|
0 Comments
You can watch the rest of the City Council debates as they are posted here on NewTV Vimeo.
 We still don't know. For anyone unfamiliar with three-year debate over trees vs solar carports at the Newton Free Library parking lot, I wrote about the 2016 effort here. The latest attempt began in summer of 2018 with the Library lot's inclusion in the list of Phase 3 Solar sites. The proposals chosen from the responses to the RFP (Request for Proposals) indicated that the city administration considered public trees expendable in the pursuit of solar power. I wrote about that in a Village14 blog post that stimulated a lot of discussion. Thankfully, as a result of public feedback, the administration backed off on what would have been the most egregious tree slaughters (two dozen mature trees on Albemarle Road north of Gath Pool, and most of the Bigelow Middle School parking lot trees, leading to more discussion on Village14. And some very large red oaks were spared when the Parks & Recreation Commission rejected carports at Auburndale Cove, and more careful shadow studies determined that trees at Angier, Williams, and Oak Hill Middle School, originally planned to be cut down, did not even have to be pruned, as the increase in solar output would be negligible. But the Library site has become not just a debate about the value of trees in public spaces, but a question of fiscal common sense, which I described in an April 25 letter to the Tab: It’s worse than I expected. On March 18, an 18-5 majority of city councilors approved replacing berms and trees with solar carports in the Newton Free Library parking lot. In doing so, they indicated a willingness to spend a then-guesstimated $500,000 to mitigate perceived drainage problems, with no assurance that a yet-to-be engineered system in the library lot would do anything to materially improve drainage in the wider system of City Hall ponds and Bulloughs Pond, of which the Library is only one part. Now the administration is requesting $250,000 just to design the new library parking lot (Docket No. 158‐19). The new design eliminating the berms to add parking spaces was not even part of the original Phase 3 Solar Request for Proposals; it was only incorporated midway through the process, to make the idea of replacing trees with carports more palatable to library trustees and public. (And at a time when projected electricity savings from Ameresco Library carports was a measly $2,000 per year, adding another row of carports somewhat improved this number.) At $250,000 just for design, I’d be surprised if construction costs less than $1 million, dwarfing projected annual savings of at best several thousand dollars. What else could we do for the environment with $1.25 million, if the administration were not so fixated on “virtue signaling,” and city councilors were not so afraid of being portrayed as insufficiently concerned about climate change? Plant 4,500 city trees? Establish an incentive program for homeowners and businesses to install roof solar? Instead, how much taxpayer money are the “Aye” votes (Albright, Auchincloss, Brousal-Glaser, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenberg, Grossman, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Lappin, Leary, Lipof, Noel, Norton, Rice and Schwartz) and the mayor willing to spend to make a statement with library carports? Council votes Monday on design money On Wednesday, May 29, the Finance Committee approved 4-2-1 (Gentile, Cote opposed, and Ciccone abstaining) a reduced request of $175,000 for design and engineering. The full City Council will vote on this money Monday, June 3, and based on their March 18 vote, is likely to approve it. I fear that once the design money is spent, many councilors are likely to forget that "sunk costs are sunk" (the economics expression for "don't throw good money after bad"), and approve however much the actual cost for construction turns out to be, because they won't want to feel that the design money was wasted. Just as recreational gamblers going to a casino are well-advised to set a limit as to how much they will lose, I think councilors ought to know before they vote what their limit will be when the bids come in. Is it a million? $5 million? No limit at all? I've asked all the councilors these specific questions: 1) Is there an upper limit to how much additional spending you will vote to approve in order to actually build it? If so, what is that amount? 2) What is the maximum amount of additional spending you would approve for a plan that does not eliminate flooding risk? 3) If/when the additional parking spaces are no longer sufficient to satisfy increased demand, would you support some combination of free spaces and demand-sensitive metered spaces to promote turnover (e.g. something like the 85% occupancy/15% vacancy rate target considered optimal)? I asked the second question because I'm skeptical that any amount of money will eliminate the risk of flooding in a wetland, and think it's likely that any drainage improvements will only 'mitigate' the risk. I don't expect those warning signs in the parking lot to go away. I asked the third question because at some point, probably sooner than later, the parking spaces being added are going to be full at peak times, too, as more people figure out it's easier to park, and stop avoiding busy times, and due to population growth. (Housing units could easily grow by ten percent if major developments on the table, and Zoning Redesign for higher density are approved.) What is the plan then? Use some degree of pricing to increase parking space turnover? Revert to the current situation of people waiting for spaces at the busiest times? Ditch the carports and build a parking garage? In the very same Finance Committee meeting on May 29, councilors discussed the proposal to give the planning director authority to set parking rates in village centers to regulate demand to achieve an 85/15 occupancy/vacancy target. None of the councilors seem to have any answers. I hope these questions will be part of the discussion on June 3. At their May 23, meeting, the Newton Historical Commission (NHC) voted unanimously to impose an 18-month demolition delay on 1251, 1239-1247, and 1235 Washington Street. These are, respectively: the Brezniak-Rodman funeral home; the brick storefront that is currently occupied by Baby Koo, that last summer was the venue for Principle Group's 'Public Design Week;" and the little former gas station building set back from the street. I was happy the NHC voted as it did, but it is only temporary protection, and as one NHC member noted, even Robert Korff was not objecting to the delay, since it would take that long for any development proposal to be approved