CommonWealth Magazine
May 9, 2020
By Halina Szejnwald Brown

This is story about a fight over a new large housing development in Newton. Such stories, which involve stiff local opposition, play themselves out hundreds of times yearly in attractive suburbs of economically prosperous US cities. But this story has a trajectory and an ending different from the typical ones.

A typical story line goes something like this: A developer proposes a large housing project of several hundred apartments; the neighborhood or the entire community becomes alarmed and begins pressing local politicians to block it. A large controversy ensues whereby the local proponents of the project — a fraction of the local political leaders, some in the business community, and usually a minority among the citizenry — point to the housing crisis, dwindling tax revenues, and the stretched municipal budget; the opponents cite traffic, overcrowded schools, and the loss of the community character (a catch phrase that can include anything from the architectural design to xenophobia and racism). The specific tactics of the fight vary but the outcome is usually the same: the project gets killed. The wealthier and more educated the community, the fiercer the battle and the more likely the project’s demise.

This Newton story deviates from this narrative. It does include a fierce confrontation between the opponents and proponents, but the proponents, including me, formed an unusual united coalition representing a wide range of interests: the developer, local activists and most of Newton’s civic organizations. The outcome is also different: overwhelming approval of the project in a citywide referendum.

The background of this story is the increasing income and wealth inequality in Massachusetts, a growing distrust between cultural groups, the housing crisis in the Boston metropolitan area, the looming climate crisis, and the recently released Newton Climate Action Plan.

The Garden City is Newton’s well-deserved nickname. In this city of 89,000, about 90 percent of houses are single- and two-family structures framed by flowering bushes and green lawns lining quiet sidewalks shaded by old tree canopies. Over half of the houses were built before 1930. They are known for their external beauty: rich in detail and endless variety. While daily life here is very much car-dependent, and zoning favors separation of residential from commercial buildings, Newton’s density is much higher than in typical US suburbs, and all the streets and roads have sidewalks. Since the 1980s the city’s housing has changed in three ways: replacing older one-family homes with new ones, generally two to three times larger than the originals; replacing older single-family houses with 2-4 family condominiums; and building multiunit buildings in a limited number of areas zoned for mixed use, generally by replacing old commercial structures.

Newton has excellent amenities: It is located only a few miles from downtown Boston, to which it is connected by several modes of public transit, and has access to two major interstate highways: north-south and east-west. It has an abundance of athletic fields, a lake with a public beach, parks, and several large parcels of public forests. The picturesque Charles River borders it on three sides, offering bicycle paths, woods, and boat rentals. Newton is known for excellent schools, an extremely low crime rate, good services, and rich cultural life. These amenities are increasingly strained because the residential property tax revenues — the bedrock of its budget — are falling behind the growing obligations to the pension fund.

Newton is experiencing a rapid disappearance of housing for middle and lower income budgets. While a generation or two ago middle class families could still find houses in their price range, this is no longer the case. In 2019, the median price of a single family house listed for sale was close to $1.2 million. The housing crisis in Newton mirrors that in Boston and numerous other cities and towns in its larger metropolitan area. Newton is also aging: 25 percent of residents are over 65. Many elderly residents live in homes that are far too large for them but cannot find affordable smaller alternatives within the city.

The project, its opponents and proponents

Sometime in 2016, Northland Development Corporation proposed to build a village of sorts, 950 apartment units in several buildings, with retail and office space, on three adjacent parcels of post-industrial land it owns (22.7 acres in total) in the area called Newton Upper Falls. For decades the site has been an eyesore of decaying buildings and parking lots, and everybody agreed that something should be done with it. But the size of the Northland proposal took the idea of development to a whole new level. Nothing on that scale had ever been built in Newton.

Apart from the visual impacts of the project’s large size, an increase in automobile traffic would be the most difficult problem to solve. The main road connecting the development with the closest transit stop and the rest of Newton is a very congested commercial street. The congestion has increased recently due to commercial developments in neighboring Needham and the creation of a new Route 95/128 highway interchange nearby. Potential supporters of the project proposal included environmentalists, housing and senior advocates, and social progressives who believe that Newton has a responsibility to address the state’s and its own housing crisis and who are concerned about the increasingly for-the-wealthy-only character of the city.

