Transit oriented developments in Boston
- Thread starter 12345
- Start date
ok, i'll get this started... should be a 'fun' exercise.
Arborpoint at Woodland Station in Newton - 180 apartment units - according to their website http://www.arborpoint.com/woodland-station/burlington.html
it will start leasing this spring and open 'late summer'
- in my (uninformed) opinion, this is a decent example of how transit oriented development can work... The T trades its huge ugly parking lot for a new garage (built by the developer, i think), and likely gets some additional revenue from a land lease (i doubt they sold the land to the apartment developer). Developer get its 'Newton' rents and the residents get a VERY short walk to the train. Everyone wins.
Only two problems, due to the design residents have:
1) their choice of views - train tracks or the a wooded hill (a very short distance from their window)
2) a good chance of getting hit by a (speeding commuter's) car as they attempt to cross the garage access road between their building and the T platform
Arborpoint at Woodland Station in Newton - 180 apartment units - according to their website http://www.arborpoint.com/woodland-station/burlington.html
it will start leasing this spring and open 'late summer'
- in my (uninformed) opinion, this is a decent example of how transit oriented development can work... The T trades its huge ugly parking lot for a new garage (built by the developer, i think), and likely gets some additional revenue from a land lease (i doubt they sold the land to the apartment developer). Developer get its 'Newton' rents and the residents get a VERY short walk to the train. Everyone wins.
Only two problems, due to the design residents have:
1) their choice of views - train tracks or the a wooded hill (a very short distance from their window)
2) a good chance of getting hit by a (speeding commuter's) car as they attempt to cross the garage access road between their building and the T platform
P
pharmerdave
Guest
Plan to develop T station floated
But neighbors fear traffic woes
By Megan Woolhouse, Globe Staff | June 21, 2007
MBTA officials have asked Newton aldermen and residents for suggestions on how to expand and redevelop the Riverside T station, raising the possibility of stores, offices, or housing on the site.
Those discussions already have caused anxiety among the station's neighbors. The Riverside Station sits on Grove Street, where, according to residents, traffic has reached nearly unbearable levels.
"It would cause so much traffic, it would be horrendous," said resident Polly Bryson, a former alderwoman. Grove Street "can't handle it, it won't handle it, it's impossible."
MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo offered few details about the potential development, saying the idea is in its infancy.
"Prospective developers and Newton's Economic Development Commission have asked the MBTA to study the feasibility of developing property at Riverside Station," he wrote in an e-mail. "While no decisions have been made regarding an official request for proposals, MBTA real estate staff is working closely with aldermen to solicit input from the community to help define such a project's goals and objectives."
State Representative Kay Khan said she has discussed the idea with a T official. She has also met with an interested developer, who is renovating a hotel next to the station and has expressed interest in building a combination of retail, offices, and housing at Riverside.
"The talk today is about smart-growth, mixed-use development," Khan said.
The developer, Paul Ferreira of Blue Hawk Investments, did not return phone calls early this week.
The Riverside Station sits less than a half-mile from Interstate 95 and the Massachusetts Turnpike, close to the borders of Weston and Wellesley. The MBTA owns 22 acres, much of it used for train platforms, parking lots, a rail yard, and a maintenance facility.
Jeremy Solomon, a spokesman for Mayor David B. Cohen of Newton, said Cohen supports discussions, although he has not been notified formally by the MBTA.
"The mayor is not categorically opposed" to redevelopment of the site, Solomon said. "I think the mayor is open to reviewing any proposal."
Community groups from both the Newton Lower Falls and Auburndale areas, however, have been opposed to new construction in the area in years past. Ward 4 Alderwoman Amy Mah Sangiolo said she and other residents have concerns about the size of the project. While the cash-strapped MBTA could benefit from a long-term lease with a developer and the city could gain much-needed tax revenue, she said she wants to make sure residents' concerns are heard.
MBTA officials floated the idea, she said, because they "wanted to know if this was a go or if they have a fight on their hands."
Residents have their share of complaints.