anyway. These buildings are part of seven acres between Washington and Watertown Streets, owned or controlled by Mark Development or by Donato family trusts, that Robert Korff has big plans for. It was Robert Korff and his attorney who attended the NHC meeting and sat at the table, even though it's Donato trusts that own these parcels and are technically the ones requesting demolition permits. (And the Donato trusts will have to continue to be the owners for the 18-month demo delay period, or the clock will start over on the 18 months.) These buildings were submitted for demolition now because they're included in the National Register-listed West Newton Village Center Historic District, so the NHC can impose an 18-month demo delay, instead of the normal maximum of 12 months. More demolition requests can be expected in six months. Councilor Chris Markiewicz, the ward councilor from Ward 4 (Auburndale/Lower Falls), attended and spoke in support of the delay, and saving historic buildings as part of any development plans. This is the letter I sent to NHC and read at the May 23 meeting:
To members of the Newton Historical Commission: I hope that, at a minimum, you will vote for the 18-month-demolition delay on 1253, 1239-1247, and 1235 Washington Street. I have lived in West Newton most of my life now, but until recent years had taken for granted our vintage buildings that make our village center such a comfortable place, not flashy. I'm grateful that in 1988 someone cared enough to document these buildings and have them recognized as the West Newton Village Center Historic District. I don't want to see this district chipped away at, with each demolition being further justification for the next, as happened with Oak Hill Park. It is amazing that in the Brezniak-Rodman funeral home, we have a building that has been in continuous use for the same purpose for over 150 years. It stands out as a local landmark in our streetscape. It also proves that old buildings don't have to look old if they're well cared for. I am disturbed when I hear people describe buildings being "tired" as a justification for demolition, as occurred with the Orr Block. This seems to be a kind of 'moral hazard,' rewarding neglect. I hope this is not said about 1239-1247 Washington Street. The cast stonework could use a cleaning, but having lived mostly in houses built in the 1920s and '30s, I believe this was a period of quality construction, worth keeping. Gas stations don't get much respect, and expanses of asphalt parking areas in the front of buildings are now in disfavor, but the former gas station at 1235 Washington is reminiscent of the one on Rt 9 opposite Langley Road. How fortunate that the latter was preserved and incorporated into the Residences at Chestnut Hill. Here's a photo I found online of what that once looked like: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:2227mx02m Now instead of asphalt there is a small oasis of grass and trees on Rt 9. The same could be done with 1235 Washington, to preserve the architecture while also creating a landscaped plaza that would enhance whatever businesses move into the building, and provide green space on this section of Washington Street. This may not matter to the NHC, but I am grateful that the setback of the building at 1235 has allowed room for perhaps the best and widest canopy of any street tree in West Newton Square. Thank you for trying to protect Newton's history. I wish you could do more than just an 18-month demolition delay. I’m happy to announce that I’m running to be the next ward councilor for Ward 3. People from my ward and from other villages of Newton have been encouraging me to run this year – some urging me to represent my ward, others urging me to run at-large. Now that there is an open seat, it’s an easy decision to run for the ward seat. I worked hard on the campaign to save ward representation in our charter, and if elected, I will be proud to represent Ward 3.
I am running to represent residents who don’t currently feel listened to. I will talk to as many Ward 3 residents as I can between now and the November 5 election, and I hope to earn your vote. I have lived most of my life in West Newton. I graduated from Newton High School, studied Economics at MIT and earned my MBA from the University of Chicago. I worked in finance until switching to a career as a photojournalist for the Lowell Sun. I’m a longtime environmental advocate, and care deeply about open space, historic preservation, and maintaining Newton’s socio-economic and ethnic diversity. I’m a member of the Urban Tree Commission, and a founder and currently president of the Newton Tree Conservancy. I am committed to transparency and communication with my constituents — as a journalist, this is second nature. I already record many city meetings for which there would otherwise be no record, and share them with the West Newton google group and other online forums. Many people tell me I am their source for what is going on in Newton. I'm alarmed by the rapid pace of urbanization, gentrification and displacement in our city. The negative impacts of developers’ agendas on our local democracy, cost of living, tax burden, fiscal debt, school overcrowding, traffic and quality of life are distressing to many Newton residents. They tell me they worry about being pushed out of their homes, and out of Newton. I hear them, I want to help them, and I hope to represent them. I’m also encouraged and inspired by a surge of interest among residents of Ward 3/West Newton in what’s going on in city government. Everybody’s busy — with jobs, kids, parents, volunteer activities — but more and more people are finding time to read zoning codes, write letters, go to meetings, and organize. For the last three months I’ve been active with the Unite! West Newton group, one of several new village-based groups that have organized to have a real say about the future of their villages. This surge in local activism is because increasing numbers of residents around the city are concerned about the number of development and rezoning proposals, the rapid pace and difficulty of keeping up with the review process, and ‘visionings’ that end up more reflective of the administration and developers’ visions than the input of the community. Voters want choices, and incumbents need challengers. I am happy to see first-time candidates like Tarik Lucas and Jennifer Bentley stepping up to run in Ward 2, and hope more resident-focused candidates from other wards will venture to run after my announcement today. For more information about me, please visit www.juliamalakie.org. My door knocking begins this week and I look forward to meeting each and every Ward 3 voter — I am running to represent YOU!
