Nancy Finn
Future generations still want to drive and so do I.

Ian Lamont
"The previous design included a public space for community engagement and recreation."

That's right. And local residents, politicians, and the representatives of BH Normandy agreed on this. Why isn't BH Normandy and its Riverside development partner Mark Development being held to the existing agreement when it comes to community space?

Ted Chapman
Grove Street connects the existing communities of Lower Falls and Auburndale. To most residents this road is already at or beyond capacity. An independent study of the capacity of Grove Street to handle additional traffic, with or without direct access from I-95, must precede any approvals. The size and density of development must be predicated on this understanding. Development cannot make existing communities live in gridlock, which is the current state of Rt 16 and Auburndale Square, and Woodland St during rush hour.

coUrbanizer via Text
I would like to see the proposed Riverside project at least halved in size and scope. In other words what was approved many years ago. That was quite big enough.

Ian Lamont
Exactly.

There's already an agreement, finalized in 2013, that determined that the right size for Riverside was 580,000 square feet, including nearly 300 hundred new housing units. EVERYONE AGREED TO THIS.

It’s not local residents who want to go through this visioning process all over again. It’s being driven by developer Robert Korff and his business partner BH Normandy (who negotiated the 2013 agreement). Instead of the agreed-upon 580,000 square feet, they are demanding 1.5 million square feet, including two 200+ foot tall towers, and many hundreds of additional units of luxury housing. They stand to add hundreds of millions of dollars in additional value to their project, while residents of Auburndale, Newton Lower Falls, and other parts of Newton are saddled with massive costs related to traffic, schools, infrastructure, planning, and more.

Debra Ruder
I appreciate all the hard work that went into the March 28 presentation, but I was shocked by the market context section, which sounded like an ad for Mark Development's proposal. This is supposed to be an independent visioning process. Also ... Newton Lower Falls as a gateway to the city?!? Please. An appropriately sized/scaled mixed-use development that benefits the city without causing horrible traffic is fine. But just because Riverside sits near Route 128 does not = "gateway."

Sheila Doyle
I would like to see a reasonably-sized development that includes a small grocery store and/or drug store, small coffee shop, publicly-accessible bathrooms, plenty of green space without sacrificing trees, affordable housing, parking, more than one entrance, and connection/improvement of the walkway/path behind Riverside to connect with other walking paths and/or bikeways. I think Newton needs more affordable housing options, and I also think some thought should be put into how many apartments we can reasonably add without overwhelming the school, area, and public services. I agree with Liz's comment that the development should be set back from Grove St, because a wall of buildings right on that hilly street would be terrible. Traffic is already a problem in Lower Falls, especially when folks are trying to find parking during Red Sox games or days with large marches downtown, so careful planning should be put into making sure there is plenty of parking and keeping in mind how traffic tends to back up on Grove St especially when the parking lot gets full at Riverside. It would be phenomenal to have a Commuter Rail option at Riverside, and a direct route in to Cambridge without having to switch trolleys/buses multiple times. I would like to see the new plan be pedestrian-friendly; I like the path between Riverside and Norumbega Ct, it's nice to walk on and there is nice landscaping and lighting there and it feels safe from nearby cars.

coUrbanizer via Text
The Framingham Worcester commuter rail connection to riverside as a transportation hub needs to be planned out before any mixed use development proposal at riverside is approved. Anything else is shortsighted.

Tim M.
The presentation at city hall touted 'fixing' the Grove Street traffic problems as a major benefit. When I get off northbound 95 I simply take the off ramp, yield onto Grove and continue. The proposal will use a much longer off-ramp and add 3 traffic lights. How is this an improvement for Auburndale residents?

Small concerts, group bike rides, village picnic, free exercise classes

Rose D
Join up with the Charles River Pathway that runs through much of Newton and Waltham.

Restaurants for lunch and dinner- preferably not chains- although I would enjoy a Panera :-) Independent coffee/espresso shop (already have Starbucks & Dunkin)

J Bartholomew
Something very much smaller. This is ridiculous. The impact on Auburndale would be profound, in a bad way.

Nathaniel Lichtin
Why are we waiting for a project to be proposed to figure out how much traffic the area can handle and the capacity of other transportation infrastructure. Knowing what amount of traffic the area can handle is critical to figuring out what should be built there. My vision for the site will depend on how the site will impact the traffic and transportation in the area. Without this information it is impossible to have an accurate vision of what is desired or acceptable for the site.

Jack Synnott
The answer to the first statement is that they couldn't agree who would pay for the garage. New parameters are one rich new guy partners with and old rich guy and the process content is to make more profit.

coUrbanizer via Text
Moderate mixed use in keeping with the neighboring villages--blogs should not be too dense or too tall. Lots of green space. Community center and recreation space. Small local businesses and sufficient parking for commuters near the station itself.

Michael Musen
My aspiration is that the development enhances existing neighborhoods and does not destroy them with traffic and congestion.

coUrbanizer via Text
I would very much like to see expanded public transportation options, and expanded frequency of transportation. I am also interested in more open space for public use. Some housing would be great, but it should be of similar density to the surrounding villages.

Agree 100%

coUrbanizer via Text
Do not destroy the quality of life of the two nearby neighborhoods- with traffic and something that feels like it belongs at the Natick Mall and not here

coUrbanizer via Text
I don't want to look at high rise building. I moved to the suburbs from Boston to get away from that.

Agree 100%

William E. Roesner
The expense of new construction mitigates against building housing that is “affordable”. Housing that is “affordable”, has always been older, depreciated, used housing and we are doing very little to conserve what little we have. The motive of developers, is to make money, not to provide any amenity to the community. It is the existing community, those people who have the real investment in the city, and to whom the political community, and the cities planning department should be listening and acting in behalf of , that should be the driving “vision” that any “development” that occurs in Riverside should be responsive to. As a 50 year resident of various villages of Newton, an architect, and 24 year former member of the cities Historical Commission, I will personally be fighting for grass roots input into any changes to this area.

Tim M.
I'd like the impact of this project to be considered within the context of the other big projects - planned, underway or completed - in the city. Concerns about increased traffic are a common theme. Beyond inconvenience, the traffic's impact on our already crumbling streets shouldn't be ignored. Nearness to 'Public transportation' is listed as a benefit to these projects, but the MBTA's struggle with equipment and capacity is always overlooked. Personally, I would be okay - not happy - if the original Riverside agreement was implemented. I don't understand how it was simply discarded and believe that an explanation is required.

Larry Rosenberg
Fully vet the impact to city services. Fire Dept, Police trash collection traffic and more. We are proposing 3 huge projects all at the same time. This will be a city people who want the "charm" will NOT want to live.

coUrbanizer via Text
I am against any large development that changes the character or out Auburndale neighborhood. We don't need more traffic or congestion. I can imagine some kind of rehabilitation of the existing T station and surrounds but not one that brings in more foot and car traffic. Park land and green space would be ideal

coUrbanizer via Text
We need a Low impact community plan. No one in the community wants an oversized develop that just adds to the developers bottom line.

coUrbanizer via Text
My aspiration for the riverside site is that my special lower falls neighborhood is not destroyed by traffic. The exit off 95 in either direction should not turn into the same situation as exit 17 off the Pike.

coUrbanizer via Text
My aspirations for the riverside site is that it's size and density is scaled to what matches the surrounding residential areas.