For a while I have been reading, with pleasure, the Fig City News. Its coverage of local news has been impressive even when the particular topic has little interest to me. Now Fig City News has added op-eds to its offerings, and Peter Bruce has posted a fascinating perspective on Newton’s approach to development. He challenges the notion that the new developments in Newtonville, laudable though they may be in other respects (homes for empty nesters and the elderly), are in fact magnets for tenants seeking to live near transit hubs. Bruce then proposes that local golf courses become sites for truly “transportation-oriented” housing. Needless to say, Peter’s observations stirred up controversy on the City Council.
Interesting Op-Ed on Development in Newton
by Bob Jampol | Jan 18, 2023 | Newton | 23 comments
Peter’s Op-Ed raises some interesting points. I would like to suggest a few of my own.
First, pandemic. I was a regular Commuter Rail user. I had a pass through my employer. Now I do not use CR and I work almost exclusively from home. Rail service is slightly worse than when I commuted, but it has been mostly restored and I could use it, but working from home is more efficient and has even less environmental impact.
I don’t live in Trio, but if I did would my change in work habits make Trio a failure, because I am not actually using the T? I don’t think so. As long as car ownership, and hopefully car use is reduced compared to the rest of Newton, then we’ve made progress. Transit-oriented development doesn’t *make* people take the T. We just assumed that transit was required to allow a certain number of people to do their jobs. Turns out that wasn’t the case.
No one could have predicted the pandemic’s impact on commute patterns. Normalizing work from home for a significant swath of the Newton working population is remarkable. It isn’t the planner’s or developer’s or council’s fault. The reduced impact is real though: we do know that almost everyone at Trio doesn’t own two cars, whatever they are doing. We can’t tell “empty nesters” not to live there, nor can we assume that empty nesters aren’t working.
We don’t know if it will stick. Perhaps in ten years Trio will have more people using an enhanced commuter rail station. The building will outlast the stay of its tenants. But their car ownership, and likely car use, will still be lower than much of the rest of Newton.
I think we do use “transit-oriented development” as a larger umbrella than the words say. Peter says that the some developments just need access to shops and restaurants, not transit. I agree that modern successful development does need access to shops and restaurants: the more trips that *can* be done without driving the better. But shops and restaurants strongly benefit from density to assure their existence and survival, and transit helps make that happen.
Customers may walk or bike, but workers need to come from somewhere, and ideally not by car. Drive along the Washington Street corridor and see the people at the bus stops. There are lots of people heading into Waltham, for instance. They are the “invisible” people that keep many of our businesses functioning. You’ll also see them biking on our streets, very early and very late. Good transit, safe streets, and density together make more sustainable development possible.
This is a complex topic, and rapid changes in our society do require us to continue to be thoughtful and not become complacent. Saying that Trio or Austin St has failed at Transit-Oriented Development, though, seems far too literal and pedantic to me.
Golf courses, on the other hand….
Having lived and commuted from Newton Corner and West Newton I would say the buses in N.C. really made the T the best option there. West Newton was not the case for me. Say the tall Gateway office building in Newton Corner had originally been made apartments, Commuters would would want to rent those because you walk out your front door hop on the 502 (. Which if you miss it catch the next 10 minutes later ) read the news and your at the Hancock building in 15 minutes. No paying for parking, dealing with Boston traffic, fender benders, missing work because your car is in the shop, gas station trips were like once a month. West Newton commute for me was walk a mile in the cold and if you miss the train, wait an hour on a concrete slab in the wind…. And the train cost way more. I guess my thought is if Newtonville or West Newton had the the T access of Newton Corner or Newton Center has a lot more commuters would be attracted to those buildings like trio. For these new buildings I bet Riverside gets a lot of T commuters but Dunstan street not many.
I think it should be noted that Council Pam Wright was original proponent of rezoning the golf course. Her proposal hasn’t even been seriously entertained by ZAP
Measuring the success of Trio as a Transit-Oriented Development during a global pandemic is fool’s folly. Worse yet, the prospect of zoning changes that might eventually encourage residential development of Newton’s golf courses. That would truly be a tragedy!
Newton should be actively working on a long term strategy to purchase or otherwise acquire all of the golf courses within the city. Each and every one of them should eventually be reforested. We should start right now with a reforestation plan for the one golf course the city already owns. City “leaders” have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. They have focused on saving a few trees here or there, when an incredible opportunity to create several urban forests is right in front of them.
I would love it if Pam Wright’s proposal to convert part of the golf courses by the T to housing was considered. I doubt between lawn care, pesticide use and fertilizer use either golf course is beneficial to the environment.