If you participated in the Principle Group's Hello Washington Street Public Design Week and thought you were done, sorry, you're not! If you missed that event, don't worry, your input is still needed, because it looks from the first draft of the Vision Plan that the Principle Group did not get the message. So even though we all have busy lives and things we'd rather be doing, we need to comment again, lest our elected officials conclude we don't care.
The month-long window to comment ends Sunday, Dec. 2. I have been so busy with Newton Tree Conservancy activities, work, and other Newton issues, that I only started commenting two days ago myself. The large document, split into four parts, will seem overwhelming, but you may find once you get started commenting, you won't want to stop. Here's a brief guide: Main page on city website: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/washington_street_vision.asp Where you'll find the document links. Note: at the request of some who attended Russell Preston's October 24 presentation at NNHS, the Planning Department has added the video of the Q&A session, which they did not originally post. This is where you will see pushback from the public. Part 1 http://principle.civicomment.org/washington-street-vision-plan-part-1 Introduction & how to use the documents Sample redevelopment scenario West Newton Cinema Block West Newton Cheesecake Blocks Part 2 http://principle.civicomment.org/washington-street-vision-plan-part-2 Newtonville McGovern Site Crafts Street West Newton Station Area "incremental" Part 3 http://principle.civicomment.org/washington-street-vision-plan-part-3 West Newton Station Area "lined bridge" West Newton Station Area "decked park" (pictured above) Newtonville Square "lined Walnut Street bridge" Newtonville Square "Walnut Street decked park" Washington St Curb-to-curb (cross sections of street including lane reductions, etc.) Price tag estimates for public improvements Part 4 http://principle.civicomment.org/washington-street-zoning-toolkit Zoning Toolkit Character Districts Building Types Note: Unless you have a large screen, you'll have to manage two scroll bars - the one on the right to see the whole web page, and the scroll bar of the embedded document. You can comment anywhere by clicking on the screen (and it's easy to click accidentally, in which case just close the box). You can view others' comments, and reply, by clicking on the yellow circles. You can also view the most recent page of comments by clicking on the Comments tab at upper left instead of the View tab. (Unfortunately I could only get the most recent page of comments to display.) Getting a handle on the scale of what's proposed In order to better compare the various options presented, I created this table of maximum stories, expected residential units, and retail and office space, for each option presented. I think these must be seen as estimates, not a guarantee of what would be built. In particular, besides the massive scale of development envisioned, I'm concerned that developers would want to quickly build the residential components, while the commercial development we do need would lag behind or never materialize. Please read what Somerville ward alderman J.T. Scott wrote in 2017 about what happened there: http://jtforward2.com/skin-in-the-game-a-risk-assessment-story-of-somerville-and-union-square/ There are striking similarities between Somerville and Newton. It should also be noted that the numbers in my table do not include residential units that might occur under new zoning in other areas in and around Washington Street - the residential areas in between the village centers. More public input is needed! I made the following comment on page 2 of Part 1 of the document: Newcastle, Maine, just voted down the proposed zoning code developed with the Principle Group there. The vote (on Nov. 6) was 623 No, 488 Yes, in a town with a population of 1,752. They had a four-year process, time to thoroughly consider it. Why are we rushing this through in 13 months? The purported reason was to 'get ahead' of Korff, but the vision presented in these documents varies little from Korff's vision. Massive, mostly residential buildings, configured somewhat differently from one alternative to the next but all much bigger and more dense than the preferences expressed in the Newtonville Area Council survey, the most detailed and documented survey of what the residents of Newton want. At this point, with about a week left to comment on this document, I see on the order of 25 commenters here, and probably half of us are the usual policy wonks. I'm told two people have commented on the hard copy at the Library. 99.9% of the city probably has no idea this is going on, don't have time to comment because they're busy with work and family, or feel their comments won't make any difference. This process has failed at public engagement. Since I wrote that two days ago, the number of individual commenters has increased to at least 40, but this process is still bypassing the vast majority of Newton residents. If you have friends or neighbors who you think would want to be informed, and comment, please send them a link to this page. And if you haven't seen the results of the Newtonville Area Council survey, read it here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/neighborhood/newtonville/default.asp and contrast the results with what's in the Principle Group's draft.
