need cars, but rather this whole TOD thing is a sham to allow developers to build, build, build. It’s not TOD if people do not use public transit.
Mr. Lai,
“It’s not TOD if people do not use public transit.”
That’s exactly my point. If you require too much parking, you’re not going to fill the development with people who use public transit.
Carless.
AI at work….
Some people want to limit the number of cars people have. Why is the focus on just new developments?
One fairer way would be to require on-street parking permits and forbid issuing them to anyone that has a driveway (or make them super expensive for those people).
Another way would be to make a second (or more) car at a residence pay much much much higher property tax.
For those advocating for fewer cars — would you support these steps? This would result in a reduction of cars from todays levels. Real change. Not the itty bitty change focused just on new developments and that is disproportionately felt by what is more likely a first time home buyer with a young family.
How much do you want to bet Sean’s family has more than one car?
Have any of you people in my native city ever watched the terrible show, Parking wars? It shows
the ultimate hell resulting from citywide parking access becoming a commercial cow for the city. Do not allow any of these developments to build less than two car spaces per unit. Otherwise the availability of parking goes away, leading to the city making parking as difficult as possible. Is this really the future you want for Newton?
Keith,
Good ideas. I especially like the idea of escalating excise taxes for multiple cars.
There are lots of tools in the tool box. My focus is on new development. I encourage you to contact your city councilors and suggest your ideas.
Reducing parking requirements, however, would not increase the cost of homes in new developments. Quite the opposite. Reducing the parking requirements would lower the cost to build the homes, and might also allow the developer to build more units, spreading the cost of the land across more units.
Limiting the number of cars is a stick, not a carrot. If society really wants to change peoples habits, they’re ( we’re) going to need plenty of carrots.
So far, most of the things I hear about are negative – ban this, tax that – and it’s a shame the green line that used to go through Newton corner was torn up, because that would have been a good carrot ( although I imagine it was a long ride into town)
Hopefully the vision for the upgrades to the commuter rail stops in Newtonville will someday make it easier and more fun to take the train, even if it only goes to south station and Worcester, both places I rarely need to go to.
We have child tax credits- even though the population of the planet and the green house gas emissions graphs are practically indistinguishable. Kind of a mixed incentive for a planet on its way to 10 billion people.
Anyways, my daughter and her husband live in Harlem. They were carless until they had they’re first child ( our first grandchild). Partly because of Covid ( no Lyft, Uber, nor taxis ) and partly because, as I said, once you have a kid things get “complicated”, they ended up buying a car last year. They don’t use it nearly as much as a person in the suburbs, but they use it for trips where taking the subway even in NYC would be just too many hours of travel with a small child.
They don’t have parking so they have to move their car around because the parking switches sides of the street every other day.
My daughter teaches in Harlem at a public school. The kids have to pay to take the subway to get to school. How crazy is that?
I grew up carless in Manhattan – that was the norm. It was cheaper to take the bus/subway or occasional cab than to pay for car insurance there.
As to it being “ridiculous” for kids to pay to use public transit to school, how is that any more ridiculous than having to pay to ride the school bus in Newton? Especially since we were able to buy inexpensive monthly student subway/bus passes. The cost per year of those passes was much less than the cost of Newton school bus passes, using public transit gives much more flexibility for after school activities or just hanging out with friends, and keeps streets from being even more clogged up than they already are.
My daughter works at a second chance high school, in Harlem, where the kids are 18-21 and many have been incarcerated. Many are parents. They are there because they are trying to get there lives on track. Often they are harassed by police on their way to school ( the stop and frisk). They live in food deserts ( walk to a grocery store? A bodega maybe where they can get junk food).
Many are trying to escape gang life. They shouldn’t have to pay to get to school.
I am sorry but this is eactly wrong. Decoupling the cost of parking with the cost of housing is a carrot. It is a direct financial incentive (in the form of a lower cost of housing) to not have a car.
Owning fewer cars is not a punishment, it’s a choice.
If the public transit in a community doesn’t take a significant percentage of the population where they need to go, and there’s no plan at the state level to increase the T, commuter rail, and bus lines, then I don’t understand why we keep having this same conversation.
Forget about getting to work, you need a car to live your life in Newton. If you want to cut down on the use of cars locally, get creative about how to do that without depending on state-level public transportation.
Sean – You should try having a conversation with someone who’s forced to use the bus lines to get to work because they can’t afford a car. The buses don’t run regularly, don’t drop them off at a point convenient to their work, and add hours of commuting time to their daily lives. Their lives are very hard, and I don’t hear any empathy about that.
And please don’t lecture me about increasing affordable housing while we watch the price of all levels of housing increase at a record rate.
Jane,
I don’t understand your point. I’m proposing that a 28-unit development be built with less parking. Let the developer worry about finding buyers who can reasonably rely on the admittedly inadequate commuter rail schedule. The commuter rail doesn’t serve everyone’s needs, but evidence tells us it’s adequate for some.
There are about 4.87 million people in the metro Boston area. You don’t think we could find 35 to 60 to fill 28 units with .5 to 1.0 cars-per-unit of parking given all the amenities within walking distance.
I’ll grant you that most people need a car to live in Newton. But, that doesn’t mean that everybody needs a car to live in Newton.
The developer doesn’t have to worry about finding people to buy because the folks who live there can just park on the street. This isn’t a “let capitalism figure it out” type of answer. The developer will be long gone before and Newton residents will have to suffer the consequences. You argue for less parking but there is parking on the street. More people parking on a street that’s 3 cars wide will make a two way street one lane. Newton doesn’t have the basic infrastructure to support parking on the street.
Frank,
“The developer doesn’t have to worry about finding people to buy because the folks who live there can just park on the street.”
I get that. But, so long as we have extra on-street capacity because we require too much off-street capacity, this will be true, to our collective detriment. It’s time to let the on-street capacity fill.
“More people parking on a street that’s 3 cars wide will make a two way street one lane. Newton doesn’t have the basic infrastructure to support parking on the street.”
That’s an argument for disallowing parking on one side of the street. I wholeheartedly endorse.