Recent history has show that the City will not be likely to take on the Golf Course owners and their membership. Given the low voter turn out in the last two Mayoral elections and the Northland Override, in the eyes of the City, Newton voters are much less scary. This one’s totally on us!
In a letter to Fig City News (excellent online coverage of Newton, its name notwithstanding), Kathy Pillsbury offers counterpoint to Peter Bruce’s thesis: https://figcitynews.com/2023/01/pillsbury-people-who-live-near-transit-in-newton-really-do-use-it-more-often/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pillsbury-people-who-live-near-transit-in-newton-really-do-use-it-more-often
Comments that T ridership during a pandemic need to be taken with a large grain of salt are on point. While this look at the data (map from the article at https://figcitynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NewtonBlockGroups2020-Commute-to-Work-Transit.pdf) hints at some relationship between transit access/proximity and usage, likely much can be explained by discretionary income, as well. (Note, for example, the higher usage perimeter all around Eliot than Waban or Chestnut Hill.)
@ Matt Lai – I agree that the Mayor should be seeking contributions in lieu of taxes from all the colleges and non-profit institutions in the City. What about naming rights for the new Senior Center? In short, there are other avenues available to seek revenues instead of always hitting the taxpayers of the City.
The only big $ companies are developers and the mayor needs them to preserve their $ for future campaign contributions (higher office)
I’ve very confused about Peter Bruce’s editorial. Perhaps Pam Wright who is footnoted with having the idea could help me out here. What legal measure do we think will work to “upzone” the golf courses?
Both are privately owned. Neither is in financial difficulty. I don’t play golf, so I’ve got no stake in this game, but this may be the most unrealistic concept from a zoning/permitting/legal perspective that I’ve ever heard. Are you proposing eminent domain? Upzoning just means allowing greater density to a plot of land. Which is functionally meaningless if you don’t own the land and can’t afford to buy it. You pay market price with eminent domain. Who is funding the hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire the golf club that is not for sale?
This is a classic red herring argument, meant to distract. Don’t build here, build over there, which sounds good on paper but is functionally unable to be used.
Same as building over the Mass Pike but not taking into account the many many millions to build the deck. Great idea in concept. Complete fails the reality test. (unless you want to build a 20 story building of course).
I welcome Pam chiming in here with how this might work btw. I personally find golf courses to be a poor use of space, and golf is a good walk spoiled. 😉
I do agree with Peter that as of right now, most of the tenants don’t seem to be using the commuter rail from Trio and Austin Street. But also I also feel that both projects have been very successful in other ways.
How is it any different from the city upzoning many properties owned by religious organizations. The Planning Department is always saying that to satisfy MBTA Communities the land just needs to be zoned, not built out.
Most of the properties being upzoned are private property
MaryLee:
The difference is intent by the owner of the land. For instance, if the owner of a failing golf course came to the city and asked for upzoning, that would make sense. The city would bargain and something similar to what Peter Bruce and Pam Wright propose could be built. Or you could do what happened by Newton South, and partner with a development partner.
If that was a possibility, I think everyone would jump on it. We’d be debating the use for ages, but an upzone concept could work.
But that’s not reality for the places that Peter Bruce references. You could certainly upzone their locations, but both golf courses are owned by a golf club membership that has no incentive or desire to sell and transform their golf course to housing.
And eminent domain combined with upzoning (new ownership AND new zoning) would be legal difficult to impossible, would be incredibly expensive (tens of millions of dollars), and that is BEFORE you build the housing. Plus you’d be tied up in court for many years.
If what you are suggesting is that we upzone the golf courses that will never be built out as a method to avoid the MBTA communities law, I don’t think that will work either. Intent matters. As does the impossibility of the ownership of the land changing the use in the near term. I don’t think that will meet any test. But others are more expert in the MBTA Communities Law.
The fact that it is private property being upzoned means very little. Religious organizations (like synagogues and churches building affordable housing on surrounding land) do get upzoning variances all the time, but that is at THEIR request, and they intend to develop the property after the change.
Not being snarky here, what am I missing? This seems like such a non-starter proposal that I’m worried I’m not seeing something obvious that makes it work. I mean, what’s the point? It’s like saying we can upzone Boston College or for Boston to upzone Fenway Park. Ok…but you aren’t going to do anything in our lifetimes on those sites…so the proposal is just a waste of discussion.
Intent is a future oriented concept. No one can predict the future intent of a future owner.
What is being proposed is “By Right” so there is no bargaining. The city would have give their leverage away
Marylee, I still don’t understand how upzoning golf courses actually works in this case. If the golf course owners don’t want to convert, they won’t. It doesn’t matter if it is by right or by force, it doesn’t make a difference unless it actually happens. If your response was meant to explain, I’m sorry, I guess I’m just missing your point.