Emphasis on affordable housing was very high among the proponents. Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller shared the views of the progressives and additionally looked to the project to generate tax revenues. “(W)e must preserve the wonderful quality of life we have in Newton while we make room for people of all means in our community,” she said. In 2019 Newton released an ambitious Climate Action Plan which aims for zero carbon emissions by 2050. With regard to new residential construction, the plan calls for higher density, radically greater energy efficiency, and elimination of gas heating in favor of electric heat pumps. The building standards committee of Green Newton, a highly respected local grassroots organization, approached Northland independently of the review process by the city to directly negotiate about Passive House construction and the elimination of all new gas hookups in favor of cutting-edge electric heating technologies. It was a brilliant move because the developer needed allies to fend off opposition to the project. The Newton Citizens Commission on Energy, an appointed advisory body to the mayor and the City Council, supported the Green Newton initiative and so did other local environmental organizations.

Northland had never even heard about Passive House, a trademarked technology that tightens the external building envelope in a way that reduces energy use by more than 40 percent and often requires no heating at all. Northland initially resisted the idea, but over time, and with the help of a consulting firm specializing in that type of construction, and state subsidies, Northland acquiesced, pledging to use the technology on three of the eight buildings, or 280 units.

Public transit and bicycling advocates such as Bike Newton and the mayor’s transportation advisory group supported the Northland project, pushing for limited parking facilities, hoping to attract one-car families and residents with no cars at all. They hailed the fact that the project would indeed be connected to the nearest T stop by the Upper Falls Greenway, a currently existing one-mile-long wooded bike path. Open space advocates pushed for an underground garage while ecologically-minded groups wanted to see restoration of a natural stream which had been confined to a culvert for more than a century. The sustainable living advocates within the Energy Commission viewed it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a “sustainability village” in Newton whose residents could meet all their daily needs within an approximately one-mile radius and create a thriving self-contained community. The affordable housing advocates and social progressives aimed for maximizing the number of “affordable” and “workforce” units. And advocates for seniors pressed for senior-friendly building design.

The most vociferous opposition to the project came from two directions: the village of Newton Upper Falls and a citywide coalition of anti-development and anti-urbanization advocates organized under the umbrella of Right Size Newton.

The City of Newton comprises 11 villages. Most villages have semi-urban walkable centers, and each has unique character, depending on the level of urbanization, average income, architecture, access to public transit, and cultural diversity. Some of the smaller villages, such as Upper Falls, have strong neighborhood cohesion and a sense of belonging among residents. It is a cozy place. Upper Falls is also one of the last vestiges of relatively affordable housing, partly because its industrial history traditionally attracted working families and immigrants to the area.

The main points of contention by the opponents were as expected: additional traffic, school overcrowding, and the loss of village character. They called for a much smaller, though undefined, project. The Northland proposal had come on the heels of several other residential construction projects in Newton (far from Upper Falls). This accelerating pace of new buildings, although not extensive relative to Newton’s size and population, unnerved many long-time residents who are averse to change, especially change toward a more urban character. “We will soon be like Brookline” is a common phrase. One of these projects – a single four-story residential building with 68 apartments – was at the time being fiercely (and eventually unsuccessfully) opposed by the host neighborhood, leaving behind lingering resentments, grievances, distrust of the government, and suspicions about the future of Newton.

Between 2016 and 2019, the 24-member Newton City Council worked with the city’s planning department, the developer, consultants, local activists, and residents to shape the proposed project to its and others’ liking. This included a reduction in the number of residential units to 800 and a decrease in the amount of traffic-generating retail space.

In December 2019, after many dozens of meetings with the developer; 14 meetings of the Land Use Committee of the City Council, of which 12 were public hearings; and intense last-minute lobbying, the City Council approved the project with a 17-7 vote, one over the required two-thirds majority.