Sure,if the restrictions are up then I’m ok but the fact is they aren’t. I would support that kind of restriction assuming the government thought long and hard about how much space is needed for snow + safe two way travel and made sure the road has sufficient space for such
In addition, a public transit oriented development approach should have features to support that. Entrance on Washington st only makes sense if people are going back and forth from commuter rail and bus stops. There should also be cutouts on the side of the street for rideshares to pull over safely and cause minimal traffic disruption. None of these features exist. The developer is hiding behind the facade of supporting public transport because it allows them to build more units. Similar goals but a different incentive leads to a different outcome.
Sean says: “And, since our transit is also near village centers, what would otherwise be car-trip generators, like groceries and schools, are accessible by foot.”
This statement paints a pretty sunny picture of the current state of transit and village centers. And that’s speaking as someone who believes Newton is uniquely well-suited to providing future “15 minute neighborhoods” where many of everyday life’s travel needs can be done by a relatively short walk.
The current level of transit service, both frequency and mode, is simply not enough to be the “be all and end all” of determining parking policy. It’s a piece, but not the only piece. I strongly support better commuter rail on the Washington St corridor, but getting it running at closer to subway-type service is no less than a decade away.
My view is we need to make progress winnowing down every significant need for people to drive in Newton by filling them with viable opportunities. Figure out where markets and small grocery stores could go in new development to serve the greatest number of people. They won’t serve every person for every grocery trip, but they will capture convenience trips. Encourage a store like a City Target, the modern equivalent to the Woolworth stores that used to anchor many main streets, to make more basic retail accessible by foot or short drive. Look for unique local business opportunities as parts of clusters of other “useful” and “interesting” stores.
Or my current crazy idea, use a data-driven travel system like Via, which runs NewMo, to help reduce the insanity that is travel to Newton sports. Right now, we have parents and caregivers driving kids all over the city for games and practices. If a family has no ability to travel, those kids either carpool or don’t play. These trips are all scheduled and off-peak. We should be able to get kids where they need to go on-time and less hassle while reducing vehicle miles traveled and reducing the parking needs at our parks and playing fields.
These changes are “long game” and involve intensive planning and negotiation. Unlike transit improvements, however, they are under local control. While they will allow more people (but still a relatively smaller percentage) to be car free, they will allow many more people to be “car lite”: one car instead of two, and fewer miles traveled.
That’s how we get parking demand down AND reduce traffic congestion AND reduce VMT AND bring benefits to Newton residents, families, and businesses.
Last contrarian view: it would be really great to have a bicycle/pedestrian plan with real commitments in place before we begin to push a lot of parking out of developments and onto streets. It’s hard enough to get bike lanes installed in neighborhoods where every house has a driveway and street parking is used for convenience, landscapers, and guest. Luckily, Newton is working on a bike/ped plan now. It needs to be integrated with our zoning and special permit policies.
Mike,
Your long-term vision is a good one. But, you are too pessimistic about the near-term.
Take a look at 967 Washington. Depending on how you count the blocks, it’s 3 or 4 blocks from the Newtonville commuter rail station, 3 or 4 blocks from Star Market, 5 or 6 blocks from Trader Joe’s, 5 blocks from Newtonville center, 2 or 3 blocks from Horace Mann and the Albermarle fields, 2 or 3 blocks from F.A. Day, 7 or 8 blocks from Newton North. It’s a reasonable walk to the library, West Newton, &c.
Sure, more frequent service on the commuter rail will make things even better, but the commuter rail is a viable option to driving downtown for plenty of people. Right now. It would be very straightforward for a couple, a small family, reasonably mobile seniors to live pretty car-lite, if not car-free in the new development. Right now.
And, there are similar situations all over the city. Right now.
We can keep making excuses for insisting on car-intensive infrastructure, like excess parking in multi-family developments, or we can build to attract people who can take advantage of the very real opportunities for walking and biking that already exist.
Great ideas, Mike. That’s the kind of creative thinking we need to solve the problem until public transit in this state reaches a level where it’s actually useful to a significant portion of the population. We need more “car-lite” plans that are under local control right now. A commitment to car-lite initiatives will get us closer to our goals – now – than beating our heads against the State House wall for the next ten years.
“Adequate for some” is nowhere near good enough. Spending the time/effort/resources to find 35-60 people willing to live without a car, when car-lite solutions sit right under our noses just makes no sense.
Sean, if these “opportunities for walking and biking already exist in many places”, they are tenuous, fragile, and unplanned in most. We have no explicit planning process to create or preserve these opportunities within government. The underpinnings of this lifestyle need to be robust and redundant. In fact, we don’t have any explicit ways to identify them, or create them, or make them better.
One of the big problems with encouraging car-free or car lite living is that it isn’t about static destinations. It’s about events and social opportunities as well. It does hit families the hardest as people here have said. I don’t think we get very far by denying the importance of access to sporting events or other activities that are today done by car. In fact, only be acknowledging them can we find ways to work around them that are accessible to all.
And “accessible for all” is important. I don’t just want to create new housing that’s, for instance, skewed to people who don’t have kids because we haven’t acknowledged that driving is pretty useful for Newton parents. Instead, I want to come up with new ways that people of all levels of means and anywhere in the city can spend less time and trouble driving their kids around. That includes people who never had the opportunity to do so in the first place.
I know this is somewhat complementary to the issue of parking in new developments. I return to my main point: if we don’t have a map of realistic 15 minute neighborhoods for different people with different requirements for transportation, we aren’t doing the best job we can to promote realistic car free and car lite living. If people are going to make a commitment to not own a car (or a second car), the city should make a similar commitment to supporting that lifestyle long term. These are decisions that can’t be reversed on a dime.
Michael,
I would encourage you to adopt an and/both approach.
I am going to repeat a fact that seems to be eluding people whose lives are dependent on cars. There are people whose lives are not dependent on cars. And a bunch of them moved into 28 Austin street. That building was required by the city and critics to have lots of underground parking spaces, and as it turns out, more than was required for the tenants. That excess capacity is now being rented out to businesses for their employees. Imagine, the people who choose to move into this building may be walkers, walking to restaurants, and bread bakeries, and dry cleaning.
@Jack – that excess capacity being rented to businesses sounds like a positive to me. Parking for employees is a real problem for many businesses who hire people who can’t afford to live in Newton and don’t have time to take circuitous public transit options that don’t run frequently enough and take more than twice as long as driving here does. It’s great that they now have someplace for all day parking near their jobs.
Jack,
Beautifully put.