There have been many mayoral forums leading up to tomorrow's mayoral Preliminary Election, most of them viewable online, but the one video that I wish everyone in Newton would watch before voting is of an event I attended last year. It has now aired on NewTV and is available for viewing online.
"The False Promises of Up-Zoning Reform: Lessons Learned From the Seattle Neighborhood that Inspired the Movie ‘Up’", is the story of what’s happened to the Ballard section of Seattle since zoning was changed in 2010 to allow greater residential density. It includes a live video-linked interview with community preservation activists in Seattle about their first-hand experience. Outcomes include higher housing costs, with the areas with the highest density experiencing the highest increase in rents, displacement of workers, elimination of middle-class housing, loss of trees, green space and local businesses, and development outpacing the capacity of transit and other infrastructure. The parallels with Newton are striking, including a pro-growth media, “engagement theatre” for residents, developers promoting density as “green,” with organizations like the Sierra Club arguing for more intense land use, but promises of better public transit decades away. It’s an hour and 13 minutes, but I promise you will find it worth your time and quite compelling. Here's why it's relevant to the mayoral race. Two of the three candidates with a realistic chance of advancing to November, Ruthanne Fuller and Scott Lennon, both voted for the Washington Place rezoning to MU4 and special permit, and support more such high-density MU4 projects. Amy Sangiolo voted against the Washington Place rezoning and special permit, wants to preserve more of our existing naturally affordable (smaller) housing, and emphasizes the need for commercial development that will be sufficient to offset the negative fiscal impact of additional residential development. Please share this information with your Newton friends and neighbors. It’s not too late to keep what happened to Ballard from happening to Newton, but we need more people to be informed about what’s at stake, and vote on Tuesday. For those who don’t know my background: I’m an almost lifelong resident of West Newton. I graduated from the “old” old Newton High School in 1973, went on to graduate from MIT with a bachelor’s in Economics, and earned an MBA at the University of Chicago. I spent most of the 1980s living in Detroit, working for General Motors, before figuring out that what I really wanted to be was a newspaper photographer. Since 1989, I’ve been a photojournalist at the Lowell Sun.
|
 |  |
I've spent much of the last few weeks, along with fellow tree advocates on the Urban Tree Commission, and the Newton Tree Conservancy board, trying to convince the City Council not to approve a deal between Ameresco Solar, Inc. and the City of Newton that would require cutting trees to install solar carports at the Newton Free Library parking lot.
Initial debate at the March 18 City Council meeting showed a closely divided vote,, and Councilor-at-Large Jim Cote chartered the item (postponing it for two weeks) to allow more time for the public to be informed and weigh in. My Letter to the Editor appeared in the March 20 Newton Tab. The Urban Tree Commission has urged the City Council to preserve the Library trees and put solar elsewhere, and the Newton Tree Conservancy board has written to our members to alert them to the impending vote. This document was part of that email:
Initial debate at the March 18 City Council meeting showed a closely divided vote,, and Councilor-at-Large Jim Cote chartered the item (postponing it for two weeks) to allow more time for the public to be informed and weigh in. My Letter to the Editor appeared in the March 20 Newton Tab. The Urban Tree Commission has urged the City Council to preserve the Library trees and put solar elsewhere, and the Newton Tree Conservancy board has written to our members to alert them to the impending vote. This document was part of that email:
Here is my latest communication on the subject, to village list serves and google groups:
City Council vote Monday April 4 on cutting Library parking lot trees to install solar carports
I urge anyone disturbed by this prospect to contact the city councilors, because lack of objections to this plan (even though most people were — and maybe still are — unaware of it), has been interpreted as approval.
Our Library parking lot is the greenest in the city. It still has some of the mature trees that were preserved when the parking lot was designed in 1989. And after many years of an insufficient tree planting and maintenance budget, new trees of large-maturing species were planted just a couple of years ago. As a result, the Library lot comes the closest to meeting our zoning ordinance, which recognizes the importance of landscaping in parking lots by requiring one tree for every ten parking spaces when lots this size are altered.
Solar proponents say the youngest Library trees will be moved, or replacements planted elsewhere. But that is no more than required by our Tree Preservation Ordinance, no net gain, and not reassuring when we are still losing hundreds more public trees per year (about 650) than are being planted by the city and Newton Tree Conservancy combined (about 410). At the same time, we are losing private tree canopy to teardowns and other development at a worrisome pace. Development has also led to loss of public trees at Angier and Zervas, to build larger schools with more parking, and reconfiguring Auburndale Square to accommodate more traffic will cost a large traffic island tree. So we should be planting more trees anyway to offset these losses. Not diverting resources to moving established trees.
