Jeff Hecht
Jeff Hecht's projects
Recent Activity
Supported a comment by GuruPrasad Ravi on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Supported a comment by Vin Shelton on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Vin Shelton
.. and that is where we disagree. The current scope (two giant towers and multiple six-story buildings) is MUCH too big. Traffic is an important unsolved problem, but it is not the only problem, IMO, Tom.
.. and that is where we disagree. The current scope (two giant towers and multiple six-story buildings) is MUCH too big. Traffic is an important unsolved problem, but it is not the only problem, IMO, Tom.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Rose D
There is a commuter rail line that goes from Brandeis to porter square. Parking at Brandeis costs $4/day and then CR cost but then you can walk to Harvard square or take the red line to Kendall. A long costly trip. But it works and still requires a car and lots of time
There is a commuter rail line that goes from Brandeis to porter square. Parking at Brandeis costs $4/day and then CR cost but then you can walk to Harvard square or take the red line to Kendall. A long costly trip. But it works and still requires a car and lots of time
Supported a comment by Brendan Keegan on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Brendan Keegan
No, this is a rail line that would begin/end at Riverside and travel over existing rail ROW into Allston, possibly onto Kendall and North Station: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/01/MBTA.jpg
No, this is a rail line that would begin/end at Riverside and travel over existing rail ROW into Allston, possibly onto Kendall and North Station: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/01/MBTA.jpg
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
The proposed Indigo line is different, but bus service to the Brandeis station on the Fitchburg line into Cambridge and North Station is an interesting idea. There is some spotty bus service from West Newton and Auburndale to the Fitchburg line, and that's a quick and convenient line into Porter Square and Cambridge that most people in Newton know little about.
Supported a comment by Alexander Golob on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Alexander Golob
Totally agree! There is such an easy transit connection there that would make such a big difference in public transit accessibility and use.
Totally agree! There is such an easy transit connection there that would make such a big difference in public transit accessibility and use.
Supported a comment by Liz M on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Liz M
Connection to Kendall Sq. will make Riverside more vibrant (and solve traffic congestion issues too). Globe article on 2/20/19 envisions an expanded Kendall Square "in different parts of the city and suburbs — ideally connected by a transit system that makes it easy for people and their ideas to mingle" https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/02/19/the-next-kendall-square/iCZz1e7eIECMPufD3UJtiO/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
Connection to Kendall Sq. will make Riverside more vibrant (and solve traffic congestion issues too). Globe article on 2/20/19 envisions an expanded Kendall Square "in different parts of the city and suburbs — ideally connected by a transit system that makes it easy for people and their ideas to mingle" https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/02/19/the-next-kendall-square/iCZz1e7eIECMPufD3UJtiO/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
Supported a comment by Vin Shelton on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Vin Shelton
The "mitigation plan" involves getting cars *into* the site, NOT out of the site
The "mitigation plan" involves getting cars *into* the site, NOT out of the site
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Nothing's wrong with new residents needing goods and services. But you had said "the new housing will not directly affect either Lower Falls or Auburndale", and I was pointing out that is not an accurate statement. Merchants might see a positive impact in higher sales and more customers, but residents might see a negative impact in more traffic congestion.
Supported a comment by Betsy Hewitt on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Betsy Hewitt
Housing: in that we were told the Newton Housing Authority has a 3-6 year waiting list. I would like to see the vision include permanently affordable in the Housing Authority definition or this. Not just the very minimal 15% but maybe a 25% integrated into the condos to be sold and all the housing that is approved. Include people who have a current MASS rental vouchers.
Housing: in that we were told the Newton Housing Authority has a 3-6 year waiting list. I would like to see the vision include permanently affordable in the Housing Authority definition or this. Not just the very minimal 15% but maybe a 25% integrated into the condos to be sold and all the housing that is approved. Include people who have a current MASS rental vouchers.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
The proposed Riverside development is essentially a single giant densely packed block of housing, shops, and businesses that would have the highest structures along Route 128/95. Think of taking a cookie-cutter chunk of downtown and plopping it between Lower Falls and Auburndale. Those people need goods and services, and are going to look to the adjacent area. They can't help but impacting Lower Falls and Auburndale.
Supported a comment by Ken Stern on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Ken Stern
Tom Gagon believes 'the new housing will not directly affect either Lower Falls or Auburndale". This is pure fantasy. Creating an entire new 'village' between Auburndale and Lower Falls, on a road which cannot handle more traffic than it already does, will be incredibly disruptive. (I call it a new village, because some of the proposals are to add MORE housing units than presently exist in Lower Falls. The traffic increase will cut Lower Falls off from Auburndale almost completely.. I expect the traffic increase will cause me to shift my shopping and errands to other locations.