Jack or Sean,
It would be great to have a resident of Austin Street post here about their car free life. If you know someone, invite them to post. So far, I don’t know of anyone hear who walks the walk, just a lot of talk.
I see the NewMo car parked at Austin Street often. Is that one way they get around when they can’t walk to their destination?
I’m curious about newMo. Is it like Uber, but run by the City? Or is it private?
@Rick, there are plenty of car-light and some car-free people in Newton. The village structure, the T, and the advent of services like newMo, Lyft, and ZipCar, make this life easy and convenient.
I live near Newton Highlands Village. My wife and I own a car, but I drive less than once per week. The D line gets me to and from work about as quickly as driving would, with less hassle and far less expense. I shop on foot or via delivery (e.g., from Marty’s). I get my 10k steps nearly every work day without extra effort. When the D line breaks, I take the commuter rail or grab a Lyft. We eat 80% of our meals out within walking distance of home. Finally, we save a fortune by getting by with one car that will last us 15+ years. Not everyone can arrange their lives as we have, but for those who can, it’s lovely!
Here. Why can’t my auto correct be smarter? Stupid artificial intelligence is exactly that- artificial.
Well duh that was a google away from an answer
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/transportation-planning/newmo
Looks pretty good and only 2 dollars per ride.
I’ll have to try it, although my work day is from 10-8pm some days 6:30 pm can work for me.
Also, I like the approach of limited/no parking on a close to public transit development like this to provide one less marketable feature to developers. It seems to me there is a misaligned incentive for developers to push for maximum resident parking benefits to drive up demand and thus the prices for Newton housing units and we never get anywhere close to more affordable housing. Let’s test market demand when the units don’t come with on-site parking privileges. Perhaps, this is a way to accomplish truly affordable housing options in Newton.
I agree with the statement about cars and kids. Once you have to bring a kid to parties, after school activities, etc a car becomes necessary in Newton. How many public school buildings are accessible via public transit. If your kid comes home via school bus at 3 PM an adult needs to be home for young kids. If the elementary school isn’t on public transit how is that young child leaving the after school program? A parent needs a car.
If the middle school or high school student plays a sport or is in theater and music programs, a car makes pick up time easier. I can’t vision my family living near the green line (which we do) with no car. Brown and South provided school buses after school on certain hours, but not necessarily public transit. Trying to think how living near the Waban stop would get me to Brown to see a school musical or band concert at night. Sure, I could take an Uber. But that school musical requires pick up at 6 every night during tech week, which I can’t picture a parent being able to pick up without a car. (A carpool, which we did) required parents to have cars.
I was intrigued by the statement about carrots vs sticks. How about instead of providing parking, the unit is available for less per month if you don’t need to park a car every night. Hopefully between zip cars and Ubers and bikes and trains and busses that resident is able to live in the unit. (The flip side is if you need a parking space for a car overnight, the monthly fee for the unit is more.)
If you decide you need a car, you pay for the spot. If you give up your car, you get a discount on the rent.
Just a thought.
NewtonMom, parking spaces are often broken out in the rent, so you know how much it costs and can, I believe, decline it. The problem is that the city requires a certain number of spots to be built. That may lead to extra spaces, greater cost, or smaller number of units. It may also induce demand for parking since people know it is available for a price.
As part of a major reality check, many developers need to realize that Newton is not going to become “The Next Kendall Square”.
The city and village centers themselves are a lot more suburban with a very different target demographic, as in people looking to start families and raise their kids. First time home owners, parents raising children in school, Adults in their 30s/40s are a very different target audience than people “fresh out of college” who still want the hustle and bustle of urban city life and prefer/tolerate taking the MBTA anywhere that’s not 1-2 blocks away. (Yes, many of them still want the night life and to enjoy the perks of younger years, but they are saddled with more responsibilities/obligations they need to juggle/balance; that all nighter at The Middle East or The Sinclair becomes planning a milestone birthday party or a Bar/Bat Mitzvah.)
The city itself is also very spacious, with driving a primary mode of transportation between village centers and very limited public transit. The reality is grocery/convenience stores, restaurants, entertainment centers, gyms, and religious centers are not “a simple walk down the street”, you need to get in a car and drive there. We’re also a good 40-60 minutes away from Downtown Boston on Green Line and Commuter Rail. (It’s also very apparent that Newton cannot depend on a MBTA that’s still saddled with billions of debt from the Big Dig era and cutting back service in “secondary suburbs” outside the central Boston Area.)
As a result, Newton wants to fund it’s own dedicated bus/transportation service in/around the city, this means driving and perhaps biking will remain the primary mode of transportation for the foreseeable future. (Even if Newton were to fund its own public transportation service, it would likely be a money pit unless it is reliable enough to compete with driving; and this is before we get to COVID concerns that have made many reluctant to use crowded trains/buses.) This means that housing developers and city officials will need to plan accordingly, whether this means incentivizing parking development or expanding access to public parking.
Phil,
“The city and village centers themselves are a lot more suburban with a very different target demographic[.]”
I’m not sure that’s really true, but let’s assume it is. Whether or not village centers are more or less suburban is a choice. If we want to attract people to walk to village centers, we can add more housing around village centers.
“The reality is grocery/convenience stores, restaurants, entertainment centers, gyms, and religious centers are not ‘a simple walk down the street’, you need to get in a car and drive there.”
That’s simply not true in all parts of Newton. 967 Washington St. is a short walk from all of all of the above. The blocks north and south of Beacon St. between Centre St. and Walnut St. are another good example, kids would need to take the bus to the middle and high schools. Big parts of Auburndale are a walk from Williams, Star Market, and either Riverside or the Auburndale station.
Austin St. has a limited number of units so it doesn’t provide the kind of major cultural shift we need right away. We should focus on how each individual can contribute to the solution of car driven emissions in his/her own household, whether s/he owns a car or not – not depend on a few developments where the residents may or may not own a car. Several excellent ideas have been proposed in this thread then quickly glossed over.
It’s not a parking problem – the problem is getting people to change habits so they use their cars less often.
The answer seems pretty simple to me. Just building smaller condo developments with adequate parking. At our land use committee meetings the neighbors of these projects all say the same thing. They want these projects to be built in scale with the neighborhood.
Barry
Exactly. And as I said earlier, there’s already 100 (?) unit low income housing, apartments, and many multi family units upon our block, which is bounded on one side by walker street.
