As Jonathan Dame of the Newton Tab says – “It’s official: a developer has asked the City Council for permission to replace a string of historic buildings in the heart of Newtonville with a 171-unit, mixed-use complex five stories tall.”
The project is going to require two different votes from the City Council, one for a zoning change and one for a parking waiver – and that will require a 2/3’s vote.
So if you’re a betting man/woman take your shot at handicapping this one.
On the plus side, the developer has already backed off a bit and reduced the plan by a floor. On the negative side, Newtonville has just finished up a battle over Austin St and here comes a project significantly bigger.
What odds do you give for this project getting eventual approval at City Hall?
@Jerry
Rather than speculating on whether this will happen, shouldn’t we discuss whether it should?
This is a similar scenario to Wells Ave and Austin St, as those projects needed City cooperation to advance. The Wells Ave developer refused to offer the City a fair deal, and ended up with nothing. The Austin St developer realized he was about to end up with nothing, and offered the City a fair deal at the last minute. My advice to the Orr Block developer would be, put your best foot forward. The proposed 15% affordability is a non-starter. For a mixed use project that includes 40K sf of commercial space, 30% of the housing units should be affordable. Additionally, the City should require somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-3M cash, to off-set the project’s impact on neighborhood schools. The message from the Mayor and City Council to the developer should be clear… Get real, or get lost!
I agree, the buildings at least on the corner are historic and by no means eyesores. I agree it would be great if they could just build this over the Pike.
The schools around the Orr building have no capacity for additional children.
If folks are serious about affordable housing, there needs to be a plan BEFORE that which deals with schools.
Austin St already will add roughly 25 students to the area, this would add roughly another 75, for a total of 100.
It’s easy to say that the developer should throw in 2-3 millions for “schools” but the reality is our children are the ones that bear the cost of overcrowded class rooms.
@Paul – have at it.
Paul, I’m not advocating for the Orr project, and there would certainly be costs to educating more kids, but the city did recently acquire Aquinas.
@Adam
I’m not aware of anyone who has suggested Aquinas adds capacity to the system. It’s a replacement for Lincoln-Eliot, and enables Lincoln Eliot to become a swing space for the 2020-2030 timeframe to enable further elementary school renovations/replacements.
Hmm…still not seeing why this should move forward as is. Some positive changes I guess.
The article was interesting to read. Are we really still talking about a platform over the Pike? The Newtonville Village Council is filled with great people, but perhaps they should talk to an engineer or architect or real estate lawyer…everyone I’ve ever talked to puts the cost in the tens of millions. I guess it would be less if it was a narrow pedestrian bridge or designed to hold limited weight. But asking for the impossible and then turning down a development because they don’t deliver it is no way to be taken seriously. Not that I’d mind reconnecting NEwtonville. I’d like lots of unlikely or impossible things.
@fig– According to the TAB article, Mark Investment has already spent $23.5M buying buildings that they intend to tear down. The demolition will likely cost another $1-2M. So we know that a developable footprint of similar size directly across the street is worth approximately $25M. To me, those numbers do nothing but confirm the viability of air-rights development. Tell me why I’m wrong?
The one thing that bothers me about affordable housing is the cost to those who can pay the inflated rates. This unfair scheme punishes people by forcing them to subsidize those who can not pay the very high cost of today’s rental rates.
@Colleen: What’s your solution? Who should pay for it?
@Coleen Minaker – I don’t think it makes a bit of difference in the rental price of the market rate apartments. They are “market rate”. The building owner’s get whatever they can for the apartments, whatever people are willing to pay. If you were to cut the building owners cost , i.e. no subsidies for the affordable units, why would you expect them to drop the rental prices below the market rate?
@Colleen – how does it force people to pay inflated rates? No one holds a gun to your head to make you rent or buy an apartment. If you think it’s too expensive, you go someplace else. If too many people think it’s too expensive, the price comes down so the building owner doesn’t have lots of empty units.
If the owner doesn’t think the higher prices will rent/sell, they won’t build the building in a way that requires affordable units. If they do think they will rent/sell, they’re going to charge that much whether or not there are affordable units because they want to get as much profit as possible.
So what’s your solution Colleen?
Mike: Let’s use $25 million as a base price for land for Orr. Large number. Let’s ignore the price of the air rights, which is sure to be large, but let’s ignore it.
The cost for building the deck about 15 years ago was estimated at $700 a square foot. Steel has gotten more expensive, so has labor. The cost to build over the Pike itself not including the deck is also more expensive. You don’t have terra firma, zoning/permitting rules, what occurs with the train bed, etc.
