Newton officials have been meeting with the developers of Chestnut Hill Square to resolve outstanding concerns about the current look of the high-profile project, Trevor Jones at Wicked Local reports.
Renderings for the 240,000-square-foot project show the retail section fronting Boylston Street with awnings and windows reminiscent of a typical high-end shopping block. But the section currently is without either design element.
So who dropped the ball ?
There are a set of construction documents on file at Inspectional Services, that must not have shown windows awnings etc. General Contractors usually build what’s on the drawings. Who made the decisions, and when, to make those changes, and were they reviewed by the Planning Department ?
Will this be replayed at Austin Street ? no trees, no street furniture, fewer windows, one more floor higher ?
This happens a lot with an apparently understaffed ISD.
@Bill: I guessing you didn’t bother reading Trevor Jones’ article. If you had you would know that the developer is taking full responsibility, vows to address the issue and says the delays were at least in part due to weather.
But MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY both the mayor’s office and our aldermen were on top of this and are ready to take measures to make sure it happens, including withholding the final occupancy permit.
If anything this should give you confidence in our city leaders’ commitment to making sure these projects are done right and as promised. Consider it a reason to be optimistic about Austin Street.
Greg,
Yes I did ‘bother to read Trevor Jones article in the April 2, 2014 TAB and that was in fact the inspiration for my contribution above, thank you very much.
If the Mayor ( and presumably his Planning Department and ISD ) and our Aldermen were so “on top of this” why the surprise, and these corrective measures having to have to be made ?
What the developer presented in his renderings ain’t what got built. Might this same ‘misunderstanding’, perhaps in another form , be repeated at Austin Street.? Alderman Hess- Mahan is quoted as saying that “What was actually built there does not look like what was promised”,… further more, the current look of the facade is “significantly different than what we discussed”, and that he is a “little disappointed that it was not built as they presented it “. One would hope that similar regrets, on the part of our public officials, would not have to be registered regarding assumptions made about, the disputed Austin Street housing block. We hear from them that it would be, injecting life into Newtonville Center, provide for public transportation viability, enhance street life and economic growth. These projects, not their words, will be the monuments to their tenure.
@Bill: Actually this is textbook example of the process working. Our executive and legislative branches are both insisting on accountability. So is the fourth estate. Thanks to the TAB, the developer is on record saying they’re committed to it and will have a plan and timeline delivered to City Hall next week. All good.
Meanwhile, the infrastructure improvements funded in large part by the developer have greatly enhanced travel in this corridor. Drive down that section of Route 9 and tell me that things aren’t much better now. But go back and review the objections from abutters when Chestnut Hill Square was before the aldermen and you’ll hear many of the same doomsday predictions that we’re now hearing about Austin Street.
“Consider it a reason to be optimistic about Austin Street”? Really?
Wow, I thought that they only legalized medicinal marijuana; not recreational use as well
This rendering of the mall has windows and awnings facing Rt 9. The photograph of the as built have only a whole long row of back doors all painted blue facing Rt 9 and looks a whole lot higher than what was approved. It would be great if someone could re-post the photograph which was posted on this thread earlier today before it was replaced with the current artist rendering. It’s quite a contrast! Is the fix going to be to put awnings above the doors, or are they seriously going to tear open that entire facade and add windows per what our aldermen approved? Something tells me not. This is just yet another example of a developer ignoring the approved plans and building whatever they feel like and then crying mea culpa afterwards and making a half ass’ed attempt to fix it. Maybe they’ll just plant ivy to cover it like the BOA asked done on the illegal retaining wall case on Lovett Rd. No real consequences for not following the construction plans.
@Peter: The photo you are referring to was and is on the TAB’s website. It was never here. We don’t own that photo.
The rendering here came from the developers site but may not necessarily be the rendering that is closest to what the aldermen approved. The TAB posted a rendering that according to the cutline there, was current at the time Land Use approved it. They seem similar but not identical.
I agree however that it does seem like quite a leap from rendering to current result. But the jury is out as to if the solution will be “half ass’ed” or not.
New England Development is reputable company with deep local roots. They’re also competing in a highly competitive area against two other major malls/shopping areas. I’m guessing it will be first-rate and that their tenants are expecting the same.
Bottom line is no one has gotten away with anything and I believe they are fully committed to making this right.