City councilors were being urged to act quickly, before a state solar incentive program (which makes these installations financially viable) hit its cap. And also told that Newton’s project would reduce carbon emissions. A contradiction, because a capped incentive program means that another community will install the solar capacity if Newton doesn’t. Now that the cap appears to have been reached, the argument has shifted to ‘having more communities on the waiting list will increase pressure to lift the cap.’
We’re also told solar carports at the Library will be “educational,” as if we’re too stupid to think solar is a good idea unless we’re forced to look at it close up. I disagree.
It’s really a question of whether we really want to give up all the other environmental and health benefits of trees, and the aesthetic value of trees in our public spaces. The projected cost savings of Library carports is less than $17,000 per year, or about 20 cents per resident per year. The same cost savings and carbon sequestration figures (equivalent “acres of trees”) being used to justify removal of Library trees for solar could just as well apply to other public spaces, from the Comm Ave median, to Saw Mill Brook Parkway.
Please support the City Councilors who are trying to save our trees in public spaces by sending an email ASAP, in advance of the Monday, April 4, vote, to [email protected] and to the City Council via the City Clerk at [email protected], in your own words, or by cutting and pasting the following message:
Dear City Councilors,
I ask you to please vote to save the trees in the Newton Free Library parking lot - even the small trees, because they are the large trees of the future. Cutting down trees on our public spaces for profit is a terrible precedent to set. I support Newton's commitment to solar and renewable energy, but not at the expense of our already shrinking tree canopy. I’d like to see more trees in parking lots, as our zoning ordinance requires. Please work to make sure every suitable flat roof, commercial as well as public, has solar panels, instead of cutting down the trees we have. Please support trees where trees can grow, and solar where trees cannot grow. Thank you.
(Your name and street)
City Council vote Monday April 4 on cutting Library parking lot trees to install solar carports
I urge anyone disturbed by this prospect to contact the city councilors, because lack of objections to this plan (even though most people were — and maybe still are — unaware of it), has been interpreted as approval.
Our Library parking lot is the greenest in the city. It still has some of the mature trees that were preserved when the parking lot was designed in 1989. And after many years of an insufficient tree planting and maintenance budget, new trees of large-maturing species were planted just a couple of years ago. As a result, the Library lot comes the closest to meeting our zoning ordinance, which recognizes the importance of landscaping in parking lots by requiring one tree for every ten parking spaces when lots this size are altered.
Solar proponents say the youngest Library trees will be moved, or replacements planted elsewhere. But that is no more than required by our Tree Preservation Ordinance, no net gain, and not reassuring when we are still losing hundreds more public trees per year (about 650) than are being planted by the city and Newton Tree Conservancy combined (about 410). At the same time, we are losing private tree canopy to teardowns and other development at a worrisome pace. Development has also led to loss of public trees at Angier and Zervas, to build larger schools with more parking, and reconfiguring Auburndale Square to accommodate more traffic will cost a large traffic island tree. So we should be planting more trees anyway to offset these losses. Not diverting resources to moving established trees.
City councilors were being urged to act quickly, before a state solar incentive program (which makes these installations financially viable) hit its cap. And also told that Newton’s project would reduce carbon emissions. A contradiction, because a capped incentive program means that another community will install the solar capacity if Newton doesn’t. Now that the cap appears to have been reached, the argument has shifted to ‘having more communities on the waiting list will increase pressure to lift the cap.’
We’re also told solar carports at the Library will be “educational,” as if we’re too stupid to think solar is a good idea unless we’re forced to look at it close up. I disagree.
It’s really a question of whether we really want to give up all the other environmental and health benefits of trees, and the aesthetic value of trees in our public spaces. The projected cost savings of Library carports is less than $17,000 per year, or about 20 cents per resident per year. The same cost savings and carbon sequestration figures (equivalent “acres of trees”) being used to justify removal of Library trees for solar could just as well apply to other public spaces, from the Comm Ave median, to Saw Mill Brook Parkway.
Please support the City Councilors who are trying to save our trees in public spaces by sending an email ASAP, in advance of the Monday, April 4, vote, to [email protected] and to the City Council via the City Clerk at [email protected], in your own words, or by cutting and pasting the following message:
Dear City Councilors,
I ask you to please vote to save the trees in the Newton Free Library parking lot - even the small trees, because they are the large trees of the future. Cutting down trees on our public spaces for profit is a terrible precedent to set. I support Newton's commitment to solar and renewable energy, but not at the expense of our already shrinking tree canopy. I’d like to see more trees in parking lots, as our zoning ordinance requires. Please work to make sure every suitable flat roof, commercial as well as public, has solar panels, instead of cutting down the trees we have. Please support trees where trees can grow, and solar where trees cannot grow. Thank you.
(Your name and street)
Bulldozing Newtonville: Orr Building development may extend to Lowell Ave; residents last to know
2/9/2016
| When I first wrote here about the proposed |  |
I first heard from a resident on Washington Terrace that his lease was not being renewed because his landlord might be selling the building. So it sounded like the development might extend to the east side of Washington Terrace. However, I am now hearing that this will be a six-story development with 230 residential units above the commercial level. But what is perhaps more shocking to me than the scale, is the complete lack of outreach by anyone in city government to the people who will be most affected -- the current renters who will be losing their homes in naturally affordable apartments.