We’re already YIMBYs. People calling us NIMBYS need to look in the mirror for a change.
Rick,
One thing the city needs to do on priority is be more equitable in the distribution of multi-family housing. It should be legal (and just as legal) on any lot the same distance from or closer to a Green Line stop that 967 Washington is from (the nearer end of) the Newtonville commuter rail station to build multi-family housing. And, the City Council should be more equitable in their disposition of special permits.
The combined lots that will make up 967 Washington St. are 34,210 s.f. That works out to just under 36 homes per acre. The proposed 5-unit development at 145 Warren St., which is 23,399 s.f., works out to 10 homes per acre. The Warren St. development would be just as close to the Newton Centre T as 967 Washington would be to the commuter rail. Which project is
likely to be approved and which is touch-and-go? At least three councilors on the Land Use committee have declared 145 Warren St. too big for the neighborhood.
That kind of thinking compounds. Because there are buildings larger than two-families near 967 Washington St., it’s not out-of-context. And, its 28 units will then become context for another proposed development. (Which, to be clear, is a good cycle!) But, on the south side of the city, a five-unit development is in jeopardy because it’s not in keeping with it’s two-family neighbors (thought it really is, more later). Which means that, at worst, the new context will be a single 5-unit complex.
It’s ridiculous. Notably, it’s the slow-growth councilors on Land Use — Markiewicz, Lucas, and Laredo — who are fighting 145 Warren St. and, thus, exacerbating the inequity.
I would add that Mr. Bergman was part of the slow-growth slate and, if anything, was on the extreme end of even that group in his hostility to multi-family zoning in current Single Residence districts.
Where are most of the existing Multi Residence districts?
There is an interesting project coming up before the Land Use Committee Tuesday night. It was for 12 units and 22 (maybe 24?) parking spaces and has been scaled down to 9 units and 18 parking spaces, so still 2 @ units. Also all seem to be three bedroom.
It is unclear if these are rentals or offer an ownership opportunity.
It should be an interesting discussion
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/city-clerk/city-council/special-permits/-folder-2063
MaryLee,
Thank you for bringing up this project (50 Jackson St.). Yes, these will be condominiums.
General objections to size by slo-/no-growth councilors and objections to parking will result in fewer, larger, more expensive homes.
Progress!
@MaryLee, this project recently came before the Newton Fair Housing Committee. Pursuant to the HUD Reconciliation Agreement settling the claim against the city for withdrawing federal housing funds for the Engine 6 housing for chronically homeless persons, the NFHC and the city review all residential projects to determine whether they promote fair housing goals by meeting and/or exceeding legal requirements for affordability, accessibility, proximity to transportation, amenities, and jobs, and not discriminating against discrete protected groups. The Boylston/Jackson project was reduced in size because of neighborhood complaints about density and traffic, which means much larger units that are less affordable and no onsite affordable units. This is particularly galling since this is a conversion of commercial use to residential, and residential uses have by far the lowest traffic impact. Because of Newton’s progressive inclusionary zoning ordinance, however, the developer will contribute over $530,000 to fund affordable housing offsite. Thus, while this individual project does not contribute onsite affordable housing opportunities, it will support an overall increase in the number of affordable units in the city. Nevertheless, I would personally prefer to see more, smaller units for all income levels at this and every residential project close to transit and village centers. Reforming Newton’s restrictive zoning by allowing multi-family construction by right near villages and transportation would promote the City’s fair housing goals far better than a special permit process that just makes it economically infeasible for developers to create affordable units except in much, much larger projects.
@John White
Sounds like they should put a 28 unit( or even more ) development in your neighborhood then!
Don’t know why my block – which already has 100 unit low income housing, and 10 unit apartment building, numerous multi family units, and only the commuter rail and busses, needs to get all the development!
Geesh.
Developers take notice!
@Rick Frank, I would be happy to have a 28-unit mixed-use development built in the underutilized Newton Highlands village, particularly if parking were limited and use of the D Line were incentivized. I’m sure the local businesses could benefit from the foot traffic. Barry Bergman has it wrong. It’s the single-passenger cars, not the people, that screw up our quality of life.
Anyhow, you asked if I exist. To the best of my knowledge, I do. Happy to prove it to you over a beer. Our professional interests overlap significantly.
@John White
Well, let’s make that development happen.
Green line makes more sense than Newtonville.
I haven’t stopped in at Newton Highlands for a while – we used to go to Lincoln Street restaurant occasionally – but I think that main building Lincoln was looking pretty grim a while back. It’s only 3 stories and looking kind of old.
Time to tear that down and put up 4 or 5 stories there.
Newton will never become the next Kendall Square until and unless the federal government comes in and takes by eminent domain 11 acres of land, as the federal government did for the NASA Space Shuttle program, putting it right near MIT. And when Massachusetts voted for George McGovern and not Richard Nixon, Nixon moved the Space Shuttle program to Houston. Along with shutting down the South Boston Army base, and the Naval Yards in Boston Harbor along with Ft Devens. Anything he could to hurt the Massachusetts Economy. Oh, and that included the Watertown Arsenal and the Springfield Armory. So, Kendall Square had a massive hole and a massive opportunity. As did Charlestown Naval yard.
But, Back to the thread and parking. 28 Austin Street has excess parking spaces, having decoupled the space from the rent. Its $175 a month to rent indoor parking according to their web site. And there are only two apartments left in the Trio building. Both developments in scale with a village center bounded by the Mass Pike. And both providing alternative forms of housing for people who choose to live that life style.
Jack – If we were truly committed to transit-oriented developments, Chestnut Hill and Waban would be prime locations for them. Both villages have a T stop right smack dab in the middle of them and within walking distance of any part of the village.
Jane,
Testify!
Making multi-family housing legal within a walk of the Green Line villages cannot happen soon enough.
I second (or third) that Jane!
Sean, thanks for sparking this dialog.
I just did.
But first some basics: Minimum parking requirements require builders to construct a minimum number of parking spaces. There are many problems with these requirements, most notably that they don’t even accomplish what they’re supposed to: preventing curb congestion. Street parking always fills up first, because it’s usually free. So no matter how much off-street parking is available, this will always be a problem.