The impact on schools will be more than just on Williams, which is already overcrowded. The new kids will certainly go to Williams, but to make room, kids will be shifted from WIlliams to other schools, with the effect rippling across Newton.
Tom Gagon believes 'the new housing will not directly affect either Lower Falls or Auburndale". This is pure fantasy. Creating an entire new 'village' between Auburndale and Lower Falls, on a road which cannot handle more traffic than it already does, will be incredibly disruptive. (I call it a new village, because some of the proposals are to add MORE housing units than presently exist in Lower Falls. The traffic increase will cut Lower Falls off from Auburndale almost completely.. I expect the traffic increase will cause me to shift my shopping and errands to other locations.
The impact on schools will be more than just on Williams, which is already overcrowded. The new kids will certainly go to Williams, but to make room, kids will be shifted from WIlliams to other schools, with the effect rippling across Newton.
Supported a comment by Nancy Finn on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Nancy Finn
Hi folks who cares if other towns have developments, we are talking about Newton. As a resident of the Lower Falls village, I care what happens to it.
Comparing Newton to other towns along rte95/128 is not ideal.
There is no development in Waban, Newton Center or Chestnut Hill or West Newton Hill. Why? Because people involved with this proposal live there.
There are a few streets on the east side: Belmore Park and Longfellow road that are in Lower Falls. Also lower falls goes up to the woodland station including Newton Wellesley hospital that are in Lower Falls. So there are residents that live on the other side of the highway. Some of the woodland golf course is in Lower Falls. too. If you do not live in lower falls and Auburndale then you should not be involved in this vision process.
Most developments in Needham industrial park are zoned commercial and do not have residential neighborhoods right next to them.
We need to Rightsize Riverside as we only get one chance to develop it.
Sadly I find this visioning process seems to ignores the village concept and is more toward the developer Mark Development. A sad day for all villages in Newton.
Hi folks who cares if other towns have developments, we are talking about Newton. As a resident of the Lower Falls village, I care what happens to it.
Comparing Newton to other towns along rte95/128 is not ideal.
There is no development in Waban, Newton Center or Chestnut Hill or West Newton Hill. Why? Because people involved with this proposal live there.
There are a few streets on the east side: Belmore Park and Longfellow road that are in Lower Falls. Also lower falls goes up to the woodland station including Newton Wellesley hospital that are in Lower Falls. So there are residents that live on the other side of the highway. Some of the woodland golf course is in Lower Falls. too. If you do not live in lower falls and Auburndale then you should not be involved in this vision process.
Most developments in Needham industrial park are zoned commercial and do not have residential neighborhoods right next to them.
We need to Rightsize Riverside as we only get one chance to develop it.
Sadly I find this visioning process seems to ignores the village concept and is more toward the developer Mark Development. A sad day for all villages in Newton.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Rose D
Some of those towns do have large scale developments but they do not abut residential neighborhoods. And the commercial space in those towns have significant vacancies.
Some of those towns do have large scale developments but they do not abut residential neighborhoods. And the commercial space in those towns have significant vacancies.
Supported a comment by Ken Stern on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 7 months ago
Ken Stern
Yes, Waltham, Wellesley, Needham & Weston do all have large commercial developments along the highway. In all cases, the residential sections of the town ends where the commercial section begins, and there is no further residential section on the other side. Needham and Wellesley have parts of their town on the opposite side of the highway than where most of their town is located, but that portion is entirely commercial.
In Newton, Lower Falls was already somewhat cut off from the rest of Newton by the highway. Whats left of the connection will be virtually severed by putting an enormous commercial development
Yes, Waltham, Wellesley, Needham & Weston do all have large commercial developments along the highway. In all cases, the residential sections of the town ends where the commercial section begins, and there is no further residential section on the other side. Needham and Wellesley have parts of their town on the opposite side of the highway than where most of their town is located, but that portion is entirely commercial.
