Nancy Finn
Nancy Finn's projects
Recent Activity
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Supported a comment by Herbie Robinson on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Herbie Robinson
How does the developer plan on doing this without losing their shirt because all of the existing transportation to/from the site is already overloaded? Rt. 128 is essentially a parking lot for 4-6 hours a day and the Green Line is nearly that saturated. People need to understand that growth isn't possible unless that state gets serious about dealing with regional transportation. Developers see the wealthy community and get $$ in their eyes, but then they don't get enough business to survive. Like that new mall they put into Chestnut Hill 10 years ago. Really slick place, but it was easier to get to Natick and that's where everyone went.
How does the developer plan on doing this without losing their shirt because all of the existing transportation to/from the site is already overloaded? Rt. 128 is essentially a parking lot for 4-6 hours a day and the Green Line is nearly that saturated. People need to understand that growth isn't possible unless that state gets serious about dealing with regional transportation. Developers see the wealthy community and get $$ in their eyes, but then they don't get enough business to survive. Like that new mall they put into Chestnut Hill 10 years ago. Really slick place, but it was easier to get to Natick and that's where everyone went.
Supported a comment by Jeff Hecht on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Jeff Hecht
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.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
go check out Watertown..all these new apartments caused the town to increase taxes to pay for the additional services that were required to support them. A friend said that many of them are empty too.
Supported a comment by Ian Lamont on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ian Lamont
Yes. And I'd like to ask, If the city, pols, residents, and the developer deemed the 2013 plan of 580,000 square feet to the be the right size, why are we even going through this exercise again? We know what the right size is, the developer agreed to it, and they should be held to it. No backsliding, excuses, or demands for scads more profit at our expense.
Yes. And I'd like to ask, If the city, pols, residents, and the developer deemed the 2013 plan of 580,000 square feet to the be the right size, why are we even going through this exercise again? We know what the right size is, the developer agreed to it, and they should be held to it. No backsliding, excuses, or demands for scads more profit at our expense.
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 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 Ken Stern on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 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 Henry Barbaro on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Henry Barbaro
The project planners keep promoting the idea that this development will manifest a strong sense of community (or some such nonsense). I would like to see the data/evidence that demonstrates how people who live among high-rise monolithic buildings somehow experience a stronger "community feeling." If this were true, then why do the streets in downtown Boston feel more like cold canyons than convivial neighborhoods? Too much of a good thing?
The project planners keep promoting the idea that this development will manifest a strong sense of community (or some such nonsense). I would like to see the data/evidence that demonstrates how people who live among high-rise monolithic buildings somehow experience a stronger "community feeling." If this were true, then why do the streets in downtown Boston feel more like cold canyons than convivial neighborhoods? Too much of a good thing?
Supported a comment by Ian Lamont on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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?
"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?
Supported a comment by Jennifer S on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Jennifer S
If this project were being managed in any corporations where I have worked, it would have failed miserably.There is a disingenuous sentiment cascaded down to all participants in discussions that begin with, essentially, "We are not going to talk about traffic or the environment" as part of this conversation. To pass off these two issues that are of paramount importance to our community as "not part of our scope" is the quickest way to say one is not interested in listening to what matters to the people. DID ANYONE SPEND A MINUTE IN LOWER FALLS DURING THE RECENT PATRIOTS PARADE CELEBRATING THE SUPERBOWL? We have had several Boston sports Team parades since the last Riverside project was submitted. I would guess that no one showed up on any of these parade days to see how the Lower Falls Community is affected by the cars and the massive amount of traffic. A school bus could not get kids to school because the bus could not turn a corner, A UPS driver had tremendous challenges trying to deliver packages on the day of the recent parade. I was present for all of the screaming and honking that took place next to illegally parked cars. NLF is the greatest neighborhood because the people are caring -- of the community and of others. None of my NLF/Auburndale friends believe anyone outside of these residents actually care what happens. I grew up in Newton and am beyond disappointed.
