Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Newport Ave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues Trammell Crow’s 100/150 Newport Ave redevelopment after extensive questions on flooding, parking and traffic
Summary
Trammell Crow Residential presented a proposed 520-unit transit-oriented development at 100 and 150 Newport Ave Extension. Board members and dozens of residents pressed the developer on stormwater, FEMA floodplain treatment, MBTA access and parking ratios; the board voted to continue the matter to Oct. 14 to allow peer review and further responses.
Get email alerts on the Development Newport Ave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trammell Crow Residential sought Planning Board feedback June 10 on a multi-building redevelopment at 100 and 150 Newport Ave Extension that would convert two vacant office parcels near the North Quincy MBTA station into roughly 520 residential units and associated parking and amenities.
Attorney David Mahoney and Kevin Sperko of Trammell Crow described a two-parcel plan with four buildings, one podium-style building up to six stories, and a combined proposal for about 540 parking spaces across the sites. "What we're proposing will be 72% impervious, which comes out to about 1.7 acres of net new green space," Sperko said as part of the team’s site overview.
The project team walked the board through architecture, civil engineering and landscape plans. Civil engineer Nick Delacava said the project’s stormwater strategy includes underground infiltration chambers providing approximately 19,000 cubic feet (~146,000 gallons) of storage and that the design “will reduce peak rate of runoff leaving the site by approximately 33% and reduce overall runoff volume by approximately 43% compared to the existing condition.” He also noted finished floors would be set at least two feet above FEMA flood elevations.
But multiple board members, city staff and residents pushed back on other technical and neighborhood questions. Board members asked whether more of the project could be placed on podiums to reduce surface parking and increase resilience, and whether pile foundations and other constructability factors had been vetted. Residents and abutters sought a broader traffic analysis — one speaker asked that the traffic study be extended to include congestion at the Neponset River bridge — and many expressed skepticism that the proposed parking ratio aligns with actual demand.
Councilor Maggie McKee read constituent concerns about scale, flooding and whether the development includes family-sized or affordable units. Several residents urged reducing surface parking, increasing permanent green space, and ensuring adequate pedestrian connections to the MBTA overpass. The project team said buildings will be primarily all-electric and that they had applied for a zone-of-influence license with the MBTA and would work with the city and peer reviewers on traffic and drainage issues.
After extensive public comment and the submission of dozens of written letters, the board voted to continue the matter to the Oct. 14, 2026 meeting to allow time for peer reviews, responses to community input, and additional materials from the applicant.