The cost of parking gets passed along to society in the form of expensive housing, and because parking requirements make driving cheaper and housing more expensive, we end up with cities with a lot of driving and little housing. Cities already have ample parking. The Research Institute for Housing America found that in almost every city parking densities per acre far exceeded the population densities. America doesn’t have a parking crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis!
So w/o further ado, here are the studies. And a big shout out to our fellow @PavelNShirley who conducted this research and our program coordinator @NYCLiggett who managed the project. Pavel will be doing an op-ed on this in the coming weeks, so be sure to give them a follow
Study #1: A study by two urban planning researchers from UCLA found that adding garage parking to rental units raised costs to renters by 17% per year. In total, requiring parking spaces costs carless renters $440 million annually.
Study #2: The Center for Neighborhood Technology noted that parking requirements impact subsidized affordable housing development. W/o parking requirements affordable housing developers could fund 6.5 times as many units at a purchase price of $80,000
Study #3: A study in Los Angeles found that buildings with parking requirements increased rents by $200 a month for apartments and raised selling prices by $40,000 for condos.
Study #4: A study comparing New York and Los Angeles found that parking requirements induce developers to produce more parking than they would otherwise, raising development costs and housing prices.
Study #5: A study of affordable housing developments found that requiring one parking space per unit increased costs by 12.5% while mandating two spots per unit raised costs by 25%.
Study #6: An analysis of 37 multifamily housing developments in Seattle found that parking requirements overestimate low-income tenant’s demand for parking and raise rents by 15%, an additional cost borne especially by those without cars
Study #7: In California and Arizona, parking was associated with a $56,000 per unit increase in construction costs.
Study #8: A study of municipalities across the U.S. found that parking spaces typically add 300-400 sq ft required per unit in a building, raising construction costs and decreasing the number of buildable units per lot.
Study #9: In New York City, developers usually build the minimum possible amount of parking, suggesting that minimum parking requirements inflate the supply of parking and create an opportunity cost with other land uses such as housing or greenspace
Study #10: In 2012, Seattle lowered its minimum parking requirements, leading developers to build 40% less parking, a cost-saving of $537 million or $20,000 per housing unit.
Study #11: A 1999 study in San Francisco found that single-family + condominium homes were 10% more expensive when they included off-street parking. W/o minimum parking requirements, thousands more San Franciscans would be able to afford mortgages.
Study #12: A 2015 study of Los Angeles found that minimum parking requirements failed to reduce congestion and instead increased housing costs and limited development opportunities in public spaces.
Study #13: A UCLA study found that off-street parking requirements make it functionally impossible for some homeowners to convert garages into secondary housing units by requiring them to finance up $18,000 in replacement parking construction.
Study #14: A 2021 study found that after Buffalo, NY ended its minimum parking requirements nearly half of development projects produced fewer off-street parking spaces + that in areas public transit access existing developments were able to densify
Study # 15: The 2014 book The High Cost of Minimum Parking Requirements found that parking requirements reduce the number of units in an apartment building by approximately 13%.
Study #16: A 2018 study found that the additional construction costs of minimum parking requirements were passed on from developers to tenants in the form of higher rents.
Study #17: A 2020 study in Southern California found that minimum parking requirements can comprise up to 30% of the costs of commercial construction.
Study #18: Many consumers even prefer not to buy parking with their housing. A 2006 study by a San Francisco nonprofit found that single-family homes without parking sold 5 days faster while condominiums without parking sold 40 days faster.
Study #19: New York City parking requirements constrain the construction of new retail and housing units due to unaffordable minimum parking requirements associated with new construction.
Study #20: A 2012 study by NYU’s Furman Center found that underground parking spots cost up to $50,000 per spot. Furthermore, developers pass off the costs associated with building parking onto residents through more expensive housing.
Study #21: A 2016 study in Sweden found that minimum parking requirements reduced the housing stock by 1.2% and increased rents by 2.4% in an example suburb.
Study #22: A 2016 report from UCLA Professor Donald Shoup found that because minimum parking requirements are based on the number of units per lot, the cost smaller low-income housing greatly increased when minimum parking requirements are imposed
Study #23: In 2012 a study by the Portland, OR Bureau of Planning and Sustainability found that minimum parking requirements could reduce the number of units in an apartment building by up to 40% and increase rents by up 65%.
Study #24: A 2018 study of parking inventories in 5 U.S. studies found that Seattle’s parking spaces are worth $35 billion in total, a cost of $117,877 per household.
Study #25: A 1995 study of office parking in Southern California found that even during peak demand, 44% of parking spaces remained empty.
Study #26: Parking requirements impose an additional $4,400 cost per vehicle that is borne by everyone, including non-drivers, through higher housing costs and environmental costs, according to a 2020 study.
Study #27: A 2004 study by the Federal Highway Administration found that minimum parking requirements raise the effective cost of an urban home by at least $52,000, at most $117,000, and on average $85,000.
Study #28: A 1999 study of in-lieu programs which allowed developers to pay a fee in lieu of constructing parking spaces found that these programs reduced the costs of development in addition to other benefits like improved urban design.
Study #29: A 2014 study by Nelson/Nygarrd Consulting found that parking was “universally oversupplied” and that the overconstruction of parking came at significant opportunity costs of urgently-needed housing or economically productive businesses.
Study #30: A 2004 study found that parking requirements cost $20,000 per space and reduce the potential number of housing units per acre by 20%.
Study #31: A study of minimum parking requirements in Mexico City found that before their abolition these requirements comprised between 30-40% of the costs in large real estate developments.
Study #32: Parking requirements add between 6-16% to per-unit construction costs, according to a 2015 study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association.
Study #33: A 2015 study found that parking requirements in Los Angeles increase the cost of building a shopping center by at least 67%.
Study #34: A 2010 study of minimum parking requirements in New York City found that the city oversupplied parking, requiring residents to pay for more parking than they would otherwise have desired and raising the cost of housing.
Study #35: A 2010 study of Los Angeles’ adaptive reuse ordinance found that exempting older buildings from minimum parking requirements resulted in apartments and condominiums that were $10,000 and $20,000 cheaper than they would have been otherwise.
Study #36: Parking spaces often cost more than the entire net worth of American households. For instance, the average construction cost of an aboveground parking space is $24,000, greater than the median net worth of Black or Hispanic households.
