Mixed-Use Washington @ Walnut | Newtonville

[commuter guy]

This project is demolishing 8 separate buildings, including the darker red brick buildings to the far left of the above photograph. Whatever one may think of the merits of added density etc., taking down this many buildings to replace with a single large project is not the recipe for success for a small neighborhood commercial district.

 

[bigeman312]

This project is demolishing 8 separate buildings, including the darker red brick buildings to the far left of the above photograph. Whatever one may think of the merits of added density etc., taking down this many buildings to replace with a single large project is not the recipe for success for a small neighborhood commercial district.

+1. Multiple of these buildings are handsome, pre-war buildings, too. For all of the build-able lots (surface parking, etc) in Newton, it's a shame that this is where the added density is being focused. And I'm a huge fan of adding density to Newton - Austin Street, for example.

 

[West]

Picking upon some of Equilibria’s comments from 2/16, here’s what I’d ideally do for Newtonville (and other village centers along the Pike). This just ain’t gonna happen, but in the spirit of Crazy Real Estate Pitches (is there a thread for that?), it would go something like this:

Deck over the commuter rail line from Walnut all the way west to Lowell, and for some distance from Walnut east towards Harvard Street. Those platforms would each also extend over the Pike along both sides of Walnut, and go some depth back from the street. Fill all that deck space with retail / restaurants along the first floors and housing above. Let anyone doing this go to six stories. It makes for relatively thin (front to back dimension) retail space, not ideal. But it would give the Washington /Walnut intersection of Newtonville a sense of place again and screen out the Pike noise and boost retail activity. And with the retail frontages along Walnut Street crossing the Pike, it would knit together the opposite sides of the village center.

Change zoning to allow façade-ism upwards extensions of some of the buildings that are owned by Korff and under the current proposal. Preserve the existing buildings with their good facades (not all are good), step back and build only on the rear parking areas (parking under), and go to six floors, four higher than the front. Not as much new housing, but preserves the existing old retail space and hopefully the business therein (some could get deeper spaces or more rear storage).

Fill in over the Pike from Star Market west to Lowell Street with a garage, three stories or so. If you don’t give the precious Newtonites some more parking while they shop they will frack everything up (I like this part of the plan the least, this is my nod towards a Realistic Real Estate Pitch).

Take by eminent domain (can’t believe I just wrote that) the strip of Star Market’s parking along Walnut, get retail in there, too, to build out the streetscape.

As part of the discussion with Star Market, and perhaps in lieu of using eminent domain, tell them they can get ___ much more density permission if they joint venture with someone who’d rearrange their whole deal there. I’m open to suggestions here, go up above the existing market, go underground with their parking on existing location and then let them build high up above that, you name it.

For the sake of Newton, this is the only way to semi-heal the scar of the Pike gashing through there, boost the tax base, and recreate a proper village center. There’d be a decent amount of new housing added here and for the sake of the greater metro area, Newton needs to pull its weight vastly better on creation of new housing stock. And for the NIMBY-nuts, there’d be more parking (I really hate this part, but I’m trying to accept the reality of my Newton neighbors and without this it gets aborted early in the first trimester).

Now Winston or F-line will explain why I can’t build all this over the rail and Pike in that location and I’ll go about my day now that lunch break is over.

 

[gyro]

This project went before the City Council last night

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...n9HAysbP7oM0RVTtFNyI/story.html?event=event25

 

[DBM]

Picking upon some of Equilibria’s comments from 2/16, here’s what I’d ideally do for Newtonville (and other village centers along the Pike). This just ain’t gonna happen, but in the spirit of Crazy Real Estate Pitches (is there a thread for that?), it would go something like this:

Deck over the commuter rail line from Walnut all the way west to Lowell, and for some distance from Walnut east towards Harvard Street. Those platforms would each also extend over the Pike along both sides of Walnut, and go some depth back from the street. Fill all that deck space with retail / restaurants along the first floors and housing above. Let anyone doing this go to six stories. It makes for relatively thin (front to back dimension) retail space, not ideal. But it would give the Washington /Walnut intersection of Newtonville a sense of place again and screen out the Pike noise and boost retail activity. And with the retail frontages along Walnut Street crossing the Pike, it would knit together the opposite sides of the village center.

Change zoning to allow façade-ism upwards extensions of some of the buildings that are owned by Korff and under the current proposal. Preserve the existing buildings with their good facades (not all are good), step back and build only on the rear parking areas (parking under), and go to six floors, four higher than the front. Not as much new housing, but preserves the existing old retail space and hopefully the business therein (some could get deeper spaces or more rear storage).