The final design had something in it for all the proponents and opponents, including: 17 percent affordable units; a garage put underground to increase open and park space to 40 percent of the site; secure bicycle parking; ecological restoration of a brook; several mini parks; three Passive House buildings; apartments heated with advanced heat pumps rather than natural gas; a strict traffic management plan; free T passes for residents; a free electric shuttle to the closest T stop, every 10 minutes, 16 hours per day; and $10 million cash, including $1.5 million for the local school and $5 million for street improvements, including utility connections underground rather than on poles to create space for a protected bicycle lane along the main street. The large size of the project made these amenities fiscally possible.

The Referendum

But the fight did not end with the council’s vote. The Newton city charter provides for putting a council’s decision to a citywide referendum vote if a petition is signed by at least 5 percent of registered voters. This is a low threshold relative to the similar state-level provision (12 percent) and to other Massachusetts municipalities (12 to 20 percent range). Over the next three weeks the opponents, carrying clipboard and signature sheets, fanned out to supermarkets, the public library, drugstores, anywhere residents congregated, and easily collected over 3,000 signatures. The vote was scheduled for March 3, the day of the state presidential primaries. The “Vote Yes” coalition favored that date, reasoning that a large turnout would represent the larger Newton community, not only the most passionate opponents and proponents, and would work in their favor.

During January and February, the battle lines sharpened, emotions on social media exploded, alliances became reconfigured, and the nature of the debate changed. While in the pre-council-vote period Northland was an applicant negotiating with the city and the community at large, after the vote Northland became one of the many proponents of the project. In the first organizing meeting hosted by a Newton resident, the Northland team and their communication consultant took the stage. The well-attended meeting attracted baby boomers who exhibited the type of determination I imagine them displaying in their 20s as idealistic social reformers.

In no time a large number of volunteers on both sides became mobilized: they rang doorbells, made phone calls, provided and dropped off lawn signs and hosted house parties, and submitted letters to editor of the Newton Tab. Northland’s consultant, who specialized in political campaigns, provided materials, training, and organizational capacity for the citizen volunteers who supported the project. It maintained maps with anticipated leanings in various neighborhoods, surveyed public opinion on an ongoing basis, and flooded Newton mailboxes with high quality, glossy, mailers. Altogether, Northland outspent the opposition by 10 to 1.

The pro-Northland coalition comprised 16 local organizations, including business (The Newton-Needham Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Newton Economic Development Commission), faith-based (Newton Interfaith Clergy), conservation (Newton Conservators, 350Mass), municipal commissions (Newton Urban Design Commission), and housing (Uniting Citizens for Housing Affordability in Newton, Newton Housing Partnership, Engine 6, Can Do), Green Newton, and other groups. The mayor and Gov. Charlie Baker publicly supported the project, and so did the Boston Globe. Right before the voting day, Baker approved a $400,000 grant to support an extension of the Upper Falls Greenway bike path. The discourse also changed at that stage. In the pre-City Council vote period the discussion had focused on the technical and aesthetic aspects of the project, its impacts on the neighborhood, and the developer’s response to various identified problems. During the post-City Council vote stage, the confrontation shifted to larger issues. The ethos of the proponents was about the future vision of Newton as a community responsive to larger societal needs, diversity and inclusion, affordable housing, and sustainability. One resident wrote: “As a Newton resident and homeowner, I wholeheartedly agree that we can no longer treat our city as an island, leaving solutions to our most pressing problems — climate change, lack of housing, transportation, affordability — to other communities. We don’t need 800 new housing units in Newton — we need 8,000, or more.”

The opposition drew its energy from the idea that neighborhoods have a right to protect themselves from unfair burdens imposed by the larger community, from the lack of trust in the developer and the city government, and the rage for not having its voice heard. Wrote one citizen: “I’m NOT anti-development. I just want reasonable development that doesn’t erode our quality of life and increase our taxes…. Developer profits shouldn’t trump community needs.”