I’ve already commented on how foolish it would be to mess with the zoning of Newton’s private golf courses, which have all opted-in on a lower property tax rate that prohibits their development.
As I also mentioned in my earlier comments, I think Newton should be negotiating to acquire all the city’s private golf courses over the long term for reforestation. This is achievable because their property tax status significantly diminishes their cash value.
Recreating the woodlands that are now occupied by golf courses would be a tremendous accomplishment for Newton. It would improve our environment and quality of life, while adding value to Newton homes. It should begin with the City Council closing the municipally owned Commonwealth Golf Course and starting the reforestation process. We already own this course, so It’s something I believe city leaders should be working on right now.
I’ve had the good fortune over the years as a real estate investor to be a partner in the ownership of three privately held golf courses. So I understand the golf course business and the real estate implications of golf courses. One of the courses my group owned was Glen Ellen Country Club, an otherwise undeveloped, 220 acre, 18-hole golf course in Millis.
If you drove by Glen Ellen today you would see nothing but hundreds of townhouses, courtesy of Toll Brothers who bought the property a few years after my ownership group moved on. A similar outcome for any of Newton’s golf courses would be an absolute disaster for this city and our school system.
Lastly, I’m going to strongly disagree with my friend fig’s assessment of Mass Pike air-rights development. 40 years as a real estate investor tells me that fig has got this one wrong. I firmly believe the Mass Pike air-rights are an absolute key to Newton’s future. The appointment of an air-rights commission is long overdue.
Mike, I was a bit too flippant on the air rights. I think it will happen eventually. I just get annoyed when folks talk about putting parks over the pike, or putting small buildings over the pike, but don’t take into account the cost of the decking or the air rights. Three buildings I think are going up over the Pike right now in Boston. Clearly it is possible. I’d love it to happen. I’m just commenting on how folks ignore the math to make it happen. That may be my new answer to everything. Because Math.
I will say Newtonville and Washington street would be transformed if it happens. And if it ever does, assuming I’m not long dead and buried, I will buy a round of drinks and appetizers at any commercial establishment that opens on land over the Pike for all my Village14 Peeps. (except Jerry. I’ll buy Jerry dinner).
@Fignewtonville – I cant wait.
Don’t go buying the Wagyu steak tips now Jerry. I’m not made of unlimited funds. The cookie business has been slow lately.
Wow…so much to comment on in this thread!
@fignewtonville, I was just saying to someone yesterday that my mantra is “It’s just math.” And I totally agree with you that “It’s just math” (or your formulation “because math”) is the answer to almost every question (including perhaps “What’s the meaning of life?”).
However, while I almost always agree with your thoughtful posts here on V14, I disagree with you here about rezoning golf courses near transit. (And, oddly enough, I do sort of agree with Councilor Wright, with whom I’m rarely in agreement…but with one big caveat.)
As Mike Striar’s comment about Glen Ellen makes clear, golf courses do get developed; there are many examples in many communities. Both Woodland and Brae Burn are very close to public transportation and someday all or part of these courses could be sold. Given their locations near transit, they would be ideal locations for more housing.
By zoning the courses now, the City Council can put in place its vision for what could be built there someday. For example, that vision could be some type of cluster zoning that ensures that large swaths of the land remain open and undeveloped. Putting in place zoning that is predictable and prescriptive would prevent a Newton version of Mike’s Toll Brothers dystopia if the courses are someday developed. (Also, fwiw, while Mike’s idea that the City could someday recreate woodlands on the golf courses is a pleasant vision, that seems highly unlikely… it’s just math.)
Your point that the golf courses aren’t likely to be developed any time soon doesn’t undermine the logic of upzoning them today. In fact, your point is relevant to any parcels that get upzoned, not just golf courses: as I think you know very well, upzoning never mandates that a parcel gets developed; it just creates the conditions for redevelopment someday (what the MBTA Communities Law calls creating “zoning capacity”). As in the case of the existing villages, change will come slowly and take decades or never happen at all.
My caveat regarding the golf courses is that I don’t support their upzoning as an end run around the MBTA Communities Law to prevent rezoning of our village centers—a point you make in your comment, and I totally agree. Rezoning our City isn’t an either/or proposition: our village centers need to be upzoned to permit more housing AND golf courses close to transit should be upzoned for housing as well.
