The Boston Business Journal reports that Newton is choosing to focus on one developer’s plan for “smaller-scale housing” at the nearly 15-acre woods between Dudley Road and Brandeis Road Lion Drive. The plan includes “a mix of single-family homes and multifamily buildings with three to six units on the site, for 75 to 125 units total”
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
The designs seems lovely. But what was the rationale for going for smaller-scale housing on such a large site?
I can’t help but think that the selection process would have been much different on the north side. I understand that this scored the highest, but the Expression of Interest seemed to me to show that this type of proposal was preferred. Why not larger scale affordable housing on a portion of the site?
All things considered, we controlled density for the immediate neighbors and got 2-3 acres of land for Newton South.
This particular paragraph is frustrating in the memo:
“The number of units proposed, 75-125 units, was on the lower end of proposed units included in the submitted proposals, which the Review Team thought might make the development more attractive. Lastly, the Review Team considered the smaller size of the proposed units themselves to be an attractive addition to Newton’s housing stock and believed that they would provide housing that is not otherwise available in Newton’s new construction. ”
I’m curious if that standard “smaller number of units….make the development more attractive” was the standard for Austin Street during its competition. And smaller size of the proposed units is featured, but no overall cost controls besides a small number. A 1.2 million 3 bedroom townhouse is still gonna be out of reach for most people.
Curious if the neighbors will still complain and sue. Seems like this was the best case scenario for them, so I doubt they do.
Maybe I’m just in a bad mood, but this seems like a missed opportunity.
@Fig people forget that the South side will be getting 800 units with Northland. And there are two 40bs that were submitted. Though the City doesn’t exactly approve these projects, they are a part of the bigger picture. One of the 40bs is 410 units right across from Northland and the other is 244 units on Boylston/Hagen which is right in the same area as this particular project. It looks like the latter has received preliminary approval for the State to proceed.
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/96801/638112799808047343
The Boylston St property has some environmental challenges with flood zones and wetlands. I’m surprised this project does not have wetlands knowing the area but there seems to be ledge.
If you have been to this area a smaller project is probably a better fit. Traffic is awful in Brandeis, Parker and RT 9 from 8-9am and then after 3pm each day. It is a pretty car centric area, I’m not sure how much bus service is available over there. I believe some of the buses that used to run have been eliminated or run less frequently. Even if the access to the site is both Brandeis and Dudley I think it would be challenging to handle a large project.
I’m glad the proposal retains the walking path from NSHS to Dudley Road and Route 9. There is an “unofficial” path right now that student use a lot, The alternative would be to walk on Dudley Road, which is very narrow and unsafe.
I know that it is very cold outside and hell may have just frozen over, but I agree with Fignewtonville. I will have more to say on this as I have been following it closely but for now i have a a couple of questions related to the selection process. Fig says that this option scored highest, but we have no visibility into how each member of the selection committee actually voted. At one point before a decision was made the was actually a template on the city’s website but I cannot see how that was used.
How did each proposal rank and what if any weight was put on the criteria?
When the city is advocating for more density and affordability elsewhere, why is this area exempt?
Will the city be contributing any funds to this project?
I’m actually very reasonable MaryLee… 😉
I also would have preferred to see the scoring sheets. I’m glad the city got something out this instead of a straight sale, and maybe the seller also had a say (for instance, they didn’t want to anger their neighbors and asked for a certain type of development.)
But yeah, as a resident of the north side and a fan of affordable housing, finding it hard to see how this was the best option for such a large site and doubting this would have been the result if say, one of the private schools on the North side sold and moved.
And for the life of me, talking about preserving the trees when you have a spread out development instead of a tall building does not make sense.
Happy to hear from someone else who thinks this was the best choice.
This is so far away from me that I doubt I will ever see the finished product in person, so I won’t keep focusing on it, but certainly it is another example of how rich neighborhoods in Newton seem to get a different type of development. Similar to the Philip Neri development in Waban, or Engine 6.
One city. One set of standards. Right?
The city decisions regarding this project are very confusing.
On one hand the city is proposing to prevent nearly all trees from being cut down on private property. Yet they choose the most land intensive design which results in the MOST trees being cut down. While the small homes are very picturesque they’re out of place for a high land value location.
The limited density reduces the number of affordable units that could be delivered. This same developer just got an extremely dense (9 unit) special permit in West Newton solely because they provided one ownership affordable unit.
It would be nice to have more visibility into how the decision was made to go with this group. They are also involved with the Armory and the above mentioned special permit. Are they just favored developer of late?
Kyle, they were awarded the Armory in an equally non-transparent process and decision. The city got that property for $1 on the condition that it be 100% affordable and rather than select a non-profit developer, the awarded it to CIVICO and then had to bake Civico’s profit into the equation.
The City also has some sort of partnership going on with Civico with the Walker Center in Auburndale
Two cities, two standards.