Study #37: In a 2017 study, researchers found that minimum parking requirements make housing 13% more expensive for those without cars.
study 1 https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
study 2 https://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_Stalled%20Out_0.pdf
study 3 https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/10/access-44-Parking-Requirements.pdf
study 4 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272123368_Turning_Housing_Into_Driving_Parking_Requirements_and_Density_in_Los_Angeles_and_New_York
study 5 https://vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
study 6 https://www.trpc.org/DocumentCenter/View/406/Who-Pays-for-Parking-PDF
study 7 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-637.pdf
study 8 https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/The_Urban_Renaissance.pdf
study 9 https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2011.534386
study 10 https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-6/how-developers-respond-to-parking-reform/
study 11 https://doi.org/10.3141%2F1685-20
study 12 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1092879
study 13 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0739456X17741965
study 14 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225
study 15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005011
study 16 https://jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/1340/1188
study 17 https://scholarship.claremont.edu/pomona_fac_econ/11/
study 18 https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2006-06-01/reducing-housing-costs-rethinking-parking-requirements
study 19 https://www.manhattan-institute.org/nyc-zoning-laws-hinder-economic-recovery
study 20 https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/furman_parking_requirements_policy_brief_3_21_12_final.pdf
study 21 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X16302232
study 22 https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/05/access48-webprint_cuttingthecost.pdf
study 23 https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDCI/Codes/ChangesToCodes/NeighborhoodParking/Portland%20Parking%20Study%20Summary.pdf
study 24 https://www.mba.org/Documents/Research/RIHA/18806_Research_RIHA_Parking_Report.pdf
study 25 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369508975617
study 26 https://vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf
study 27 https://app.dcoz.dc.gov/Content/Search/Download.aspx?exhibitid=45932
study 28 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0739456X9901800403
study 29 https://doi.org/10.3141%2F2537-19
study 30 https://www.smartergrowth.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Affordable-Housing-Progress-Report-April-2004.pdf
study 31 https://itdpdotorg.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LESS-PARKING-MORE-CITY-2PG_Edited.pdf
study 32 https://nelsonnygaard.com/publication/releasing-the-parking-brake-on-economic-development/
study 33 https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/08/Putting-a-Cap-on-Parking-Requirements.pdf
study 34 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.232.7109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
study 35 https://escholarship.org/content/qt1qr84990/qt1qr84990.pdf?t=lnrkm2&v=lg
study 36 https://www.dropbox.com/s/16tq2fl98ltz0iy/Pseudoscience.pdf?dl=0
study 37 https://escholarship.org/content/qt3nk8c382/qt3nk8c382_noSplash_99b6ce111290a54e1bf56e1377fb6e9e.pdf?t=qhqfbk
gah of course i cut off the beginning of my comment – this research was complied by Aaron Carr, the director of the housing rights initiative. A nonprofit based in New York investigating real estate fraud and connecting tenants to legal support.
It Begins with the following preamble, and you can find the whole thread, with all references embedded, here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1420879641997418500.html
“Minimum parking requirements are unaffordable housing requirements.
Here are 37 studies showing how the cost of parking gets passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents.
Jane,
Wonder why that won’t happen until hell freezes over? Money works wonders.
Wonder why the climate summit just kinda fizzled out? Green – as in money.
Everyone is NIMBY about something. The fact that I can walk not one – but two! – pot shops is a big reason I’m staying in the neighborhood.
Just kidding.
Now we just need a brothel, (or two) and Newtonville will be the Amsterdam of Massachussets, bike lanes and all!
@Rick Frank. I’ve sometimes thought that my Newton Highlands would be the perfect place to test your hypothesis about transforming village centers into dynamic and radically fun places for people of all ages.
I can’t begin to guess how many words have been posted on this blog musing about why people chose to rent at either Austin Street or Trio. Did they move there to take the commuter rail or express bus to Boston, get their kids into good schools,or just because they fell in love with the ambiance of Washington Street, the Mass Pike and the air conditioning and heating units atop neighboring buildings. I really don’t know the answer to this question, but I’m surprised that nobody has tried to find out from the residents themselves.
Rick – When Union Twist opens, I’ll be able to walk to two cannabis retail shops as well.
I lived in N’ville for 25 years. For the first 15, we walked down to the center for one reason or another four or five days a week. In the last ten, it just died a slow death of banks and nails.
We moved to Waban 12 years ago, but I rarely go to the village center – nothing much there, which seems to make most Wabanites happy. But remember that little space in between Cafe Nero and Starbucks in N’ville we all laughed about during the Austin St. planning stages. No way was that going to amount to anything other than a slab of concrete. Well, it’s become my go-to place to have a smoothie with a friend (I highly recommend the mango from Nero). Then I hop over to Star to pick up a few items, and maybe walk over to the new CVS. Against all odds, N’ville’s coming back to life.
IMO, the question is how much is too much? That, and when will residents in those parts of the city that are clearly transit friendly but never seem to have a development built near their homes be more amenable to taking on the responsibility of creating more housing?
@Jane I lived in Brookline during college and a few years after. My apartment building had 90 units and 30 parking spaces. I played the drums so I needed a car to get to gigs, so I had a car. But I left it in my spot because I didn’t want to lose the spot.
The green line was a block away.
When I moved to Newton, it was basically a move to have a family. I didn’t expect to have the “Brookline” lifestyle when I moved to Newtonville. That was a choice. My sister lives in Hubbardston MA. She has 10 acres, 2 horses, a couple of donkeys, chicken, and a large garden. That’s her choice.
Would she move to Newton and try to exercise her “right” to have large animals in Newton? No. But, we assume the converse is true. That growth is inevitable and we just have to accept that.
As you might have read, I have long been a believer in population growth as the ultimate issue since I was a big fan of Issac Asimov’s essays on the topic since I was in high school. Basically back then there was concern about food being scarce. Science was able to overcome that problem, to a large degree, and we have been able to feed the 8 billion people on the planet now ( with of course problems in areas).
But, if you look at a graph of population next to a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere, the graphs are essentially the same- an exponential growth curve.
We are projected ( by some models ) to have another 2 billion people in the planet by 2050. Can we really expect to outpace that with cutting back?
My favorite analogy is the following question:
Algae is growing on a pond exponentially ( doubling) and will cover the pond in 30 days. On which day is the pond half covered?
Anyways, growth is the problem no one wants to talk about. Both “infinite” economic growth and population growth.