The stakes were high. If the project were to fail, Newton would not aim for a project of that magnitude in the foreseeable future; and the opportunity would be lost to advance Passive House construction in Massachusetts and to create pockets of more sustainable lifestyles in suburbs. The anti-development groups in Newton and other Massachusetts communities would become bolder in their resistance to change, and both the state and the city would lose a significant opportunity to alleviate the housing crisis. Other developers would probably not even try to advance proposals such as this for Boston suburbs.

A no vote also created a 40B threat for opponents. Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws addresses communities, including Newton, which have less than 10 percent of their housing classified as affordable. 40B provides developers who set aside at least 25 percent of their project as affordable a streamlined permit process and more flexible zoning rules. The fear was that if Northland went the 40B route it could propose a project of 1,500 units and Newton would have very little control over its design. Although there was no formal talk about 40B, and Northland was silent on the issue, the informal conversations among the population were increasingly focusing on that possibility.

In the end, the project did not fail. On March 3, with 51 percent of registered voters participating, 58 percent voted in favor and 42 percent against. This large margin suggests that it was more than a victory for the party with much deeper pockets. Rather, it appears that Newton citizens truly believed that this project, while imperfect, was the best use of the 22.7 acres of post-industrial land in Newton Upper Falls.

The day after the vote an eerie silence fell upon the city. There was nothing to fight about anymore, and celebrations by the winners did not feel right in the painfully divided community. It will take some time to heal the wounds.

A Newton resident can easily forget about the growing social problems in the society at large. We are in a bubble of sorts, which the Northland project briefly burst by bringing into our community the issues of wealth inequality, lack of opportunity for many children, lack of housing for the middle class and low-income working families, and the climate crisis.

The social forces giving rise to these problems are hard for individuals and local organizations to tackle; they have to do with the fundamental structure of the national economy and power relations. One area where citizens do have the agency to act is local land use and zoning. To Newton’s credit, a large segment of residents rose up to use these powerful tools. But the project also threatened the treasured way of life in the cozy community of Upper Falls, and it unsettled many other Newtonites. In this case the social reformers prevailed because they created a united, diverse coalition which included the developer, a player that does not have the best reputation as a progressive societal force. Green Newton took this opportunity even a step further by negotiating directly with the developer over adopting Passive House construction.

But the cost of the victory was high. The developer spent millions negotiating with the city and the community and redesigned the project several times to defuse opposition. A large national company, Northland, was able to absorb these costs, especially because they already owned a large part of the land. But not many developers would be able to do it. And the high cost does not bode well for the future pricing of the market units in the development. That means that Northland village may not, after all, accommodate young professional families and the children of current Newton residents.

And what of other housing ownership models, such as, for instance, non-profit cooperatives? It is highly unlikely that such enterprises would be able to afford this kind of a fight.

These concerns notwithstanding, the Northland village is a powerful beginning on the road toward what Newton was once: a place for the middle class to thrive.

To see the article, visit https://commonwealthmagazine.org/housing/how-newton-bridged-the-housing-divide/

The post How Newton bridged the housing divide appeared first on Northland.

The Boston Globe
By The Editorial Board February 21, 2020

This endorsement is part of a series of editorials about housing in Newton that the Globe plans to publish in 2020. Read the first.

America’s wealthy suburbs need to change. They need to allow more affordable housing, so that low-income families can access top-notch public schools and the lifetime opportunities they create. They need more housing, period, to cool the real estate market that’s crushing middle-class families. And they need denser housing as a way to address climate change.

In other words, they need more housing like the Northland project, a proposed 800-unit development at an old factory site in Newton Upper Falls, whose fate Newton voters will decide in a hotly contested March 3 referendum. The Globe strongly endorses a “yes” vote to approve the project — and not just for its many practical benefits for Newton and for the region, from new parks to set-asides for mom-and-pop businesses.

The greater significance of the project is that it represents a new way of thinking about the suburbs, at a time of growing awareness that the land use restrictions of that last century have exacerbated racial segregation, environmental destruction, and income inequality. The vote is shaping up as a referendum not just on the Northland project, but also on a movement that has been gaining steam over the last decade to rethink long-cherished traditions and laws in order to forge solutions to some of the most deeply entrenched problems in American society.