Last time I saw real numbers on this, the only way it worked was massive buildings. Boston’s pike buildings have all stalled, and the land value in Boston is way higher. And Boston was giving subsidies to folks who built over the Pike at one point.
So is it impossible? No. Very Very difficult? Yes? Completely unrealistic considering the pushback on large buildings? Yes.
Many times folks who don’t want development use unrealistic demands on a sponsor/developer to kill a deal. Witness Columbus Center in Boston. Asking a developer to reconnect Newtonville isn’t in the realm of possibility. The very definition of a poison pill.
I think that we should strongly consider the _size_ of a unit before crying off that it will overload the schools. At lease on facebook, the “reduced scope” of the Turtle Lane project is considered a “big win”
– – –
The reduction? about 1,000 SF of footprint. It was originally 23 small units (only 5 2-bed units, and 8 1-bed+; the rest were 1-bed or studio) and was “reduced” to 16 units. But now the units are larger: 10 2-bedrooms and 4 1-bed+, with only 2 1-bed and no studios.
– – –
Before the only 2-bed units were on the roof. The bonus room in a 1 bed+ has no windows and is a much better office than a kid’s room, and sometimes it’s just an 8×10 “nook”. So before, with 23 units, I’d guess max 10 new kids in the school (most of the 2-bed and maybe 1 or 2 of the 1-bed+; with kids sharing a bedroom). With the new “reduction” I feel like we’re up to almost a kid per unit … maybe max 14?
– – –
So there’s traffic concerns, and massing concerns, load on our schools concerns, and other’s I haven’t thought of yet. But be careful; what solves one may not solve the other.
Anne – that is a great point.
The ‘reduced scope’ of the Turtle Lane development also provided Auburndale with street-level office space instead of a restaurant that would have added vitality and a much-needed dining option to Auburndale. I’m still baffled by that – street level office space in a village center?
Only those with a very narrow focus could see the reduced scope as a ‘big win’. While I’m thrilled that the project was approved, in my mind it was a much better project before the anti-development folks hacked away at it.
Trying to determine what I think about this development causes me painful cognitive dissonance as my mind tries to practice Doublethink.
I know that this block has been purchased for $25 million, paid for in part by outside loans, so the owner has to do something big to make this endeavor profitable. I know the new owner wants this block to be his legacy in Newton and he believes strongly in what that legacy will look like. He has had/has a track record for getting his way. His attorney is experienced in working with the city on projects just like this one. I feel certain that the specter of changing the proposal to a 40B will be hanging over all of the negotiations. All of these facts lead me to believe Newton and Newtonville are already at a negotiating disadvantage.
I think that the city needs more density to provide housing, that it needs more affordable housing and believe that close to a village center and public transportation is the place to put most of that housing.
Therein lies my problem. I think there are many village centers that have much better public transportation than Newtonville and wonder if it is the place to continue to add density. I think that the city needs to continue to formulate a large-scale specific mapped out plan that determines where and when to add mixed use housing. I think he city needs to see the actual effects on Newtonville during and after the completion of the Austin Sreet mixed use development before adding another larger one on Washington. I supported Austin Street, particularly after they added to the affordable units. I continue to wonder what its effects as a whole will be.
But specifically I dislike the facade of the Austin Street building and dislike even more the appearance of the Orr Block proposal as additions to Newtonville. I travel all over and see so many old village and town centers that have been able to add mixed use density to their centers with buildings designed to enhance but hold onto the qualities that make those centers uniquely quaint and appealing. That to me should be a priority in making decisions about what to put in our village centers.
I am not a stickler for keeping every old thing or against the new and different. I like the development in Somerville and Atlantic Station in Atlanta, which is a similar design. I like the free parking garage, the theater, the proximity to almost anything you could ever need and like the architecture. I like the feel of youth in the air. But I also like the old community feel I get when walking around Newtonville, Nonantum, and Newton Highlands. It feels like home. I think that additions there should add to that feeling not change it.
I don’t want Washinton Street to turn into a thoroughfare that resembles all the others. I want it to look like it belongs in Newtonville. I realize that this is a pipe dream and wont be a priority in negotiations because there are more important issues involved.
But I can’t help wishing that Korf would be turned down and made to build something that he can build by right, keep the present tenants, both commercial and residential, and a building more in keeping with the characteristics of Newtonville. There you have the improbable, impossible and insignificant.