Third final points (with apologies for length of this comment):
First, I absolutely disagree with @MaryLee that putting in place “as of right” zoning somehow removes the leverage that the City has vs developers. In fact, the opposite is true given recent experience with special permits. Given that MaryLee and others have complained repeatedly about the development that has been approved under the current special permit regime, I fail to see where the City has demonstrated leverage. The special permit process is often de facto a lopsided negotiation between the City Council and developers (since developers frequently know more and anchor the negotiation with their proposals to get what they want). Special permit negotiations are not a straightforward or guaranteed method of ensuring that these projects reflect community goals or the best possible outcome. A more effective approach would be for the Council to proactively set clear development rules now (including the preconditions we require from developers) rather than relying on an open-ended, multiparty negotiation. Leverage comes from putting in place a clear set of rules now.
Second, regarding air rights over the Pike: You may have been flippant, but you’re not wrong. It is true that buildings being developed over the Pike in Boston are 20 stories. The height of the buildings is necessary to make the buildings economically feasible given the great expense of building over the Pike—it’s just math, as you state. I don’t see 20-story buildings happening in Newtonville any time soon.
Third (and finally—phew!), regarding transit-oriented development…in case you missed it, check out Kathy Pillsbury’s great analysis of transit usage using census block groups: https://figcitynews.com/2023/01/pillsbury-people-who-live-near-transit-in-newton-really-do-use-it-more-often/ As you say, usage of transit is off since the pandemic; however, historically, people who live close to transit do tend to use transit. This is just math, too….
Meryl:
Thanks for the conversation. For the record, my post was started because of Peter Bruce’s editorial, which made no sense to me. I don’t think Peter was advocating for upzoning of the golf courses as a means to put in place a future vision, he seemed to me to be using it as a real possibility now, today. Don’t build up the city centers, instead upzone the golf course. Maybe I misunderstood him.
You want to rezone golf courses for a potential future sale? Have at it. Who am I to say what the future brings, and I certainly want a controlled sale and future use.
But it seems to me the folks advocating for upzoning golf courses like Peter are either (a) using it as a excuse for not doing other zoning work around the city, or (b) using it as a strategy to get out of MBTA Communities Law, or (3) using it as a way to get around 40B requirements.
In this case on the surface you both want the same thing (upzoning) but I don’t think it is for the same goals.
-Fig
Reiterating, rezoning private golf courses for residential use = horrible idea! It raises the value of the property astronomically and almost assures development beyond the scope contemplated by proponents of this crazy talk.
As to the city acquiring and reforesting Newton’s private golf courses, I admittedly have not yet done the math. And I’m not familiar with the structure of the entities that own Newton’s various private courses. But I am hyper aware of real estate valuations including specifically the value of golf courses, and have been directly involved with large property eminent domain takings, both friendly and unfriendly. So this stuff is kinda right in my wheelhouse.
Worth mentioning for comparative purposes, my partners and I owned Round Hill Country Club on Cape Cod. The 18-hole course had quite a bit of developable land. The Town of Sandwich did “the math,” calculating the impact of potential development on local schools and municipal services, before voters approved acquisition of the course from my partnership at a premium in order to block development.
How is it that a majority of municipalities view golf courses as potential development time-bombs, but a small group of well-meaning and misguided Newtonites want to play games with that bomb? Yikes!
Elected “leaders” in Newton need to “do the math” it takes to calculate acquiring the private golf courses using friendly takings with long term payments and bonding. The value of these properties is highly suppressed right now, precisely because of the property tax category their owners have elected. Additionally, the cost of maintaining golf courses is astronomical, and these private clubs already know the end is coming. For Newton not to fully explore this now would be foolish… or kinda right on par with the way we do things around here. [Thought I’d throw in that bit of golfing humor].
For the record Meryl, my issue is with the make up of the Land Use Committee and City Council who vote on special permits, not the special permit process. I’d rather throw them out of office than gut the special permit process. I think we could and should revise our current zoning so that fewer requests that routinely get approved, especially those from home owners, require a special permit. But I see no need to blow up our current zoning and allow so much development by right.
I spoke at the Jan 9th ZAP Meeting representing my neighborhood and the first issue I spoke on was special permits so I will let my words represent my position and not your interpretation of my stance. This is exactly what I said and what I believe:
“I would like to start by speaking to an issue that has not been that widely discussed heretofore and that is the proposed changes to the Special Permit process. As a neighborhood that watched the Special Permit process unfold right in front of us with 145 Warren, while we were not happy with the outcome, we did feel that the process allowed us to weigh in and share our concerns due to noticing and public hearing requirements associated with a Special Permit. Through the Special Permit process, the city was able to gain concessions that it wanted in the form of a commitment to Passive House standard in exchange for granting zoning relief. That leverage goes away when so much is allowed By Right. There is a very concerning shift from the developer having to make concessions to get what they want to the City having to offer incentives to get what it wants.”