We are the problem.
We are the problem – I’m in total agreement, Rick.
Putting short-term changes of habit in place while long-term solutions are implemented isn’t such a bad idea. Obviously we need to address long terms problems, but that’s best addressed at the state, national, and international levels. In the meantime, we can work on changing habits locally. But to think the long-term solutions will solve the climate change problem if we as individuals don’t change our energy guzzling, stuff-consuming ways is fanciful thinking. If we are the problem, and I believe we are, then changing how we live our lives will be an essential ingredient in saving this planet for our grandchildren.
BTW, many years ago, we tried to buy a house in B’line because I loved the community, and at the time I could walk to work (gasp). However, life with a 6 month old still wouldn’t have been manangeable without a car.
We then managed to find a house we could afford in Newton. At a certain point, I traded in a 70 minute total daily commute to B’line in my gas guzzling car for a 10 minute total commute by finding a job close to home. It would take someone more knowledgeable than I to figure out which solution was more energy efficient, but even back in the day, people were making personal decisions to prevent the crisis we find ourselves. I don’t understand the aversion to doing so now.
I have no aversion to trying to reduce my carbon usage.
But let’s not forget the driving force here is housing for workers, signed by mayor fuller
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
Workforce housing is what’s driving this development. A climate change benefit is a secondary goal.
There is mo much transit-oriented development potential in Waban and Chestnut Hill. If the city is truly committed to TOD, then they need to lead the way. The focus on development is mainly on the northern part of the city. As Washington gets built out, and Northland and Riverside are beginning to get underway, the long range planning now needs to focus on these two villages, Waban and Chestnut Hill. I’m not holding my breath that this will occur anytime soon. I do not put the onus of responsibility on developers. They will build where they have opportunities to build. The onus is on our elected city councilors and mayor to make this happen.
Bruce,
Agreed.
Feel free to add Newton Centre to the list.
There’s also a great opportunity for development at the CVS property near the Eliot station.
The property where Walgreen’s was, all 36,000 sq. ft. of it, in the heart of Newton Centre now sits empty. The city owns two lots that abut that. The city should intervene and do whatever it can to ensure that becomes home to some small units and affordable housing. Add a grocery store on the ground level and that could be true TOD. But that isn’t going to happen organically.
Thank you for continuing to remind us of this huge opportunity, MaryLee.
Rick – economic growth per capita is directly correlated to falling birthrates. Over history, labeling humans and their desires for improved standards of living as “problems” has taken societies to very dark places.
Adam B
The status of women is highly correlated to lower birth rates as well. I’m all in favor of that.
That is one of the main reasons we see such high population in rural less “developed” countries.
Economic growth per capital means consumption growth- and with that come CO2.
If we’re lucky, the population will model the logistic S curve, flatten at 10 billion.
But then will it decrease? Do economists ( besides Herman Daly ) have a model for a no growth economy?
Raising the status of women worldwide – allowing them to choose smaller families and have access to reproductive healthcare – is one of most important things we can do to reduce CO2.
I hope it’s possible.
It’s hard for us to improve public transit in Newton only because we need to rely on the state for the MBTA, but one thing we can control is operate more practical businesses. Grocery stores in every village center, coffee shops, ice cream places, quick service restaurants, and stores that sell miscellany that would avoid an Amazon order or a trip to Target (which is difficult to do without a car in much of Newton). I’d like to be able to walk to these types of places. Living in West Newton, I can easily walk to Trader Joe’s, a longer walk to Star.
We no longer have a coffee shop, no ice cream shop, there are a LOT of large vacant storefronts….what can village centers do to bring in practical businesses that reduce the need to hop in a car?
MMQC —
“We no longer have a coffee shop, no ice cream shop, there are a LOT of large vacant storefronts….what can village centers do to bring in practical businesses that reduce the need to hop in a car?”
You (and I) want stores near us that will allow us to drive less.
In order to succeed, businesses need customers.
Might I suggest that the answer is to create a bigger base of customers around our villages?
I’m one of the developers and owners of 28 Austin.
Just a quick note on actual parking utilization at 28 Austin Street:
Parking utilization is less than 1 vehicle per apartment.
The building’s 68 apartments — including 23 affordable apartments (33% of the total) — are 100% leased.
The City Council required that we build 90 private underground parking spaces for use of residents. (An additional 127 public parking spaces were built at ground level in the reconstructed Austin Street Municipal Parking Lot.)
Of the 90 resident parking spaces we were required to construct, one parking space was required to be provided to each of 23 affordable apartments without charge. We don’t currently track how many of the residents of the affordable apartments actually use their free parking space. We are currently gathering that information.
Residents of 43 market rate apartments rent 40 parking spaces. Per the City Council Order, “parking for the market rate apartments [is] charged separately … so as to reduce demand for parking ….” (As the City has been strict in enforcing its meters in the Austin Street Municipal Parking Lot, we don’t believe any residents park outside our underground garage.)
Hence, no more than 63 parking spaces — and possibly fewer depending on actual utilization by residents of affordable apartments — are used by the residents of 68 apartments.
There are at least 27 empty parking spaces that were built at a cost of over $2 million that remain unused by residents.
Hope that’s helpful information for framing an informed discussion about parking needs and cost implications for multifamily housing.
re: “…we don’t believe any residents park outside our underground garage.”
Have you counted the cars parked in the municipal spaces under the building overnight? There are nine at the moment and earlier in the pandemic it was regularly well over a dozen (I run early). I imagine some might be guests or nearby residents, but you also likely have market-rate residents opting not to pay for space yet, and that might also have reduced car needs due to WFH situations.
A few other questions:
Are the vacant spaces being rented to others during the day?
$2M for 90 total spaces or $2M for 27 spaces?
68-23 = 43?
P.S. Thank you Amy Sangiolo for 33% affordable housing in Austin St!
Jack, I have no way of answering those questions, but on occasion one of those cars is mine. I have sometimes left my car there overnight, when I want to walk home. I think that is legal (at least I hope it is).
I will also say that the street level parking is WAY underused. Always has been (before the pandemic I think as well, but my memory is fuzzy).
If I could go back in time, I’d wish that there would be fewer spaces, but wider ones overall. Perhaps when the lot is eventually restriped that could happen.