Looks like a really nice project and quite an improvement over what is there now. While the existing structures may be historic (read: old) they are also eyesores, especially relative to what is being proposed. Given the clear demand on the part of developers who see this type of project as something for which there is demand, the city should get out of the way, revise its zoning laws and make it far easier for these things to move forward in an expeditious manner. Owners of private property (which Austin Street most notably was not) should be given maximal freedom to dispose of their property as they see fit.
Sadly though, the likelihood of such an outcome is vanishingly small. Newton as a city is far too fearful of change to, well, change.
@Elmo
I would add “within the city’s zoning codes”. I think whenever a property owner wants the city to make an exception to their normal zoning, then their needs to be a significant benefit to the city.
@fig– The cost of steel is the same on the north side of Washington street, as it is on the south side. The cost of labor is the same too. The Orr block will use plenty of both. So those are really irrelevant points. The only thing that matters is how much deck a developer could build for $25M, and how many square feet of building they would be allowed to build on that deck.
Years ago it made economic sense to build over the Pike, which is why we have the Gateway Center and Shaw’s Market built on air-rights. Then there was a long period of time when it didn’t make economic sense. But as the value of land has increased and less land is available for construction, the value of the air-rights has also increased, leaving Newton with an uncultivated asset worth million$ in annual property taxes.
You and I have never seen eye to eye on the value of air-rights. I know your perspective is well thought out, and I have nothing but respect for your opinion. But what concerns me is that you may in fact be wrong, [which I believe you are], and that your logic will be adopted as an excuse by our local leaders, who should have been working toward air-rights cultivation for years. Now is the time! The problem is we’re not ready.
I’m not clear about the businesses that would be displaced. Are they owners of their own space who’ve been bought out, or renters who are simply flat out of luck when the building is sold out from under them? As a small-scale donor to Boston Ballet, I cringe at the thought of all the money that went into creating that Washington Street facility, which will now have to be raised and spent all over again somewhere else. And most of those businesses are quite small–tiny, really–with owners who may not have the money or energy to start all over again.
Mike:
You and I go back and forth on this every six months or so. I think the project I’ve never understood is the Shaws above the Pike. No idea how that got done, even back then. But the Crown Plaza is 12 stories tall and massive. Every project in Boston trying to do this is massive, and Columbus Center collapsed even at a massive size. I’ve looked at a small subset of numbers on this years ago so my experience is limited. But I’m not claiming it is impossible, just extremely difficult, expensive, and both require large projects. The Orr developer bought knowing he’d need a large project too. If folks are objecting to 5 stories with commerical, why do you think it would be ok above the pike, even if you are correct that it is the same or similar pricing to build above the Pike as to acquire the land/buildings in Orr? Air rights aren’t free you know, as an aside…
But before you and I squirrel on this particular issue, lets go back to the original topic, which was the developer funding the deck as an acommodation. Still not sure how that happens in any realistic scenario.
By the way, you are right in that if land prices rise to the point that air rights and decking are now doable financially, then projects become more feasible. More rents in Boston and Newton aren’t the same, and even if they are, we’d never allow the massing that Boston permits.
Have the Newton air rights portion ever been put out to bid? Would the Commonwealth allow them to be granted to Newton for free? Is it right that the Commonwealth split our town and now would charge us to you the air rights above?
As for the Orr building, those buildings are in poor repair, but if cleaned up they would fine. But it is clear that they were bought to be torn down.
@fig– Those are some great questions about air-rights. If they were answered and the regulatory obstacles were made clear, I think we’d find some interesting opportunities presented to the city. The problem is that the pathway to development has not been articulated. No developer is going to submit a proposal until the rules of the game are made clear. The Mayor should appoint an individual or group to explore air-rights cultivation. That would be a good first step.
Amanda, the small businesses rent their space and will have to move or close.
I’m of two minds on this development. First, I’m all for development in the Newtonville area that will help increase density. I believe that this will help business and transit in the area. The foot traffic is needed.
That said, due to the age and condition of the current buildings, they offer re affordable residential and commercial rents. When considering the affordable units that will go into the new building, we need to consider what will also be lost. I’m not talking about a simple math equation, but also considering the logistical difficulty of obtaining “affordable housing” through a lottery as opposed to obtaining an affordable rent through traditional means.
We also need to weigh the cultural loss of the Boston Ballet. Will that organization be able to find a place that meets its size needs within Newton?
I’m not sure I have an answer, but it may be worth exploring working with the developer not only on road improvements and other traditional concepts, but also trying to create an arts space.