In Newton, Lower Falls was already somewhat cut off from the rest of Newton by the highway. Whats left of the connection will be virtually severed by putting an enormous commercial development
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Agreed Riverside is not much of a transit hub now, but it could become one if it is not overbuilt, and if the MBTA, Newton, and nearby towns are willing to invest in desperately needed additional transit. Without more transit, the Riverside area will choke on traffic.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Sitting close to the junction of route 128/95 and the Mass Turnpike, Riverside has the potential to expand into a regional transportation hub serving the Metro West area with badly needed mass transit. Surrounding it with a massive development would block the future growth of transit capacity needed to realize that potential.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
Let's be clear, the market rate housing market in Newton is not by any means 'pressured'. There are plenty of available market rate apartments and condos that are looking for renters or buyers. The affordable rate market in Newton is the one that needs to be built up. The Riverside proposal with 15% affordable apartments will hardly help that need for housing in Newton.
Let's be clear, the market rate housing market in Newton is not by any means 'pressured'. There are plenty of available market rate apartments and condos that are looking for renters or buyers. The affordable rate market in Newton is the one that needs to be built up. The Riverside proposal with 15% affordable apartments will hardly help that need for housing in Newton.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
coUrbanizer via Text
As a current senior citizen of Newton I would NOT consider living in a development of the density that Marc Development is envisioning.
As a current senior citizen of Newton I would NOT consider living in a development of the density that Marc Development is envisioning.
Supported a comment by Mary Elizabeth Patti on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Mary Elizabeth Patti
It is critical to improve pedestrian safety in the Grove Street / Riverside corridor. Reducing traffic, improving speed mitigation and adding pedestrian-controlled traffic lights at designated crosswalks would be essential. If we are to truly embrace the importance of the public transportation hub at riverside we need to make sure that safety of neighborhood pedestrians trying to reach the hub is not further compromised -!but rather enhanced.
It is critical to improve pedestrian safety in the Grove Street / Riverside corridor. Reducing traffic, improving speed mitigation and adding pedestrian-controlled traffic lights at designated crosswalks would be essential. If we are to truly embrace the importance of the public transportation hub at riverside we need to make sure that safety of neighborhood pedestrians trying to reach the hub is not further compromised -!but rather enhanced.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
Join up with the Charles River Pathway that runs through much of Newton and Waltham.
Join up with the Charles River Pathway that runs through much of Newton and Waltham.
Supported a comment by Kathy Pillsbury on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Kathy Pillsbury
Access to walking along the Charles. Access to paddling along the Charles.
Access to walking along the Charles. Access to paddling along the Charles.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
For example, PTC is moving out of Needham to the Seaport area. Their young employees don't want to work in Needham, they prefer the Seaport area.
https://www.ptc.com/en/news/2017/ptc-to-move-global-headquarters-to-boston-seaport
For example, PTC is moving out of Needham to the Seaport area. Their young employees don't want to work in Needham, they prefer the Seaport area.
https://www.ptc.com/en/news/2017/ptc-to-move-global-headquarters-to-boston-seaport
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
My question is why anyone thinks that building office space st Riverside is going to be desirable? I understand that Boston office space has a 1% vacancy rate -obviously very desirable. However has anyone looked at the office space vacancy rates in both Needham and Waltham? Right now much of that new office space is vacant. Young people don’t want to live in suburbia. They want to live in Somerville. The people who want to live out here are people who want to own single family homes, not micro apartments 1000sq ft at high cost - $3-4000/ month. That’s Manhattan pricing. The developers will be rather disappointed when they realize that they will build office space and it will not ever get leased.
My question is why anyone thinks that building office space st Riverside is going to be desirable? I understand that Boston office space has a 1% vacancy rate -obviously very desirable. However has anyone looked at the office space vacancy rates in both Needham and Waltham? Right now much of that new office space is vacant. Young people don’t want to live in suburbia. They want to live in Somerville. The people who want to live out here are people who want to own single family homes, not micro apartments 1000sq ft at high cost - $3-4000/ month. That’s Manhattan pricing. The developers will be rather disappointed when they realize that they will build office space and it will not ever get leased.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Agreed - Riverside's transit capacity should not be choked off by overdevelopment.
Supported a comment by Ted Chapman on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ted Chapman
I remains unclear to me whether the MBTA has actually modeled the future needs for this site to expand its capacity as a train and bus hub. It is imperative that the city and state politicians, insist this is done before it is too late. The design for Riverside development must accommodate this enhanced capacity, which may include increased commuter parking. The footings of the garage must design to support adding this capacity.
I remains unclear to me whether the MBTA has actually modeled the future needs for this site to expand its capacity as a train and bus hub. It is imperative that the city and state politicians, insist this is done before it is too late. The design for Riverside development must accommodate this enhanced capacity, which may include increased commuter parking. The footings of the garage must design to support adding this capacity.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
coUrbanizer via Text
Affordable housing at all income levels. We need to create opportunities for our children to be able to live in Newton.