It’s not the process that may or may not be working, it’s the judgements that were brought to bear here that should really be questioned. The city is looking for accountability on the part of the developer, but its own accountability is not being addressed. And all this is being brought to bear after the fact. The Atrium was a failure and I suspect over the long haul this complex will follow suit for much the same reasons. Route 9 travel, aside from the addition of yet another stop light to restrict travel, and to allow egress from the developers property, hasn’t been enhanced that much. And this is probably the reason people won’t want to stop here either. Yes the road surface is smoother, Miltons parking lot is covered up, and the devestated, fire ravished office building has finally been put out of sight, but awnings and store front windows or not, that sidewalk will never encourage many pedestrians to walk down that highway, or to encourage them to stop after they have whizzed by.
Peters mention above reminds me of my now oft repeated quote of Frank Lloyd Wright,.. “Physicians will bury their mistakes,.. Architects can only plant ivy “. Will Austin Street be yet another mistake? If so that will be a whole lot of ivy.
@Bill: How is the city’s accountability under question? (I’m mean, except by you.) And it’s not “after the fact.” No one has said this project is complete. The city has not issued the final occupancy permit, which is how the system should work.
And I drive this route nearly every day and can tell you (a) the road improvements are substantive and (b) people are shopping, dining and exercising here.
Greg, route 9 traffic is as bad as ever, they just pushed the problem a bit further away from the mall. The added capacity of the extra lanes around Chestnut Hill Square just gives a little breathing room between chokepoints at Hammond Street and Woodward. Woodward backs up a full mile now instead of being held back at Langley. Any net improvement in throughput? I doubt it.
Greg – thanks, yes, I realized after posting that the photo I had seen was the one taken by Trevor Jones of the TAB.
Thank you for the timely story and the comments–timely because I drove past the new mall just the other day and wondered why on earth the city would approve such a great hideous blank wall staring out at Route 9. Now I have to wonder why the developers thought they could get away with it. Reminds me of the ruckus over Hotel Commonwealth in Kenmore Square a while back. Some improvements were eventually made, but ugly with a little trimmed off is still ugly.
Greg
How can you write the following two statements about the exact same development?
“Consider it a reason to be optimistic about Austin Street.”
and
“I agree however that it does seem like quite a leap from rendering to current result.”
A window for retail is hugely important. High end retailers spend a whole season envisioning and investing in the next window look. Those awnings are distracting
I don’t understand why the developer would build something so uninviting looking. It feels claustrophic driving past it and there’s nothing on the Rte. 9 side that gives me any wish to enter and look around. I’m agnostic on the awnings, but windows would certainly help a lot. I find it hard to believe the developer planned to be in compliance when they built solid brick walls where they promised windows.
I’m skeptical of the whole concept of temporary certificates of occupancy. The developer who did the luxury condos at 491 Waltham on the corner of Webster Street got a temporary certificate of occupancy from ISD without having done the tree planting that was required to replace caliper inches cut down, sold the units, and they are now occupied. Marc has said they either have, or will (I forget which) be paying into the Tree Preservation Fund in lieu of planting. Which they need to do to get an actual certificate of occupancy.
They’d better, because the same developer also did more luxury condos next door at 15 Webster St which are now for sale, and where, by the way, I saw them cutting down a large tree on election day last year during construction, called it in, and it turned out the tree was not indicated as going to be removed on the plan they’d submitted to Marc, and they did not notify him when they decided to remove it. So they owe replacement inches and a fine for that one.
That facade is a disgrace and everyone involved in it should be ashamed. But alas, the bottom line is the metric that matters, and these developers are all high-fiving each other and laughing all the way to the bank.
As for declaring the traffic flow successful: evaluating it before Wegman’s is open is premature at best. Let’s see what it looks like during the pre-dinner rush and on weekends. Should be big fun.
Yes traffic once Wegman’s opens (and for a number of weeks after that) will be challenging.
Greg,
“How is the cities Accountability under question ?” ?? ( ‘Except by me ‘ ).?? Read your own ‘sympathetic’ blog posting here !
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are a joke. I have a developer who built a house next door to me and has moved into it himself without his Certificate. He is supposed to be fined $1,000 for this infraction. But will he be ?
The developer who built a house at 78 Lovett Road, designed on the back of an envelope, from a pick up trucks tailgate, with illegal retaining walls built into the set backs, took occupancy without his CO and was given a slap on the wrist and told to “plant some ivy” by the Land Use committee. Check out the membership of that committee.