If this project were being managed in any corporations where I have worked, it would have failed miserably.There is a disingenuous sentiment cascaded down to all participants in discussions that begin with, essentially, "We are not going to talk about traffic or the environment" as part of this conversation. To pass off these two issues that are of paramount importance to our community as "not part of our scope" is the quickest way to say one is not interested in listening to what matters to the people. DID ANYONE SPEND A MINUTE IN LOWER FALLS DURING THE RECENT PATRIOTS PARADE CELEBRATING THE SUPERBOWL? We have had several Boston sports Team parades since the last Riverside project was submitted. I would guess that no one showed up on any of these parade days to see how the Lower Falls Community is affected by the cars and the massive amount of traffic. A school bus could not get kids to school because the bus could not turn a corner, A UPS driver had tremendous challenges trying to deliver packages on the day of the recent parade. I was present for all of the screaming and honking that took place next to illegally parked cars. NLF is the greatest neighborhood because the people are caring -- of the community and of others. None of my NLF/Auburndale friends believe anyone outside of these residents actually care what happens. I grew up in Newton and am beyond disappointed.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Agree I am disappointed too. For the Patriot's day celebration after Riverside became full cars from ,RI, ME, NH,VT, MA and NY parked throughout the Lower Falls and Auburndale villages. Note, this happens whenever a big sports or celebration takes place in Boston.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
If the developer Normandy and Mark Development paid their back rent to the MBTA there would be little need for a fare increase. They owe money since 2013.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
And those people going South will still have to use Grove Street to go to ret.128/95.
Supported a comment by Ken Stern on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 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
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.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Sadly the developer is hooked in with someone who is pushing for this project to be approved.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
Exactly. No 14 or 18 story office towers there.
Exactly. No 14 or 18 story office towers there.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Nothing
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
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
A gateway to Newton,,,a joke. The North side of the city has been the last place to get anything done. Putting a private development on public land should not be done. Yes energy efficient is important., but telling people not to use their cars is not smart. The transit system cannot support the rides they currently have so with more people the service will be worse. Riverside tracks out of state people to drive in and park to attend events in Boston.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
The site is 12 acres. Perhaps they can build 48 quarter acre highly energy efficient single family residences.
The site is 12 acres. Perhaps they can build 48 quarter acre highly energy efficient single family residences.
Supported a comment by Philip Wallas on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Philip Wallas
During the Lasell presentation, I heard several things that concern me. There was mention of the "direct access" to the development as relieving Grove St. traffic. Of course the partial direct access from the South will mean the *increase* in Grove St. traffic might be less than without that ramp, but anyone wanting to leave the development, going South will likely want to exit via Grove St. to make their way to the Southbound entrance ramps. So the traffic "relief" might be more like stopping hitting yourself in the head. Does anyone believe a large development will mean less traffic on Grove St. than current flows? Even if 1/3 of the traffic inbound to the development comes from the South, the flows from West, East and North are not direct, so using a blanket term "direct access" can be misleading. What other 128/95 developments have direct access? How does access to Riverside compare to the Mishawum TOD planned for Woburn?
During the Lasell presentation, I heard several things that concern me. There was mention of the "direct access" to the development as relieving Grove St. traffic. Of course the partial direct access from the South will mean the *increase* in Grove St. traffic might be less than without that ramp, but anyone wanting to leave the development, going South will likely want to exit via Grove St. to make their way to the Southbound entrance ramps. So the traffic "relief" might be more like stopping hitting yourself in the head. Does anyone believe a large development will mean less traffic on Grove St. than current flows? Even if 1/3 of the traffic inbound to the development comes from the South, the flows from West, East and North are not direct, so using a blanket term "direct access" can be misleading. What other 128/95 developments have direct access? How does access to Riverside compare to the Mishawum TOD planned for Woburn?
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The lease payments since 2013 should be paid to the T, then maybe there would be no fare increase.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Another factor is how many people in the Newton planning department live in Newton? Boston requires you to live in Boston if you work there, so Newton should have this requirement for any administrator that works at city hall.