The Riverside trolley carries 20,000 or more riders a day, making it one of the most popular trolley lines in the system. That means the station's parking lot frequently overflows and drivers park on residential streets. Bryson said it's a common event during Red Sox games. Khan said one driver recently offered her money to park in her driveway.
Bryson said she would prefer plans that involved creating a new entrance to the station, one that doesn't involve Grove Street. While designated a state scenic byway, the road is often bumper-to-bumper with traffic, she said.
Josh Krintzman, president of the Newton Lower Falls Improvement Association, said any project that drastically alters the character of the neighborhood "isn't' fair" to homeowners.
"I don't have a specific vision of what the site should be," he said. "But we can't allow anything in there that makes the traffic situation worse."
But neighbors fear traffic woes
By Megan Woolhouse, Globe Staff | June 21, 2007
MBTA officials have asked Newton aldermen and residents for suggestions on how to expand and redevelop the Riverside T station, raising the possibility of stores, offices, or housing on the site.
Those discussions already have caused anxiety among the station's neighbors. The Riverside Station sits on Grove Street, where, according to residents, traffic has reached nearly unbearable levels.
"It would cause so much traffic, it would be horrendous," said resident Polly Bryson, a former alderwoman. Grove Street "can't handle it, it won't handle it, it's impossible."
MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo offered few details about the potential development, saying the idea is in its infancy.
"Prospective developers and Newton's Economic Development Commission have asked the MBTA to study the feasibility of developing property at Riverside Station," he wrote in an e-mail. "While no decisions have been made regarding an official request for proposals, MBTA real estate staff is working closely with aldermen to solicit input from the community to help define such a project's goals and objectives."
State Representative Kay Khan said she has discussed the idea with a T official. She has also met with an interested developer, who is renovating a hotel next to the station and has expressed interest in building a combination of retail, offices, and housing at Riverside.
"The talk today is about smart-growth, mixed-use development," Khan said.
The developer, Paul Ferreira of Blue Hawk Investments, did not return phone calls early this week.
The Riverside Station sits less than a half-mile from Interstate 95 and the Massachusetts Turnpike, close to the borders of Weston and Wellesley. The MBTA owns 22 acres, much of it used for train platforms, parking lots, a rail yard, and a maintenance facility.
Jeremy Solomon, a spokesman for Mayor David B. Cohen of Newton, said Cohen supports discussions, although he has not been notified formally by the MBTA.
"The mayor is not categorically opposed" to redevelopment of the site, Solomon said. "I think the mayor is open to reviewing any proposal."
Community groups from both the Newton Lower Falls and Auburndale areas, however, have been opposed to new construction in the area in years past. Ward 4 Alderwoman Amy Mah Sangiolo said she and other residents have concerns about the size of the project. While the cash-strapped MBTA could benefit from a long-term lease with a developer and the city could gain much-needed tax revenue, she said she wants to make sure residents' concerns are heard.
MBTA officials floated the idea, she said, because they "wanted to know if this was a go or if they have a fight on their hands."
Residents have their share of complaints.
The Riverside trolley carries 20,000 or more riders a day, making it one of the most popular trolley lines in the system. That means the station's parking lot frequently overflows and drivers park on residential streets. Bryson said it's a common event during Red Sox games. Khan said one driver recently offered her money to park in her driveway.
Bryson said she would prefer plans that involved creating a new entrance to the station, one that doesn't involve Grove Street. While designated a state scenic byway, the road is often bumper-to-bumper with traffic, she said.
Josh Krintzman, president of the Newton Lower Falls Improvement Association, said any project that drastically alters the character of the neighborhood "isn't' fair" to homeowners.
"I don't have a specific vision of what the site should be," he said. "But we can't allow anything in there that makes the traffic situation worse."
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Can anyone see a downside to a 'no resident parking' clause for these type developments.
Meaning, if you want to live here you need to rely solely on mass transit, your feet, bikes or the occasional Zip car.
I think there are enough 'car-less' people out there that could and would fill a place like this.