Affordable housing at all income levels. We need to create opportunities for our children to be able to live in Newton.
Supported a comment by Randall Block on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Randall Block
Direct connection from I-95/128 should be in BOTH directions, not just northbound as Mark Development proposes Even then, there will be plenty of additional traffic heading to Riverside on Grove Street from the rest of Newton and adjacent towns.
Direct connection from I-95/128 should be in BOTH directions, not just northbound as Mark Development proposes Even then, there will be plenty of additional traffic heading to Riverside on Grove Street from the rest of Newton and adjacent towns.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
coUrbanizer via Text
I wouldn't like to see a tower or big housing complex because if I liked that I would be living in the city, traffic is sometimes bad already on grove st
I wouldn't like to see a tower or big housing complex because if I liked that I would be living in the city, traffic is sometimes bad already on grove st
Supported a comment by Sarah Birmingham White on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Sarah Birmingham White
I would like to see the connection between the villages of Newton Lower Falls and Auburndale strengthened instead of severed. I think this is an opportunity for the two communities to have the gape (128) bridged is a way that has not yet been presented.
I would like to see the connection between the villages of Newton Lower Falls and Auburndale strengthened instead of severed. I think this is an opportunity for the two communities to have the gape (128) bridged is a way that has not yet been presented.
Supported a comment by john stewart on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
john stewart
1) have very little impact on quality of life in Lower Falls and Auburndale 2) thoroughly explore direct access to route 128, in both directions, completely eliminating Grove St. as an essential route to or from the site. 3) create a complex of offices and apartments as beautiful and hidden as Riverside Park next door.
1) have very little impact on quality of life in Lower Falls and Auburndale 2) thoroughly explore direct access to route 128, in both directions, completely eliminating Grove St. as an essential route to or from the site. 3) create a complex of offices and apartments as beautiful and hidden as Riverside Park next door.
Supported a comment by Debra Ruder on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Debra Ruder
A thoughtfully designed, inviting mixed-use development that fits the scale of the Lower Falls and Auburndale neighborhoods. Replace the asphalt desert with attractive and affordable housing for singles, families and seniors; a few restaurants; parks and well-lit paths; ample parking for commuters; and upgraded mass transit options. Please don’t overshadow (literally) our charming village of Lower Falls with towers or choke Grove Street and other area roads with overwhelming traffic. Please.
A thoughtfully designed, inviting mixed-use development that fits the scale of the Lower Falls and Auburndale neighborhoods. Replace the asphalt desert with attractive and affordable housing for singles, families and seniors; a few restaurants; parks and well-lit paths; ample parking for commuters; and upgraded mass transit options. Please don’t overshadow (literally) our charming village of Lower Falls with towers or choke Grove Street and other area roads with overwhelming traffic. Please.
Supported a comment by Mary Elizabeth Patti on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Mary Elizabeth Patti
Bald eagles!!! We need to maintain green space and avoid disruption of the environment. I was walking behind Riverside last weekend and saw a bald eagle. High rise buildings do not fit with the quiet riverside green space we currently have which is such an awesome resource. We need to maintain and protect this!
Bald eagles!!! We need to maintain green space and avoid disruption of the environment. I was walking behind Riverside last weekend and saw a bald eagle. High rise buildings do not fit with the quiet riverside green space we currently have which is such an awesome resource. We need to maintain and protect this!
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
We have to realize that any analysis of traffic impact will be at best an estimate, and that traffic engineering is often ineffective. Look at the failed effort to improve traffic flow through Auburndale Square that allowed traffic to turn across crosswalks that pedestrians were crossing at the same time. One pedestrian was hit and another narrowly missed in the few days before it had to be undone.
Supported a comment by Ted Chapman on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ted Chapman
The design must feel integrated into the community, not a walled off citadel looking inward. How will the residents of 675 new housing units be integrated into the surrounding communities? Most will be rentals without a long-term stake in these neighborhoods. How will this change the political and social fabric of Newton? The previous design included a public space for community engagement and recreation. This needs to be included in the design, not left up to the whims of coffee shops, restaurants, commercial gyms, and sidewalks. Where will children of all ages play go to day care or after-school programs, and adult exercise activities. There is not even a basketball court or a place to kick or throw a ball. I Iive in Lower Falls across from the community center fields and basketball courts, which are vibrant places day and night.