Supported a comment by Ted Chapman on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ted Chapman
Connections to the multi-use trail system is essential to meet this goal.
Connections to the multi-use trail system is essential to meet this goal.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Kelly the development area is 14 acres with the Indigo hotel. The size and height of the buildings matter if you live west of Riverside in Lower Falls or East to Auburndale. The transportation issues of the MBTA have not been discussed yet. The T uses alot of space in the back of the lot close to the river.
Did you know that this site was originally Riverside Sand and Gravel before it was built on?
Did you know that this site was originally Riverside Sand and Gravel before it was built on?
Supported a comment by Jeff Hecht on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Jeff Hecht
Agreed - Riverside's transit capacity should not be choked off by overdevelopment.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ian I agree that the 2013 plan should be used.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Yes accept the smaller development
Supported a comment by Ted Chapman on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ted Chapman
Direct access from I-95 has an economic cost and a potential traffic benefit. Does the increased size of the development to pay for this access, mean that the resulting traffic generated by this increased size, nullify the benefits. This question must be evaluated independently. Maybe it will be a wash and it would be best to accept a smaller development with the traffic modifications approved in 2013.
Direct access from I-95 has an economic cost and a potential traffic benefit. Does the increased size of the development to pay for this access, mean that the resulting traffic generated by this increased size, nullify the benefits. This question must be evaluated independently. Maybe it will be a wash and it would be best to accept a smaller development with the traffic modifications approved in 2013.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
Love this plan. If Newton was serious about providing affordable housing and helping it’s older residents and employees this is a way to meet that goal. Also if Avalon could make it work for them as the develop perhaps Newton should entertain other proposals.
Love this plan. If Newton was serious about providing affordable housing and helping it’s older residents and employees this is a way to meet that goal. Also if Avalon could make it work for them as the develop perhaps Newton should entertain other proposals.
Supported a comment by Philip Wallas on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Philip Wallas
In Woburn, just off 128, the existing mall is being redeveloped. Perhaps the plans there are a good indication of what developers are able to do. Partnering with Avalon Bay for 400 units, 25% affordable and 70% to be provided to residents who are local – Woburn residents, municipal employees, and business owners. https://www.northsuburbannews.org/2018/11/02/182653/woburn-mall-to-get-a-new-look Riverside should reach at least this standard
In Woburn, just off 128, the existing mall is being redeveloped. Perhaps the plans there are a good indication of what developers are able to do. Partnering with Avalon Bay for 400 units, 25% affordable and 70% to be provided to residents who are local – Woburn residents, municipal employees, and business owners. https://www.northsuburbannews.org/2018/11/02/182653/woburn-mall-to-get-a-new-look Riverside should reach at least this standard
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Eric if you ride a bike on Grove street you could end up dead. It is a 2 lane suburban road that offers no break down lanes for bike riding. I used to bike on Grove Street at night or only on weekends. Now it is dangerous due to so much traffic. Where do you live in Newton?
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ian Lamont I agree with you. The developer will offer market rate apartments. We need to use the 2013 approved plan or it should be out to bid again.
Supported a comment by Ian Lamont on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Ian Lamont
First, the 2013 agreement for Riverside outlined 300 new housing units at that site. EVERYONE AGREED TO THIS, including residents, local politicians, the city, and BH Normandy. Why aren't we using this agreement, which embodies the vision for that site? Second, we have enough high-end housing in Newton, and not enough for seniors, middle class families, our public workers, and people in need of affordable housing. Let's end this exercise of granting developers the right to build hundreds of units of luxury/"market rate" condos in return for a sliver of affordable housing.