Enforcement is a joke. It’s timid at best, and it seems non existent for the most part.
I’m blown away by some of the criticism on this thread. Chestnut Hill Square is a great development that’s brought jobs and tax dollars to Newton, not to mention a Wegman’s that consumers have rated the #1 supermarket chain in the country, and a world-class fitness facility in Equinox. These businesses help improve the quality of life for many area residents.
We’re coming off one of the worst winters in memory. Not the smartest time of year to be working on windows and awnings that the developer has always intended to install. Now that spring is here, I’m sure they will do exactly what was promised. Issuing a temporary Occupancy Permit only strengthened the City’s hand in assuring those things happen. The infrastructure upgrades have significantly improved traffic. What the heck are people bitching about???
What Mike said.
@Mike Striar & Greg – I don’t really have a dog in this fight and I’m happy enough with whatever is done there.
I do see what the issue is though. The rendering that was presented to the city appears to have stores, windows and frontage facing Route 9. What’s there now is a back brick wall. The developer seems to be saying don’t worry we’re not done and we plan to hang some awnings on that wall to make it look more like the rendering. I think that awnings or not it will still be the back brick wall of the complex and be significantly different than what appeared to be presented in the rendering.
As I say, I don’t really care but it does seem a bit misleading.
Get a grip, guys. While I’m glad that the city is holding the developer accountable, we’re talking about awnings that s/he agreed to put up. As much as I abhor most developers (and I do), I’d hate to see them force their employees to work outside during this incredibly cold winter putting up awnings in order to accommodate some very precious Newtonites.
This one is only surpassed by the brouhaha about parking meters in Waban. They don’t call us the “laughing stock” for nothing.
@Jerry– I’m suggesting that once the developer has the weather to complete the work, the building will look like the approved plan. That plan may differ somewhat from the rendering above, because I don’t know when in the process that rendering was created. But the end result will closely match the design that was approved by the City. The City did the right thing in allowing the temporary Occupancy Permits, because that enabled businesses to open and people to earn paychecks. That being said, I think Ted Hess-Mahan is doing the right thing as well, publicly reminding the developer of their obligation.
I don’t see how issuing a temporary certificate ‘strengthens the city’s hand,’ as opposed to requiring that things be done right before the C.O is issued. And while I can maybe understand awnings not being put up when it’s cold (although we did have an earlier warm spell before it got cold again), I don’t see windows as ‘finishing touches’ to use the developers term. They have to be built in and built around. And since watching Agnes and Henri on “Mr. Selfridge” I have a greater appreciation for store windows!
Does anyone know if the north-facing facade will ever look as warm and sunny as it does in the rendering? Will the sun ever reach that side, even in summer?
Julia–The temporary permit strengthened the City’s hand because the tenants leases went into effect when they opened for business and started paying rent. If the landlord [developer] doesn’t meet the requirements for an occupancy permit when the temporary expires, they would be in default of their lease obligations. The tenants who were forced to close would not only stop paying rent, they’d all sue the landlord for damages.
Are we making some assumptions about the leases?
A Special Permit is a legal document, issued by the Board of Aldermen as the permit granting authority and recorded with the registry of deeds by the property owner. A special permit allows a property owner to build a structure or use property for a purpose which is not allowed by right, and must be reviewed and approved by at least 2/3 of the Board of Aldermen. Every special permit contains findings that the project meets certain prerequisite criteria and a list of conditions which must be satisfied before a permanent Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Inspectional Services Department.
Condition 1 of the Chestnut Hill Square special permit provides in relevant part that “[a]ll buildings, parking and other site features associated with this Special Permit/Site Plan Approval for the Project shall be located and constructed/implemented consistent with the plan set entitled “Special Permit Application Submission for Chestnut Hill Square … which plans are identified in Exhibit A and are hereby incorporated by reference.” These plans include elevations which show how the exteriors of the buildings are supposed to be constructed. I invite readers to compare the North Elevation at the bottom left of the plans submitted and made a part of the Special Permit with the photograph of the project as built in the Newton TAB article.
