Ellen Ishkanian’s story about the proposed 40B project at Court Street in Globe West today reminded me that we’ve never had a thread on Village 14 about the project. (Earlier TAB story here and another here) So here’s your chance to weigh in.
The proposed condominium complex would be built on a site that now has two multi-family homes, and would provide nine units earmarked as affordable housing, selling for approximately $162,000, and 27 market-rate units ranging in price from the mid $400,000s to the high $700,000s, according to Engler.
That looks like a very good location for such a project – easy walk to T, Newtonville shops, grocery store.
As long as they have adequate deeded parking per unit and for visitors I’m ok with it. This is especially important for “affordable units” as many working class folks need to commute by car to jobs outside of Newton.
Interesting contrast in the same Globe West section is the 30 unit condo project in Wellesley Square – luxury development expecting a $2 million average price.
This project would provide 36 new units of housing, ( less the 4 existing units, we would have a net increase of 32). These 32 units are going to introduce 48 new cars to the neighborhood ( @1.5 cars /unit ), 16 new children ( @1/2 child per unit – it could be more ), to the already crowded school system, ( @ $14,000 each ), and god knows what other extraneous strain on our otherwise taxed sewers, trash removal system, and suburban landscape and trees etc. etc. Is this what we want to help pay for? Do we really have an interest in lining the pockets of yet another real estate developer? Is this the Garden City we choose to live in ?
As the direct abutter, this project is a sham use of 40B simply to enrich the Engler family. The architectural firm they have hired to transform our moderately priced neighborhood says on its website that their “work ranges from luxury oceanfront homes to numerous upscale townhouse developments in many of the finest communities in New England.” This is not our neighborhood. We are a neighborhood of electricians, cab drivers, senior citizens and young families. The Englers want to totally transform it so they can walk away with $2-4 million in profit.
MIKE: The developers shortchanges the affordable units by allocating the smallest and least desirable locations to them; they provide a single parking space and will charge $25K for an additional space thus making the Englers $900000 more. They are destroying up to 11 moderate rental units and throwing a senior citizen couple with disabilities out of their home.
Please, this is a very poor location to be such an oversized structure.
BTW mgwa, where do you live? Are you one of these folks who live where a 36 unit 4 story structure can’t be built because property costs too much. That way you can feel good and not have to worry. The Englers say they would love this type of structure near their homes, but gosh, property is too expensive. But they don’t move to where it could be done.
@Bob – I live in a 2-unit house on a street that’s mixed rentals and ownership, with some condo units, walking distance to T and shops. I’d be happy to have this development on my street.
I grew up in apartment buildings and expect to eventually move to one – would love to be able to stay in Newton someplace T accessible when I do so. That said, I did not realize it was destroying moderate rental units and evicting a disabled elderly couple. I would want to see something done to help them.
Some other points that never seem to come up in articles on this project are:
1) Who will pay for wall damage in my home that is caused by the two weeks of pylon pounding? We have horsehair plaster throughout our 1860 home and there is no way that this sort of activity isn’t going to impact it.
2) Who will pay for extra policing to ensure that people do not go the wrong way on the one way section of the street that we live on. This is already a problem with people driving the wrong way. . . and obviously knowing what they are doing and they speed up clearly with the idea that if they do it quickly, that makes it okay. There’s no way it’s not going to get worse when that many more cars are on the block and the other streets are backed up with traffic. One of these days it could be my son or myself or one of our neighbors blithely turning onto our street and finding ourselves in a head-on collision. And by the way, with the phone company trucks and others parked on the street, it is physically impossible for two cars to pass so, unless you remove all on street parking and remove sidewalks, turning Court Street into a two way street will not be an option.
3) Who will pay for the traffic light that will undoubtedly become necessary at Beach and Washington? This is already one of the most difficult and dangerous left turns to take in Newton, so either a light would need to go in or the traffic will back up even further. The lower two thirds of Beach should also be a one way street, as it is also impossible for two way traffic to pass if anyone is parked on the street (it’s dicey even without cars parked on the street. . .) and there’s no way of widening it without losing the sidewalks, so exactly how is the inevitable traffic supposed to flow?
4) where will extra cars park if the tenants are not GIVEN two spaces a piece. . . and even with that, where will their guests be parking? There are already plenty of times when all the on street parking between Central Avenue and Beech Street is occupied to capacity.
Most importantly, what will the longterm impact of this development have on the City of Newton. Won’t this kind of urban building open the door to more industrial style apartments/condos? is this really what we want for Newton, the “Garden City”? I like Brookline; but I don’t want to live there and this sort of project is pushing us undeniably in that direction.
The residents of Court Street understand that building on that land is inevitable; but why not build a cluster home array like those built down the street? Tasteful. . . in keeping with the general feeling of the neighborhood and bringing in a reasonable number of new residents so that the overall impact has a chance of being absorbed.