First, the 2013 agreement for Riverside outlined 300 new housing units at that site. EVERYONE AGREED TO THIS, including residents, local politicians, the city, and BH Normandy. Why aren't we using this agreement, which embodies the vision for that site? Second, we have enough high-end housing in Newton, and not enough for seniors, middle class families, our public workers, and people in need of affordable housing. Let's end this exercise of granting developers the right to build hundreds of units of luxury/"market rate" condos in return for a sliver of affordable housing.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Riverside only has the green line and the green line maintenance area. One bus line...transit hub no way a big joke.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The river is already there. There should be 50% green space in the development. They want to cut down mature trees-I think not. Part of the land is in another town: Weston, MA.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
The Developer proposed 15% green space which includes the river - not sufficient.
The Developer proposed 15% green space which includes the river - not sufficient.
Supported a comment by Randall Block on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Randall Block
I suggest direct access to and from I-95/128 south should be a condition of the development.
I suggest direct access to and from I-95/128 south should be a condition of the development.
Supported a comment by Lynn Slobodin on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Lynn Slobodin
I was on the small team of residents representing Auburndale and Lower Falls that met with the developer and city officials regularly for years in order to come up with the previous plans. It was apparent to everyone in those meetings that the developer would be responsible for the garage. In my opinion, the developer was hoping to get federal funding to cover the garage. When that didn’t happen, all of a sudden they said that the responsibility for the garage was unclear, and abandoned that plan.
I was on the small team of residents representing Auburndale and Lower Falls that met with the developer and city officials regularly for years in order to come up with the previous plans. It was apparent to everyone in those meetings that the developer would be responsible for the garage. In my opinion, the developer was hoping to get federal funding to cover the garage. When that didn’t happen, all of a sudden they said that the responsibility for the garage was unclear, and abandoned that plan.
Supported a comment by Rose D on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Rose D
Bingo!
Bingo!
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 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!
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Note, the T cut the down town Boston bus from Riverside several years ago due to ridership.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Vacancies are available for office space at Wells Ave.
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
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Hardly since they will be pre-fab apartments.
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 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
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
I do not want to look at an 18 story or 14 story building out my window...
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 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 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 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
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
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Future generations still want to drive and so do I.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
The river access borders the town of Weston too.
Supported a comment by coUrbanizer via Text on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
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.
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.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Some people who are commenting may not live in Newton. and probably work fin real estate or for the developer. The project was approved in 2013 but the developer wanted the state to pay for the garage with our tax money. Kelly we are not Cambridge or Boston, The only thing at
Riverside is the D line. A few bus companies pick up and drop off passengers.
Riverside has a big maintenance facility for the green line cars. The T is getting new cars and will need more room to store them.
Riverside is the D line. A few bus companies pick up and drop off passengers.
Riverside has a big maintenance facility for the green line cars. The T is getting new cars and will need more room to store them.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Nothing as each village is all set.
Commented on Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 8 months ago
Well I guess you do not live in Lower Falls. Grove Street is a 2 lane road, classified as a scenic roadway. The pavement going down to the Riverside is in sad shape with potholes and big holes. Over 15,000 vehicles travel it every day. The proposed project will cause a big divide between the villages of lower falls and Auburndale. The access road has not been approved by the Federal Transporation Department...When there are big sporting championship events the traffic on Grove is backed up on both sides of Lower Falls, Auburndale and rte 95. CArs park in both neighbor hoods when the Riverside lot gets full. Kiss shared parking goodby as there will still not be enough spaces. Also this project will be a private development, so the general public will not be allowed in there. Futher the project is being rushed through,,,it can be only developed once so lets not screw it up. Your taxes will be going up to support the big impact on city services by this development. Newton Center will be next as there is a great shopping area. I see the parking lot on Beacon and the lot on Center being the next big development! Cheers.
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?
Followed Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 9 months ago
Supported a comment by Randall Block on
Newton Riverside Visioning Process
4 years, 9 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.
Exactly. Developers can attempt to put in all kinds of retail stores and apartment buildings but people aren't going to shop or live there if traffic and transport is not exceedingly convenient and cheap. People work too hard and have too little time to spend it on inefficient public transportation or crowded expensive parking lots when there are more affordable hassle-free options available.