At last night's Visioning meeting (3/28) drawings were presented to demonstrate that the apparent height of proposed buildings would be lower than the actual height because the terrain drops by 30 feet or so from the street toward the Charles. We were asked to consider the view of the buildings in perspective, not from above. This is reasonable. This will make the buildings appear lower to a driver on Grove or a golfer across the street. But what will the view be for the user of the new nature trails or for a kayaker on the Charles? Isn't that perspective more important? By the way; the drawings had a 30-40 foot building, not the 200+ foot tower that's proposed.

Mykola Konrad
agree with above - there is no grove street traffic problem. there is on washington street- they should fix that

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?

There is a 'multi-use path' shown on the proposal. It seems to simply be the existing sidewalk along the perimeter of the site on Grove Street, just widened a little. Another path, apparently the connection to a proposed DCR river path, abuts the busy 95 off-ramp. Both are a few feet from heavy traffic and mostly on public property. Is that it? Is there more to 'benefit to the community'?

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
Must be strongly net revenue positive considering full cost impact on city services. Not many opportunities left to add significant commercial space.

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
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.

Liz M
Find a way to get direct access to 128 South

Liz M
Rehab the 2 bridges bike path/walkway to allow access into the site

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.

Liz M
Create a connection to the Auburndale commuter rail that could bring commuters to Kendall Sq. (the Indigo line).

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?

William Heck
Riverside should take advantage of its location for commercial development, specifically office, medical and research facilities. It would make a stunning location for a corporate headquarters or a scientific research center. A hotel and conference center would add value. Housing is inappropriate for the site for many reasons.

I'd like to see 100% affordable housing. There's a desperate need for it in Newton for it and it's always listed as a top reason for building. Why limit it to 10 or 15 percent? I believe that there are developers who would would be happy to do it. Boston recently completed 'The Beverly' by North Station; New York City has done many of their own. It could provide a real benefit to and reflect the progressive beliefs of our community.

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.