The recent approval of the Riverside project highlights an issue in how Newton approaches major developments. Rather than beginning with a clear, city-centric vision for what would best serve our long-term economic, social, and environmental goals, the process began — and largely stayed — with what developers proposed. Public debate centered on responding to proposals instead of asking the more fundamental question of what Riverside should become for the benefit of Newton, its residents, and nearby neighborhoods.
Riverside is a unique parcel in the city. It sits at the end of a transit line, near the Charles River, and borders Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls. With that combination, we could have explored ideas such as creating stronger walkable links between neighborhoods, designing vibrant public spaces around transit, and cultivating commercial activities that complement rather than duplicate or compete with nearby villages. A City-guided framework would have helped envision a place that would stimulate the emergence of a diverse set of local businesses, enhance livability, and create a more connected, welcoming district.
Instead, the decision-making process reacted to a sequential series of individual proposals rather than leading with a broader sense of what would strengthen Newton’s neighborhoods and economy. While the approved project will bring needed housing, an opportunity was missed to explore how Riverside could have contributed to everyday walkability, small-business vitality, and more active public spaces.
Going forward, we can do better. For future major parcels, we should start by defining what we want to achieve, identify gaps and opportunities in nearby areas, and then invite developers to propose projects that meet our goals. This approach would put Newton’s long-term interests first and ensure major developments contribute meaningfully to the character and health of our city.
Gary Rucinski
Newton Lower Falls