Those restrictions, some of them on the books since the 1920s, have been close to sacrosanct in Massachusetts, guarded by vocal neighborhood groups and a timid Legislature. Like many other states, the Commonwealth largely defers to municipalities on local building decisions — even when their decisions run counter to broader public goals like housing the homeless or encouraging transit use to cut pollution.

The maze of local laws and rules, which one analyst called a “paper wall” against housing, has had an insidious impact, making costly delays the rule and ensuring that spread-out luxury housing is often the only kind that’s feasible to build. On the whole, according to the Boston Foundation’s Greater Boston Housing Report Card, the region is permitting less than half as much housing as it did in the 1980s, and about a third of homeowners and half of renters are now considered “cost-burdened.” The high price of housing is a deadweight on the economy, making it harder for businesses to recruit employees. The indirect consequences are more devastating, barring poor children from the state’s highest performing school districts and pushing development into far-flung towns where it does more environmental damage.

In Newton, though, a majority of the city council — backed by climate, religious, and housing activists — have coalesced around the 14-building Northland project, which calls the preservation of a historic factory building; one building designed specifically for the needs of older residents; innovative low-carbon heating, cooling, and construction techniques; and electric instead of natural gas-powered appliances in all the site’s apartments. “It will be a model green building project,” said Dan Ruben, the chairman of Green Newton, which has endorsed the project. “We think this is a signature project. It’s very visible, it’s going to be influential.”

Other direct benefits to the city include 10 acres of open space (where there is now broken pavement and stubs of old railroad track); a $1.5 million payment to the public schools; a splash park for kids; and the rehabilitation of a brook that’s been confined to a culvert for a century.

The project also includes office and retail space and 10,000 feet of commercial space that’s reserved for non-chain retailers and restaurants, a way to hold on to local businesses unable to compete with banks and other national chains for storefront space. It will be one of the first developments in Greater Boston to include such a requirement, according to Greg Reibman, the president of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, which supports Northland.

The most important benefit to Newton and the region, though, is the housing itself. The project will include 140 apartments of subsidized housing for low- and middle-income renters — believed to be the single largest infusion of subsidized units in the city’s history. The market-rate units will undoubtedly be more expensive (Peter Standish, Northland’s senior vice president, said the company hasn’t decided on rents yet), but they, too, will help by soaking up demand and easing the bidding wars for existing homes. The developer also contends that many senior citizens in Newton want to downsize, which would free their homes to be resold to young families, but haven’t because they can’t find any rentals in an apartment building with an elevator — a problem that Northland would help solve.

Opponents of the project say that 800 units are too many and that a smaller development with more affordable units would be preferable. They also worry — understandably — about the impact on parking, traffic, and schools.

Those are concerns that any sizable development should be expected to address — and that this one has. At the urging of the City Council, which imposed a 45-page set of conditions on Northland, the developer has agreed to provide subsidized T passes to residents; run a free shuttle to the Green Line that will also be available to the public; and charge for parking spaces as a way of limiting the number of renters who drive. They’re also ponying up $5 million to study better MBTA service and underwrite traffic-calming and bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

The city is already well equipped to handle the 138 new children the developer forecasts would enter Newton’s schools if the project is built, even before the $1.5 million the developer has promised. The local elementary school, Countryside, has an unused classroom and the city has projected slightly declining enrollment there.

Regardless, the potential for more children to attend Newton’s excellent schools, including children from less affluent families, actually provides the most compelling reason for voters to approve this project March 3 and for the city’s leaders to then continue breaking down the barriers to more and cheaper housing in the city. The economic and racial segregation that housing restrictions inscribe into American life, and the ceilings they place on upward mobility, are simply too outrageous to ignore any longer.

Stroll through the industrial wasteland of the Northland site now (yes, it’s okay to poke around, a spokeswoman for the developer assured the Globe). A yes vote would do more than turn a weedy eyesore into a vibrant new neighborhood. For Newton and other communities whose land-use decisions have contributed to America’s deepening inequality, it would show the way to a fairer future.