There is a long-scheduled meeting for the community this Thursday, February 11, at 7pm in the Newton North High School cafeteria, sponsored by the Newtonville Area Council and the Ward 2 city councilors, for developer Robert Korff and/or his attorneys to present and answer questions. But I spent an hour Sunday knocking on doors on Washington Terrace to try to learn more, and found that most people I met knew nothing even about the project, let alone the Thursday meeting.
There is a long-scheduled meeting for the community this Thursday, February 11, at 7pm in the Newton North High School cafeteria, sponsored by the Newtonville Area Council and the Ward 2 city councilors, for developer Robert Korff and/or his attorneys to present and answer questions. But I spent an hour Sunday knocking on doors on Washington Terrace to try to learn more, and found that most people I met knew nothing even about the project, let alone the Thursday meeting.
  | One couple had heard (but only two days earlier) that the Newtonville Post Office, the gas station, and the church around the corner on Lowell Ave (Elevation Chapel) were sold or under agreement with contingencies. (I can't confirm the corner gas station, whose owner wasn't talking, or the church, which was closed, but a Post Office employee said their building has been sold, and they only found out last week when inspectors came through.) But people in five more apartments had heard nothing, These include a seven-year resident whose husband has to live within 15 miles of the Weston Fire Department, who was hoping to stay a little longer, until their daughter graduates from NNHS; a three-year resident with one kid each at Horace Mann, Day, and NNHS; another couple getting married -- three=year residents hoping to stay longer; and a couple from Ukraine who just moved in last fall.  |
This project would need a rezoning to Multi Use 4 (MU4), which would need approval by 2/3 of the City Council. Residents in other parts of Newton may not feel this affects them, but should be aware, this may be an indication of what's in store for other village centers (especially those with T stations), and for the entire Washington Street corridor, which could eventually resemble Newton Corner. The pro-density, pro-development agenda is clear from recent Housing Strategy sessions like the November Lego exercise. (Consultant's presentation to Zoning & Planning Committee here.)
Anyone concerned about the physical and financial impacts of development on this scale should attend the Thursday, February 11 meeting at Newton North High School, and continue to follow this issue. You may also want to sign up here for updates from Newton Villages Alliance (of which I'm a steering committee member), on this and other issues.
Mark Investment's website does not show any six-story buildings expect for one in Copley Square, so it's hard to visualize what they have planned for this stretch of Washington Street. We may find out on Thursday.
Anyone concerned about the physical and financial impacts of development on this scale should attend the Thursday, February 11 meeting at Newton North High School, and continue to follow this issue. You may also want to sign up here for updates from Newton Villages Alliance (of which I'm a steering committee member), on this and other issues.
Mark Investment's website does not show any six-story buildings expect for one in Copley Square, so it's hard to visualize what they have planned for this stretch of Washington Street. We may find out on Thursday.
The 2013 campaign may be over, but I still have this blog, and plan to use it. However, I've been preoccupied by trees for much of the past three weeks, as we did our biggest set of Newton Tree Conservancy plantings yet -- 90-plus trees over two Saturdays with five neighborhood groups, plus planting three replacements for past trees that didn't survive, collecting TreeGators from trees that have had their two years of watering, doing assessments (and next, first pruning) of one group of trees that's been in for three growing seasons, and getting started on Spring 2016 group applications. (If your street needs trees and you'd like to organize a group for Fall 2016, you can get more information here.)
One event that I didn't want to miss, however, was the November 22 installment of the administration's series of Housing Strategy meetings, where participants were asked to put Lego blocks on maps of Newton to indicate where they would put higher density housing. One of my concerns is that opinions collected from a small number of people, on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, under rules and format set by an administration determined to build more housing and high-density housing regardless of the impacts on school overcrowding, traffic, taxes, and loss of open space, would be used to justify future policy decisions.
I thought it was important for people who were not able to attend, or who did not even know this event was happening, to be able to hear the discussion, hence the video. With ten tables in the breakout session portion (which starts about one hour into the video), I couldn't be everywhere, so that portion is only a random sampling, but I think it captures the competing viewpoints. It's striking, though, that one thing that people had in common was that no one seemed to like teardowns. (So what is the city doing about that? Nothing.)
Contrary to my fear that this exercise would attract mainly people interested in building more and more housing until "demand" is satisfied (when would that be?), there actually seemed to be quite a lot of pushback on the premise of more housing development being needed or desirable.
One event that I didn't want to miss, however, was the November 22 installment of the administration's series of Housing Strategy meetings, where participants were asked to put Lego blocks on maps of Newton to indicate where they would put higher density housing. One of my concerns is that opinions collected from a small number of people, on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, under rules and format set by an administration determined to build more housing and high-density housing regardless of the impacts on school overcrowding, traffic, taxes, and loss of open space, would be used to justify future policy decisions.