Fill in over the Pike from Star Market west to Lowell Street with a garage, three stories or so. If you don’t give the precious Newtonites some more parking while they shop they will frack everything up (I like this part of the plan the least, this is my nod towards a Realistic Real Estate Pitch).

Take by eminent domain (can’t believe I just wrote that) the strip of Star Market’s parking along Walnut, get retail in there, too, to build out the streetscape.

As part of the discussion with Star Market, and perhaps in lieu of using eminent domain, tell them they can get ___ much more density permission if they joint venture with someone who’d rearrange their whole deal there. I’m open to suggestions here, go up above the existing market, go underground with their parking on existing location and then let them build high up above that, you name it.

For the sake of Newton, this is the only way to semi-heal the scar of the Pike gashing through there, boost the tax base, and recreate a proper village center. There’d be a decent amount of new housing added here and for the sake of the greater metro area, Newton needs to pull its weight vastly better on creation of new housing stock. And for the NIMBY-nuts, there’d be more parking (I really hate this part, but I’m trying to accept the reality of my Newton neighbors and without this it gets aborted early in the first trimester).

Now Winston or F-line will explain why I can’t build all this over the rail and Pike in that location and I’ll go about my day now that lunch break is over.

Amen to all of this. I've gone through there hundreds of times in my life. The village itself on the south side--the Walnut St. corridor--is plenty cute. But the Star Market parking lot at Austin St. is an utter abomination. So desolate bleak and dreary. We'll see how the Austin St. development helps with that. The problem is there is kind of a traffic snarl there right at Austin St. where it hits Walnut; how can this project and future "smart growth" help mitigate that?

 

[West]

Amen to all of this. I've gone through there hundreds of times in my life. The village itself on the south side--the Walnut St. corridor--is plenty cute. But the Star Market parking lot at Austin St. is an utter abomination. So desolate bleak and dreary. We'll see how the Austin St. development helps with that. The problem is there is kind of a traffic snarl there right at Austin St. where it hits Walnut; how can this project and future "smart growth" help mitigate that?

That intersection long since reached a traffic load and pattern complexity that needs a signal. having a signal there so close to the signal on the other side of the Pike gets tricky on the signal sequencing on both lights, I realize that. But that is solvable.

Newtonites would fight such a signal tooth and nail. A new signal was installed on the Parker Street bridge over Route 9 and the wailing and rending of garments was astonishing. That signal was a decade overdue, pedestrians' and cyclists' lives were being put at risk daily, so much so that I am astounded there was never a fatality there. But oh my God if some driver has to be inconvenienced by twenty seconds in the name of safety and overall flow improvements....

Newtonites cling to the self-image of Newton as this collection of villages, they don't just fight housing, they fight traffic signals, anything that suggests a move in even the teeny tiniest tip-toe step in the direction of urbanity.

But, having ranted thusly, I will note that the light at Parker / 9 did go in and the Austin Street development did get approved, and from what I am hearing Korff's proposal is not DOA despite the Newton NIMBY front doing its usual thing. So a light at Austin / Walnut and other traffic improvements could happen. Slowly. Probably not till after Austin Street is complete and perhaps Korff's eventual deal is done and the intersection has gone even more full gonzo dodge-em-cars for pedestrians than it has been for some while.

 

[DBM]

That intersection long since reached a traffic load and pattern complexity that needs a signal. having a signal there so close to the signal on the other side of the Pike gets tricky on the signal sequencing on both lights, I realize that. But that is solvable.

Newtonites would fight such a signal tooth and nail. A new signal was installed on the Parker Street bridge over Route 9 and the wailing and rending of garments was astonishing. That signal was a decade overdue, pedestrians' and cyclists' lives were being put at risk daily, so much so that I am astounded there was never a fatality there. But oh my God if some driver has to be inconvenienced by twenty seconds in the name of safety and overall flow improvements....

Newtonites cling to the self-image of Newton as this collection of villages, they don't just fight housing, they fight traffic signals, anything that suggests a move in even the teeny tiniest tip-toe step in the direction of urbanity.