No doubt that this would be a massive neighborhood ruining multi story intrusive development on the North Side of the city.
Those city councilors don’t want to see “those people”.
Commoner, Thats exactly how it works. 85% NIMBY councilors get to force massive development on other ppl’s neighborhoods (the north side). Nimby not Nimby
When did you last see any Waban area councilors pounding the table for thousands of units in their OWN wards. NEVER, but they will run their mouth on supporting them elsewhere in Newton
Those of us who are looking at the value of trees for the future deplore so many trees and wild habitat disappearing. And for what? Again, not enough affordable units. What would make sense is more taller buildings, with all affordable units and most of the open land preserved.
Also, are all the wires going to be buried?
The owners of this 15 acre property were able to ask for $24M because of its development potential. There is a direct correlation between development potential and value.
This is exactly why the well intentioned folks seeking to change the zoning of some Newton golf courses are playing with fire. If Newton increases the value of private golf courses through zoning changes, it will be a virtual certainty that they will be residentially developed in the future. Development on that magnitude would be an absolute disaster for the city and our schools.
In my opinion, Newton should look to acquire the city’s private golf courses by negotiating long term purchases. The value of these courses is suppressed by unfavorable zoning and a property tax status that currently precludes development. I would like to see the city acquire these golf courses and reforest them. We should start the process of reforesting with the golf course the city already owns.
Those who think that acquiring golf courses is beyond our reach should keep this in mind. The city paid $15M for 17 acres at Webster Woods. The most recent property tax assessment of Brae Burn Country Club is $22M for 136 acres. If Newton can afford to pay $15M for 17 acres, we can afford to pay twenty-odd million for 136 acres and reforest for future generations.
Using the leverage of eminent domain, the city should put long term acquisition deals in place now for the golf course properties, and we should avoid doing things that escalate their development value. By thinking ahead and acting now, we can not only avoid future loss of woodlands like this property off Dudley Road, we can actually do something spectacular by reforesting Newton’s golf courses.
What’s the impact of sprawl in the outer-suburbs on the environment? Far more than a couple of trees in the inner-suburbs, I’m guessing. Yes, those golf courses ought to be put to much better use. It’s irresponsible not to zone the ones near public transit for housing.
@Adam–
“Sprawl in the outer-suburbs” is a bullshit excuse for the loss of forested woodlands in Newton. Outer suburbs have the same responsibility as Newton to address both the housing and affordable housing crisis. Not a single public official in Newton was elected to stop “sprawl” in outer-suburbia.
Newton has to date willingly taken on more than our fair share of new housing. And I’ve supported that. There is plenty of already developed land in Newton [like village centers] that can be re-zoned to handle growth.
So is it really “irresponsible” to NOT rezone Newton’s golf courses for even more residential development? I think that’s a horrible idea, and my previous comments have articulated why. What I feel is truly irresponsible, is the failure of Newton’s elected officials to better protect forested woodlands like this property off Dudley Road, as well as the ill-conceived effort to rezone Newton’s golf courses, which will almost certainly end with a further loss of undeveloped land.
Not only does Civico propose a smaller-scale development, it looks like they would create a large cul-de-sac with a neighborhood park. That’s pretty unusual, even by Newton’s standards. Lovely, yes, one might even say… privileged. Does it meet the city’s comprehensive plan or the needs of the region? The only vehicle access is going to be directly across from the high school, which is well known as a traffic bottleneck. In fairness, some of this may be dictated by the terrain, but is it the only option? And if you think this is another case of the north/south divide, there is a massive 40B likely to happen only a few hundred feet away. The neighborhood that seems unscathed by this is along Dudley Road.
On the plus side, it’s nice to see a pedestrian path that empties to a public street, even though there’s no safe place to walk once you get there, as well as space for future high school expansion but, please, no more parking.
When you say “no safe place to walk”, do you mean on Dudley or on Brandeis? Brandeis has a continuous sidewalk. Dudley does not, but it’s a very short walk from the end of the path to Route 9 where Dudley is wide enough for walking. Then Route 9 does have a sidewalk. You are right that turning south on Dudley would be quite impossible. I wish the city finally did something about it. It is ironic that the city’s parks and red department is housed in a location that is not accessible on foot.
on Dudley. The proposed path would end further down Dudley, about 500 feet from Route 9. Perhaps someday they could squeeze in a sidewalk. The current path empties out into someone’s backyard along a private way, closer to Route 9. The walk along Route 9 could be a lot better, too. One step at a time, as it were.
“Where Dudley is safe enough for walking”? From one end at Rt. 9 to the other at Brookline St., no part of Dudley Rd is safe for walking ! It’s hardly safe for two cars in opposite lanes, let alone if there is a pedestrian or a garbage can along the edge.
I’m referring to the ~100ft from where the current “unofficial” path terminates to Route 9. That part is (relatively) safe. But yes, generally Dudley Road is dangerous for everyone.