I thought it was important for people who were not able to attend, or who did not even know this event was happening, to be able to hear the discussion, hence the video. With ten tables in the breakout session portion (which starts about one hour into the video), I couldn't be everywhere, so that portion is only a random sampling, but I think it captures the competing viewpoints. It's striking, though, that one thing that people had in common was that no one seemed to like teardowns. (So what is the city doing about that? Nothing.)
Contrary to my fear that this exercise would attract mainly people interested in building more and more housing until "demand" is satisfied (when would that be?), there actually seemed to be quite a lot of pushback on the premise of more housing development being needed or desirable.
| But the rules of the "game" seemed designed to achieve a particular outcome. I was especially disturbed by how the consultant invited participants to convert commercial and industrial property to residential -- calling that an "opportunity" -- when our percentage of commercial property is already low, and we need to preserve and expand our commercial tax base to have any hope of paying for $1 billion of unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities. And as I say near the end of the final Q&A period, I question why the administration is pushing what amounts to a 10% increase in housing units in a city that many of us feel is already fully built out, (And it's not even clear that 3,200 units is the target, or whether it could be higher.) A big thank you to my fellow former candidate, Chris Pitts, for processing the video clips and getting this 2 hour 40 minute video uploaded to YouTube. I hope people will take the time to watch it, and let our elected officials know what they think. |  |
Real Property Reuse continues to backtrack on promises to increase the size of the park at 70 Crescent Street, and Lenny Gentile's pledge to limit the number of housing units in the development to eight. Now up to 12 units, a 50% increase. No minimum amount of land guaranteed to be added to the Rev. Ford Playground. And access to the playground from Auburn Street, that Eversource was willing this summer to give over their land, is being held hostage by the Planning Department to approval of the housing. So the only access will continue to be down the driveway of Myrtle Baptist Church.
Audio of last night's October 27 meeting here.
Oh, and in this very same neighborhood, a large oak tree was cut down by an experienced developer, in violation of his Tree Permit, a developer who will be tearing down a perfectly good moderately-sized house to put up luxury townhouses. He'll owe a $300 fine, all that current ordinances allow.
Audio of last night's October 27 meeting here.
Oh, and in this very same neighborhood, a large oak tree was cut down by an experienced developer, in violation of his Tree Permit, a developer who will be tearing down a perfectly good moderately-sized house to put up luxury townhouses. He'll owe a $300 fine, all that current ordinances allow.
Following the recent alleged rape on the Charles River Greenway, the Nonantum Neighborhood Association and Terry Sauro have organized a community meeting to address safety, homeless, litter, and other concerns. It will be Monday, October 19, 7pm at Post 440 (295 California Street).
I had not been to this stretch of the Greenway, having mostly been around the Albemarle Road access for weed pulls, so I took a walk today with Alderman Jim Cote and NNA member Lois Dominique, who walks there regularly and knows the problem areas.
She and Ward 1 Alderman Alison Leary had picked up litter just last Saturday (carefully, because hypodermic needles have turned up), so it looked better than it had, but there was still new litter. It appears the homeless people who had been camping out near California and Bridge Streets are not there now.
Despite the problems which have been reported, not just recently, but going back at least a couple of years, you can see from my video what a lovely walk this is, and we are lucky to have it. We had an unexpected and pleasant surprise about 2/3 of the way through -- a red-tailed hawk (we think) swooped down and landed on a tree trunk near us, lingered a minute and then flew off. We were all thrilled by that!
I had not been to this stretch of the Greenway, having mostly been around the Albemarle Road access for weed pulls, so I took a walk today with Alderman Jim Cote and NNA member Lois Dominique, who walks there regularly and knows the problem areas.
She and Ward 1 Alderman Alison Leary had picked up litter just last Saturday (carefully, because hypodermic needles have turned up), so it looked better than it had, but there was still new litter. It appears the homeless people who had been camping out near California and Bridge Streets are not there now.
Despite the problems which have been reported, not just recently, but going back at least a couple of years, you can see from my video what a lovely walk this is, and we are lucky to have it. We had an unexpected and pleasant surprise about 2/3 of the way through -- a red-tailed hawk (we think) swooped down and landed on a tree trunk near us, lingered a minute and then flew off. We were all thrilled by that!
Here's an essentially uncut look at last Wednesday's site visit to Austin Street (minus a couple of extraneous moments like my camera getting in the way of Ruthanne Fuller's pointing arm, and both of us apologizing profusely). It's an hour long, so I've broken into two parts.
I can't do actual tracks, as with Newton Villages Alliance yourlisten.com audio, but if you click on the link below the screen capture, to play the video directly from Vimeo, you will see track points of different topics of discussion are included in the description. When the video has buffered sufficiently, you can jump forward or backward to any point in the timeline, but I recommend listening the whole way through!