The design must feel integrated into the community, not a walled off citadel looking inward. How will the residents of 675 new housing units be integrated into the surrounding communities? Most will be rentals without a long-term stake in these neighborhoods. How will this change the political and social fabric of Newton? The previous design included a public space for community engagement and recreation. This needs to be included in the design, not left up to the whims of coffee shops, restaurants, commercial gyms, and sidewalks. Where will children of all ages play go to day care or after-school programs, and adult exercise activities. There is not even a basketball court or a place to kick or throw a ball. I Iive in Lower Falls across from the community center fields and basketball courts, which are vibrant places day and night.
Supported a comment by Ted Chapman on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by David D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
David D
I would like to see a smaller useful development. Publicly accessible bathrooms, a place to eat at reasonable rates and interesting shops. I would also like to see this development turned into a true transportation hub by connecting the end of the D line to the Framingham commuter rail line in both directions.
I would like to see a smaller useful development. Publicly accessible bathrooms, a place to eat at reasonable rates and interesting shops. I would also like to see this development turned into a true transportation hub by connecting the end of the D line to the Framingham commuter rail line in both directions.
Supported a comment by john stewart on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
john stewart
what happens if the overwhelming consensus is that there is almost nothing of conceivable benefit to Lower Falls and Auburndale that might come from this development, and that there is no chance whatsoever of "integrating" the development with the community life of either neighborhood?
what happens if the overwhelming consensus is that there is almost nothing of conceivable benefit to Lower Falls and Auburndale that might come from this development, and that there is no chance whatsoever of "integrating" the development with the community life of either neighborhood?
Supported a comment by J Bartholomew on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
J Bartholomew
Something very much smaller. This is ridiculous. The impact on Auburndale would be profound, in a bad way.
Something very much smaller. This is ridiculous. The impact on Auburndale would be profound, in a bad way.
Supported a comment by Patricia McCaffrey on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Patricia McCaffrey
Better public transportation options: direct access for commuters to 128N/S and the Pike, more commuter parking, more frequent green line service, a commuter rail station. Then, add a few restaurants, a coffee shop and open space.
Better public transportation options: direct access for commuters to 128N/S and the Pike, more commuter parking, more frequent green line service, a commuter rail station. Then, add a few restaurants, a coffee shop and open space.
Supported a comment by Jack Synnott on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
If you want to see what will happen with limited access to route 128/95, drive north to Market Basket and wend your way through the small streets that carry a tiny fraction of the traffic that would come from fully developing Riverside.
Supported a comment by Eric Campbell on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Eric Campbell
Historically, traffic studies by developers in Auburndale have grossly underestimated the traffic and the rate of increase of the traffic their developments will generate.
Historically, traffic studies by developers in Auburndale have grossly underestimated the traffic and the rate of increase of the traffic their developments will generate.
Supported a comment by Sheila Doyle on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by Debra Ruder on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Debra Ruder
The development should be only as large/dense/tall as the site and city's schools, roads, infrastructure, environment, social and emergency services, and surrounding villages can bear. In 2013, when it approved the "Station at Riverside" plan after years of public meetings and negotiations, the City of Newton deemed that to be roughly 580,000 square feet. There is so much at stake. Let's take the time to get it right!
The development should be only as large/dense/tall as the site and city's schools, roads, infrastructure, environment, social and emergency services, and surrounding villages can bear. In 2013, when it approved the "Station at Riverside" plan after years of public meetings and negotiations, the City of Newton deemed that to be roughly 580,000 square feet. There is so much at stake. Let's take the time to get it right!
Supported a comment by Elaine Arruda on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Elaine Arruda
Agree 100%
Agree 100%
Supported a comment by William E. Roesner on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by Margaret Crook on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Margaret Crook
I’m surprised at the willingness to accept the huge scale of this project by demanding N/S 95 access. Is that what we really want in Newton? A geographically isolated city in a city totally out of keeping with the rest of Newton? We can do better AND DESERVE better!
I’m surprised at the willingness to accept the huge scale of this project by demanding N/S 95 access. Is that what we really want in Newton? A geographically isolated city in a city totally out of keeping with the rest of Newton? We can do better AND DESERVE better!
Supported a comment by Kay Khan on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Kay Khan
Completion of off street bike and pedestrian access to Riverside Station from Concord Street In Newton Lower Falls along the old rail trail that begins on Washington Street in Wellesley Lower Falls.
Completion of off street bike and pedestrian access to Riverside Station from Concord Street In Newton Lower Falls along the old rail trail that begins on Washington Street in Wellesley Lower Falls.
Supported a comment by Debra Ruder on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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."