In truth I don’t hold out a lot of hope for gaining any changes in this project. After seeing the two two-family monstrosity built behind us, one on a wetlands area (the “perk pit” sat FULL of water for months and then when we had had no rain for weeks, the inspector conveniently showed up. . . ), I don’t believe in the system. I don’t believe that this city hears the lower or middle class people who live in it or that laws (like the wetlands act) have a chance against money in this city. Those of us who are not wealthy enough to live in the protected areas of Newton, like the Historic District up Central Ave where this developer lives, will inevitably be left with more noise, more traffic, and homes of lesser value while this developer will be allowed to make millions and walk; and will never have to deal with the consequences of squeezing too many people on too small of a street.
That is exactly what we currently have: 1-2-3 family homes and some condos.
This development is totally different from what now exists.
As I wrote earlier, the developer has hired an architect who states right on the homepage of their website: ‘work ranges from luxury oceanfront homes to numerous upscale townhouse developments in many of the finest communities in New England.’
This is not what we need more of in Newton.
Where are these kids going to get schooled???? Cabot??? Isn’t there already too many kids there?
What about middle school?
I know that I would HATE a two story building to be torn down and replaced with a four story building, that has a MUCH larger amount of people there. . . . . This is Newton, not Manhattan! What about the current residents who bought homes there, and are trying to live a neighborhood life?
How would any alderman feel if that happened next door to them?
And the increased traffic. . . .
And take two two family homes and increase is by a large number, will change the neighborhood, and you can’t reverse the decision.
@NewtonMom, Court Street is in the Horace Mann school district.
@margaret – – – can that school absorb 16 more kids?
More parking = more traffic.
The commuter rail station is 0.2 miles away. Shops are less than 1/2 mile away.
Great location for people who want to live car-free.
And Nathan, can you guarantee they will be car free? If so, why is the developer building 72 spaces? Is everyone going into Boston for work? Anyone working to the west, north or south? You make a lot of assumptions for someone who doesn’t live on our block. Come to our neighborhood and see how many of us are car-free. Ask the neighbors how often they drive to the supermarkets. We live here and we know the reality. It is very easy for you to speculate on ‘car-free’ environments.
I agree with many who have concerns about this project. I find it unbelievable that a space currently holding four units can be converted to 36 units. To do this the developers will have to builder higher and closer to neighbors (whether residential or commercial).
My original concerns were increase traffic and drivers going down the wrong direction of a one way street. Ms. Howell has mentioned drivers going the wrong way and I too have noticed an increase in drivers going the wrong way after the development of the 6 unit condo at the end of Court street. I can’t imagine how much worst this will get when 32 more units are added. I see many children playing on the street and wonder if that will cease once traffic increases?
I hadn’t even though about adding more children to a crowded school system. Will we have to add a traffic light on Washington and Beech? Will our taxes increase as a result? In the end will we all have to pay for the unintended consequences of this development project while the developer walks away with a large profit?
I am fine with developing some units there but not 32 units. It seems the developer is cramming as many units as they can to line their own pockets with little or no concern for the impact on the neighborhood and current residents. I hope our elected officials will do the right thing and control this development by either not approving or reducing the number of units currently proposed.
I’m a little confused. This was crying out for a visual, so I just added a photo, and the map from the Assessor’s Database.
The white house in the photo is on the Assessor’s Database as 75 Court St, with 28,150 sq.ft of land, 6 rooms, 3BR, 4 Baths, with no indication that it’s other than single-family. In real life, the wing at right is 75, the main portion of the house is 77.
The purple house is 83 Court St, in real life, and on the Assessor’s Database, which also says it has 24,466 sq.ft. of land, and seven apartments (one studio, three 1-BR, two 2-BR, and one 3-BR).
The information on the city website
refers to 75-83 Court Street, and 52,000 sq.ft of land, so does that mean both the white and purple houses would come down, and the new building would straddle both frontages? If so, why does a comment above refer to only 4 existing units?
Here’s a video view.
FYI, on the other side of the purple house, the lot on the map with no structures, is currently a Verizon parking lot, but like the rest of the street, it’s zoned MR1.
A disclaimer. Kathryn Howell (see comment above) has been my yoga teacher for the past 3 years. I go to the Y at 6 Am 3 times a week to join a group of other people whose lives and health have been lifted to an unbelievable new high by the spirit, humor, perseverance and compassion of this gifted and remarkably talented woman. We deeply appreciate all she has done for us and we all consider her a very good and trusted friend. I know her classes are the main reason this 77 year old senior can still get into small boats to race on Boston Harbor and jaunt up big hills and pathways.