It would solve the traffic concerns.
The only downside I can see is some tenants buying cars and parking them on neighboring streets, but that should be easy enough to enforce.
What am I missing?
Meaning, if you want to live here you need to rely solely on mass transit, your feet, bikes or the occasional Zip car.
I think there are enough 'car-less' people out there that could and would fill a place like this.
It would solve the traffic concerns.
The only downside I can see is some tenants buying cars and parking them on neighboring streets, but that should be easy enough to enforce.
What am I missing?
PerfectHandle
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 25
I've never heard of a developer willfully limiting their potential market in such an extreme way. Why would they want to cut out the vast majority of potential customers by prohibiting cars?
A condo building in Seattle provides about 6 cars free to residents....ZipCar fashion, except there is no charge, residents are just limited to the number of hours of use per month. I think that's a decent compromise.
I have a general question. Does the MBTA have to be approved by local municipalities for developments on their property, or since they are a state agency, do they just have to pass MEPA review?
I have a general question. Does the MBTA have to be approved by local municipalities for developments on their property, or since they are a state agency, do they just have to pass MEPA review?
C
ChunkyMonkey
Guest
There's actually a thread on this already with a pdf map of the developments.
http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183&highlight=tod
Here's the map:
http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183&highlight=tod
Here's the map:
JoeGallows
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
2 million sq ft? That's sure to piss the people of Newton off.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Not sure if MBTA or TOD on MBTA land can be taxed by local towns, but if so, maybe Newton residents, currently struggling with serious budget issues, such as constructing the most expensive high school in state history to date, would be open to increasing the tax base and mitigating the property tax bite.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
But the traffic! Think of the traffic!
Thing about Wellington is that it was supposed to have a TOD but when it was built there wasn't the market for it. Wellington would be a great place to have a couple residential codo towers.
Thing about Wellington is that it was supposed to have a TOD but when it was built there wasn't the market for it. Wellington would be a great place to have a couple residential codo towers.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,806
- Reaction score
- 7,585
Having read the (my) neighborhood's position paper on the subject, no one's pissed off. What they are is unrealistic. The position paper demands that the developers provide children miles away access to a school a mile in another direction (across 128, of course), fix local traffic issues on 128, build their own highway access (which actually is possible there using existing infrastructure if a new bridge over the river is built), and, my personal favorite, that the developer not disturb the current beautiful vista onto the site from Grove St.
Problem is, this site sits between a mid-rise hotel block for Hotel Indigo and the Riverside Office Park, a behemoth that must go back a quarter mile including garage, four stories tall. The vaunted view from Grove St. is just a grass berm with storm drains that the MBTA, out of the goodness of their hearts, maintains to block the view of the parking lots behind.
Frankly, Newton is seeing these developments in all the right places. We aren't losing historic homes, trees, fields/open spaces (thanks, Lasell) or neighborhood charm but parking lots and underutilized commercial areas on major arteries. Given the political situation at the moment, this is not the biggest problem to most people, but like everywhere neighbors have skewed standards for what people can do with their own property, especially in this case where no one can see it.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
I suspect when they get there next tax bill -- they might become more realistic
The standing headline ?Cash Strapped MBTA,? can be now attached to the new headline "Cash Strapped Newton (or fill in your favorite suburb)")
As the housing market continues to crash and burn (even in Newton) -- so will the valuation of property and the underpinnings of the real estate tax
Unfortunately, the towns have little compunction to cut their expenses and so that means increasing % of tax take from the existing homeowners
There is only only likely resolution -- more commercial and mixed-use development such as Riverside
Westy
The standing headline ?Cash Strapped MBTA,? can be now attached to the new headline "Cash Strapped Newton (or fill in your favorite suburb)")
As the housing market continues to crash and burn (even in Newton) -- so will the valuation of property and the underpinnings of the real estate tax
Unfortunately, the towns have little compunction to cut their expenses and so that means increasing % of tax take from the existing homeowners
There is only only likely resolution -- more commercial and mixed-use development such as Riverside
Westy