To view article on Boston Globe, visit: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/21/opinion/with-yes-vote-march-3-newton-can-pave-way-fairer-future/

The post With a ‘yes’ vote on March 3, Newton can pave the way to fairer future appeared first on Northland.

It’s a sad reality that an anti-development group in Newton has forced a city-wide referendum on a well-vetted project. The only democratic way forward is for city leaders to ensure the largest number of people take part.

Northland Investment Corp. worked diligently with city staff and neighborhood groups for three years to craft a valuable plan for a 23-acre site that features a large, 19th century mill building and the vacant former home of Clarks shoe company. The project will bring 800 units of much-needed housing, 140 of them affordable, and dramatically increase the land’s taxable value – but its public benefits go far beyond this. The project will also make $10 million in contributions to the city for new parks, utility infrastructure, road upgrades and school upgrades.

Most importantly, Northland is stepping in where Newton and the MBTA have been unwilling or unable to deal with traffic on the congested Needham Street corridor by building a free, seven-days-a-week bus shuttle to the Newton Highlands Green Line station, attempting to lure as many people as possible out of their cars and onto transit.

RightSize Newton, the anti-development group that chose to force this referendum after the Newton City Council OK’d the project in December, claims it wants to force Northland to “compromise” by shrinking the project, as Mark Development did in a modest way with its Riverside project a few months ago. Those claims gloss over Northland’s concession to cut the project in half, to 1.1 million square feet, over the course of the 18-month approval process.

Now, RightSize Newton is pushing the City Council to abandon council President Susan Albright’s proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as the state presidential primary on March 3. Negotiations with Northland need more time, they claim. More believably, they realize the higher the turnout for a referendum, the less likely they are to win.

The most recent city elections showed a significant number of city residents support pro-housing, pro-development policies. But it’s a well-known and well-studied fact that only fired-up opponents are incentivized to show up to one-off meetings and votes about specific projects. It’s clear RightSize Newton’s efforts are nothing but the latest in a decades-long pattern of attempts by well-heeled residents to choke off any new construction in the city.
These efforts have hurt the entire region. Newton is one of the biggest cities in Greater Boston by land area, and one of the most desirable. Building more housing there, where high demand already exists, will be a help in moderating out-of-control home prices that many say threaten the state’s prosperity. But if voters shoot down Northland’s project after the enormous amount of effort and money the developer has already invested, it could cool building in Newton for the years.

With equities like this at stake, it’s vital the referendum is scheduled in conjunction with a large, attention-grabbing national issue to ensure maximum turnout, to keep a minority from dictating the majority’s future.

To read the full article, visit https://www.bankerandtradesman.com/newton-must-maximize-turnout-in-northland-referendum/

The post Newton Must Maximize Turnout in Northland Referendum appeared first on Northland.

NEWTON, MA — Greater Boston’s largest chamber of commerce, representing hundreds of area businesses, has thrown its weight into the conversation surrounding Northland Investment Corporation’s project, proposed for the old mill factory near the corner of Needham and Oak Streets. It’s the largest multi-use development that Newton has seen in a very long time.

Northland Investment Corporation’s project would redevelop the mill as part of a 22.6-acre mixed-use project. It’s most recent iteration will include 800 units of apartments, including 140 deemed affordable – something especially essential to chamber members who have said they’ve had trouble attracting and retaining workers for lack of housing.

In a letter to city council Thursday, Chamber President Greg Reibman said the chamber was throwing its weight behind the project and urged the city to support a special permit set to go before the board Monday.

“This proposal won’t just transform 22 acres into a vibrant, thoughtful, sustainable, amenity-rich community,” said Reibman. “It will activate and energize Needham Street and beyond; bringing new business, new jobs, new tax revenue and vitality to our city.”

The developer and the city have been working on the three main concerns residents have surrounding the project: transportation, traffic and schools since Northland first started the process in 2018.