But, having ranted thusly, I will note that the light at Parker / 9 did go in and the Austin Street development did get approved, and from what I am hearing Korff's proposal is not DOA despite the Newton NIMBY front doing its usual thing. So a light at Austin / Walnut and other traffic improvements could happen. Slowly. Probably not till after Austin Street is complete and perhaps Korff's eventual deal is done and the intersection has gone even more full gonzo dodge-em-cars for pedestrians than it has been for some while.

Interesting about the light at Parker/Route 9. I'm assuming peak congestion there is approx. 7:30--8:30 am weekdays, as the inbound commuters to Newton South High School smash into the "regular" (i.e., non-high school) commuters who are accessing Route 9. I imagine NSHS itself lobbied most heavily for the traffic light and it was its advocacy that eventually made the difference? (Interesting to consider that NSHS could've lobbied for the light in opposition to the sentiments of parents living in that corridor who may have kids attending there...)

 

[West]

Interesting about the light at Parker/Route 9. I'm assuming peak congestion there is approx. 7:30--8:30 am weekdays, as the inbound commuters to Newton South High School smash into the "regular" (i.e., non-high school) commuters who are accessing Route 9. I imagine NSHS itself lobbied most heavily for the traffic light and it was its advocacy that eventually made the difference? (Interesting to consider that NSHS could've lobbied for the light in opposition to the sentiments of parents living in that corridor who may have kids attending there...)

That's about the worst time, yes, though the afternoon is fairly heavy, too. There's a lot of north/south thru-commuters on Parker these days, and likewise on every other north/south thru-road that passes through Newton. This is an inevitable effect of 95 being so jammed. If you live in Needham and work in Waltham or vice versa, the slog through Newton is actually less nasty than the slog on 95.

I think the biggest push was from the Newton PD and FD and traffic department, supported by those of us who encourage our kids to walk to school instead of buying them cars or driving them. Also cyclists and any other pedestrians who use that bridge for non-school reasons (there are some of both in non-trivial numbers). That intersection had become psychotically dangerous, as the drivers exiting 9 and turning left onto Parker (from either direction) were faced with a never-ending stream or Parker traffic and had no choice but to force their way out. This would trigger counter-aggressiveness from Parker Street drivers, and anyone on a bike or on foot was just terribly at risk.

Some of the funding apparently came as mitigation spending from the Wegman's development farther in on 9. Also, I think the State was pressing for a light at Parker, as the exit ramps were increasingly backing up into 9 travel lanes.

I don't remember the schools wading in, and I don't think they did (much). They generally have their hands so full with curriculum battles and student stress related issues that they don't venture into traffic issues much. There's the occasional urgings for more folks to walk kids to school (which I wholeheartedly support), but that comes more from parents and the City as from the schools. Being a teacher or administrator in the Newton school district is fraught with so much anxiety on the academic stuff that if I would also stay away from traffic issues if I were them.

To try to tie this all back to the thread - which is supposed to be for the Newtonville proposal - I think getting a light at Walnut / Austin will involve a great deal of misguided arm-waving and silly fulminating, but will probably get done at some point. Maybe Korff can have this be part of his offer, who knows? He's going to get arm-twisted into paying for something, might as well be for something needed.

 

[West]

Latest news:

http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/...level-contamination-at-newtonvilles-orr-block

There's no big news, they found some environmental issues during due diligence, not a surprise for this site.

I post it more as evidence that the developer's due diligence is proceeding and at least for public consumption, they're downplaying these sorts of things as being par for the course. So they're still looking to be serious about it.

 

[West]

Revised proposal posted on the newton tab a few days ago:

http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/...es-bike-lanes-on-walnut-street-in-newtonville

There's a detailed power point presentation embedded at that link with lots of renders and site plans etc.

Fairly sane amount of pushback accepted by the developer. Lopped off a very few units so it would step down in height on the part that abuts lower level homes to the north on Walnut, but still builds 171 units (net 151 gain over the 20 or so that'd be demolished). Intersection upgrades for bike / pedestrian safety, they look good as depicted and that's a sensible offer: crossing that intersection on foot or bike absolutely sucks as it is. Some tweaks here and there on how the buildings relate to the street, nothing major there. The general gist of the original proposal is intact.

I like the massing and general appearance of the architecture. Details in the close up renders are uninspiring but also inoffensive. No awards if it got built like this but I also won't hate seeing it. This metro area could use many hundreds of similar-size developments and by definition they can't all be above average, so while I'm always disappointed by some middle of the road work, I'm not losing sleep over it.