In evaluating distances from these videos, it's important to note that, because I'm standing close to people so I can pick up audio, and because the autofocus is broken on the longer focal length of my wide-angle zoom lens, this is mostly shot at a very wide angle focal length. This makes faraway objects appear even more far away, and smaller, than they would in person.
You can judge for yourself, but a couple of things I found most striking: 1) Austin Street Partners (ASP) representatives were not able to mark where the actual building (upper floors, as opposed to footprint) ended in the back ("We couldn't figure that out . . . That requires a little level of engineering that we weren't able to do"); 2) their uncertainty over how far the curb would move out, narrowing Austin Street ("Is it four feet or is it a foot?"); and 3) the general surprise/dissatisfaction evident among the alders that basic information seemed to be unavailable, vague, or in the case of the driveway location, contradictory.
A couple of substantive comments of my own:
First, ASP and the city seem to be trying to have it both ways, double counting Bram Way's benefits, when it can only be one thing at a time. They're counting Bram Way from Austin Street as a third means of access for the public, and a way for trucks serving the businesses that back onto Bram Way to get in/out without turning around to use the back entrance. But they want to get credit for Bram Way being open space, by raising it with pavers to discourage the public from actually using it as an entrance. And putting the responsibility on the city to literally close it for events. But the rest of the time it's not actually closed, so the safety concerns raised by a resident near the end of Part 2, that the architect calls "interesting," seem valid.
Second, while trees may not be anyone's top concern, they're one of my big interests, and I wonder if the designers have really thought out what they're doing on the Austin Street side. If the utility wires along the sidewalk are not put underground -- and ASP seems to be saying, if the city wants it done, the city, not ASP, will have to pay for it -- then you can't plant large-maturing shade trees along the street side. But that's what you need to plant if you want to eventually have trees with a canopy above truck clearance height. The species we plant as underwire trees, like crabapples, serviceberries and Amur maackia, tend to have a wider form, and the lower limbs will need to be pruned or they'll be hit by trucks. Or as Gwen suggested, you can plant trees with a vertical form. But the species that I think of -- English oak, columnar sweetgum (MIT has a beautiful row near the Athletic Center), and Newton Sentry sugar maple (but probably not salt-tolerant) are large-maturing species in height. If there are any short, narrow species, they wouldn't provide much of a green canopy.
I can't do actual tracks, as with Newton Villages Alliance yourlisten.com audio, but if you click on the link below the screen capture, to play the video directly from Vimeo, you will see track points of different topics of discussion are included in the description. When the video has buffered sufficiently, you can jump forward or backward to any point in the timeline, but I recommend listening the whole way through!
In evaluating distances from these videos, it's important to note that, because I'm standing close to people so I can pick up audio, and because the autofocus is broken on the longer focal length of my wide-angle zoom lens, this is mostly shot at a very wide angle focal length. This makes faraway objects appear even more far away, and smaller, than they would in person.
You can judge for yourself, but a couple of things I found most striking: 1) Austin Street Partners (ASP) representatives were not able to mark where the actual building (upper floors, as opposed to footprint) ended in the back ("We couldn't figure that out . . . That requires a little level of engineering that we weren't able to do"); 2) their uncertainty over how far the curb would move out, narrowing Austin Street ("Is it four feet or is it a foot?"); and 3) the general surprise/dissatisfaction evident among the alders that basic information seemed to be unavailable, vague, or in the case of the driveway location, contradictory.
A couple of substantive comments of my own:
First, ASP and the city seem to be trying to have it both ways, double counting Bram Way's benefits, when it can only be one thing at a time. They're counting Bram Way from Austin Street as a third means of access for the public, and a way for trucks serving the businesses that back onto Bram Way to get in/out without turning around to use the back entrance. But they want to get credit for Bram Way being open space, by raising it with pavers to discourage the public from actually using it as an entrance. And putting the responsibility on the city to literally close it for events. But the rest of the time it's not actually closed, so the safety concerns raised by a resident near the end of Part 2, that the architect calls "interesting," seem valid.
Second, while trees may not be anyone's top concern, they're one of my big interests, and I wonder if the designers have really thought out what they're doing on the Austin Street side. If the utility wires along the sidewalk are not put underground -- and ASP seems to be saying, if the city wants it done, the city, not ASP, will have to pay for it -- then you can't plant large-maturing shade trees along the street side. But that's what you need to plant if you want to eventually have trees with a canopy above truck clearance height. The species we plant as underwire trees, like crabapples, serviceberries and Amur maackia, tend to have a wider form, and the lower limbs will need to be pruned or they'll be hit by trucks. Or as Gwen suggested, you can plant trees with a vertical form. But the species that I think of -- English oak, columnar sweetgum (MIT has a beautiful row near the Athletic Center), and Newton Sentry sugar maple (but probably not salt-tolerant) are large-maturing species in height. If there are any short, narrow species, they wouldn't provide much of a green canopy.
RSS Feed