Kathryn is almost always upbeat, positive and focused. She is not a chronic complainer or a person that quibbles over small, irrelevant items. She rolls with the punches and she always tells the truth. That’s why everyone should read her comments not just once but at least two and hopefully three times. She’s articulated not just her own problems with this specific development proposal, but echoed what many others Newton homeowners and residents have experienced or are currently experiencing.
I don’t have answers for all the development controversies swirling around Newton these days. The common sense and conciliatory sides of me want to see some middle ground between those few who don’t want any appreciable new residential development and those that believe a contractor and selling homeowner should be able to maximize returns regardless of the impact this would have on adjacent homeowners and even whole neighborhoods. Kathryn Howell’s comment should be a wake up call. She’s articulated it best, but she is not alone in what she knows is at stake.
So the Mayor told the 20 residents he could not do anything??
I hope one of them asked HOW he was able to kill the Waban project?
Oh that is in Waban and this is in Newtonville??
Unfortunately it seems that if you have LOTS of money and it is an election year than the Mayor listens.
Bob Kavanaugh, I’m not expressing any support for this project, and it’s not clear Nathan was either, but to Nathan’s point, the idea behind car-free development is to build housing without building the parking spaces (or creating only limited parking, like one car per household instead of two) That’s how you guarantee the outcome. I’m guessing ‘the neighbors’ all have sufficient parking or they wouldn’t be driving.
Joanne, perhaps that’s because Engine 6 was not a 40B?
Adam, this is not car-free development. In fact, the developer is planning to make $900,000 by selling 36 parking spaces ($25K each).
Come to our neighborhood and see how crowded our street can get because of an already limited supply of off-street parking and Cabots Ice Cream patrons. Come see the delivery trucks, Verizon vehicles, et al. What we don’t need is 100 more residents and 72 more cars.
Bob, read closer. We are in agreement. This is not a car-free development.
Julia – yes, the development would demolish both white houses (which are actually adjoined), as well as the beautiful mauve house on the left of your photo. The latter is a historic house, built c. 1863 and has a huge, beautiful garden out back that has been featured on Newton Garden Tours and long been a real treasure in our neighborhood.
I grew up on Court Street and as far back as I can remember, when we were playing outside we’d regularly yell “Wrong Way!” at cars as they sped up Court Street the wrong way. The prospect of 72 new cars, as well as many new pedestrians and bicyclists, is frightening. Things already get quite hairy at the intersections of Court/Beach Streets and Washington/Beach Streets, as can be seen in the photo below (which will hopefully upload…), taken from my parents’ property next door to the proposed development. I am also attempting to upload a photo of the proposed development.
Adam, my apologies for any misunderstanding.
This project is a terrible idea for so many reasons, all expressed by the Kavanaghs (whom I know to be very reasonable people) and others. In addition, none of the elementary schools in the area can absorb the increase in enrollment from projects such as this one without negative consequences. When will Newton begin to demand mitigation funds from wealthy developers for issues other than traffic?
One of the reasons we have the minimum parking requirements is to prevent excessively dense development, and a host of related problems such as on-street parking from residents/visitors and *stranded* developments which consistently fail to find tenants due to a lack of parking.
Many of the problems we are having with excessive density would
simply not exist if the city strictly insisted on the minimum parking requirements. For example if a new development was required to have sufficient parking for all its residents and their vistors, there would not be an issue of spillover parking.
The fact is, that for many families, you need two people working outside of Newton to make ends meet. If we really want to have a diverse mix incomes in Newton, then we need housing that works for working families, including those where both spouses work outside of Newton.
Folks,
Lets get real!
A developer is a business man. His motive is to make money,.. as much as he can. He will build as many units as the site and whatever zoning he must comply with. He will build as inexpensively as he can, irrespective of the quality or longevity of his construction. He will charge as much as the market will bear, and once sold he will be gone and the condominium association ( the ‘owners’ ) will be saddled with the residual problems. The paint will be peeling even before the last unit is sold,.. paint on knotty pine doesn’t adhere well, especially after the cheesy aluminum gutters let go. Any landscaping will be the smallest and least expensive that can be found. Snow removal will be someone else’s problem, and trust me with this many units on this small a site there will be a problem. Newtons 30′ height limitation on new construction will not have to be taken into account because this is a 40b project and zoning will not count. The resultant behemoth will be hard against the property lines and the shadows cast onto neighboring properties and streets, will be long and dark, especially at this time of year. And won’t we love the hum of the perimeter central air conditioning condenser units on those quiet warm summer nights. Yea,.. central air ! It will be necessary given the temperatures generated from all that asphalt parking surface.
Trash removal will be from a few large dispersed trash ‘centers’, brimming with garbage, blowing down the street the day before pickup. And who will pick it up,..? The landscape contractor who will probably have little or no grass to cut?
We have all seen it before. It’s not hard to imagine how wonderful the Court Street Courtyards will be. What a fitting addition to the Garden City.