I predict great wails of agony from the "height is god" crowd here at aB, but by Newton standards this would be a big step in a good direction. Another twenty of these scattered around the single-story retail centers of Newton and this town could finally make some effort to pull its weight on the rental housing supply front. And I'd want more to follow the first twenty, if the T could keep up with the boosted ridership (big if, that).

There's a NIMBY petition against it, of course, but what I'm hearing is that it's getting a decent amount of support as well. We shall see.

 

[FK4]

^Render from the site:

And the presentation from Oct. 6.


The revisions look good... Take a look at slides 16 and 17; the "before" render has those stupid, cheap-looking fake square tower things that every bland, boxy, development these days includes to break up the roofline (architects -- what are they called?) - the new roofline and windows are much more handsome. The render in its entirety of all the buildings on slide 30 is a tad "meh" but I think it's a decent addition and hopefully the sidewalk presence will be nice.

After telling councilors last month he wasn’t sure whether those middle-income units would remain affordable forever, Chaviano said Thursday those apartments would, in fact, remain income-restricted in perpetuity.

That's good too, I guess.

 

[tysmith95]

When will urban planners understand that painted bike lanes will literally do nothing. What they need is to put the lanes on the other side of cars and a curb to separate the bikes from traffic. Planners must visit Amsterdam or Copenhagen if they want to know how city streets should be laid out (or heck even Western Ave in Cambridge).

 

[whighlander]

When will urban planners understand that painted bike lanes will literally do nothing. What they need is to put the lanes on the other side of cars and a curb to separate the bikes from traffic. Planners must visit Amsterdam or Copenhagen if they want to know how city streets should be laid out (or heck even Western Ave in Cambridge).

TySmith -- as usual its not that simple

You need to separate soft and vulnerable [i.e. pedestrians and bicyclists] from hard fast and heavy [i.e. cars, buses, trucks, trains] -- this is essential because no amount of wishful thinking will overcome Newton's Laws of Motion or the tensile strengths of materials.

BUT you also need cooperation by all involved -- If you give bike riders a protected path -- some will not chose to use it, and others will still ride in the midst of automobile traffic

Some bicycle riders sometimes pretend to be pedestrians when it suits them -- for example while going through intersections and turning through cross-walks while pedestrians are crossing. At other times they may follow the motion of cars in general --but then suddenly and without warning chose to move in an orthogonal direction to what a traffic signal is permitting for vehicles.

Note that all the above was observed -- sometimes at very close range -- while I recently drove from Lexington through Cambridge on Fresh Pond and Mem Dr., over the BU Bridge and through Brookline on Kent st., to near Longwood and then during rush hour I returned.

To make real progress -- both defined and in some cases fully separated paths combined with strict enforcement of violations by both bike riders and automobile drivers is needed. Pedestrians doing whatever they want to at any time and any place is a further complication -- mostly specific to Cambridge / Boston

 

[tysmith95]

^I agree with you but I believe that you need good and safe bike infrastructure before you can start strictly enforcing violations by bike riders and automobile drivers. The infrastructure needs to come first, then the enforcement can come after. Also I would like to note that cars can kill other road users, bikers rarely kill other road users and pedestrians never do. Therefore a violation by a automobile user should always be considered more serious than a violation by a biker or pedestrian.

 

[FK4]

TySmith -- as usual its not that simple

You need to separate soft and vulnerable [i.e. pedestrians and bicyclists] from hard fast and heavy [i.e. cars, buses, trucks, trains] -- this is essential because no amount of wishful thinking will overcome Newton's Laws of Motion or the tensile strengths of materials.

BUT you also need cooperation by all involved -- If you give bike riders a protected path -- some will not chose to use it, and others will still ride in the midst of automobile traffic

Some bicycle riders sometimes pretend to be pedestrians when it suits them -- for example while going through intersections and turning through cross-walks while pedestrians are crossing. At other times they may follow the motion of cars in general --but then suddenly and without warning chose to move in an orthogonal direction to what a traffic signal is permitting for vehicles.

Note that all the above was observed -- sometimes at very close range -- while I recently drove from Lexington through Cambridge on Fresh Pond and Mem Dr., over the BU Bridge and through Brookline on Kent st., to near Longwood and then during rush hour I returned.