I think Boston Ballet used to lease space in Bigelow. Perhaps the city could make an interim arrangement (Aquinas again comes to mind)
I am pro development in general in Newton, certainly more than most of the posters here. I’m even pro development in this particular spot; I fall on the side of saying the Orr building is “historical” but also not particularly well-maintained or valuable in its current condition.
The current proposal isn’t nearly enough, though. Almost to the point of being an insulting opening offer. If a project needs a zoning waiver to move forward, it should require compromises that benefit the city as much or more than the developer. At a minimum, we should be talking about a higher proportion of affordable residences, a less Generic Boring architectural design for the new buildings, and a significant contribution towards the fixes required for the Newtonville CR stop. I do hope that we at least engage the developer enough to have the negotiation, and that we’re ready to walk away if the community benefit isn’t there.
I’m also sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn’t be loading up all of these developments on Newtonville when we have parcels throughout the city (especially anything near the Green Line) that we could be working on. I feel like that’s a different fight, though, and there’s enough benefit to the Orr proposal on its own that we should at least have that discussion.
Jonathan:
Agreed. I also think that folks need to consider what the developer can do as of right. The Orr building has no special protection, it is old but not protected in any significant way. Ted or someone else can correct me if I’m wrong, but 3 stories at this location would not require a special permit I think.
So I recognize that there very well could be some middle ground. But the ground isn’t as fertile as some might think, the acquisition price was high, the cost to build is added to that, as well as the cost to borrow. Lots can be done with affordable units, design, public space, streetscape, etc. Perhaps a contribution to village wide improvements as well. But the more you shrink the project, the smaller the give-back will be, for obvious reasons.
I do feel bad for the small businesses and renters. But there is no protection that I know of for them. The owner can refuse to renew their leases. Wishing things stay as they are ignores basic property rights and current zoning law. That doesn’t mean I have to like it, but I am realistic too.
The gantry for highway speed tolling is in place just west of the Lowell Ave bridge. The anticipated vehicle volume will bring increased sound levels. North Newtonville needs an anchor that will double as a hedge against increasing Pike noise levels. A sound barrier approach with plenty of southern exposure sunlight assures this development will rejuvenate – reminds me of the successful Kendall Square redevelopment.
@fignewtonville:
I’m not an expert in zoning by any stretch, but from what I can find on the city’s site and the zoning GIS map, I think the site is limited to 2 stories by right. Would also love to see a confirmation.
I agree that we’re talking about a middle ground that’s on the more modest side, below what I would expect any significant decking of the Pike would cost. We should note, though, that in terms of the developer’s required return on the project, the important number isn’t what he paid for the land, but rather what the value of the land is for the next-best alternative (whether that’s owning it as-is, selling out at a potential loss, developing within the existing code, or a potential 40B project). If he overpaid for the site on the assumption that a special permit was guaranteed, that’s a sunk cost and not particularly the city’s problem.
(All of that said: I’d rather give him most/all of the size he wants and maximize the givebacks in terms of contributions and upgrades to the village. Here’s to unlikely and/or impossible things.)
Because the special permit petition is currently pending, and the public hearing has not been held, I cannot comment on the project’s merits.
That said, in response to fig’s question about by right options, none of the properties are protected as part of the Newtonville local historic district, nor as part of an area on the National Register of Historic Places. So the one-year demolition delay applies, unless the owner can obtain a waiver from the Historic Commission after review and approval of the proposed project design.
The parcels are all zoned Business 1 or Business 2. The petitioner is seeking a parking waiver based on the proposed uses to be included in a project, over a certain number of phantom parking spaces that are “grandfathered” under the zoning ordinance. Commercial development such as restaurants, retail and office, generally require more parking than residential development on a square footage basis.
Anything over 2 stories requires a special permit. By right residential density is 1200 square feet per unit. The project area is a little under 124,000, so that translates into over 100 units of housing that can be built by right. If the site were rezoned as MU4, the petitioner could do up to three stories by right and up to 124 units because only 1000 square feet per unit is required.
Now I will take off my wishing hat and get back to reality. We know Korf will tear down the buildings and start from scratch and the tenants will be displaced – he has already made that clear. We have to start from there. I think changing the zone to MU4 makes sense. To me that means the starting point is a 3 story mixed use development with first floor commercial and 124 residential units by right.
As Jonathan said, “At a minimum, we should be talking about a higher proportion of affordable residences, a less Generic Boring architectural design for the new buildings, and a significant contribution towards the fixes required for the Newtonville CR stop.”
In the current proposal’s request for a parking waiver, it ends up with much more parking for residences than it does for the commercial. Does this make sense or is it just because there is more room in the underground lot?