The plans clearly show windows and awnings on the east, north and south elevations of the building. The Route 9 (north) facade was discussed at length during the working sessions, where the developer represented that the retail building would have windows and awnings as shown in the plans to enhance the appearance of the entire project. This was supposed to look like a “high end” block of stores and restaurants which would provide a vibrant and attractive presence on Route 9, which is the only entrance to Chestnut Hill Square.
In a project this large and complex, a developer will often seek a consistency ruling from the Commissioner of ISD that amendments to the plans are “consistent” with the plans approved with the special permit. The Commissioner sometimes seeks advice from the Land Use Committee regarding the intent of the special permit in connection with a request for a consistency determination. Indeed, NED obtained a consistency ruling when it reallocated space within the project to accommodate Wegmans, increasing the square footage from 50,000 to 70,000 square feet. Condition 18 of the Special Permit specifically permits this, provided that the total parking demand does not change. Subsequently, NED also came in for a ruling to allow it to add another floor of parking to the garage. That was not allowed, as were other proposed alterations.
As a member of the Board of Aldermen, and former chairman of Land Use which recommended approval of this project, I feel obligated to help ensure that all projects are built in accordance with the conditions of the special permits approved by the board, particularly a project as prominent as Chestnut Hill Square. That is why some of my colleagues and I followed up with ISD and the Planning Department, which have held a series of meetings with NED to resolve issues with consistency. I trust that the developer is acting in good faith and that the final project when complete will be a source of pride for everyone.
Ted Hess-Mahan, et al,
With all due respect, WHY, this ‘Density is the Problem’ , critic asks, would the Board of Aldermen,.. “Allow a property owner to build a structure or use a property for a purpose which is not allowed by right” ??? This,it seem to me, is at the crux of much of the uproar about over development, ease of special permit grants, derogation of village character and the general Urbanization of our “Garden City”. What is in the cities interest here ? What is in the interest of the Board of Aldermen ? What ambitions must be fulfilled by the Mayor and his Planning Department ?
Newton is a mature city, its built out,.. Its time to think about maintaining what we have, our streets, schools, trees, public works, and public buildings etc. I know as an architect it’s much more glamorous to design a new building than to maintain and remodel an existing one, but this is the hand we have been dealt, and we are not playing our cards right.
Blueprintbill– It’s been awhile since a tragic fire affected that property, but it WAS a supermarket and mixed use development. So this new use is completely consistent with the historical use of that property. Yes, a new by-right development there may have allowed less onsite density. But the SP process opened the door for much more input from the City than a by-right project would have. In addition to that input, the tax benefit to the City was increased substantially through the process. In my opinion, Ted deserves an enormous amount of credit for the leadership and vision he has shown throughout the entire Chestnut Hill Square project.
@blueprintbill: Section 9 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws provides in relevant part that: “Zoning ordinances or by-laws shall provide for specific types of uses which shall only be permitted in specified districts upon the issuance of a special permit.” The statute goes on to list the kinds of relief that a special permit may provide, including among others increased density, provided that specific criteria are met. Under the law, such permits may also impose conditions, safeguards and limitations on time or use.
Without a special permit, Newtonville, Newton Highlands, West Newton, Newton Centre, Newton Corner, and other village centers would not be enjoying the revitalization so many people have referred to in their emails and letters to the Board of Aldermen concerning Austin Street and other proposed and completed developments. Without special permits that allow parking waivers, increases in FAR, change of use, added density, and any number of other kinds of relief, you would not see the Rox Diner, Down Under Yoga, Deluxe Diner, Bill’s Pizza, Dunn-Gaherin’s, Panera, Terry O’Reilly’s, Max & Leo’s Pizza, Lumiere, Cherry Tree, and a variety of other thriving restaurants and businesses in the village centers today. Because “by right” none of these businesses could operate in the village centers. While I would happily do away with many of the restrictions that require special permits in favor of by right development, the review and approval process gives the Board of Aldermen a measure of control over granting permits and imposing conditions that mitigate the impact of these projects.
Hey, Ted! We agree!
When I complain about density, I’m talking about developers who tear down moderate sized homes and build a MacMansion to the maximum FAR on a residential lot, or worse, take a two family home and turn it into 6 condos/apartments.
However, I do see a need for village centers to change over time. Thirty years ago, there was a stationery store and a fabric shop in Newtonville, but times changed and those businesses couldn’t survive. I don’t see that as urbanization, just the reality of life. We don’t want our villages to be stuck in a time warp.