I think the parking lot disaster many opponents of Austin Street envisioned clearly didn’t happen. It might get tighter over time, if the Star Market lot is redeveloped, or they continue to use the lots for outside dining. But in general there is a lot of unused capacity. Maybe the new senior center will use up some of it as well.
As an aside, I will also say that once the project got built, it was very clear to me the public park wasn’t nearly big enough, and I overestimated its value. I’m incredibly glad they closed Bram Way (effectively doubling the useful space, and making it much safer to sit with kids without cars driving by), and I’ll be fighting to keep it closed. Having that sitting space with zero cars has really changed Newtonville. Scott, do you know of any plans to remove it?
(also, I love the mural btw. My kids and I watched it go up and got to talk to the artist.)
I think the parking situation across the city has indeed changed. I have had an office in Newton Center for over 25 years. I have no parking with it. I used to park, with a short pleasant walk, by crystal lake but alas that got more and more restricted so I had to start parking in Newton Centre.
That became a difficult task, especially with the App as you have to move your car every 3 hours if you don’t get a 12 hour space. Often there would be no spaces, if I had to leave and come back mid day all the lots would be full. That would mean parking in a permit area or someplace where I would get a ticket.
That has changed. First of all, the city has started a permit program for business with a row of the 12 hour spaces in the Pelham street lot, on a trial basis, I have a permit and only once has that row been full. I understand after the trial program, if they go forward with it, the spaces will be 1000.00 a year, which is worth it to me if things ever get back to pre Covid-19 levels.
Secondly, the lots are never full now. I believe this has to do with fewer commuters parking there to take the green line. More people are likely working from home. There may have been people parking at Austin street who took the commuter rail. I understand that ridership on the commuter rail is still fairly low.
I no longer am commuting out to Southborough every few days, either. That office of 60+ people, is still empty during the day. I’ve reduced my gasoline consumption drastically since covid.
If there’s anything positive that may shake out of all this we’ve all been coping with, is a reduction in the daily commute, and commensurate reduction in fuel.
For the record, I was agnostic on the development at Austin Street. I think it has worked out well. Recall that for quite a while a lot of that lot was used by the post office as well.
@Jack Prior… Jack, I always enjoyed your excellent sports photography when my daughter ran track at Newton North now a number of years ago. I hope you’re still providing that valuable community service.
One typo: there are 45, not 43 market rate apartments. So my sentence should have read “Residents of 45 market rate apartments rent 40 parking spaces.”
Our management team makes sure residents understand when they rent an apartment at 28 Austin that if they own a car they must rent an underground parking space. And the city’s meter enforcement officers do a crack job at enforcement.
So I’m pretty confident all our residents with vehicles are parking in our underground garage. With a full building and a very underutilized garage, we have every incentive to make sure our residents park their cars in our secure and temperate garage so do let us know if you see any repeat overnight offenders in the municipal parking lot.
$2 million is the estimated cost of designing, financing, and constructing 27 underground parking spaces. About $75,000 per parking space. That money could have been used to provide additional affordable housing or other community benefits.
Finally, Jack, I’m proud that 28 Austin is the most affordable privately built and financed apartment community in Newton. And at the time, in 2015, it was the first new mixed-income housing community approved in over 10 years.
But it almost didn’t happen. As we wrote when we acceded to Mayor Warren’s last minute plea to increase affordability from the city’s initial request of 25% to 33%: “We are aware that this increase is not included in our financial projections and represents for us a risk of finding some alternative source of funding or subsidy, but Austin Street Partners is willing to assume this risk.”
Fortunately, five months later, in May 2016, MassHousing announced its new and innovative Workforce Housing Fund which ultimately provided $1.3 million of financing to fill the gap and make 28 Austin financially viable. But for that we might well still have a crumbling parking lot on Austin Street.
@fignewtonville… we are very proud of the 28 Austin Plaza which has quickly become the most used and loved outdoor space in Newton. As such, it should be a model for other public private partnerships in other villages. We continue to work with the city and nearby property owners to make permanent the closing of Bram Way to allow the expansion of the Plaza. And we recently purchased beautiful planters to replace the unsightly Jersey barriers.
All props for the most excellent mural go to my wife Meryl Kessler. Though a lawyer and non profit leader, she is also a passionate supporter of public art, having created the beloved Halloween Window Painting Contest and more recently Newton OutDoors. Meryl suggested and, from start to finish, organized and oversaw the mural competition and its installation working with the Newtonville Area Council, New Arts Center, and Newton Community Pride. Austin Street Partners funded the mural with cooperation from the building owner, The Grossman Companies.
@Scott Oran,
I agree Austin Street deserves many of the superlatives you have written here, but I think that calling 28 Austin Plaza “the most used and loved outdoor space in Newton” is a wee bit of an exaggeration. I appreciate your exuberance but I respectfully think that prize goes to first to Crystal Lake, followed by Bulloughs Pond, the gardens at City Hall and lastly by the sidewalk in front of JP Licks.
Don’t forget all the outdoor dining space in Newton Centre at both restaurants and green space
Haha! Point well taken! Thanks!
Lisa P: How about the most used hardtop space? That seems fair actually. There are precious few places to gather with benches/tables in Newton with friends. Maybe the benches outside of Cabot’s, which sort of sit adjacent to the car dealership (which was a nice move by them).
Fig,
Newton Centre and Newton Highlands both have areas with multiple picnic benches.
That said, there is something special about the Bramway. (I know it’s officially Bram Way, but I want to see if I can make the Bramway a thing.)
The area in Newton Highlands isn’t particularly inviting. I seldom see more than a couple of people using it.
That is partially because the main business next to that space has been closed. There might be more activity when the Dining Car opens. When it was an icecream place there were more people lingering there. Bram way has 3 coffee shop feeders.
Sean:
It is the Coffee Courtyard. Or Coffee Court.
There are 3 coffee shops around its borders.
@Scott — I imagine some of your early residents were likely creative given lack of parking enforcement until now and the option to park in supermarket lot during the day now.
Unless the development could have avoided all underground parking (which perhaps was the proposal at one time?), the incremental cost of of additional spaces was likely less than the average cost. And are those spaces being rented to others to address business parking demand in the village? I have seen people loose rental parking spots in area due to demand.
With the coming upsizing of the Senior Center and revitalized Walnut St. businesses post-pandemic we’ll see what we have for capacity.