It’s interesting to me that the first reaction to this project in the blog was that it sounds sensible since there it is close to the T and some shopping. I’m not singling out “mgwa” because it’s a fairly common reaction to any proposed development near a village center or “transportation.” Unfortunately the reality is very different from the ideal. Let’s start with a little data. The National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) is a survey of about 150,000 households nationwide to learn of their trip-making patterns. The most recent survey we have data for is 2009. The news is not good. Trip-making, especially by auto has been increasing about twice as fast as population. If you’ve noticed traffic getting worse in and around Newton this could be part of the explanation. The other major part is that unlike new growth areas elsewhere in the U.S., Newton’s street network is not growing – so it’s more cars on the same streets.
The other bit of data that is relevant to the Court St. situation is that only 1 out 5.4 trips per household have anything to do with work. Most are trips involving shopping, personal errands, schools or church related, and social-recreational. So most trips are not of the sort that would use the very limited Newtonville commuter rail service to downtown Boston. Even many (most?) work trips would not use that service (I’ll dig that data out another time) for all sorts of reasons. So access to the T and a little nearby shopping-retail is still going to leave the vast majority of trips in cars to locations outside the immediate neighborhood. What the Court St. neighbors know instinctively is absolutely true. The proposed 36 unit building is going to make traffic much worse in their little micro neighborhood, and a little worse for the rest of us. So let’s stop pretending this is “Smart Growth” that is going to make Newton a better place to live. And there are many other negatives to this project – wrong size, wrong place, etc. Newton can and should do better and our elected officials should not be supporting this project.
Drive down Derby Street in West Newton to see what a 40B does to the neighborhood.
Jane, this is a 40B. The city doesn’t get to demand anything. Usually, the city does demand traffic mitigation. Better still, not to create traffic in the first place.
Joanne, the Derby Street development doesn’t seem all that terrible. It’s nowhere near the scale of the proposed Court Street development.
I understand that, Adam. I was just expressing my frustration with the developers in general. I’m sure there are good ones out there who want to make a living but have some sense of community as well, but they appear to be few and far between. It’s especially galling when developers live in Newton and have so little concern about those in their own community. And if I hear one more of them state at a public meeting that they plan to communicate with the neighbors, I’ll be sure to speak up because it never happens.
Not to mention, I’m getting tired of hearing about how they have to make a living – the last developer we had to deal with in the neighborhood lives in a $2 million home and broke multiple regulations and laws every step of the way. That’s not my idea of making an honest living.
Right now, the bad ones are such a problem for so many residents that they’ve given the good ones a really bad name.
Adam – if you were an abutter you might feel differently.
In general I have no problem with this type of infill development, that said it does seem a bit much… I am kinda an abutter so it is important. That said it is a 40b project which means we don’t get much say, so what is the point of moaning and getting worked up? This is all coming about because too many people years ago grumped at various opportunities to increase affordable housing,and thus Newton is out of whack with the formula the state has (or something close to that, not being very specific). If the development team really does not care then there is not a whole heck of a lot we can do, so why waste energy complaining…(unless somebody versed in 40b law can come up with ways the community can force its way into the development project and work to develop something better suited to Newtonville…?) Oh and you want to increase density in general to keep tax increases to a minimum, better utilization of infrastructure, more taxes from the same property size and all, but there is a tipping point though and I am not sure where that would be…I am also not touching the auto parking misconceptions abounding in this thread…
How many votes in this city are cast by real estate developers?
How many votes are cast by citizen home owners?
How come our elected officials don’t listen to it’s citizen home owners ?
What are their motives ?
Are they feeling guilty about creating a city for the wealthy so they need to build some housing for poor people ?
Why do our elected officials allow middle class housing to be torn down and replaced with double sized houses for the wealthy ?
Why is the real estate developer incentivized that way?
Why is the city in such a sad state ?
Why do we not maintain our schools, Angier, Cabot, Zervas, so they need to be torn down ? Hyde , Weeks, Claflin, Warren etc. etc. are still standing?
Why are we loosing 560 city trees a year without a single replacement planted ?
Why do our city sanitary sewers back up into our basements with every 100 year rain storm every few years?
Why are our streets and sidewalks in such a sad state of repair ?
Where is the tax override going ?
Hummmm .
Lots of questions huh ?
My great grand father bought the property in the late 1800’s. He also had owned a whole block of buildings called Baron’s Block. I believe one of the buildings still bares his name. It’s called The Blake Buildings, though his name was Blakeney. On Court Street, Mr and Mrs. Blakeney raised nine children. My great great grandfather Mr. Blakeney’s father was a highly decorated Civil War Veteran also lived there. He passed away on that property when he was well into his 90’s. My grandmother raised three children in “the carriage house.” She rented out the two floors of the main house. She sold the house when she was in her 80’s. I wish I owned a piece of it.