To make real progress -- both defined and in some cases fully separated paths combined with strict enforcement of violations by both bike riders and automobile drivers is needed. Pedestrians doing whatever they want to at any time and any place is a further complication -- mostly specific to Cambridge / Boston

If there was any semblance of enforcement of traffic laws in the metro region - and that includes cars, cyclists, and pedestrians - all of whom, in Boston, show the most blatant disregard for rules and even decent behavior of any city I've ever been to - that would be a start. Bad behavior by cyclists certainly isn't a reason to not construct safer bike lanes.

When will urban planners understand that painted bike lanes will literally do nothing. What they need is to put the lanes on the other side of cars and a curb to separate the bikes from traffic. Planners must visit Amsterdam or Copenhagen if they want to know how city streets should be laid out (or heck even Western Ave in Cambridge).

Building a cycle track is a huge deal - as others pointed out to me on here a couple years ago - all the sewers and drainage etc need to be relocated and the road needs to be fully reconstructed. It's not amenable to a piecemeal approach, certainly not on Washington Street which goes on for miles and would require a master plan before moving on something like this.

 

[Randomgear]

Building a cycle track is a huge deal - as others pointed out to me on here a couple years ago - all the sewers and drainage etc need to be relocated and the road needs to be fully reconstructed. It's not amenable to a piecemeal approach, certainly not on Washington Street which goes on for miles and would require a master plan before moving on something like this.

Grade separated cycle tracks are a big deal, but parking (or planter) separated cycle tracks, not so much. New vertical elements can be placed between the moving vehicles and the cycle track, as long as they are made or located in such a way to allow water to drain, the roadway can stay as it is.

The rendering that you posted today calls for a widened roadway - that usually requires reworking the drainage piping, manholes and catch basins.

 

[FK4]

Grade separated cycle tracks are a big deal, but parking (or planter) separated cycle tracks, not so much. New vertical elements can be placed between the moving vehicles and the cycle track, as long as they are made or located in such a way to allow water to drain, the roadway can stay as it is.

The rendering that you posted today calls for a widened roadway - that usually requires reworking the drainage piping, manholes and catch basins.

Fair enough, but either way Washington Street is all or nothing. Getting one block of protected lanes isn't going to achieve anything... and it's going to be a lot easier in the short run to get bike lanes than something protected, superior as that may be.

 

[West]

Just so we're all clear: the render posted above is Walnut Street, running north / south. The presentation renders showed no bike lanes added to Washington Street, only Walnut.

This particular little segment of Walnut lends itself to a range of bike solutions, basically all the options I've seen discussed in this thread. A lot of width to work with and currently that width is very ill-defined - typical for Newton and for MA.

You go across the Pike bridge and another few blocks south, however, and the road narrows down a lot. I'm not saying it negates the value of this segment of bike lanes, I'm just saying all the discussions of bike tracks, et al, run short of room a little ways south on Walnut.

Washington Street also has a lot of room to work with. However, the safer and better east/west routes across Newton on that side of town are Watertown Rd, a bit to the north of Washington, and Newtonville Ave, just south of the Pike. I'd rather see my tax dollars go to bike improvements on those two than on Washington.

I assume (hope) the developers went with the bike paths on Walnut instead of Washington with feed back from city planners.

 

[FK4]

Just so we're all clear: the render posted above is Walnut Street, running north / south. The presentation renders showed no bike lanes added to Washington Street, only Walnut.

This particular little segment of Walnut lends itself to a range of bike solutions, basically all the options I've seen discussed in this thread. A lot of width to work with and currently that width is very ill-defined - typical for Newton and for MA.

You go across the Pike bridge and another few blocks north, however, and the road narrows down a lot. I'm not saying it negates he value of this segment of bike lanes, I'm just saying all the discussions of bike tracks, et al, run short of room a little ways south on Walnut.

Washington Street also has a lot of room to work with. However, the safer and better east/west routes across Newton on that side of town are Watertown Rd, a bit to the north of Washington, and Newtonville Ave, just south of the Pike. I'd rather see my tax dollars go to bike improvements on those two than on Washington.

I assume (hope) the developers went with the bike paths on Walnut instead of Washington with feed back from city planners.

Good point, thanks for the correction.

 

[West]

I also repaired a mistake in that post that made it confusing:

corrected paragraph, the "south" in bold here was written as "north" in the original post:

You go across the Pike bridge and another few blocks south, however, and the road narrows down a lot. I'm not saying it negates the value of this segment of bike lanes, I'm just saying all the discussions of bike tracks, et al, run short of room a little ways south on Walnut.

Had a moment of spatial dyslexia or something, contradicted myself in the space of two sentences.