Northland has trimmed and adjusted the project – everything from the number of housing units to how much retail and restaurant space. The mayor requested the developer pay a $1.5 million mitigation fee to go toward renovations at the Countryside Elementary School, where any children would be sent, should they live there. It’s the first time mitigation funds have been directed toward a school near a development, according to the mayor.

The developer has added a spray park bordering the nearby Greenway. And plans to run a regular shuttle to the Newton Highlands MBTA stop.

The Land Use Committee is still working to refine the transportation plan with an aim toward reducing the number of cars in and out of the site.

The chamber isn’t the only one behind the project, Mayor Ruthanne Fuller has also thrown her support behind it.
“Our City Councilors, Planning Department and residents have worked for months with the developer to make this project better for Newton,” said Fuller in a statement. “With these changes, I am comfortable supporting this project as it moves forward to the City Council for a vote.”

Read the full letter:
Dear City Councilors:
The Newton-Needham Regional Chamber’s Board of Directors has voted unanimously to support Northland Investment Corporation’s proposed mixed-use development on Needham and Oak streets and urge you to support the special permit and zoning on Monday Nov. 18.

Our directors are impressed by the thoughtfulness of this project’s site design as well as its commitment to sustainability. But they are most enthusiastic about the economic benefits and vibrancy they believe this development will bring to the Needham Street corridor, the city and the region. Highlights include:

• The historic Saco-Pettee Mill building will provide 180,000 square feet of Class A brick and beam office space that can become home for the small and mid-sized employers that are driving Massachusetts’ innovation economy but have struggled to find aspirational, amenity-rich space in Newton. Saco-Pettee represents a 10 percent increase in overall Class A office inventory in the N2 Innovation District (including Wells Ave and Needham Crossing); an increase we believe to be the right size for this market.

• Housing for our workers: Housing supply is critical to our ability to attract companies to locate and grow here. Northland provides 800 units of desperately-needed apartments, including 140 affordable units. Not every worker wants to live in a house with a yard and garage. Northland will provide the housing diversity and flexibility that can bring new workers and employers here, while also serving seniors and others looking to downsize.

• Multi-modal transportation: Concerns about congestion are well-founded and the Council is right to seek a responsible Transportation Demand Management program. We have confidence in results of peer review of the program as proposed. We’re excited about the robust, modern, free shuttle system that will be available to all workers, residents and shoppers in the region. We view this proposed public-private system as a building block to creating more regional shuttles and reducing congestion across the region. We also applaud the commitment of $5 million to explore new transportation initiatives; such as connecting the Greenway to the Green Line or converting the old MBTA rail bridge into a bike path to Needham. And we remind the Council that this project will be fully integrated into Mass DOT’s Needham Street reconstruction project, making the entire corridor more walkable and safer for all modes of travel.

• Placemaking: Northland’s Newton project creates public gathering spaces that are too scarce now and that are integral to the success of a vibrant live, work, play community. Ten acres of open space, including a central common where hundreds of people can gather, a splash park, dog park, the historic mill park featuring a restored South Meadow Brook water feature and other public spaces are the amenities that will make this project a success, not just for tenants, but for our entire community.

• Subsidized retail: When Northland stepped up to rescue the New England Mobile Book Fair from moving to another community, we were reminded once again of the challenges facing our cherished, local merchants. This project sets aside 10,000 square feet at a discounted rate for our independent merchants and is sure to enhance the development’s overall shopping experience.

• Northland’s vision is Newton’s vision: There is no daylight between this project and the goals of the Needham Street Vision Plan, Newton’s Economic Development Strategy and the Chamber’s N2 Innovation District project.This proposal won’t just transform 22 acres into a vibrant, thoughtful, sustainable, amenity-rich community. It will activate and energize Needham Street and beyond; bringing new business, new jobs, new tax revenue and vitality to our city.

The Chamber’s Board urges the Land Use Committee and City Council to approve Northland’s special permit application and zoning on Monday Nov. 18.

The post Newton-Needham Chamber Urges City Council To Support Northland appeared first on Northland.