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."
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
I don't want to look at high rise building. I moved to the suburbs from Boston to get away from that.
Supported a comment by Mike Nogrady on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Mike Nogrady
Restore the Riverside stop on the Worcester/Natick commuter rail line
Restore the Riverside stop on the Worcester/Natick commuter rail line
Supported a comment by Liz M on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Liz M
Make sure there isn’t a wall of buildings along Grove St. Any development should be set back from the road and stepped back too.
Make sure there isn’t a wall of buildings along Grove St. Any development should be set back from the road and stepped back too.
Supported a comment by Eric Campbell on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Eric Campbell
Include the decrepit tunnel under the Commuter Rail tracks.
Include the decrepit tunnel under the Commuter Rail tracks.
Supported a comment by Liz M on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Liz M
Rehab the 2 bridges bike path/walkway to allow access into the site
Rehab the 2 bridges bike path/walkway to allow access into the site
Supported a comment by Tim M. on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by Tim M. on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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?
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?
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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
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
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The Riverside site needs room to expand as a regional transit center for all of Metro West, a hub for Newton, Waltham, Weston, Wellesley and surrounding cities with transit that goes north-south as well as east-west. Fully developing the site would limit the prospects for these much-needed services.
Supported a comment by Randall Block on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Randall Block
It would be nice if there was frequent bus service to metrowest towns and commercial centers. But that will only work if the Green Line becomes more reliable and a commuter rail (Indigo Line) connects Riverside to Cambridge. So many people would park their cars at Riverside if that option existed.
It would be nice if there was frequent bus service to metrowest towns and commercial centers. But that will only work if the Green Line becomes more reliable and a commuter rail (Indigo Line) connects Riverside to Cambridge. So many people would park their cars at Riverside if that option existed.
Supported a comment by Michael Musen on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Michael Musen
My aspiration is that the development enhances existing neighborhoods and does not destroy them with traffic and congestion.
My aspiration is that the development enhances existing neighborhoods and does not destroy them with traffic and congestion.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
coUrbanizer via Text
A greatly improved experience for those who take trains and buses out of the site.
A greatly improved experience for those who take trains and buses out of the site.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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
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
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
coUrbanizer via Text
New recreational connections ( to path on charles river to golf course to canoe rental etc) and new commuter connections (short walk to commuter rail stop in back)
New recreational connections ( to path on charles river to golf course to canoe rental etc) and new commuter connections (short walk to commuter rail stop in back)
Supported a comment by Nancy Finn on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Nancy Finn
Really ....do you know when Riverside was first opened. Do you know what it was before it opened?
Really ....do you know when Riverside was first opened. Do you know what it was before it opened?
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The whole community would benefit from developing trails along the Charles and access from Auburn and Charles Streets through to Riverside. A local group is already working on this.
Supported a comment by Christine Lacey on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Christine Lacey
I would like to see river access for the residents of the new apartments, and for residents of the existing neighborhood. Also, link it up to other river paths. People who live at the Comm Ave apartments, people who live on Charles Street, people who use the canoe and kayak rental, etc., should NOT have to walk all the way around. They should be able to walk along the river to get to Riverside station. I doubt people even know they can take the green line to Riverside and walk over to the canoe and kayak rentals. Many cities and towns, Waltham included, have made sure to utilize the space along the Charles River for recreation. Why can't we do the same?
I would like to see river access for the residents of the new apartments, and for residents of the existing neighborhood. Also, link it up to other river paths. People who live at the Comm Ave apartments, people who live on Charles Street, people who use the canoe and kayak rental, etc., should NOT have to walk all the way around. They should be able to walk along the river to get to Riverside station. I doubt people even know they can take the green line to Riverside and walk over to the canoe and kayak rentals. Many cities and towns, Waltham included, have made sure to utilize the space along the Charles River for recreation. Why can't we do the same?
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
We need a Low impact community plan. No one in the community wants an oversized develop that just adds to the developers bottom line.
Supported a comment by Liz M on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Liz M
Create a connection to the Auburndale commuter rail that could bring commuters to Kendall Sq. (the Indigo line).
Create a connection to the Auburndale commuter rail that could bring commuters to Kendall Sq. (the Indigo line).
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
My aspirations for the riverside site is that it's size and density is scaled to what matches the surrounding residential areas.
Followed Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The developer simply exploiting the Newton schools and its infrastructure. They have no particular love for the City. There are a lot of bigger and ready to develop sites in Waltham and Dedham and other places if they really want a "good" site. It is simply exploitation.